Einstein:- FYI from Wikopedia
"Nitpicking is the act of removing nits (the eggs of lice, generally head lice) from the host's hair. As the nits are cemented to individual hairs with louse saliva, they cannot be removed with lice combs and, before modern chemical methods were invented, the only options were to shave all the host's hair or to pick them free one by one.
This is a slow and laborious process, as the root of each individual hair must be examined for infestation. It was largely abandoned as modern chemical methods became available; however, as lice populations can and do develop resistance, manual nitpicking is still often necessary.
As nitpicking inherently requires fastidious, meticulous attention to detail, the term has become appropriated to describe the practice of meticulously searching for minor, even trivial errors in detail (often referred to as "nits" as well), and then criticising them. "Nitpicker" in this sense was often used after 1951, predominantly in the United States."
I think it is what we call mierenneuken 
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 12 2007, 03:34 AM)
Take two large concrete blocks, one in each hand.
Smash them together.
Both will break into small pieces, lots of them, plus dust.
If you need equations to understand that, then I'm not impressed with your physics talents, either.
In light of the context of this thread, and recent posts at that, it's clear that you are ducking the question, or for some reason can't understand a rather simple point. For concrete within a cavity, the question of "banging it together with another piece of concrete", cannot arise unless both pieces are within the same cavity. The impulse for such a collision will be differential vertical speeds due to gravitational acceleration, originating from different heights, as well as momentum imparted from previous collisions.
By the time pieces of concrete are within any cavity worthy of the name, I doubt that this amounts to much, compared to forces involved in collsions with cavity walls resulting from impacts that occur when {cavity + cavity's circumscribed concrete} hit the ground rubble. (i.e., 'crush up')
BTW, I doubt this problem is tractable, in sufficient detail to satisfy everybody. However, actually doing such calculations with simplyfying assumptions might at least give suggestive results regarding the plausibility of concrete comminution being compatible with CD vs. gravity-driven.
Oh, and another point. If I ever need surgery, and I find a bargain basement 'surgeon' who is actually a butcher, I will doubtless go shopping for another surgeon, regardless of how many times the butcher says that he's very good with a knife, and that only a dummy would fail to understand the equivalence. I have often observed that "debunkers" are just hunky dory with qualitative arguments, speaking about them as though their logic was impeccable, when in fact they are obsuring multiple unknowns, and even worse (at times), evidence to the contrary. But quantitative arguments are what makes physics a science, and not so much philosophy.
Narrative "explanations" are only useful as pedagogical devices after a real analysis and testing are done. They can also be useful (perhaps essential) as providing a framework for working hypotheses. * To state a narrative, even peppered with physically plausible factoids, but almost completely devoid of necessary evidence (and with much evidence and good arguments to the contrary), is the way of mythology, even if of a scientistic sort. Why not put such propensities to better use by learing to write good prose, and becoming a science fiction writer? I imagine the pay has to be better....
QUOTE
I get the idea that you don't know what a ball mill is, and that you think it's dirty.
Is this a joke?
* I think that the implied narrative in Professor Jones' first paper falls under this category. It's obviously a much better narrative than the OCT myths, but given it's scope, I don't view it as anything like a complete explanation. If Professor Jones had felt that "There, I've explained it all!", then he would not have continued working on the problem.
I have, btw, 'complained' about the lack of analysis regarding concrete comminution on the Scholars for 911 Truth and Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice forums.
This is not to suggest that it is Professor Jones' (or any other single individual's) responsibility to dot every i and cross every t. He's quite busy analyzing the dust's chemical and physical properties.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 12 2007, 02:01 AM)
Yup.
While shock waves travel at the speed of sound through the steel structure (which, for steel, is 20,000feet per second), it's a mistake (understandable) to think of these shock waves as "sound". Their energy starts out as an impulse which is equal to the energy in the failed truss/structural member. If the truss/structural member was subjected to 50 tons when it failed, that 50 tons generates a shock wave with that energy in it. (Actually, to get the *energy* of the shock wave, you have to multiply that 50 tons by the amount of displacement that 50 tons caused in the structure, times a factor of 1/2.) So just because it travels at the speed of sound, don't think of it as *noise*. A BANG! in the air travels 20x slower and only has the mass of air behind it, a shock wave through steel has some substantial fraction of the original load and has the full mass of the steel behind it. It can easily toss people off their feet, and can easily toss a 300 pound hydraulic press into the air (even one rated to exert 50 tons of force, i.e., a "50-ton hydraulic press).
On the other hand, an explosion capable of knocking someone off their feet is often capable of killing them, as the shock wave is traveling at Mach 1+, so the force that's capable of knocking someone over is exerted over a tiny fraction of a second, so it's like getting swatted by a man-sized flyswatter.
A large rush of air going 120mph will lift a person off his feet, as the terminal velocity for a skydiver is about that speed, so the total wind resistance on the person is about the same as their weight. If that gust of wind came from an explosion, it'd be hot enough to burn their skin. These people who were thrown off their feet, did they survive? Were they severely burned? Were they bleeding from their ears, nose, eyes? If not, the gust of air probably came from something other than a huge explosion.
As for fire/heat in the basement, when the planes hit, there was a HUGE fireball that erupted in the floor(s) struck, and a direct path between that floor and the basement via the core where the elevators were. There was plenty of space between the elevators for that fireball to shoot down.
The impulse associated with a 200,000 pound airplane going 450mph shouldn't be minimized, all that energy that was coupled to the structure at the floor struck would've traveled down the steel, with the compression wave going at 20,000fps and the transverse wave going slower, as the transverse stiffness of the structure was less, so the *shaking* part of the collision's force would've taken longer to get to ground level.
Was it your view that these random "explosions" were part of a planned CD? Did they collapse the building(s)? The building(s) failed way up in the air around the floors where the planes struck. What role did the ground-level/mid-level explosions have in the "Controlled Demolition" prior to the collapse?
Cute bunny shot, BTW.
"Were they severely burned?" Yes a guy in the basement skin was hanging off his face, hands and arms.
QUOTE
What role did the ground-level/mid-level explosions have in the "Controlled Demolition" prior to the collapse?
"A good option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.... Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories [nb: The upper floors then fall as a tamper, resulting in “progressive collapse”-- this is common in controlled demolition.] (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 12 2007, 11:34 AM)
"Were they severely burned?" Yes a guy in the basement skin was hanging off his face, hands and arms.
Except the person who was burned isn't the same as the people who were thrown.
The guy burned was standing in front of a basement elevator shaft when the plane hit and got burnt by a fireball that erupted from it.
Arthur
Except the person who was burned isn't the same as the people who were thrown.
The guy burned was standing in front of a basement elevator shaft when the plane hit and got burnt by a fireball that erupted from it.
Arthur
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 12 2007, 04:34 PM)
"A good option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.... Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories [nb: The upper floors then fall as a tamper, resulting in “progressive collapse”-- this is common in controlled demolition.] (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)
You're using the reasoning behind a "bottom down" controlled demo to support a top down collapse. You've debunked yourself, how come you can't see that?
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 12 2007, 05:36 PM)
Except the person who was burned isn't the same as the people who were thrown.
The guy burned was standing in front of a basement elevator shaft when the plane hit and got burnt by a fireball that erupted from it.
Arthur
No it was because of bombs, you know the building couldnt collapse the way it did if there was no bombs, and you only come with BS and lies all the time, no facts.
3bodyproblem.
I havent debunked myself because there was explosions in the basement and at the lower floors, like a normal thinking person understands. But there is something that is called mind control, so some people dont get it
The guy burned was standing in front of a basement elevator shaft when the plane hit and got burnt by a fireball that erupted from it.
Arthur
No it was because of bombs, you know the building couldnt collapse the way it did if there was no bombs, and you only come with BS and lies all the time, no facts.
3bodyproblem.
QUOTE
You're using the reasoning behind a "bottom down" controlled demo to support a top down collapse. You've debunked yourself, how come you can't see that?
I havent debunked myself because there was explosions in the basement and at the lower floors, like a normal thinking person understands. But there is something that is called mind control, so some people dont get it
QUOTE (newton+Jun 12 2007, 03:00 AM)
i think this is wrong, because of the tilt of the upper block. the tilt gives more surface area for perimeter columns to connect with perimeter columns on a least two sides.
the lower leaning side is going to be column on column contact, and will be taking the brunt of the impact.
It's true that there will be some contact between perimeter columns through the front, such as friction between them as they slid past each other and forces resulting from off-axis impacts. The ends of other columns will be striking the concrete slabs. The gysum walls separating offices will be crushed between impacts. All of that will contribute to E1. There will be columns offset from each other and not striking each other. Some of the perimeter columns will be outside the footprint and seeing air, as seen in the lingering perimeter columns on the north face of WTC1 early in the collapse.
A building constructed with the upper part tilted and the columns laterally offset from each other won't stand in a static static state, let alone during a collapse. If issues such as these didn't matter, people could construct buildings any way they pleased without any concern for the orderliness of the structure.
The complexity of the interaction between a tilted block and the lower section starts becoming less of an issue in terms of propagating the collapse after a few impacts when a pile of mass has accumulated at the front. At that point the mass at the front has sufficient KE on its own to collapse the next story without the upper block. The way forces are being exerted on the structure at that point doesn't bear any resemblance to how it was supposed to be for the original designed structure. The mass impacts the long-span floors and breaks the trusses or their connections before any significant amount of energy can be conveyed away from the front. The lingering core and perimeter walls stripped clean of floors is evidence of that.
the lower leaning side is going to be column on column contact, and will be taking the brunt of the impact.
It's true that there will be some contact between perimeter columns through the front, such as friction between them as they slid past each other and forces resulting from off-axis impacts. The ends of other columns will be striking the concrete slabs. The gysum walls separating offices will be crushed between impacts. All of that will contribute to E1. There will be columns offset from each other and not striking each other. Some of the perimeter columns will be outside the footprint and seeing air, as seen in the lingering perimeter columns on the north face of WTC1 early in the collapse.
A building constructed with the upper part tilted and the columns laterally offset from each other won't stand in a static static state, let alone during a collapse. If issues such as these didn't matter, people could construct buildings any way they pleased without any concern for the orderliness of the structure.
The complexity of the interaction between a tilted block and the lower section starts becoming less of an issue in terms of propagating the collapse after a few impacts when a pile of mass has accumulated at the front. At that point the mass at the front has sufficient KE on its own to collapse the next story without the upper block. The way forces are being exerted on the structure at that point doesn't bear any resemblance to how it was supposed to be for the original designed structure. The mass impacts the long-span floors and breaks the trusses or their connections before any significant amount of energy can be conveyed away from the front. The lingering core and perimeter walls stripped clean of floors is evidence of that.
metamars
I don't know how many CTers have calculated that the steel structures(columns and core) of the towers could have withstood the collapse in some fashion. For all I know, they were correct. But until they understand the narrative part(about the floor supports and the columns' instability without the support of the floor), their calculations don't represent truth, no matter how accurate. Narrative understanding is the MOST important thing, math is but a tool to confirm or preclude the points therein. Without narative, math doesn't know what it's talking about. It isn't any surprise to me that many of the greatest physicists are also great SciFi writers, especially "Hard" science fiction(Niven, Pournell, Asimov, to name just a few).
Grumpy
QUOTE
Narrative "explanations" are only useful as pedagogical devices after a real analysis and testing are done. They can also be useful (perhaps essential) as providing a framework for working hypotheses.
I don't know how many CTers have calculated that the steel structures(columns and core) of the towers could have withstood the collapse in some fashion. For all I know, they were correct. But until they understand the narrative part(about the floor supports and the columns' instability without the support of the floor), their calculations don't represent truth, no matter how accurate. Narrative understanding is the MOST important thing, math is but a tool to confirm or preclude the points therein. Without narative, math doesn't know what it's talking about. It isn't any surprise to me that many of the greatest physicists are also great SciFi writers, especially "Hard" science fiction(Niven, Pournell, Asimov, to name just a few).
Grumpy
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 12 2007, 06:22 PM)
3bodyproblem.
I havent debunked myself because there was explosions in the basement and at the lower floors, like a normal thinking person understands. But there is something that is called mind control, so some people dont get it
I'm sure I'm getting lost in the translation malmoe, what are you trying to say?
Yes, there were explosions heard all over the building. And yes, normal thinking people understand this.
The rest about mind control makes no sense. Mind control makes people not understand? If that's the case then you are using mind control on me, because I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I thought you said the explosions were part of an attempt at damaging the core, which would make sense, based on the arguments you showed, if the WTC was part of a "Bottom Down" controlled demolition. Since the WTC collapsed from the top down, this makes no sense.
Piecing together what you have said, I can only conclude that using common sense is a form of mind control. We don't refer to it as mind control, although harnessing your thoughts into a cohesive and logical theory is part of "mind control" as you put it. Mind control allows us to differentiate between fantasy and reality.
So in short, please use the term "common sense" instead of "mind control" so we can understand you better.
I havent debunked myself because there was explosions in the basement and at the lower floors, like a normal thinking person understands. But there is something that is called mind control, so some people dont get it
I'm sure I'm getting lost in the translation malmoe, what are you trying to say?
Yes, there were explosions heard all over the building. And yes, normal thinking people understand this.
The rest about mind control makes no sense. Mind control makes people not understand? If that's the case then you are using mind control on me, because I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
I thought you said the explosions were part of an attempt at damaging the core, which would make sense, based on the arguments you showed, if the WTC was part of a "Bottom Down" controlled demolition. Since the WTC collapsed from the top down, this makes no sense.
Piecing together what you have said, I can only conclude that using common sense is a form of mind control. We don't refer to it as mind control, although harnessing your thoughts into a cohesive and logical theory is part of "mind control" as you put it. Mind control allows us to differentiate between fantasy and reality.
So in short, please use the term "common sense" instead of "mind control" so we can understand you better.
Before people get too carried away with the ball-mill analogy of WTC concrete comminution, (with or without cavities!), they should read some key papers on IMPACT fragmentation of brittle materials such as:
B. P. Hughes, “Concrete Subjected to High Rates of Loading in Compression.” Magazine of Concrete Research 24, 25, (1972)
P. H. Bischoff et al. “Impact Behavior of Plain Concrete Loaded in Uniaxial Compression.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics 121, 685, (1995)
H. Green, “Impact Strength of Concrete.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 28, 383, (1964)
B. P. Hughes et al. “The Impact Strength of Concrete Using Green’s Ballistic Pendulum.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 41, 731, (1968).
B. Lundberg “A Split Hopkinson Bar Study of Energy Absorption in Dynamic Rock Fragmentation.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science 13, 187, (1976)
C. A. Ross et al. “Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression.” ACI Materials Journal 86, 475, (1989).
S. Mindess, “A Preliminary Study of the Fracture of Concrete Beams Under Impact Loading Using High Speed Photography.” Cement and Concrete Research 15, 474, (1985).
F. Ouchterlony in “The Swebrec Function: Linking Fragmentation by Blasting and Crushing” Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) 114, A29, (2005).)
B. P. Hughes, “Concrete Subjected to High Rates of Loading in Compression.” Magazine of Concrete Research 24, 25, (1972)
P. H. Bischoff et al. “Impact Behavior of Plain Concrete Loaded in Uniaxial Compression.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics 121, 685, (1995)
H. Green, “Impact Strength of Concrete.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 28, 383, (1964)
B. P. Hughes et al. “The Impact Strength of Concrete Using Green’s Ballistic Pendulum.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 41, 731, (1968).
B. Lundberg “A Split Hopkinson Bar Study of Energy Absorption in Dynamic Rock Fragmentation.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science 13, 187, (1976)
C. A. Ross et al. “Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression.” ACI Materials Journal 86, 475, (1989).
S. Mindess, “A Preliminary Study of the Fracture of Concrete Beams Under Impact Loading Using High Speed Photography.” Cement and Concrete Research 15, 474, (1985).
F. Ouchterlony in “The Swebrec Function: Linking Fragmentation by Blasting and Crushing” Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) 114, A29, (2005).)
QUOTE
The impulse for such a collision will be differential vertical speeds due to gravitational acceleration, originating from different heights, as well as momentum imparted from previous collisions.
By the time pieces of concrete are within any cavity worthy of the name, I doubt that this amounts to much
By the time pieces of concrete are within any cavity worthy of the name, I doubt that this amounts to much
If concrete chunks only fell straight down, then your statement might be accurate, but I don't think that's a generalization that applied under the circumstances.
When chunks break, they'll shatter and fly in all directions. I would fully expect that the collisions within the crush-zone would've been almost as likely to be horizontal as vertical. Slabs shouldn't be expected to have fallen horizontally, that would presuppose that they were released on all sides simultaneously, which is the unlikeliest case. Stuff breaks free on one side first and starts falling before the other side releases, that imparts both a horizontal component to the velocity and a rotational moment as well. If that rotating slab hits something on the way down, then the resultant debris also gets shot out at a random direction.
Look at the side walls of a dump truck some time. They have lots of dents. Next time you have a chance, watch what happens when a load of chunky debris is dumped into the back of a dump truck. While gravity is the main actor, pulling straight down, the chunks exert significant outward forces on the vertical walls of the dump truck. You don't necessarily get pure vertical movement when falling debris hits a horizontal surface. Stuff bounces and collides with other stuff that hasn't landed yet.
I agree that this would preclude a simple model, but I think a random-velocity-vector model with non-uniform velocity magnitude distribution would be more accurate than assuming flat slabs falling purely vertical with no rotation or horizontal velocity vector.
In the limit, this would look kinda like a gas with Brownian motion, chunks of all sizes going in all directions with an average trend downwards (gravity's effect), given the high average energy and the chaotic underlying process of collisions and comminutions. This would be one or two steps beyond pancaking and bageling, Big Chunks, then Little Chunks (gas-like). In the gas-like phase, there would be a significant outward pressure on the perimeter columns which would tend to force them to splay outward, and since they're three-floors long, pressure on the top third would be magnified by 3x due to leverage at the bottom, which would tend to drop the bottom floor even before the debris penetrated the middle floor. This is what I was referring to as a "zipper effect". I would consider this as a variation on the "bageling" model.
As for my narrative style versus mathematical rigor, I've found in my experience that a well thought out narrative is accessible to more people than an equivalent mathematical expression, and can be just as rigorous. In addition, a wrong premise expressed with rigorous mathematics is still wrong, it's just harder to notice the errors, because the errors aren't of the "2+2=5" sort, they're usually of the sort that leaves out the most significant term from the sum, while meticulously tallying the inconsequential terms.
It was this approach that led to students seeking me out to tutor them in physics (and later, in microprocessor programming) while other tutors were available and not as busy. I've always taken the "English-first, Math later" approach, and I don't feel any need to change that due to your own aesthetic objections.
And Thanks, Grumpy!
Malmo - The bunny picture was a lot cuter.
QUOTE (metamars+Jun 12 2007, 03:28 AM)
I don't accept that "Any attempt at analysis is hopeless".
However, none of the columns were sunk into the walls, they were sunk into bedrock well within the wall boundary.
I should have stated deep analysis. I just recalled that there is a seismologist (maybe based in Arizona) who has specialized in the interpretation of seismographs produced following explosions. He has at least on popular paper, available on the web, regarding the 2001 Sep 11 LDEO seismographs.
No, they were sitting on concrete. The bottom of the Bathtub was concrete, as I previously stated. Almost all rock is porous to some degree, depending upon the amount of micro-cracking. The study is said to be that of percolation, which has quite an interesting mathematical theory. Civil engineers go at the matter more practically, often just relying on massive quantities of concrete to avoid percolation into unwanted locations. Here is my guess, but the account can only be generally correct, being based on the construction of large concrete dams in the region, not necessarily in detail.
To make the Bathtub, they dug down through the dirt and mud to bedrock. I'll guess that the top several inches of rock were fairly broken up and this would then also be removed. Once solid (bearing) rock is found, a layer of something impervious to water might be laid. I'll guess not so in the Bathtub since the bottom is not that far below sea level. Then a thick layer of concrete is poured. Much thicker than needed for simply load bearing, this to act as the actual moisture barrier. Concrete will continue to absorb water for many years. Possibly a waterproof finish was applied as the concrete cured.
The footings of the core columns sat upon H-beams laid down to spread the load across more of the concrete flooring.
However, none of the columns were sunk into the walls, they were sunk into bedrock well within the wall boundary.
I should have stated deep analysis. I just recalled that there is a seismologist (maybe based in Arizona) who has specialized in the interpretation of seismographs produced following explosions. He has at least on popular paper, available on the web, regarding the 2001 Sep 11 LDEO seismographs.
No, they were sitting on concrete. The bottom of the Bathtub was concrete, as I previously stated. Almost all rock is porous to some degree, depending upon the amount of micro-cracking. The study is said to be that of percolation, which has quite an interesting mathematical theory. Civil engineers go at the matter more practically, often just relying on massive quantities of concrete to avoid percolation into unwanted locations. Here is my guess, but the account can only be generally correct, being based on the construction of large concrete dams in the region, not necessarily in detail.
To make the Bathtub, they dug down through the dirt and mud to bedrock. I'll guess that the top several inches of rock were fairly broken up and this would then also be removed. Once solid (bearing) rock is found, a layer of something impervious to water might be laid. I'll guess not so in the Bathtub since the bottom is not that far below sea level. Then a thick layer of concrete is poured. Much thicker than needed for simply load bearing, this to act as the actual moisture barrier. Concrete will continue to absorb water for many years. Possibly a waterproof finish was applied as the concrete cured.
The footings of the core columns sat upon H-beams laid down to spread the load across more of the concrete flooring.
Malmo reminds me alot of another CT'er I 'know' on a blog. He's thrown out so many things he claims that prove it's a conspiracy by our government, and yet he can't see that they are all in opposition to each other. If what he's claiming today is true, then what he was claiming yesterday can't be true. Of course, he has no evidence of anything he says, so none of it is true. WTC--- no planes at all, it was holograms (lol), Pentagon--- 'twas a missile, Flight 93 landed somewhere and the crash site was faked. On that last one, I pressed him on and on about HOW IT COULD BE FAKED and he ended up having to say all those airplane parts had to be trucked out to the field in Pennsylania, the shredded trees and the hole in the ground, all faked. I mean, really true mind-bending thought processes, but it's all perfectly normal to him. So in effect, there's a Lost island somewhere, where all the passengers are living and can't get the message to their family that all is well. Malmo, you listening?
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 12 2007, 02:29 PM)
The model presented in the new BLGB paper isn't precise in describing the collapse initiation phase. The continuum model has the acceleration of the upper block (the second time derivative of z) well behaved because all the forces vary smoothly. In order to match the predicted acceleration with the observation, you only need set t = 0 in the empirical drop curve such as to get the best match to the model's predictions. David B. Benson might fill us in on the details of how this is done.
In the case of WTC 1 the collapse t = 0 is known precisely from the videos. NEU-FONZE seems quite confident of this. Given the quality of the match between the crush-down equation and his data, I found no reason to analyze this case further.
For WTC 2, NEU-FONZE was much less confident of t = 0. I therefore took his data and alternately added and subtracted 0.25 seconds from the times he used. In both cases the fit was at least ten times worse.
I could have gone into greater detail regarding multi-parameter fitting to minimize the standard deviation. If NEU-FONZE had made measurements every 0.1 seconds rather than just 0.5 seconds, I would have enough data to be confident I was not over-fitting. As it is, I just use NEU-FONZE's estimate of t = 0 as that gives, once again, a good match between the crush-down equation and his data.
In the case of WTC 1 the collapse t = 0 is known precisely from the videos. NEU-FONZE seems quite confident of this. Given the quality of the match between the crush-down equation and his data, I found no reason to analyze this case further.
For WTC 2, NEU-FONZE was much less confident of t = 0. I therefore took his data and alternately added and subtracted 0.25 seconds from the times he used. In both cases the fit was at least ten times worse.
I could have gone into greater detail regarding multi-parameter fitting to minimize the standard deviation. If NEU-FONZE had made measurements every 0.1 seconds rather than just 0.5 seconds, I would have enough data to be confident I was not over-fitting. As it is, I just use NEU-FONZE's estimate of t = 0 as that gives, once again, a good match between the crush-down equation and his data.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun , 07:50 PM)
Before people get too carried away with the ball-mill analogy of WTC concrete comminution, (with or without cavities!), they should read some key papers on IMPACT fragmentation of brittle materials such as:
B. P. Hughes, “Concrete Subjected to High Rates of Loading in Compression.” Magazine of Concrete Research 24, 25, (1972)
P. H. Bischoff et al. “Impact Behavior of Plain Concrete Loaded in Uniaxial Compression.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics 121, 685, (1995)
H. Green, “Impact Strength of Concrete.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 28, 383, (1964)
B. P. Hughes et al. “The Impact Strength of Concrete Using Green’s Ballistic Pendulum.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 41, 731, (1968).
B. Lundberg “A Split Hopkinson Bar Study of Energy Absorption in Dynamic Rock Fragmentation.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science 13, 187, (1976)
C. A. Ross et al. “Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression.” ACI Materials Journal 86, 475, (1989).
S. Mindess, “A Preliminary Study of the Fracture of Concrete Beams Under Impact Loading Using High Speed Photography.” Cement and Concrete Research 15, 474, (1985).
F. Ouchterlony in “The Swebrec Function: Linking Fragmentation by Blasting and Crushing” Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) 114, A29, (2005).)
Hack!
It may be presumptuous of me to say so, but I'm going to forgo the reading of this material and say unequivocally: Even in a controlled demo all (99%?) of the dust comes from the collapse and not the explosives.
B. P. Hughes, “Concrete Subjected to High Rates of Loading in Compression.” Magazine of Concrete Research 24, 25, (1972)
P. H. Bischoff et al. “Impact Behavior of Plain Concrete Loaded in Uniaxial Compression.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics 121, 685, (1995)
H. Green, “Impact Strength of Concrete.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 28, 383, (1964)
B. P. Hughes et al. “The Impact Strength of Concrete Using Green’s Ballistic Pendulum.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 41, 731, (1968).
B. Lundberg “A Split Hopkinson Bar Study of Energy Absorption in Dynamic Rock Fragmentation.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science 13, 187, (1976)
C. A. Ross et al. “Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression.” ACI Materials Journal 86, 475, (1989).
S. Mindess, “A Preliminary Study of the Fracture of Concrete Beams Under Impact Loading Using High Speed Photography.” Cement and Concrete Research 15, 474, (1985).
F. Ouchterlony in “The Swebrec Function: Linking Fragmentation by Blasting and Crushing” Mining Technology (Trans. Inst. Min. Metall. A) 114, A29, (2005).)
Hack!
It may be presumptuous of me to say so, but I'm going to forgo the reading of this material and say unequivocally: Even in a controlled demo all (99%?) of the dust comes from the collapse and not the explosives.
While wcelliot is strictly correct on this point, nonetheless it remains convenient to define the moment of collapse initiation as the time that the exterior walls buckle. Actually buckle, not just bowing-in.
In the case of WTC 1, NIST states that this occurred first in part of the south wall, spread rapidly along the south wall and then proceeded to buckle the east and west walls.
For the simplest approximation, I consider all this buckling to occur instantly, calling that time t = 0 for the collapse. Of course, some actual interval of time is required. Is anybody in a position to estimate this time? What fraction of a second was required? This ought to be determinable from at least two videos, but of course I can't view either...
In the case of WTC 1, NIST states that this occurred first in part of the south wall, spread rapidly along the south wall and then proceeded to buckle the east and west walls.
For the simplest approximation, I consider all this buckling to occur instantly, calling that time t = 0 for the collapse. Of course, some actual interval of time is required. Is anybody in a position to estimate this time? What fraction of a second was required? This ought to be determinable from at least two videos, but of course I can't view either...
Science Daily today has an interesting story about the Purdue simulation and visualization. I learned that the kinetic energy of the fuel was a serious contributor to the damage, according to the study team.
The timing of collapse initiation of the Twin Towers is an important and complex issue. One way to deal with the problem of defining the exact moment when the collapse "starts" is to look at tilt angle vs. drop distance data..... and I agree with DBB on this, measurements should (must?!?) be made using more than one video.
While the tilting of WTC 2 is VERY pronounced and relatively easy to measure, the tilting of WTC 1 is more subtle. In fact, a number of well-known videos would suggest that THERE WAS NO TILTING (of the upper section of WTC 1).
But other videos show that 2 seconds into its collapse, the WTC 1 antenna had dropped at least 6 meters but HAD ALSO TILTED at least 10 degrees. Hence, viewed from certain angles, the antenna (read "roof" or "hat truss"), appears to have dropped into, or faster than, the facade.
While the tilting of WTC 2 is VERY pronounced and relatively easy to measure, the tilting of WTC 1 is more subtle. In fact, a number of well-known videos would suggest that THERE WAS NO TILTING (of the upper section of WTC 1).
But other videos show that 2 seconds into its collapse, the WTC 1 antenna had dropped at least 6 meters but HAD ALSO TILTED at least 10 degrees. Hence, viewed from certain angles, the antenna (read "roof" or "hat truss"), appears to have dropped into, or faster than, the facade.
QUOTE
Malmo reminds me alot of another CT'er I 'know' on a blog. He's thrown out so many things he claims that prove it's a conspiracy by our government, and yet he can't see that they are all in opposition to each other.
There may be a reason for this.
You notice that you'll see the same TV ads running over and over and over... They're doing that to cast the widest net possible, and even when they repeat the same ads during the same show, it's to saturate peoples' consciousnesses with their sales pitch.
Malmo has made his motivations obvious on more than one occasion - he isn't interested in the Truth, he's casting that same sort of net, hoping to catch someone willing to believe his BS. Same with your troother, it doesn't matter from his perspective that he's contradicting himself, if he finds someone willing to believe even *one* of his theories, he's caught another one.
Malmo made it evident when he re-posted, verbatim, a post we'd earlier torn to shreds, the one where he emphasized that a 50-ton hydraulic press! was "gone" from the basement, destroyed by a "bomb". Then someone with sharp eyes recognized what he was talking about (I regret I'd missed the point) and pasted a picture of what a 50-ton hydraulic press looks like - it's about four feet tall, and would fit in a closet. It's a hydraulic press capable of exerting 50-tons, it doesn't weigh 50-tons, it's like the one-ton jack you have in the trunk of your car, it's capable of lifting a ton, it weighs about 25 pounds.
Anyone else would've been embarrassed, but Malmo re-posted the same BS a couple days later. Surely he wasn't trying to convert anyone who'd already read what a 50-ton press was, so he must've been hoping to find a newbie dim enough to join the Jihad against the Evil Empire/NWO.
I also spend some of my time at the MythBuster's site, discussing new ideas for shows. They have a rule prohibiting "9/11" posts, period. The Mod will yank the posting privileges of anyone violating that rule. They've figure out the Mod's work schedule, though, and routinely post a couple hours after the Mod leaves, and usually post the same innocent-sounding wording, throwing in "Jet fuel can't melt steel", in hopes of convincing anyone who reads it that that Strawman is the Official Version - that the Evil Empire is claiming that jet fuel melted the steel holding the WTC towers up. In a sordid way, it's fairly sophisticated propaganda, as you find yourself countering the misconception simultaneous to trying to explain something more difficult to follow. The stupid ones just get confused and end up saying "I don't care what you say, I don't believe that jet fuel CAN melt steel!".
It's unfortunate, but as Stan from South Park put it when Cartman said that 29% of Americans feel that the government had something to do with 9/11, "Twenty-nine percent of Americans are total idiots."
And that's what our enemies are counting on.
QUOTE
One way to deal with the problem of defining the exact moment when the collapse "starts" is to look at tilt angle vs. drop distance data.....
I would love to see this done.
The tilt-angle versus time would be sufficient, IMO, to show that the towers were collapsing long before anyone's T-zero, albeit at a snail's pace.
A tilt-rate of one-degree/24hours may not sound like much, but it guarantees that the tower won't be standing in three months.
And unless that angle-rate stops at some point, the building is coming down sooner or later.
The signature characteristic of a CD would be an impulse-rise in angle-rate, which would coincide with the explosives' detonation.
If the angle rate climbs monotonically until collapse, without discontinuities, it indicates that no CD happened, period.
This information could drive a stake through the heart of the CD myth. I wish someone would do the analysis.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 13 2007, 01:32 AM)
I would love to see this done.
Well, I did it for the first 1.2 seconds after the external walls buckled in WTC 1. Before that, I suggest you instead consider the bowing-in of the south wall of that tower. I believe this was first observed 20 minutes before the collapse and grew more noticeable with time. This is much the same as attempting to determine a tiny tilt angle and readily seen in views from the south.
Well, I did it for the first 1.2 seconds after the external walls buckled in WTC 1. Before that, I suggest you instead consider the bowing-in of the south wall of that tower. I believe this was first observed 20 minutes before the collapse and grew more noticeable with time. This is much the same as attempting to determine a tiny tilt angle and readily seen in views from the south.
CD myth?
HAHAHA!!
that's funny.
there is more than physics to the whole story of 911.
even if the towers(1, and 2, obviously not seven) DID manage to hammer themselves into the ground, the multitude of other factors from the real world still show that whatever DID actually happen, it has been lied about, obscured, and covered up subsequently.
so laugh yourself into a new age of totalitarian fascism with the confidence that your knowledge of physics stopped you from seeing the bigger picture of reality.
HAHAHA!!
that's funny.
there is more than physics to the whole story of 911.
even if the towers(1, and 2, obviously not seven) DID manage to hammer themselves into the ground, the multitude of other factors from the real world still show that whatever DID actually happen, it has been lied about, obscured, and covered up subsequently.
so laugh yourself into a new age of totalitarian fascism with the confidence that your knowledge of physics stopped you from seeing the bigger picture of reality.
QUOTE
I suggest you instead consider the bowing-in of the south wall of that tower. I believe this was first observed 20 minutes before the collapse and grew more noticeable with time. This is much the same as attempting to determine a tiny tilt angle and readily seen in views from the south.
The only problem with measuring the bowing-in of the perimeter columns versus time is that it would still require someone to appreciate the fact that once the perimeter columns bow in too far, that the upper section would definitely collapse.
While any reasonable person would accept that on face value, one can't expect too much reason from the CDiots on this site.
As Newton's post, above, illustrates.
OK, Newton, you've convinced me to abandon my understanding of physics so that I can accept your unsubstantiated beliefs.
David B. Benson
Yeah, they were shooting unopened Coke cans at targets simulating an aluminum skinned aircraft full of fuel, a surprisingly accurate simulation. High pressure jets of fuel could easily destroy gypsum board fireproofing in the core.
Has anyone ever calculated the energy contained in the large rotating fans in front of each engine. These would have broken into a zillion pieces of shrapnel, doing who knows what to the fireproofing of the floors.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Science Daily today has an interesting story about the Purdue simulation and visualization. I learned that the kinetic energy of the fuel was a serious contributor to the damage, according to the study team.
Yeah, they were shooting unopened Coke cans at targets simulating an aluminum skinned aircraft full of fuel, a surprisingly accurate simulation. High pressure jets of fuel could easily destroy gypsum board fireproofing in the core.
Has anyone ever calculated the energy contained in the large rotating fans in front of each engine. These would have broken into a zillion pieces of shrapnel, doing who knows what to the fireproofing of the floors.
Grumpy
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 13 2007, 02:00 AM)
The only problem with measuring the bowing-in of the perimeter columns versus time is that it would still require someone to appreciate the fact that once the perimeter columns bow in too far, that the upper section would definitely collapse.
While any reasonable person would accept that on face value, one can't expect too much reason from the CDiots on this site.
As Newton's post, above, illustrates.
OK, Newton, you've convinced me to abandon my understanding of physics so that I can accept your unsubstantiated beliefs.
look. i'm not going to try too hard to preach the word of god to as room full of satanists. that's just a metaphor, BTW.
i have enough physics knowledge to know that nothing has been adequately explained. i'm not alone. a growing number of engineers, phd. physicists, professional demolitionists, generals, bush insiders, eyewitnesses and plain old horse sense agree with me.
even if i'm an idiot with an IQ to match my shoe size, it does not change the fact that many proven thinkers/achievers are noticing the same thing that i notice.
what caused the bowing is still up in the air. OCTopus supporters continually use the time measurements observed to calculate how much energy went into causing an event. that, my fiend, is putting the cart before the horse.
if the core had been compromised by cutting columns(with say, a slow thermite reaction), which caused a drop of the core, the weight of the dropping core could be pulling in the columns. columns pulling in is no proof that there was no destruction, which is what you're implying. i guess we can also imply that the towers are still standing, because there was not a controlled demo, by that logic.
in other words, whether the building is destroyed by man, or nature, things breaking apart is part and parcel of BOTH scenarios.
-signed, goofy, that dumb dog that walks on two legs from walt disney.
-co signed by, 911 scholars for truth, 911 veterans for truth, 911 scholars for truth and justice, architects and engineers for 911 truth.
QUOTE
Has anyone ever calculated the energy contained in the large rotating fans in front of each engine. These would have broken into a zillion pieces of shrapnel, doing who knows what to the fireproofing of the floors.
Actually, if those engines were going at max RPM at impact, those turbine blades probably could've penetrated the concrete floors and ceilings.
There's one problem with doing this calculation, though, and that's that there are enough unknown variables that any answer will, once again, be interpreted one way by the troothers and the other by the rest of us, and it'll just be something else that nobody agrees on.
I can't get Malmo to accept published engineering data on steel's mechanical properties. He seems to think that anyone who suggests that steel gets soft when it gets hot is automatically on the NWO payroll. I don't relish trying to convince him that my estimates of the potential damage of a blown-up jet engine to an office building are accurate.
As Newton's recent post illustrates, there's a bit of ink-blot-test involved in this. The CDiots see bloodthirsty killers, drug dealers, and child molesters lurking in the shadows in the same ink-blot that looks to me like bunnies with pancakes on their heads.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Has anyone ever calculated the energy contained in the large rotating fans in front of each engine. These would have broken into a zillion pieces of shrapnel, doing who knows what to the fireproofing of the floors. |
Actually, if those engines were going at max RPM at impact, those turbine blades probably could've penetrated the concrete floors and ceilings.
There's one problem with doing this calculation, though, and that's that there are enough unknown variables that any answer will, once again, be interpreted one way by the troothers and the other by the rest of us, and it'll just be something else that nobody agrees on.
I can't get Malmo to accept published engineering data on steel's mechanical properties. He seems to think that anyone who suggests that steel gets soft when it gets hot is automatically on the NWO payroll. I don't relish trying to convince him that my estimates of the potential damage of a blown-up jet engine to an office building are accurate.
As Newton's recent post illustrates, there's a bit of ink-blot-test involved in this. The CDiots see bloodthirsty killers, drug dealers, and child molesters lurking in the shadows in the same ink-blot that looks to me like bunnies with pancakes on their heads.
if the core had been compromised by cutting columns(with say, a slow thermite reaction), which caused a drop of the core, the weight of the dropping core could be pulling in the columns.
True enough, but you'd need the core to be compromised at the floor where the impact damage occurred, and that took a hit from a big airplane going real fast and then a hot fire afterwards, so it isn't clear that there would be any need for thermite to further weaken the core.
Also, please advise Malmo that thermite at the floor that was hit by the airplane wouldn't make people 50 floors below go flying off their feet, nor does thermite go BANG!. So maybe he'll listen to you about that.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 12 2007, 09:30 PM)
i'm not alone. a growing number of engineers, phd. physicists, professional demolitionists, generals, bush insiders, eyewitnesses and plain old horse sense agree with me.
That's what you don't understand.
You ARE pretty much alone.
2 years since the NIST report and STILL NOTHING from the Troofers.
NOT ONE scholarly article published in a single reputable journal.
So, clearly there is no "growing number of engineers, phd. physicists" etc on your side.
Well, growing in the sense of average IQs or ABILITIES.
That's what you don't understand.
You ARE pretty much alone.
2 years since the NIST report and STILL NOTHING from the Troofers.
NOT ONE scholarly article published in a single reputable journal.
So, clearly there is no "growing number of engineers, phd. physicists" etc on your side.
Well, growing in the sense of average IQs or ABILITIES.
QUOTE (newton+)
even if i'm an idiot
I don't disagree with your self assessment. You have proven it OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Arthur
I don't disagree with your self assessment. You have proven it OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 13 2007, 03:30 AM)
That's what you don't understand.
You ARE pretty much alone.
2 years since the NIST report and STILL NOTHING from the Troofers.
NOT ONE scholarly article published in a single reputable journal.
So, clearly there is no "growing number of engineers, phd. physicists" etc on your side.
Well, growing in the sense of average IQs or ABILITIES.
You ARE pretty much alone.
2 years since the NIST report and STILL NOTHING from the Troofers.
NOT ONE scholarly article published in a single reputable journal.
So, clearly there is no "growing number of engineers, phd. physicists" etc on your side.
Well, growing in the sense of average IQs or ABILITIES.
QUOTE (newton+)
even if i'm an idiot
I don't disagree with your self assessment. You have proven it OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Arthur
wrong, as usual, arthurs.
architects and engineers start a 911 truth movement
there was 60 when the site launched on may 5th, and now there are 99. i think that constitutes 'growing', handwaver.
i think your lack of understanding of the word "IF" explains a lot about why you don't 'get it'. i never assessed myself as an idiot. i said "IF" i was one, it would not change the fact that a growing number of scholars and industry professionals are questioning the official story, and the lackluster investigation.
wrong, as usual, arthurs.
architects and engineers start a 911 truth movement
there was 60 when the site launched on may 5th, and now there are 99. i think that constitutes 'growing', handwaver.
Let me know when they publish a paper in a REPUTABLE technical journal.
But that is not going to happen.
Why, because they are writing books, giving talks and making money from a LOT of succors with their books and T-Shirts and LUNCHES
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php
Talk about feasting on the bodies of the dead.
Pathetic.
Oh, and WE ALL KNEW your mental status when you first claimed the Helos fired MISSILES into the towers to cause them to collapse.
Arthur
And how do you feel when Malmo does that with something I've written?
And how do you feel when Malmo does that with something I've written?
He obviously read your earlier post :
I already addressed this point. If the site was declared a "Crime Scene", then ONLY POLICE FORENSICS UNITS would've been allowed on the site, and ALL POSSIBLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE would've had to be taken into POLICE EVIDENCE LOCKUP. Can you picture putting all the steel beams into plastic bags, numbering them individually (even though it'd be impossible to guess where they came from) and storing them indefinitely? WHERE? Where would you put ALL THE STEEL from the THREE TOWERS?
What kind of idiots are you?
Putting everything in plastic bags from a forensic investigations of a building collapse?
Only police forensic units?
PUT IN LOCKUP?
AND anyone that has read the NIST report knows the steel beams had unique identification marks for every piece .
This has more BS then a normal Grumpy post!
And how do you feel when Malmo does that with something I've written?
i like it when insults are left out of this heated debate.
however, i think it's fair to fight fire with fire, and to fight disinfo techniques with knowledge of disinfo techniques. and, ....to trade insults with insulters.
an example....
"CTers are making money off of the victim's pain".
first of all, the truth hurts.
secondly, it is an obvious disconnect. running a website is not free. people taking time alone are investing a great deal in the seeking and dissemination of truth. truth is what 90% of the people want, including, and especially, victim's families. do we hear OCTs complaining about the bush propaganda budget? which, BTW, is the largest one of any administration ever, by leaps and bounds.
if CTers could just get government funding, they wouldn't need to ask for support for their expense in disseminating information.
Then maybe you can inform Malmo about the propagation of shock waves through the WTC towers, as I've done it 'til I'm blue in the face.
Maybe he'll listen to you when you explain how the energy of a failed truss at 1000 feet up the tower will be transmitted at 20,000feet/second to the basement (which is basically the same as a speaker enclosure), with S-waves traveling slower.
Then maybe you can inform Malmo about the propagation of shock waves through the WTC towers, as I've done it 'til I'm blue in the face.
Maybe he'll listen to you when you explain how the energy of a failed truss at 1000 feet up the tower will be transmitted at 20,000feet/second to the basement (which is basically the same as a speaker enclosure), with S-waves traveling slower.
truth is what 90% of the people want
It seems we mostly hear the other 10%.
My point about the "plastic bags" was that there are specific procedures associated with collecting evidence from a crime scene, and I was responding to the point that the WTC wasn't declared a "crime scene" and that was considered prima facie evidence that the rescue/retrieval/cleanup efforts were part of a cover-up. They were complaining that insufficient evidence was collected at the scene to explain what happened. I was pointing out that they *couldn't* have declared it a crime scene without violating the standard evidence-collecting procedures, so that, too, would've been interpreted as a cover-up unless the standard "bag&tag" procedures were followed. Remember all the pissing and moaning that the OJ-defense team made about the investigators draping a sheet over Nicole's exposed/hacked-up breasts (out of common decency, given all the gawkers at the scene)? Granted, some evidence could've been contaminated by that act, but it wasn't done out of any intent to frame OJ.
It was an "argumentum ad absurdum", explaining that declaring the whole WTC site to be a crime scene would've complicated the efforts of the rescue workers who were at first still looking for survivors in the rubble, and later, trying to retrieve the remains of the victims.
It's good that you can entertain multiple causal chains, I just wish some of them included the most obvious/innocuous interpretations. Those never quite make it to the list of possible candidates.
Was that a news helicopter? Was it a private helicopter of some Donald Trump-type looking to be a hero, hoping to have his helicopter land on the roof to ferry survivors to safety? (And the helo pilot noting that no one was on the roof and flying closer to the burning tower would probably cause it to crash in the turbulence.)
Of course not. Silly me, I forgot that anyone rich enough to have a private helicopter was in on the NWO conspiracy.
I forgot that everyone who's rich (or for that matter, even works in the field of aerospace) is automatically Evil and wants nothing more than to watch innocent people die a horrible death.
Or maybe it was a government helicopter... Further evidence of Evil, right? One thing that the government does in terrorist attacks is try to determine what the nature of the attack is. For instance, they might've sent a "NEST" unit out to see whether there was nuclear radiation coming from the fire, which would've indicated that a "dirty bomb" had been onboard the plane(s), so they could determine whether to attempt to evacuate all of Manhattan.
Would you consider that to be evidence of Evil?
I've given the matter no more than a couple minutes' thought, and I've found two reasonable explanations for that helicopter's odd behavior, neither of which involved insidious intent. Which two theories did you come up with first?
At some point it does become worth considering the parallels between looking for explanations of unknown events and the Rorshach Ink-Blot Test. I'm comfortable with what my responses to that ink-blot indicate about me, are you comfortable with what your interpretations say about you?
Oh no! what's this? The Lowery section is not even damaged!
Nue-fonze, DBB , what happened?
EXACTLY what they PLANNED on.
A British company was in charge of the blast. It was our first (and so far only) chance to see their work in our area. The vibration consultant arranged for us to meet the blaster, and to watch the very first hole for dynamite drilled into a concrete column. The blaster described to us the very unusual way in which the head house would be demolished. Due to the close proximity of nearby buildings, only the top half would be removed, leaving the base to be demolished conventionally. Furthermore, the top half had been split into two separate halves, each of which would fall to a different side of the structure. Nothing like this had ever been attempted before.
http://www.implosionworld.com/iwasreading.htm
Arthur
This is some seriously flawed logic...and I have to comment on it....
You begin with a rather valid assumption, that labels are not always indicative of the contents.
You fail when you interject the "columbian gangster".
You are safe in assuming that the box either contains tea, or some illegal substance(given that it was dropped from a plane and picked up by a "gangster").
Here is why it is logically flawed....
Your current thoughts on this topic are neither the "suspect"(as in drugs being in the box) or the obvious(as in tea). You are drawing a conclusion without evidence....
You believe a conspiracy occured...and you are actively seeking any conspiracy you can find. For all practical purposes, you are claiming that neither contraband or tea is in that box. You are claiming "something else" is in there, and then trying to find evidence for your "something else".
When you eliminate binary tests from your selective process, you make room for wild speculation. It really gets kinda crazy.
This is the modus operandi of all conspiracy theories. You speculate wildly, and call on assumptive conclusions. Take for example the "magic bullet theory" of JFK conspiracy fame. It makes for an interesting discussion, until you realize the alternative answer is that another bullet suddenly appeared and shot through one man but not the man behind him. Simple deductive reasoning REQUIRES the validation of one of the two options....and only one of them makes any sense.
You are doing the same thing with this new conspiracy......
You are ignoring the fact that PLANES crashed into a building....
Why would anyone crash planes into a building, only to blow it up with something else? Call me old fashioned, but since the terrorists had already tried to blow it up from the ground level...wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable(even as part of a conspiracy theory) to blow it up with only bombs?
Oh but a plane crash alone should not destroy the building?
People also shouldn't be able to hit a hole in one in golf...given ALL of the factors and precision required for such a procedure...it should be impossible. Yet it happens rather frequently.
I think these blades would be capable of more damage than that, I'd suspect they'd be capable of penetrating the concrete floors/ceilings on their own, compromising their structural integrity.
The lightweight concrete was only 4" thick, and covered an area 208' square (minus core and elevator shafts).
That makes it about 600x as wide as it was thick. A two-inch diameter model of this floor would be a bit thicker than a sheet of paper (0.0033"), not even as thick as a potato chip.
Edge-on, it would look like this (approximately):
___________________________________________________________________________________
I think we need to reconsider the use of the term "slab" when discussing these floors.
please stop the BS. It is like i say it is. so dont say something els OK.... THEY "ARE" BEING ANAYLYSED. I dont care if the are doing it now, it is 2007 now, and they are liers, we already know the building collapsed because of bombs. And we already know that it was in inside job even if there was no bombs, and we also know that it was FBI that was behind the WTC attack 93.
You really are a deranged person.
I only wish that the world was a little bit closer to Malmo's version of reality, because then I could look forward to him being arrested and taken away in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again.
If only...
And we're supposed to look forward to a world run by him and his kin...
So much better than what we have today.
But that wouldn't happen to all of us, you see we have already won the Battle. We are stronger then the military and the police, we HAVE military and police at our side. You are just some supid americans that dont know what a real patriot is. live free or die hard.
But that wouldn't happen to all of us, you see we have already won the Battle. We are stronger then the military and the police, we HAVE military and police at our side. You are just some supid americans that dont know what a real patriot is. live free or die hard.
And we're supposed to look forward to a world run by him and his kin...
So much better than what we have today.
I AM RIGHT. you LIED they have only done an investigation from floor 8 to 46. thats the TRUTH, it is another thing if they are doing it now, if they are doing it NOW they havent DONE it. You guys are fuc*ing STUPID
Satanists
This is some seriously flawed logic...and I have to comment on it....
You begin with a rather valid assumption, that labels are not always indicative of the contents.
You fail when you interject the "columbian gangster".
You are safe in assuming that the box either contains tea, or some illegal substance(given that it was dropped from a plane and picked up by a "gangster").
Here is why it is logically flawed....
Your current thoughts on this topic are neither the "suspect"(as in drugs being in the box) or the obvious(as in tea). You are drawing a conclusion without evidence....
You believe a conspiracy occured...and you are actively seeking any conspiracy you can find. For all practical purposes, you are claiming that neither contraband or tea is in that box. You are claiming "something else" is in there, and then trying to find evidence for your "something else".
When you eliminate binary tests from your selective process, you make room for wild speculation. It really gets kinda crazy.
This is the modus operandi of all conspiracy theories. You speculate wildly, and call on assumptive conclusions. Take for example the "magic bullet theory" of JFK conspiracy fame. It makes for an interesting discussion, until you realize the alternative answer is that another bullet suddenly appeared and shot through one man but not the man behind him. Simple deductive reasoning REQUIRES the validation of one of the two options....and only one of them makes any sense.
You are doing the same thing with this new conspiracy......
You are ignoring the fact that PLANES crashed into a building....
Why would anyone crash planes into a building, only to blow it up with something else? Call me old fashioned, but since the terrorists had already tried to blow it up from the ground level...wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable(even as part of a conspiracy theory) to blow it up with only bombs?
Oh but a plane crash alone should not destroy the building?
People also shouldn't be able to hit a hole in one in golf...given ALL of the factors and precision required for such a procedure...it should be impossible. Yet it happens rather frequently.
hi, puckSR.
let's say i know the gangster because he's my friend's friend. that changes that factor from a variable into a value.
in the case of the actors on the 911 stage, nearly ALL of them were 'in on' the iran-contra scandal. now, as a character witness, i have to say that this makes the cheney gang look a little egg-faced to begin with. it was also during that trial that the "rex 84" program was outed.
i didn't start out by looking for a conspiracy. that is flawed logic. you assume you know the timeline of my cognisance. nay, i watched what happened on teevee, and i thought, like many, "wow! someone planted bombs in there!", because NOTHING but a house of cards(covered in layers of ultra fine flour) can collapse like that. those were my thoughts, right or wrong. my next thought was, 'it must be an inside job, because only "mission impossible" could pull something like that off, jim.'
i read, "the day after world war III" in the 1980's. it has been evident to me since way back then, that their is a group of powerful people putting in place a plan to undermine democracy. the excuse for creating FEMA was to retain infrastructure after a nuclear attack. the powers which have incrementally penned into law since the inception of FEMA, are highly suspect to me. handing over dictatorial powers to an unelected group is the opposite of a democracy, or a republic.
so, having grown up with that tidbit in my head, it was an obvious leap, yes leap, for me to guess that this was a coup i was witnessing on teevee, and not the terrorist attack being preached by the mainstream.
oil barons, and military industrialists ruin you country. oops, i meant 'run your country', but i'll leave 'ruin' in there, too, 'cause it's true. if you're fine with that, and see no conflict of interest, and sense no potential motive for a staged 911, then, all the power to you.
i think 'seriously flawed' is a little harsh. the whole point of my thought exercise is to show that you cannot know what's inside until you actually prove it. in the case of 911, very little is proven, and hardly anyone KNOWS what's in the box. but the writing on the outside, and the owner of the box are in plain sight.
p.s. i never mentioned contraband. that was "wild speculation" on your part, according to your own logic.
I don't disagree with your self assessment. You have proven it OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Arthur
wrong, as usual, arthurs.
architects and engineers start a 911 truth movement
there was 60 when the site launched on may 5th, and now there are 99. i think that constitutes 'growing', handwaver.
i think your lack of understanding of the word "IF" explains a lot about why you don't 'get it'. i never assessed myself as an idiot. i said "IF" i was one, it would not change the fact that a growing number of scholars and industry professionals are questioning the official story, and the lackluster investigation.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 12 2007, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE
I don't disagree with your self assessment. You have proven it OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
Arthur
Arthur
wrong, as usual, arthurs.
architects and engineers start a 911 truth movement
there was 60 when the site launched on may 5th, and now there are 99. i think that constitutes 'growing', handwaver.
Let me know when they publish a paper in a REPUTABLE technical journal.
But that is not going to happen.
Why, because they are writing books, giving talks and making money from a LOT of succors with their books and T-Shirts and LUNCHES
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php
Talk about feasting on the bodies of the dead.
Pathetic.
Oh, and WE ALL KNEW your mental status when you first claimed the Helos fired MISSILES into the towers to cause them to collapse.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 13 2007, 03:55 AM)
wrong, as usual, arthurs.
architects and engineers start a 911 truth movement
there was 60 when the site launched on may 5th, and now there are 99. i think that constitutes 'growing', handwaver. [/QUOTE]
Let me know when they publish a paper in a REPUTABLE technical journal.
But that is not going to happen.
Why, because they are writing books, giving talks and making money from a LOT of succors with their books and T-Shirts and LUNCHES
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php
Talk about feasting on the bodies of the dead.
Pathetic.
Oh, and WE ALL KNEW your mental status when you first claimed the Helos fired MISSILES into the towers to cause them to collapse.
Arthur
well, art hurts, i have not defended that supposition for like, a year or something, because i realized that the helicopters did not fire missiles. i was only looking for an initiating event, and the mystery helicopter(and it still is a mystery) had bright flashes coming from it, and then the tower fell.
the behaviour of that helicopter is still strange. it flew almost in the smoke, like it was hiding, and then did *something* while hovering over the tower, brief moments before that tower collapsed. of course, that is not evidence of anything. nada, zilch, etc. unless of course you realize that everything that happens is evidence of something.
after watching 911 eyewitness again, i noticed that rick siegel said he saw something being lowered from the helicopter, something that the video could not "see" because of insufficient resolution.
maybe they set down a device on the roof. maybe they pushed frank martini out of the copter. i do not know. at least i can entertain multiple causal chains, and am not committed to defending one unproven scenario, like poor, poor arthurs are.
"we all"...blah blah....
ahh. the old bandwagon technique, again. if by "we" you mean, all the boys down at disinfo central office, then, well duh, you would HAVE to take that stance. whenever arthurs start with the "you are a big dummy" arguments in place of reason, you know (t)he(y) has got nothing.
desperate arthurs, grasping at strawmen.
architects and engineers start a 911 truth movement
there was 60 when the site launched on may 5th, and now there are 99. i think that constitutes 'growing', handwaver. [/QUOTE]
Let me know when they publish a paper in a REPUTABLE technical journal.
But that is not going to happen.
Why, because they are writing books, giving talks and making money from a LOT of succors with their books and T-Shirts and LUNCHES
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php
Talk about feasting on the bodies of the dead.
Pathetic.
Oh, and WE ALL KNEW your mental status when you first claimed the Helos fired MISSILES into the towers to cause them to collapse.
Arthur
well, art hurts, i have not defended that supposition for like, a year or something, because i realized that the helicopters did not fire missiles. i was only looking for an initiating event, and the mystery helicopter(and it still is a mystery) had bright flashes coming from it, and then the tower fell.
the behaviour of that helicopter is still strange. it flew almost in the smoke, like it was hiding, and then did *something* while hovering over the tower, brief moments before that tower collapsed. of course, that is not evidence of anything. nada, zilch, etc. unless of course you realize that everything that happens is evidence of something.
after watching 911 eyewitness again, i noticed that rick siegel said he saw something being lowered from the helicopter, something that the video could not "see" because of insufficient resolution.
maybe they set down a device on the roof. maybe they pushed frank martini out of the copter. i do not know. at least i can entertain multiple causal chains, and am not committed to defending one unproven scenario, like poor, poor arthurs are.
"we all"...blah blah....
ahh. the old bandwagon technique, again. if by "we" you mean, all the boys down at disinfo central office, then, well duh, you would HAVE to take that stance. whenever arthurs start with the "you are a big dummy" arguments in place of reason, you know (t)he(y) has got nothing.
desperate arthurs, grasping at strawmen.
QUOTE
whenever arthurs start with the "you are a big dummy" arguments in place of reason, you know (t)he(y) has got nothing.
desperate arthurs, grasping at strawmen.
desperate arthurs, grasping at strawmen.
And how do you feel when Malmo does that with something I've written?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 13 2007, 02:10 AM)
Has anyone ever calculated the energy contained in the large rotating fans in front of each engine. These would have broken into a zillion pieces of shrapnel, doing who knows what to the fireproofing of the floors.
I haven't had much luck in finding the mass of the blades. The fan diameter for the CF6-80A General Electric engine is 86.4" while the rotor diameter is 21". The blades are 28" long. The max rotational speed is 16,000 rpm. I don't know what the rpm at cruising-speed might be. This must be a function of altitude also.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1983002613.pdf
This a a video presentation of a fan-blade containment test performed by Rolls-Royce (A380 powerplant). The blade is set off by an explosive while the engine is operating at full speed. The presentation is rather weak in quantitative data, unfortunately. ("quite significant energy", "huge big...", "enormous amount...")
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-discovery.html
I haven't had much luck in finding the mass of the blades. The fan diameter for the CF6-80A General Electric engine is 86.4" while the rotor diameter is 21". The blades are 28" long. The max rotational speed is 16,000 rpm. I don't know what the rpm at cruising-speed might be. This must be a function of altitude also.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1983002613.pdf
This a a video presentation of a fan-blade containment test performed by Rolls-Royce (A380 powerplant). The blade is set off by an explosive while the engine is operating at full speed. The presentation is rather weak in quantitative data, unfortunately. ("quite significant energy", "huge big...", "enormous amount...")
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-discovery.html
We have a TEST for the NUE-Fonze DBB Crush-Down, Crush-Up hypothesis!!!
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov2.htm
This demolition occurred in Philadelphia in 1999. It was one of the first top down demolitions attempted on a multi story building.
From the above video it looks pretty good for the scientist and calculations that did not match reality in the WTC collapses.
Now lets go to some other photos and see it the hypothesis stands:
Still looking good even though they uses a formula to work backwards from the end result and claim that proves the reason for the collapse (gravity not CD)!
Explosives right in the middle of the building , should be a fair test!
The top block is rotating just like the WTC towers, a perfect test of the Crush-Down, Crush-Up hypothesis!!!
OPS! The top block keeps rotating, must not realize it is supposed to fall straight down when it starts crushing the lower section.
No problem , It looks like it pulverized the the lower section !!!!
Oh no! what's this? The Lowery section is not even damaged!
Nue-fonze, DBB , what happened?
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov2.htm
This demolition occurred in Philadelphia in 1999. It was one of the first top down demolitions attempted on a multi story building.
From the above video it looks pretty good for the scientist and calculations that did not match reality in the WTC collapses.
Now lets go to some other photos and see it the hypothesis stands:
Still looking good even though they uses a formula to work backwards from the end result and claim that proves the reason for the collapse (gravity not CD)!
Explosives right in the middle of the building , should be a fair test!
The top block is rotating just like the WTC towers, a perfect test of the Crush-Down, Crush-Up hypothesis!!!
OPS! The top block keeps rotating, must not realize it is supposed to fall straight down when it starts crushing the lower section.
No problem , It looks like it pulverized the the lower section !!!!
Oh no! what's this? The Lowery section is not even damaged!
Nue-fonze, DBB , what happened?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 12 2007, 08:39 PM)
And how do you feel when Malmo does that with something I've written?
He obviously read your earlier post :
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 10 2007, 10:04 AM)
I already addressed this point. If the site was declared a "Crime Scene", then ONLY POLICE FORENSICS UNITS would've been allowed on the site, and ALL POSSIBLE PIECES OF EVIDENCE would've had to be taken into POLICE EVIDENCE LOCKUP. Can you picture putting all the steel beams into plastic bags, numbering them individually (even though it'd be impossible to guess where they came from) and storing them indefinitely? WHERE? Where would you put ALL THE STEEL from the THREE TOWERS?
What kind of idiots are you?
Putting everything in plastic bags from a forensic investigations of a building collapse?
Only police forensic units?
PUT IN LOCKUP?
AND anyone that has read the NIST report knows the steel beams had unique identification marks for every piece .
This has more BS then a normal Grumpy post!
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 13 2007, 04:39 AM)
And how do you feel when Malmo does that with something I've written?
i like it when insults are left out of this heated debate.
however, i think it's fair to fight fire with fire, and to fight disinfo techniques with knowledge of disinfo techniques. and, ....to trade insults with insulters.
an example....
"CTers are making money off of the victim's pain".
first of all, the truth hurts.
secondly, it is an obvious disconnect. running a website is not free. people taking time alone are investing a great deal in the seeking and dissemination of truth. truth is what 90% of the people want, including, and especially, victim's families. do we hear OCTs complaining about the bush propaganda budget? which, BTW, is the largest one of any administration ever, by leaps and bounds.
if CTers could just get government funding, they wouldn't need to ask for support for their expense in disseminating information.
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 13 2007, 05:20 AM)
I haven't had much luck in finding the mass of the blades. The fan diameter for the CF6-80A General Electric engine is 86.4" while the rotor diameter is 21". The blades are 28" long. The max rotational speed is 16,000 rpm. I don't know what the rpm at cruising-speed might be. This must be a function of altitude also.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1983002613.pdf
This a a video presentation of a fan-blade containment test performed by Rolls-Royce (A380 powerplant). The blade is set off by an explosive while the engine is operating at full speed. The presentation is rather weak in quantitative data, unfortunately. ("quite significant energy", "huge big...", "enormous amount...")
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-discovery.html
Pierre-Normand, Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-222, powered by two Pratt and Whitney JT9D engines.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...=0&cmndfind.y=0
Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223, powered by two GE CF6-80 engines.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...=0&cmndfind.y=0
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntr..._1983002613.pdf
This a a video presentation of a fan-blade containment test performed by Rolls-Royce (A380 powerplant). The blade is set off by an explosive while the engine is operating at full speed. The presentation is rather weak in quantitative data, unfortunately. ("quite significant energy", "huge big...", "enormous amount...")
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/...-discovery.html
Pierre-Normand, Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-222, powered by two Pratt and Whitney JT9D engines.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...=0&cmndfind.y=0
Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223, powered by two GE CF6-80 engines.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...=0&cmndfind.y=0
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 13 2007, 03:55 AM)
Why, because they are writing books, giving talks and making money from a LOT of succors with their books and T-Shirts and LUNCHES
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php
Talk about feasting on the bodies of the dead.
Arthur
more OCT math.
let's see, i donate $9 for a sandwich, and then ae911truth.org spends $9 to buy a sandwich which helps get a foot in the door of the architectual firm(time IS money), then ae911 gets rich off of your donation by pocketing the $18....($9 + $9 = $18).
who's paying for bandwidth and web design? who's paying for the time these WORKING architects and engineers are dedicating to the truth movement?
who pays arthurs?
p.s. to david benson... sorry, dude, to mar your perfect score, but you shouldn't have insulted metamars. it was really uncalled for.
i see retaliation is in your playbook. i'll make a mental note. i really did get nearly perfect marks in physics, man. that was over twenty five years ago, and although i don't use math in my 'work', i understand, nay, GROK, even, the three laws of newton, and the difference between elastic, and inelastic, and the behaviour of waves(my favourite), and conservation of energy.
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php
Talk about feasting on the bodies of the dead.
Arthur
more OCT math.
let's see, i donate $9 for a sandwich, and then ae911truth.org spends $9 to buy a sandwich which helps get a foot in the door of the architectual firm(time IS money), then ae911 gets rich off of your donation by pocketing the $18....($9 + $9 = $18).
who's paying for bandwidth and web design? who's paying for the time these WORKING architects and engineers are dedicating to the truth movement?
who pays arthurs?
p.s. to david benson... sorry, dude, to mar your perfect score, but you shouldn't have insulted metamars. it was really uncalled for.
i see retaliation is in your playbook. i'll make a mental note. i really did get nearly perfect marks in physics, man. that was over twenty five years ago, and although i don't use math in my 'work', i understand, nay, GROK, even, the three laws of newton, and the difference between elastic, and inelastic, and the behaviour of waves(my favourite), and conservation of energy.
QUOTE (Capracus+Jun 13 2007, 06:22 AM)
Pierre-Normand, Flight 175 was a Boeing 767-222, powered by two Pratt and Whitney JT9D engines.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...=0&cmndfind.y=0
Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223, powered by two GE CF6-80 engines.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...=0&cmndfind.y=0
Thanks,
The diameter of the fan is 92" in the case of Flight 175 then. It also hit faster than Flight 11, so the rpm of the fan might have been higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT9D
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...=0&cmndfind.y=0
Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-223, powered by two GE CF6-80 engines.
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NN...=0&cmndfind.y=0
Thanks,
The diameter of the fan is 92" in the case of Flight 175 then. It also hit faster than Flight 11, so the rpm of the fan might have been higher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_JT9D
Reasonwhy,
Thanks for the movie, never seen that one and those pictures, only one of them. It's a brilliant video.
Thanks for the movie, never seen that one and those pictures, only one of them. It's a brilliant video.
QUOTE
i understand, nay, GROK, even, the three laws of newton, and the difference between elastic, and inelastic, and the behaviour of waves(my favourite),
Then maybe you can inform Malmo about the propagation of shock waves through the WTC towers, as I've done it 'til I'm blue in the face.
Maybe he'll listen to you when you explain how the energy of a failed truss at 1000 feet up the tower will be transmitted at 20,000feet/second to the basement (which is basically the same as a speaker enclosure), with S-waves traveling slower.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| i understand, nay, GROK, even, the three laws of newton, and the difference between elastic, and inelastic, and the behaviour of waves(my favourite), |
Then maybe you can inform Malmo about the propagation of shock waves through the WTC towers, as I've done it 'til I'm blue in the face.
Maybe he'll listen to you when you explain how the energy of a failed truss at 1000 feet up the tower will be transmitted at 20,000feet/second to the basement (which is basically the same as a speaker enclosure), with S-waves traveling slower.
truth is what 90% of the people want
It seems we mostly hear the other 10%.
My point about the "plastic bags" was that there are specific procedures associated with collecting evidence from a crime scene, and I was responding to the point that the WTC wasn't declared a "crime scene" and that was considered prima facie evidence that the rescue/retrieval/cleanup efforts were part of a cover-up. They were complaining that insufficient evidence was collected at the scene to explain what happened. I was pointing out that they *couldn't* have declared it a crime scene without violating the standard evidence-collecting procedures, so that, too, would've been interpreted as a cover-up unless the standard "bag&tag" procedures were followed. Remember all the pissing and moaning that the OJ-defense team made about the investigators draping a sheet over Nicole's exposed/hacked-up breasts (out of common decency, given all the gawkers at the scene)? Granted, some evidence could've been contaminated by that act, but it wasn't done out of any intent to frame OJ.
It was an "argumentum ad absurdum", explaining that declaring the whole WTC site to be a crime scene would've complicated the efforts of the rescue workers who were at first still looking for survivors in the rubble, and later, trying to retrieve the remains of the victims.
QUOTE
the behaviour of that helicopter is still strange. it flew almost in the smoke, like it was hiding, and then did *something* while hovering over the tower, brief moments before that tower collapsed. of course, that is not evidence of anything. nada, zilch, etc. unless of course you realize that everything that happens is evidence of something.
after watching 911 eyewitness again, i noticed that rick siegel said he saw something being lowered from the helicopter, something that the video could not "see" because of insufficient resolution.
maybe they set down a device on the roof. maybe they pushed frank martini out of the copter. i do not know. at least i can entertain multiple causal chains, and am not committed to defending one unproven scenario, like poor, poor arthurs are.
after watching 911 eyewitness again, i noticed that rick siegel said he saw something being lowered from the helicopter, something that the video could not "see" because of insufficient resolution.
maybe they set down a device on the roof. maybe they pushed frank martini out of the copter. i do not know. at least i can entertain multiple causal chains, and am not committed to defending one unproven scenario, like poor, poor arthurs are.
It's good that you can entertain multiple causal chains, I just wish some of them included the most obvious/innocuous interpretations. Those never quite make it to the list of possible candidates.
Was that a news helicopter? Was it a private helicopter of some Donald Trump-type looking to be a hero, hoping to have his helicopter land on the roof to ferry survivors to safety? (And the helo pilot noting that no one was on the roof and flying closer to the burning tower would probably cause it to crash in the turbulence.)
Of course not. Silly me, I forgot that anyone rich enough to have a private helicopter was in on the NWO conspiracy.
I forgot that everyone who's rich (or for that matter, even works in the field of aerospace) is automatically Evil and wants nothing more than to watch innocent people die a horrible death.
Or maybe it was a government helicopter... Further evidence of Evil, right? One thing that the government does in terrorist attacks is try to determine what the nature of the attack is. For instance, they might've sent a "NEST" unit out to see whether there was nuclear radiation coming from the fire, which would've indicated that a "dirty bomb" had been onboard the plane(s), so they could determine whether to attempt to evacuate all of Manhattan.
Would you consider that to be evidence of Evil?
I've given the matter no more than a couple minutes' thought, and I've found two reasonable explanations for that helicopter's odd behavior, neither of which involved insidious intent. Which two theories did you come up with first?
At some point it does become worth considering the parallels between looking for explanations of unknown events and the Rorshach Ink-Blot Test. I'm comfortable with what my responses to that ink-blot indicate about me, are you comfortable with what your interpretations say about you?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 13 2007, 02:10 AM)
David B. Benson
Yeah, they were shooting unopened Coke cans at targets simulating an aluminum skinned aircraft full of fuel, a surprisingly accurate simulation. High pressure jets of fuel could easily destroy gypsum board fireproofing in the core.
Has anyone ever calculated the energy contained in the large rotating fans in front of each engine. These would have broken into a zillion pieces of shrapnel, doing who knows what to the fireproofing of the floors.
Grumpy
From NCSTAR 1-2B, Ch 10.3:
Yeah, they were shooting unopened Coke cans at targets simulating an aluminum skinned aircraft full of fuel, a surprisingly accurate simulation. High pressure jets of fuel could easily destroy gypsum board fireproofing in the core.
Has anyone ever calculated the energy contained in the large rotating fans in front of each engine. These would have broken into a zillion pieces of shrapnel, doing who knows what to the fireproofing of the floors.
Grumpy
From NCSTAR 1-2B, Ch 10.3:
QUOTE
Both the kinetic energy from translation and rotation were calculated based on an assumed impact sped of 500 mph and an engine rotational speed of 5,000 RPM. the results are shown on table 10-1. The initial rotational kinetic energy of the engine components was approximately 2.2x10^7 lb-ft, which was approximately one-quarter of the translational kinetic energy for the engine or less than one percent of the initial kinetic energy for the aircraft impact.
Nice find Capracus!
Reasonwhy:
Thanks for posting the link to that CD....
Some comments:
The upper section in your CD example was only about five stories high and it looks like the building was stripped to its basic structural shell. Since the collapse was arrested it is obvious that the upper block was not massive enough to crush the lower block. My calculations for the collapse of the Twin Towers show that the collapse of those buildings would NOT have propagated if the upper block was less than five stories or so!
As for the tipping of the upper section in your CD example, well, yes, the upper sections of WTC 1 & 2 also tipped. In your CD example you can see that the building is damaged, (rigged to fail) on one side and sure enough the building tilts in that direction. The same was true for WTC 1 & 2 -the damage was asymmetric- so you would expect the upper sections to tip over.
Thanks for posting the link to that CD....
Some comments:
The upper section in your CD example was only about five stories high and it looks like the building was stripped to its basic structural shell. Since the collapse was arrested it is obvious that the upper block was not massive enough to crush the lower block. My calculations for the collapse of the Twin Towers show that the collapse of those buildings would NOT have propagated if the upper block was less than five stories or so!
As for the tipping of the upper section in your CD example, well, yes, the upper sections of WTC 1 & 2 also tipped. In your CD example you can see that the building is damaged, (rigged to fail) on one side and sure enough the building tilts in that direction. The same was true for WTC 1 & 2 -the damage was asymmetric- so you would expect the upper sections to tip over.
Indeed Neu-Fonze, the building was stripped, but the lower part was also stripped.
And from your own model it could easily be derived that if you scale
the mass for each floor a factor lambda the collapse behaviour is invariant if the E's are also scaled in the same way. Of course we know nothing about the E1 values but in general E1 will also increase if the live load increases. That's why in official demolitions buildings are stripped, even some card boards seem to give much higher effective E1's
Neu-Fonze, what is your opinion about a 1-d mass-spring model ? Assume one spring say at height 95h will be heated and after a while it cannot hold the static weight of of the 15 upper (spring connected) masses, what would happen, would there be a global collapse ?
And from your own model it could easily be derived that if you scale
the mass for each floor a factor lambda the collapse behaviour is invariant if the E's are also scaled in the same way. Of course we know nothing about the E1 values but in general E1 will also increase if the live load increases. That's why in official demolitions buildings are stripped, even some card boards seem to give much higher effective E1's
Neu-Fonze, what is your opinion about a 1-d mass-spring model ? Assume one spring say at height 95h will be heated and after a while it cannot hold the static weight of of the 15 upper (spring connected) masses, what would happen, would there be a global collapse ?
Found a nice animation of it - http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov
Einsteen:
Don't you know by now that I am NOT a believer in spring models of the Twin Towers!
Giant springs are, however, much favored by Gordon Ross, and lead to his belief that the collapse should have been self-arresting, rather than self-propagating.
Obviously if you use an unrealistic model you will arrive at unrealistic predictions/conclusions.
And before everyone starts shouting that the Bazant/Greening model is unrealistic, I would argue that, sure, it has plenty of crude approximations, but the overall physics is valid and tells an unequivocal story. Even CDers have to admit that GRAVITY is the best demolitionist!
I think the real issues for debate are collapse initiation, the tipping of the upper sections of WTC 1 & 2, the precise collapse time.... concrete pulverization energy requirements... things like that....
Don't you know by now that I am NOT a believer in spring models of the Twin Towers!
Giant springs are, however, much favored by Gordon Ross, and lead to his belief that the collapse should have been self-arresting, rather than self-propagating.
Obviously if you use an unrealistic model you will arrive at unrealistic predictions/conclusions.
And before everyone starts shouting that the Bazant/Greening model is unrealistic, I would argue that, sure, it has plenty of crude approximations, but the overall physics is valid and tells an unequivocal story. Even CDers have to admit that GRAVITY is the best demolitionist!
I think the real issues for debate are collapse initiation, the tipping of the upper sections of WTC 1 & 2, the precise collapse time.... concrete pulverization energy requirements... things like that....
Ok, a small correction NEU-FONZE,
Now let's use not a spring model but a model with Bazant F(u) functions, i.e.
each story behaves exactly like that model, first a plastic phase, deformation phase, break etc, you could even use a general theoretical function F(u) that is exactly the same as the one that you would obtain if you place one intact story on the bottom and press it from h to 0. Let's assume we have that function and we set up coupled differential equations and give the mass on top a motion, or even better use the method from reasonwhy, what would then happen ? Of course we don't say this method is used for the collapse initiation. How would this initial stage develop ?
Now let's use not a spring model but a model with Bazant F(u) functions, i.e.
each story behaves exactly like that model, first a plastic phase, deformation phase, break etc, you could even use a general theoretical function F(u) that is exactly the same as the one that you would obtain if you place one intact story on the bottom and press it from h to 0. Let's assume we have that function and we set up coupled differential equations and give the mass on top a motion, or even better use the method from reasonwhy, what would then happen ? Of course we don't say this method is used for the collapse initiation. How would this initial stage develop ?
3bodyproblem.
I dont understand what it is you dont understand with this and why i "debunked" myself.
"A good option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.... Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories [nb: The upper floors then fall as a tamper, resulting in “progressive collapse”-- this is common in controlled demolition.] (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Bombs in the basement and at the lower floors went of before the bombs on the higher floors, so the building was unstable before the bombs on the higher floors went of.
I dont understand what it is you dont understand with this and why i "debunked" myself.
"A good option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward.... Generally speaking, blasters will explode the major support columns on the lower floors first and then a few upper stories [nb: The upper floors then fall as a tamper, resulting in “progressive collapse”-- this is common in controlled demolition.] (Harris, 2000; emphasis added.)
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. "If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure.” (Bollyn, 2002; emphasis added.)
Bombs in the basement and at the lower floors went of before the bombs on the higher floors, so the building was unstable before the bombs on the higher floors went of.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 12 2007, 11:33 PM)
well, art hurts, i have not defended that supposition for like, a year or something, because i realized that the helicopters did not fire missiles. i was only looking for an initiating event, and the mystery helicopter(and it still is a mystery) had bright flashes coming from it, and then the tower fell.
the behaviour of that helicopter is still strange. it flew almost in the smoke, like it was hiding, and then did *something* while hovering over the tower, brief moments before that tower collapsed. of course, that is not evidence of anything. nada, zilch, etc. unless of course you realize that everything that happens is evidence of something.
after watching 911 eyewitness again, i noticed that rick siegel said he saw something being lowered from the helicopter, something that the video could not "see" because of insufficient resolution.
maybe they set down a device on the roof. maybe they pushed frank martini out of the copter. i do not know. at least i can entertain multiple causal chains, and am not committed to defending one unproven scenario,
What a load of Bovine Poo.
You gave that particular fantasy up only when we posted a video taken from a different angle clearly showing that the helo didn't fire anything, nor land on the building nor push anything out.
And you KNOW this.
Lie much or is it just your SELECTIVE memory at work again?
Of course you haven't given up on the EQUALLY MORONIC idea of a suitcase nuke.
Which of course is your problem.
You are DESPERATE to search for something (anything) to support your CONCLUSION.
So it doesn't matter that EVERY one of your ideas has been shown to be WRONG, you simply keep trolling for more.
Arthur
the behaviour of that helicopter is still strange. it flew almost in the smoke, like it was hiding, and then did *something* while hovering over the tower, brief moments before that tower collapsed. of course, that is not evidence of anything. nada, zilch, etc. unless of course you realize that everything that happens is evidence of something.
after watching 911 eyewitness again, i noticed that rick siegel said he saw something being lowered from the helicopter, something that the video could not "see" because of insufficient resolution.
maybe they set down a device on the roof. maybe they pushed frank martini out of the copter. i do not know. at least i can entertain multiple causal chains, and am not committed to defending one unproven scenario,
What a load of Bovine Poo.
You gave that particular fantasy up only when we posted a video taken from a different angle clearly showing that the helo didn't fire anything, nor land on the building nor push anything out.
And you KNOW this.
Lie much or is it just your SELECTIVE memory at work again?
Of course you haven't given up on the EQUALLY MORONIC idea of a suitcase nuke.
Which of course is your problem.
You are DESPERATE to search for something (anything) to support your CONCLUSION.
So it doesn't matter that EVERY one of your ideas has been shown to be WRONG, you simply keep trolling for more.
Arthur
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 13 2007, 03:07 PM)
Bombs in the basement and at the lower floors went of before the bombs on the higher floors, so the building was unstable before the bombs on the higher floors went of.
Then show some evidence of gross structural failure before the collapse front progressed to the base of the towers from the impact zones.
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Jun 12 2007, 09:04 PM)
Malmo reminds me alot of another CT'er I 'know' on a blog. He's thrown out so many things he claims that prove it's a conspiracy by our government, and yet he can't see that they are all in opposition to each other. If what he's claiming today is true, then what he was claiming yesterday can't be true. Of course, he has no evidence of anything he says, so none of it is true. WTC--- no planes at all, it was holograms (lol), Pentagon--- 'twas a missile, Flight 93 landed somewhere and the crash site was faked. On that last one, I pressed him on and on about HOW IT COULD BE FAKED and he ended up having to say all those airplane parts had to be trucked out to the field in Pennsylania, the shredded trees and the hole in the ground, all faked. I mean, really true mind-bending thought processes, but it's all perfectly normal to him. So in effect, there's a Lost island somewhere, where all the passengers are living and can't get the message to their family that all is well. Malmo, you listening?
lol. You reminds me of another close minded fox news watching proud american that are forced to pay taxes without a law that thinks bush is a christian
I think it was a plane that hit the pentagon. But im open minded that it could be a missile, because the evidence isnt strong enough to tell exactly what happened there. Still waiting for theme to release the tapes, i think pentagon got cameras. I wonder why cameras never works when something happens?. And off course a plane hit the WTC, there are hard evidence for that. And flight 93 must have been shot down, like rumsfeld said in a interview to.
lol. You reminds me of another close minded fox news watching proud american that are forced to pay taxes without a law that thinks bush is a christian
I think it was a plane that hit the pentagon. But im open minded that it could be a missile, because the evidence isnt strong enough to tell exactly what happened there. Still waiting for theme to release the tapes, i think pentagon got cameras. I wonder why cameras never works when something happens?. And off course a plane hit the WTC, there are hard evidence for that
. And flight 93 must have been shot down, like rumsfeld said in a interview to.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 13 2007, 12:35 AM)
Oh no! what's this? The Lowery section is not even damaged!
Nue-fonze, DBB , what happened?
EXACTLY what they PLANNED on.
A British company was in charge of the blast. It was our first (and so far only) chance to see their work in our area. The vibration consultant arranged for us to meet the blaster, and to watch the very first hole for dynamite drilled into a concrete column. The blaster described to us the very unusual way in which the head house would be demolished. Due to the close proximity of nearby buildings, only the top half would be removed, leaving the base to be demolished conventionally. Furthermore, the top half had been split into two separate halves, each of which would fall to a different side of the structure. Nothing like this had ever been attempted before.
http://www.implosionworld.com/iwasreading.htm
Arthur
Ok in fairness, that explains a lot. I remember another movie where they really did a top-down demolition, will check if I can find it
newton
"Note: At this point AE911Truth is not a charitable organization so your donation is unlikely to be considered charitable by the IRS."
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php
Buying an architect/engineer a nine dollar sandwich??? More likely buying the "Founders" lunch!!!
Wow!!! This is the greatest scam EVER!!! You send them 9 bucks(or more), they send you a e-mail expressing their sincere personal thanks, blah ,blah...And then they go to the restaurant and buy each other lunch!!! And IT"S LEGAL because of the above note. Charitable concerns are restrained from such practices.
Besides, if they actually tried to convince A/Es of the pseudo-scientific CRAP on all the 911truth.org sites, in a professional office setting...with sandwiches, no less......
Grumpy
"Note: At this point AE911Truth is not a charitable organization so your donation is unlikely to be considered charitable by the IRS."
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php
Buying an architect/engineer a nine dollar sandwich??? More likely buying the "Founders" lunch!!!
Wow!!! This is the greatest scam EVER!!! You send them 9 bucks(or more), they send you a e-mail expressing their sincere personal thanks, blah ,blah...And then they go to the restaurant and buy each other lunch!!! And IT"S LEGAL because of the above note. Charitable concerns are restrained from such practices.
Besides, if they actually tried to convince A/Es of the pseudo-scientific CRAP on all the 911truth.org sites, in a professional office setting...with sandwiches, no less......
Grumpy
Capracus
NCSTAR 1-2B, Ch 10.3:
Thanks for finding this, I must have skimmed that report too fast.
But it brings an interesting thought that these blades, of exotic metals(titanium,etc) would fracture and bloom just like a 298,276,000 joule hand grenade(each engine?) and would be very effective in fireproofing removal/destruction of gypsum board.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Both the kinetic energy from translation and rotation were calculated based on an assumed impact sped of 500 mph and an engine rotational speed of 5,000 RPM. the results are shown on table 10-1. The initial rotational kinetic energy of the engine components was approximately 2.2x10^7 lb-ft, which was approximately one-quarter of the translational kinetic energy for the engine or less than one percent of the initial kinetic energy for the aircraft impact.
NCSTAR 1-2B, Ch 10.3:
Thanks for finding this, I must have skimmed that report too fast.
But it brings an interesting thought that these blades, of exotic metals(titanium,etc) would fracture and bloom just like a 298,276,000 joule hand grenade(each engine?) and would be very effective in fireproofing removal/destruction of gypsum board.
Grumpy
Einsteen:
"Let's assume we have that function and we set up coupled differential equations and give the mass on top a motion, or even better use the method from reasonwhy, what would then happen ? Of course we don't say this method is used for the collapse initiation. How would this initial stage develop ?"
I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you set up Bazant's differential equations the system will behave as Bazant's equations predict.... or am I missing the point!
"Let's assume we have that function and we set up coupled differential equations and give the mass on top a motion, or even better use the method from reasonwhy, what would then happen ? Of course we don't say this method is used for the collapse initiation. How would this initial stage develop ?"
I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you set up Bazant's differential equations the system will behave as Bazant's equations predict.... or am I missing the point!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 13 2007, 03:09 PM)
What a load of Bovine Poo.
You gave that particular fantasy up only when we posted a video taken from a different angle clearly showing that the helo didn't fire anything, nor land on the building nor push anything out.
And you KNOW this.
Lie much or is it just your SELECTIVE memory at work again?
Of course you haven't given up on the EQUALLY MORONIC idea of a suitcase nuke.
Which of course is your problem.
You are DESPERATE to search for something (anything) to support your CONCLUSION.
So it doesn't matter that EVERY one of your ideas has been shown to be WRONG, you simply keep trolling for more.
Arthur
wrong, again, arthurs.
a box falls from a small plane and lands at your feet, are you able to tell instantly what is inside it?
or, will you have to guess, until you can get it open? without opening it, you may try seeing if something is written on the outside, that would give you a clue. if it says, 'tea' written on the side, does that prove there is tea in it? if, then, a columbian gangster comes up and says, 'hey, that's my box of tea', and takes it away, is 'tea' your best guess as to what was in the box? i mean, the gangster told you there was tea, right?
my selective memory says it is i who decides what to believe about evidence when it is presented.
i don't lie.
You gave that particular fantasy up only when we posted a video taken from a different angle clearly showing that the helo didn't fire anything, nor land on the building nor push anything out.
And you KNOW this.
Lie much or is it just your SELECTIVE memory at work again?
Of course you haven't given up on the EQUALLY MORONIC idea of a suitcase nuke.
Which of course is your problem.
You are DESPERATE to search for something (anything) to support your CONCLUSION.
So it doesn't matter that EVERY one of your ideas has been shown to be WRONG, you simply keep trolling for more.
Arthur
wrong, again, arthurs.
a box falls from a small plane and lands at your feet, are you able to tell instantly what is inside it?
or, will you have to guess, until you can get it open? without opening it, you may try seeing if something is written on the outside, that would give you a clue. if it says, 'tea' written on the side, does that prove there is tea in it? if, then, a columbian gangster comes up and says, 'hey, that's my box of tea', and takes it away, is 'tea' your best guess as to what was in the box? i mean, the gangster told you there was tea, right?
my selective memory says it is i who decides what to believe about evidence when it is presented.
i don't lie.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 13 2007, 03:56 PM)
newton
"Note: At this point AE911Truth is not a charitable organization so your donation is unlikely to be considered charitable by the IRS."
Besides, if they actually tried to convince A/Es of the pseudo-scientific CRAP on all the 911truth.org sites, in a professional office setting...with sandwiches, no less......
Grumpy
laugh while you can.
as they say, the truth will out.
"Note: At this point AE911Truth is not a charitable organization so your donation is unlikely to be considered charitable by the IRS."
Besides, if they actually tried to convince A/Es of the pseudo-scientific CRAP on all the 911truth.org sites, in a professional office setting...with sandwiches, no less......
Grumpy
laugh while you can.
as they say, the truth will out.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 13 2007, 05:55 PM)
laugh while you can.
as they say, the truth will out.
as they say, the truth will out.
Are you trying to say that all truthers will be outed?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 13 2007, 05:35 AM)
We have a TEST for the NUE-Fonze DBB Crush-Down, Crush-Up hypothesis!!!
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov2.htm
This demolition occurred in Philadelphia in 1999. It was one of the first top down demolitions attempted on a multi story building.
Nice find!
It reminds me of this failed demolition. Though this is more comparable to the "crush-up" phase or WTC7.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-YzNl1GkpkI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rIEBLdd6W3Q
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IwNxbPybymM
(collapse stops here)
http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov2.htm
This demolition occurred in Philadelphia in 1999. It was one of the first top down demolitions attempted on a multi story building.
Nice find!
It reminds me of this failed demolition. Though this is more comparable to the "crush-up" phase or WTC7.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-YzNl1GkpkI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rIEBLdd6W3Q
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IwNxbPybymM
(collapse stops here)
QUOTE (Capracus+Jun 13 2007, 06:00 PM)
Are you trying to say that all truthers will be outed?
well, i can be completely literal for a second, no, that's no what i'm saying.
i'm saying lies collapse on themselves, leaving only the truth standing. i'm saying, these architects and engineers are looking for a truly independent investigation. i'm saying the truth is mightier than the half truth, or the lie, or the obfuscation, or the misdirection, or the plain old use of insults in place of reason.
why is it 'bad' to look for truth, ie. to be a 'truther'? anyone who's satisfied that everything that happened on 911 has been explained, is pretty much a bad scientist.
if that were not true, all you OCTs would not be throwing formulas and numbers and theories around that NIST didn't already throw around.
well, i can be completely literal for a second, no, that's no what i'm saying.
i'm saying lies collapse on themselves, leaving only the truth standing. i'm saying, these architects and engineers are looking for a truly independent investigation. i'm saying the truth is mightier than the half truth, or the lie, or the obfuscation, or the misdirection, or the plain old use of insults in place of reason.
why is it 'bad' to look for truth, ie. to be a 'truther'? anyone who's satisfied that everything that happened on 911 has been explained, is pretty much a bad scientist.
if that were not true, all you OCTs would not be throwing formulas and numbers and theories around that NIST didn't already throw around.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 13 2007, 12:51 PM)
i don't lie.
Well WHY are you LYING about that helicopter?
It DIDN'T lower anything to the towers.
Which was clear from the video we used to debunk the missile you claimed was an "initiating even" and the claim you made that you were CERTAIN that it had HID in the smoke.
Both of which were more of your bovine poo.
Arthur
Well WHY are you LYING about that helicopter?
It DIDN'T lower anything to the towers.
Which was clear from the video we used to debunk the missile you claimed was an "initiating even" and the claim you made that you were CERTAIN that it had HID in the smoke.
Both of which were more of your bovine poo.
Arthur
QUOTE
a box falls from a small plane and lands at your feet, are you able to tell instantly what is inside it?
or, will you have to guess, until you can get it open? without opening it, you may try seeing if something is written on the outside, that would give you a clue. if it says, 'tea' written on the side, does that prove there is tea in it? if, then, a columbian gangster comes up and says, 'hey, that's my box of tea', and takes it away, is 'tea' your best guess as to what was in the box? i mean, the gangster told you there was tea, right?
or, will you have to guess, until you can get it open? without opening it, you may try seeing if something is written on the outside, that would give you a clue. if it says, 'tea' written on the side, does that prove there is tea in it? if, then, a columbian gangster comes up and says, 'hey, that's my box of tea', and takes it away, is 'tea' your best guess as to what was in the box? i mean, the gangster told you there was tea, right?
This is some seriously flawed logic...and I have to comment on it....
You begin with a rather valid assumption, that labels are not always indicative of the contents.
You fail when you interject the "columbian gangster".
You are safe in assuming that the box either contains tea, or some illegal substance(given that it was dropped from a plane and picked up by a "gangster").
Here is why it is logically flawed....
Your current thoughts on this topic are neither the "suspect"(as in drugs being in the box) or the obvious(as in tea). You are drawing a conclusion without evidence....
You believe a conspiracy occured...and you are actively seeking any conspiracy you can find. For all practical purposes, you are claiming that neither contraband or tea is in that box. You are claiming "something else" is in there, and then trying to find evidence for your "something else".
When you eliminate binary tests from your selective process, you make room for wild speculation. It really gets kinda crazy.
This is the modus operandi of all conspiracy theories. You speculate wildly, and call on assumptive conclusions. Take for example the "magic bullet theory" of JFK conspiracy fame. It makes for an interesting discussion, until you realize the alternative answer is that another bullet suddenly appeared and shot through one man but not the man behind him. Simple deductive reasoning REQUIRES the validation of one of the two options....and only one of them makes any sense.
You are doing the same thing with this new conspiracy......
You are ignoring the fact that PLANES crashed into a building....
Why would anyone crash planes into a building, only to blow it up with something else? Call me old fashioned, but since the terrorists had already tried to blow it up from the ground level...wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable(even as part of a conspiracy theory) to blow it up with only bombs?
Oh but a plane crash alone should not destroy the building?
People also shouldn't be able to hit a hole in one in golf...given ALL of the factors and precision required for such a procedure...it should be impossible. Yet it happens rather frequently.
NIST/FEMA only did an investigation from floor 8 to 46 on WTC 7. Why?. Because its a political document not science
''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' - a senior aide to George W. Bush
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda" George W. Bush
"It'll take time to restore chaos and order -- order out of chaos, but we will" - George W. Bush
''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'' - a senior aide to George W. Bush
"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda" George W. Bush
"It'll take time to restore chaos and order -- order out of chaos, but we will" - George W. Bush
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 13 2007, 02:35 PM)
NIST/FEMA only did an investigation from floor 8 to 46 on WTC 7. Why?. Because its a political document not science
Total Cow CaCa.
NIST put out to bid a contract for a model of the floors above 7 because their layout was the same.
The floors BELOW 8 are different but theyare ALSO being analysed.
Typical 'troofer' disinfo though.
Arthur
Total Cow CaCa.
NIST put out to bid a contract for a model of the floors above 7 because their layout was the same.
The floors BELOW 8 are different but theyare ALSO being analysed.
Typical 'troofer' disinfo though.
Arthur
QUOTE
But it brings an interesting thought that these blades, of exotic metals(titanium,etc) would fracture and bloom just like a 298,276,000 joule hand grenade(each engine?) and would be very effective in fireproofing removal/destruction of gypsum board.
I think these blades would be capable of more damage than that, I'd suspect they'd be capable of penetrating the concrete floors/ceilings on their own, compromising their structural integrity.
The lightweight concrete was only 4" thick, and covered an area 208' square (minus core and elevator shafts).
That makes it about 600x as wide as it was thick. A two-inch diameter model of this floor would be a bit thicker than a sheet of paper (0.0033"), not even as thick as a potato chip.
Edge-on, it would look like this (approximately):
___________________________________________________________________________________
I think we need to reconsider the use of the term "slab" when discussing these floors.
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 13 2007, 07:35 PM)
NIST/FEMA only did an investigation from floor 8 to 46 on WTC 7. Why?. Because its a political document not science
No, one company studies the floors above floor 7. NIST themselves will study the rest. Thats what the contracts are for.
ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analysis using LS-DYNA that include analysis of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analysis will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations), and aid the development of a more coarse model for use in the global analysis that captures essential behaviors and failure mechanisms.
wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm
wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/
wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardR0028.htm
The specific tasks that ARA will perform with SGH (task 1) and LGI (task 2) include:
1. Identify and analyze hypothetical blast scenarios in three phases, with the results from each phase being used to decide if the analysis in the next phase is required:
1. Identify hypothetical blast scenarios, using analysis and/or experience, to determine conditions that would fail specified column sections by direct attachment of explosive materials.
2. Analyze the overpressure produced by the blast load and determine if the overpressure would have failed windows in WTC 7.
3. Determine if the overpressure would result in sound levels transmitted through intact WTC 7 windows that could be heard outside the building.
2. Conduct the following analysis using a three-dimensional ANSYS model (provided by NIST) of the lower 16 floors of WTC 7:
1. Review the ANSYS model provided by NIST for conducting structural analysis of damage to components and the effect of time-varying temperatures. Identify possible revisions/improvements to the ANSYS model that may improve efficiency, accuracy and/or capture of critical failure modes.
2. Work with NIST staff to incorporate agreed upon changes to the ANSYS model.
3. Determine the structural response of WTC 7 for up to six scenarios of structural damage from debris impact and temperature histories provided by NIST. NIST will conduct analyses of other scenarios in parallel. Work with NIST to identify the structural response and failure modes for each analysis.
No, one company studies the floors above floor 7. NIST themselves will study the rest. Thats what the contracts are for.
ARA will conduct nonlinear dynamic collapse analysis using LS-DYNA that include analysis of detailed full floor models and global models. The detailed floor analysis will determine likely modes of failure for Floors 8 to 46 due to failure of one or more supporting columns (at one or more locations), and aid the development of a more coarse model for use in the global analysis that captures essential behaviors and failure mechanisms.
wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0186.htm
wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/
wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardR0028.htm
The specific tasks that ARA will perform with SGH (task 1) and LGI (task 2) include:
1. Identify and analyze hypothetical blast scenarios in three phases, with the results from each phase being used to decide if the analysis in the next phase is required:
1. Identify hypothetical blast scenarios, using analysis and/or experience, to determine conditions that would fail specified column sections by direct attachment of explosive materials.
2. Analyze the overpressure produced by the blast load and determine if the overpressure would have failed windows in WTC 7.
3. Determine if the overpressure would result in sound levels transmitted through intact WTC 7 windows that could be heard outside the building.
2. Conduct the following analysis using a three-dimensional ANSYS model (provided by NIST) of the lower 16 floors of WTC 7:
1. Review the ANSYS model provided by NIST for conducting structural analysis of damage to components and the effect of time-varying temperatures. Identify possible revisions/improvements to the ANSYS model that may improve efficiency, accuracy and/or capture of critical failure modes.
2. Work with NIST staff to incorporate agreed upon changes to the ANSYS model.
3. Determine the structural response of WTC 7 for up to six scenarios of structural damage from debris impact and temperature histories provided by NIST. NIST will conduct analyses of other scenarios in parallel. Work with NIST to identify the structural response and failure modes for each analysis.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 13 2007, 07:47 PM)
Total Cow CaCa.
NIST put out to bid a contract for a model of the floors above 7 because their layout was the same.
The floors BELOW 8 are different but they are ALSO being analysed.
Typical 'troofer' disinfo though.
Arthur
please stop the BS. It is like i say it is. so dont say something els OK.... THEY "ARE" BEING ANAYLYSED. I dont care if the are doing it now, it is 2007 now, and they are liers, we already know the building collapsed because of bombs. And we already know that it was in inside job even if there was no bombs, and we also know that it was FBI that was behind the WTC attack 93.
NIST put out to bid a contract for a model of the floors above 7 because their layout was the same.
The floors BELOW 8 are different but they are ALSO being analysed.
Typical 'troofer' disinfo though.
Arthur
please stop the BS. It is like i say it is. so dont say something els OK.... THEY "ARE" BEING ANAYLYSED. I dont care if the are doing it now, it is 2007 now, and they are liers, we already know the building collapsed because of bombs. And we already know that it was in inside job even if there was no bombs, and we also know that it was FBI that was behind the WTC attack 93. QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 13 2007, 07:57 PM)
please stop the BS. It is like i say it is. so dont say something els OK.... THEY "ARE" BEING ANAYLYSED. I dont care if the are doing it now, it is 2007 now, and they are liers, we already know the building collapsed because of bombs. And we already know that it was in inside job even if there was no bombs, and we also know that it was FBI that was behind the WTC attack 93. You really are a deranged person.
Jay38. Was that post necessary?. I am still right and you are wrong.
"You really are a deranged person." And you are an IDIOT!!!!. WHO FUNDED AL-QAIDA? WHO CREATED THEM? WHO LET THE ATTACK HAPPEN ON 9-11?? WHO RUNS AMERICA???. Do you know the awnser to any of that??
"You really are a deranged person." And you are an IDIOT!!!!. WHO FUNDED AL-QAIDA? WHO CREATED THEM? WHO LET THE ATTACK HAPPEN ON 9-11?? WHO RUNS AMERICA???. Do you know the awnser to any of that??
QUOTE
and they are liers, we already know the building collapsed because of bombs. And we already know that it was in inside job even if there was no bombs
I only wish that the world was a little bit closer to Malmo's version of reality, because then I could look forward to him being arrested and taken away in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again.
If only...
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 13 2007, 02:57 PM)
It is like i say it is. so dont say something els
ROTFLMAO
Sorry Moe.
It is NOT like you say it is.
In fact, one can count on it usually being JUST THE OPPOSITE.
Arthur
ROTFLMAO
Sorry Moe.
It is NOT like you say it is.
In fact, one can count on it usually being JUST THE OPPOSITE.
Arthur
QUOTE
It is like i say it is. so dont say something els
And we're supposed to look forward to a world run by him and his kin...
So much better than what we have today.
QUOTE
I only wish that the world was a little bit closer to Malmo's version of reality, because then I could look forward to him being arrested and taken away in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again.
If only...
If only...
But that wouldn't happen to all of us, you see we have already won the Battle. We are stronger then the military and the police, we HAVE military and police at our side. You are just some supid americans that dont know what a real patriot is. live free or die hard.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I only wish that the world was a little bit closer to Malmo's version of reality, because then I could look forward to him being arrested and taken away in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. If only... |
But that wouldn't happen to all of us, you see we have already won the Battle. We are stronger then the military and the police, we HAVE military and police at our side. You are just some supid americans that dont know what a real patriot is. live free or die hard.
And we're supposed to look forward to a world run by him and his kin...
So much better than what we have today.
I AM RIGHT. you LIED they have only done an investigation from floor 8 to 46. thats the TRUTH, it is another thing if they are doing it now, if they are doing it NOW they havent DONE it. You guys are fuc*ing STUPID
Satanists
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jun 13 2007, 07:13 PM)
This is some seriously flawed logic...and I have to comment on it....
You begin with a rather valid assumption, that labels are not always indicative of the contents.
You fail when you interject the "columbian gangster".
You are safe in assuming that the box either contains tea, or some illegal substance(given that it was dropped from a plane and picked up by a "gangster").
Here is why it is logically flawed....
Your current thoughts on this topic are neither the "suspect"(as in drugs being in the box) or the obvious(as in tea). You are drawing a conclusion without evidence....
You believe a conspiracy occured...and you are actively seeking any conspiracy you can find. For all practical purposes, you are claiming that neither contraband or tea is in that box. You are claiming "something else" is in there, and then trying to find evidence for your "something else".
When you eliminate binary tests from your selective process, you make room for wild speculation. It really gets kinda crazy.
This is the modus operandi of all conspiracy theories. You speculate wildly, and call on assumptive conclusions. Take for example the "magic bullet theory" of JFK conspiracy fame. It makes for an interesting discussion, until you realize the alternative answer is that another bullet suddenly appeared and shot through one man but not the man behind him. Simple deductive reasoning REQUIRES the validation of one of the two options....and only one of them makes any sense.
You are doing the same thing with this new conspiracy......
You are ignoring the fact that PLANES crashed into a building....
Why would anyone crash planes into a building, only to blow it up with something else? Call me old fashioned, but since the terrorists had already tried to blow it up from the ground level...wouldn't it be perfectly acceptable(even as part of a conspiracy theory) to blow it up with only bombs?
Oh but a plane crash alone should not destroy the building?
People also shouldn't be able to hit a hole in one in golf...given ALL of the factors and precision required for such a procedure...it should be impossible. Yet it happens rather frequently.
hi, puckSR.
let's say i know the gangster because he's my friend's friend. that changes that factor from a variable into a value.
in the case of the actors on the 911 stage, nearly ALL of them were 'in on' the iran-contra scandal. now, as a character witness, i have to say that this makes the cheney gang look a little egg-faced to begin with. it was also during that trial that the "rex 84" program was outed.
i didn't start out by looking for a conspiracy. that is flawed logic. you assume you know the timeline of my cognisance. nay, i watched what happened on teevee, and i thought, like many, "wow! someone planted bombs in there!", because NOTHING but a house of cards(covered in layers of ultra fine flour) can collapse like that. those were my thoughts, right or wrong. my next thought was, 'it must be an inside job, because only "mission impossible" could pull something like that off, jim.'
i read, "the day after world war III" in the 1980's. it has been evident to me since way back then, that their is a group of powerful people putting in place a plan to undermine democracy. the excuse for creating FEMA was to retain infrastructure after a nuclear attack. the powers which have incrementally penned into law since the inception of FEMA, are highly suspect to me. handing over dictatorial powers to an unelected group is the opposite of a democracy, or a republic.
so, having grown up with that tidbit in my head, it was an obvious leap, yes leap, for me to guess that this was a coup i was witnessing on teevee, and not the terrorist attack being preached by the mainstream.
oil barons, and military industrialists ruin you country. oops, i meant 'run your country', but i'll leave 'ruin' in there, too, 'cause it's true. if you're fine with that, and see no conflict of interest, and sense no potential motive for a staged 911, then, all the power to you.
i think 'seriously flawed' is a little harsh. the whole point of my thought exercise is to show that you cannot know what's inside until you actually prove it. in the case of 911, very little is proven, and hardly anyone KNOWS what's in the box. but the writing on the outside, and the owner of the box are in plain sight.
p.s. i never mentioned contraband. that was "wild speculation" on your part, according to your own logic.
QUOTE (Malmoesoldier+Jun 13 2007, 03:10 PM)
leave free or die hard.
Always good for a laugh.
Arthur
Always good for a laugh.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Jun 13 2007, 03:20 PM)
i read, "the day after world war III" in the 1980's. it has been evident to me since way back then, that their is a group of powerful people putting in place a plan to undermine democracy. the excuse for creating FEMA was to retain infrastructure after a nuclear attack. the powers which have incrementally penned into law since the inception of FEMA, are highly suspect to me. handing over dictatorial powers to an unelected group is the opposite of a democracy, or a republic.
so, having grown up with that tidbit in my head, it was an obvious leap, yes leap, for me to guess that this was a coup i was witnessing on teevee, and not the terrorist attack being preached by the mainstream.
Yeah, but newton, you believe that they STEERED KATRINA into New Orleans.
There is apparently NOTHING too SINISTER for "them" to be up to in your mind.
the h.a.a.r.p. array is what you're thinking of.
they used it to steer katrina into new orleans.
nasty bunch of evil scientists.
h.a.a.r.p. is not the only such array. they are positioned around the earth, and are capable of working in sync.
Arthur
And yet, when you saw a helicopter hovering around the WTC towers, you assumed it was up to no good, rather than assuming it was:
1) Somebody with a helicopter hoping to rescue trapped victims from the roof
2) A "NEST" helicopter testing the smoke for radioactivity
3) a "lookie-lu" fascinated by the spectacle...
I can think of any number of perfectly innocent/reasonable explanations for a helicopter flying around the WTC towers that don't involve insidious schemes.
Why did you assume anything else?
Hmm...so you thought....given your completely untrained eye in demolition and building collapse....
"wow! someone planted bombs in there!"
That seems like you began with an assumption, and a rather weak one at that
Hmm...so you thought....given your completely untrained eye in demolition and building collapse....
"wow! someone planted bombs in there!"
That seems like you began with an assumption, and a rather weak one at that
p.s. i never mentioned contraband. that was "wild speculation" on your part, according to your own logic.
No, but you mentioned two things....
1. That a "gangster" picked it up(someone who deals in contraband)
2. That it was dropped from a plane(a frequent method of delivering contraband i.e. drugs)
It is not "wild speculation" to assume that it might be illegal, if it was delivered by an indirect route to someone who deals in illegal goods.
It is wild speculation to assume that "wow! someone planted bombs in there!" when you have no specific training or expertise in building collapse. Obviously before the building collapsed people with training in this area(fireman, emergency workers) were worried about collapse. Then the building collapsed. Your basing your entire "conspiracy theory" on the idea that it collapsed too quickly.
This would be similar to me concluding that the "gangster" picked up a box of black market organs because the box was somewhat water damaged.
There is such a thing as rational speculation, but your speculation is irrational. Your jumping to conclusions based on little evidence and your emotionally charged opinion. That is NOT rational. That is wildly speculative
And yet, when you saw a helicopter hovering around the WTC towers, you assumed it was up to no good, rather than assuming it was:
1) Somebody with a helicopter hoping to rescue trapped victims from the roof
2) A "NEST" helicopter testing the smoke for radioactivity
3) a "lookie-lu" fascinated by the spectacle...
I can think of any number of perfectly innocent/reasonable explanations for a helicopter flying around the WTC towers that don't involve insidious schemes.
Why did you assume anything else?
the police were told not to rescue anyone from the roof.
looky lu? that's quite a stretch.
there were several helicopters flying around. it is the suspicious behaviour of one that is interesting.
and to arthurs:
thank you arthurs, for spreading the h.a.a.r.p. caused katrina meme. maybe you could add the "FEMA hindered aid" meme to it, next time.
1. Modeling would be highly inaccurate, since it was a complex action. They might be able to model fire damage, and other variables....but nothing as complex as the real-world scenario
2. If they did release a computer model showing collapse, you would attack it as propaganda anyways....so what would be the point?
Haha. Their "evidence" is based on the computer model. So you are saying it is inaccurate? i agree!. The real models they did, WITH plane damage and so on, did NOT collapse, so then they did the computer model and adjusted things.
One more thing why did NIST lie about the "aluminum" that was coming out from the tower?, Steven jones did experiments with a guy from NIST and they found that the aluminum cant glow orange together with glass/wood/computers and everything NIST said would make it glow.
I didn't say that it was a police helicopter, I was repeating what I'd written in the prior post, suggesting that it was an executive of some sort who had access to a private helicopter wanted to be a hero by rescuing people from the roof, but conditions precluded it (or maybe nobody made it to the roof).
I also suggested a "NEST" helicopter taking radiological measurements, something you didn't respond to, since it would be very sensible for NEST to want to know if the hijacked aircraft were carrying nuclear materials with the intent of turning the WTC fires into a "dirty bomb" which would've required the evacuation of ALL MANHATTAN. You'd want to know whether that smoke was radioactive, wouldn't you, I mean, before ordering the evacuation of how many million people in the area. It makes perfect sense that NEST would do a radiological sweep and perhaps even collect a sample of the smoke, right? Would you announce publicly that that was a concern? Even if you found that it wasn't a dirty bomb, you wouldn't want to bring that subject up in public, as people tend to get panicky about radiation and don't listen very closely (nor trust authorities to tell them the truth, I think you can appreciate *that* at least). You announce that there is no radiation in the smoke, and half the people will assume you're lying and panic and riots break out. Best not to mention it at all unless there's some good reason, and a non-threat isn't a good reason.
The "Lookie-lu" scenario is far from a stretch, anytime there's an accident on the freeway out here there's a traffic jam caused by people slowing down as they pass the accident to take a good look at the carnage. If someone's in a helicopter on his way to a meeting and he sees both WTC towers burning and people jumping out of windows to their deaths, there's more than a 50% chance that he's going to have his pilot hang around so he can watch it happen in real time. Or would you assume that he'd rather make it to his meeting on-time and just skip watching the biggest disaster of his lifetime?
Well, there are quite a few of them at Purdue:
http://img.youtube.com/vi/cddIgb1nGJ8/2.jpg
"The crashes and computer models you often see on television are not scientifically accurate," said Assistant Professor Voicu Popescu, who developed an application that automatically translates simulation data into a 3-D animation scene. "This provides an alternative that is useful to the non-expert but is also scientifically accurate, so it provides a more realistic picture of the event."
OK, some quick math.
The concrete "slab" floor was 4" thick and covered a square area 208'x208'.
If you assume that the floor was the size of a saltine cracker, that would make the cracker the thickness of a sheet of paper.
Or, if you keep the saltine cracker thickness the same, then the cracker would be *eight feet* square.
So, that's why I put the word "slab" in quotes. Proportionally, a potato chip would be several times thicker.
And, that's *lightweight* concrete, which isn't as strong as the concrete used in sidewalks.
Still having trouble understanding why the lower floors didn't stop the upper floors from coming all the way down?
Because he's smart and he knows what he's talking about.
And why are you having trouble believing it?
Because you aren't and you don't.
so, having grown up with that tidbit in my head, it was an obvious leap, yes leap, for me to guess that this was a coup i was witnessing on teevee, and not the terrorist attack being preached by the mainstream.
Yeah, but newton, you believe that they STEERED KATRINA into New Orleans.
There is apparently NOTHING too SINISTER for "them" to be up to in your mind.
QUOTE (newton @ Jan 28 2006+ 03:23 PM)
the h.a.a.r.p. array is what you're thinking of.
they used it to steer katrina into new orleans.
nasty bunch of evil scientists.
h.a.a.r.p. is not the only such array. they are positioned around the earth, and are capable of working in sync.
Arthur
QUOTE
i didn't start out by looking for a conspiracy.
And yet, when you saw a helicopter hovering around the WTC towers, you assumed it was up to no good, rather than assuming it was:
1) Somebody with a helicopter hoping to rescue trapped victims from the roof
2) A "NEST" helicopter testing the smoke for radioactivity
3) a "lookie-lu" fascinated by the spectacle...
I can think of any number of perfectly innocent/reasonable explanations for a helicopter flying around the WTC towers that don't involve insidious schemes.
Why did you assume anything else?
QUOTE
i didn't start out by looking for a conspiracy. that is flawed logic. you assume you know the timeline of my cognisance. nay, i watched what happened on teevee, and i thought, like many, "wow! someone planted bombs in there!", because NOTHING but a house of cards(covered in layers of ultra fine flour) can collapse like that. those were my thoughts, right or wrong. my next thought was, 'it must be an inside job, because only "mission impossible" could pull something like that off, jim.'
Hmm...so you thought....given your completely untrained eye in demolition and building collapse....
"wow! someone planted bombs in there!"
That seems like you began with an assumption, and a rather weak one at that
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| i didn't start out by looking for a conspiracy. that is flawed logic. you assume you know the timeline of my cognisance. nay, i watched what happened on teevee, and i thought, like many, "wow! someone planted bombs in there!", because NOTHING but a house of cards(covered in layers of ultra fine flour) can collapse like that. those were my thoughts, right or wrong. my next thought was, 'it must be an inside job, because only "mission impossible" could pull something like that off, jim.' |
Hmm...so you thought....given your completely untrained eye in demolition and building collapse....
"wow! someone planted bombs in there!"
That seems like you began with an assumption, and a rather weak one at that
p.s. i never mentioned contraband. that was "wild speculation" on your part, according to your own logic.
No, but you mentioned two things....
1. That a "gangster" picked it up(someone who deals in contraband)
2. That it was dropped from a plane(a frequent method of delivering contraband i.e. drugs)
It is not "wild speculation" to assume that it might be illegal, if it was delivered by an indirect route to someone who deals in illegal goods.
It is wild speculation to assume that "wow! someone planted bombs in there!" when you have no specific training or expertise in building collapse. Obviously before the building collapsed people with training in this area(fireman, emergency workers) were worried about collapse. Then the building collapsed. Your basing your entire "conspiracy theory" on the idea that it collapsed too quickly.
This would be similar to me concluding that the "gangster" picked up a box of black market organs because the box was somewhat water damaged.
There is such a thing as rational speculation, but your speculation is irrational. Your jumping to conclusions based on little evidence and your emotionally charged opinion. That is NOT rational. That is wildly speculative
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 13 2007, 08:28 PM)
And yet, when you saw a helicopter hovering around the WTC towers, you assumed it was up to no good, rather than assuming it was:
1) Somebody with a helicopter hoping to rescue trapped victims from the roof
2) A "NEST" helicopter testing the smoke for radioactivity
3) a "lookie-lu" fascinated by the spectacle...
I can think of any number of perfectly innocent/reasonable explanations for a helicopter flying around the WTC towers that don't involve insidious schemes.
Why did you assume anything else?
the police were told not to rescue anyone from the roof.
looky lu? that's quite a stretch.
there were several helicopters flying around. it is the suspicious behaviour of one that is interesting.
and to arthurs:
thank you arthurs, for spreading the h.a.a.r.p. caused katrina meme. maybe you could add the "FEMA hindered aid" meme to it, next time.
I wonder why the floor and trusses models NIST did didnt fail, and why the trusses didnt fail in the wtc fire 75. And why trusses havnt failed in other tests in 900C. And why they havent released the computer model that shows the collapse, why is it secret?.
QUOTE
I wonder why the floor and trusses models NIST did didnt fail, and why the trusses didnt fail in the wtc fire 75. And why trusses havnt failed in other tests in 900C. And why they havent released the computer model that shows the collapse, why is it secret?.
1. Modeling would be highly inaccurate, since it was a complex action. They might be able to model fire damage, and other variables....but nothing as complex as the real-world scenario
2. If they did release a computer model showing collapse, you would attack it as propaganda anyways....so what would be the point?
QUOTE
Modeling would be highly inaccurate
Haha. Their "evidence" is based on the computer model. So you are saying it is inaccurate? i agree!. The real models they did, WITH plane damage and so on, did NOT collapse, so then they did the computer model and adjusted things.
One more thing why did NIST lie about the "aluminum" that was coming out from the tower?, Steven jones did experiments with a guy from NIST and they found that the aluminum cant glow orange together with glass/wood/computers and everything NIST said would make it glow.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 13 2007, 05:04 PM)
Einsteen:
"Let's assume we have that function and we set up coupled differential equations and give the mass on top a motion, or even better use the method from reasonwhy, what would then happen ? Of course we don't say this method is used for the collapse initiation. How would this initial stage develop ?"
I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you set up Bazant's differential equations the system will behave as Bazant's equations predict.... or am I missing the point!
Dear dr. Greening,
Yes I'm maybe unclear, I mean if you look at your earlier paper then you use the famous E1 discussed a lot of times here. Your new paper with Bazant etc is in fact a homogenization of it this means that not E1 is lost over a distance h but say dE per dz. What I mean is if you use the discrete model with a continuous F(u) function between two stories does that not mean that the combined stories in fact have the combined F(u) function, I mean
if you have F(u), with u in the interval [0,h]
and you place two stories on top of each other then the combined
function is F(u/2) on the interval [0,2h]
I understand this is crappy math (sorry its late here 0:30 am) but I will work it out very precisely later (with some LaTeX gifs), what I mean the behavior of the combined model is in fact a coupled system. It is of course related with the same old question of the plastic waves.
"Let's assume we have that function and we set up coupled differential equations and give the mass on top a motion, or even better use the method from reasonwhy, what would then happen ? Of course we don't say this method is used for the collapse initiation. How would this initial stage develop ?"
I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you set up Bazant's differential equations the system will behave as Bazant's equations predict.... or am I missing the point!
Dear dr. Greening,
Yes I'm maybe unclear, I mean if you look at your earlier paper then you use the famous E1 discussed a lot of times here. Your new paper with Bazant etc is in fact a homogenization of it this means that not E1 is lost over a distance h but say dE per dz. What I mean is if you use the discrete model with a continuous F(u) function between two stories does that not mean that the combined stories in fact have the combined F(u) function, I mean
if you have F(u), with u in the interval [0,h]
and you place two stories on top of each other then the combined
function is F(u/2) on the interval [0,2h]
I understand this is crappy math (sorry its late here 0:30 am) but I will work it out very precisely later (with some LaTeX gifs), what I mean the behavior of the combined model is in fact a coupled system. It is of course related with the same old question of the plastic waves.
USGS found barium!!! 
i didnt know.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html
"With the exception of one sample that is high in barium (WTC01-16)"
Molten iron and barium. hmmm. what can it be.
i didnt know. http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html
"With the exception of one sample that is high in barium (WTC01-16)"
Molten iron and barium. hmmm. what can it be.
Malmoesoldier:
The USGS also found:
silicon, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, iron, aluminum, sodium, potassium, titanium, manganese and strontium at higher concentrations than barium.....
and
comparable concentrations of zinc, lead, copper, cerium, chromium, vanadium....
So what is your point?
The USGS also found:
silicon, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, iron, aluminum, sodium, potassium, titanium, manganese and strontium at higher concentrations than barium.....
and
comparable concentrations of zinc, lead, copper, cerium, chromium, vanadium....
So what is your point?
***!
...
Tower was doomed
Sozen said the simulation shows that once the fireproofing insulation was torn from the structure there was no chance the building could have remained standing.
"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen said. "Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact — an unlikely event — the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel."
www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/06/13/tech-911simulation-20070613.html
Eh... are people going totally mad now at days! What have happened to the "Scientists" ? Where is Einstein ? Where is Galileo ?
...
Tower was doomed
Sozen said the simulation shows that once the fireproofing insulation was torn from the structure there was no chance the building could have remained standing.
"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen said. "Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact — an unlikely event — the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel."
www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/06/13/tech-911simulation-20070613.html
Eh... are people going totally mad now at days! What have happened to the "Scientists" ? Where is Einstein ? Where is Galileo ?
Why do some people always do this?
A traumatic event occurs, and suddenly we have to assume some conspiracy...
JFK, Princess Di, 9/11, etc....seems a little self-centered....
No American conspiracy nuts for Hiroshima, Chernobyl, etc. Apparently you only have conspiracies when they affect you.
A traumatic event occurs, and suddenly we have to assume some conspiracy...
JFK, Princess Di, 9/11, etc....seems a little self-centered....
No American conspiracy nuts for Hiroshima, Chernobyl, etc. Apparently you only have conspiracies when they affect you.
QUOTE
the police were told not to rescue anyone from the roof.
looky lu? that's quite a stretch.
looky lu? that's quite a stretch.
I didn't say that it was a police helicopter, I was repeating what I'd written in the prior post, suggesting that it was an executive of some sort who had access to a private helicopter wanted to be a hero by rescuing people from the roof, but conditions precluded it (or maybe nobody made it to the roof).
I also suggested a "NEST" helicopter taking radiological measurements, something you didn't respond to, since it would be very sensible for NEST to want to know if the hijacked aircraft were carrying nuclear materials with the intent of turning the WTC fires into a "dirty bomb" which would've required the evacuation of ALL MANHATTAN. You'd want to know whether that smoke was radioactive, wouldn't you, I mean, before ordering the evacuation of how many million people in the area. It makes perfect sense that NEST would do a radiological sweep and perhaps even collect a sample of the smoke, right? Would you announce publicly that that was a concern? Even if you found that it wasn't a dirty bomb, you wouldn't want to bring that subject up in public, as people tend to get panicky about radiation and don't listen very closely (nor trust authorities to tell them the truth, I think you can appreciate *that* at least). You announce that there is no radiation in the smoke, and half the people will assume you're lying and panic and riots break out. Best not to mention it at all unless there's some good reason, and a non-threat isn't a good reason.
The "Lookie-lu" scenario is far from a stretch, anytime there's an accident on the freeway out here there's a traffic jam caused by people slowing down as they pass the accident to take a good look at the carnage. If someone's in a helicopter on his way to a meeting and he sees both WTC towers burning and people jumping out of windows to their deaths, there's more than a 50% chance that he's going to have his pilot hang around so he can watch it happen in real time. Or would you assume that he'd rather make it to his meeting on-time and just skip watching the biggest disaster of his lifetime?
QUOTE
What have happened to the "Scientists" ? Where is Einstein ? Where is Galileo ?
Well, there are quite a few of them at Purdue:
http://img.youtube.com/vi/cddIgb1nGJ8/2.jpg
"The crashes and computer models you often see on television are not scientifically accurate," said Assistant Professor Voicu Popescu, who developed an application that automatically translates simulation data into a 3-D animation scene. "This provides an alternative that is useful to the non-expert but is also scientifically accurate, so it provides a more realistic picture of the event."
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 14 2007, 12:39 AM)
Well, there are quite a few of them at Purdue:
This one is from Purdue: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
Video is to the left.
This one is from Purdue: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
Video is to the left.
re: Purdue study
It's ashame the Purdue boys followed the NIST path, ie. just modeled the plane impact damage not the collapse itself. Actually, they seem to have gone one step less far as they didn't even model "collapse initiation". Fireproofing removed, tower is doomed - no need to get into the pesky details of a progressive collapse in the undamaged lower portion of the tower...
QUOTE
Tower was doomed
Sozen said the simulation shows that once the fireproofing insulation was torn from the structure there was no chance the building could have remained standing.
"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen said. "Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact — an unlikely event — the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel."
Sozen said the simulation shows that once the fireproofing insulation was torn from the structure there was no chance the building could have remained standing.
"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen said. "Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact — an unlikely event — the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel."
It's ashame the Purdue boys followed the NIST path, ie. just modeled the plane impact damage not the collapse itself. Actually, they seem to have gone one step less far as they didn't even model "collapse initiation". Fireproofing removed, tower is doomed - no need to get into the pesky details of a progressive collapse in the undamaged lower portion of the tower...
QUOTE
no need to get into the pesky details of a progressive collapse in the undamaged lower portion of the tower...
OK, some quick math.
The concrete "slab" floor was 4" thick and covered a square area 208'x208'.
If you assume that the floor was the size of a saltine cracker, that would make the cracker the thickness of a sheet of paper.
Or, if you keep the saltine cracker thickness the same, then the cracker would be *eight feet* square.
So, that's why I put the word "slab" in quotes. Proportionally, a potato chip would be several times thicker.
And, that's *lightweight* concrete, which isn't as strong as the concrete used in sidewalks.
Still having trouble understanding why the lower floors didn't stop the upper floors from coming all the way down?
lozenge124
The strength of the lower portion was not great enough to stop the collapse. Once the top blocks tilted and started falling they had 10 times the energy required to take out the floors, once the floors are gone the frames fell, one way or another, they could do nothing else.
Grumpy
QUOTE
no need to get into the pesky details of a progressive collapse in the undamaged lower portion of the tower...
The strength of the lower portion was not great enough to stop the collapse. Once the top blocks tilted and started falling they had 10 times the energy required to take out the floors, once the floors are gone the frames fell, one way or another, they could do nothing else.
Grumpy
Imo this latest income from so called ""Scientists" is very suspicious. What a strange words to say:
"Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact — an unlikely event — the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel."
Why is he saying so weird things ? What is now going on ? "Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact"..."Heat from ordinary office fire would destroy the building" !!! What next ? The Earth is flat ??
I think something happen when they were trying to simulate a plane crash. Maybe this: It was impossible to make a huge damage from a plane crash!
(But ofcource they can not say it...obviously)
"Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact — an unlikely event — the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns. The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel."
Why is he saying so weird things ? What is now going on ? "Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact"..."Heat from ordinary office fire would destroy the building" !!! What next ? The Earth is flat ??
I think something happen when they were trying to simulate a plane crash. Maybe this: It was impossible to make a huge damage from a plane crash!
(But ofcource they can not say it...obviously)
QUOTE
Why is he saying so weird things ?
Because he's smart and he knows what he's talking about.
And why are you having trouble believing it?
Because you aren't and you don't.
Hey! All you expert! I can not belive that you are going to swallow this: "The depiction also shows the way in which the fuel became a fiery flash flood, knocking out structural support columns and stripping away fireproof insulation."
Jet fuel!!! Eh... jet fuel nocked out the massive inner column!!!
The official theory is now basically that the fuel made first all the damage, column, fireproofing etc... and then a office fire destroyed the building.
Jet fuel!!! Eh... jet fuel nocked out the massive inner column!!!
The official theory is now basically that the fuel made first all the damage, column, fireproofing etc... and then a office fire destroyed the building.
Daru
It is not only possible, it is unavoidable. If a 125 ton tanker truck(a double or triple) full of kerosene had somehow been picked up by a supertornado and flung at those buildings at ~500 mph the results would have been the same.
I'll explain so you and your peers can understand...
Planes hit buildings, buildings fall down, go boom!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
It was impossible to make a huge damage from a plane crash!
It is not only possible, it is unavoidable. If a 125 ton tanker truck(a double or triple) full of kerosene had somehow been picked up by a supertornado and flung at those buildings at ~500 mph the results would have been the same.
I'll explain so you and your peers can understand...
Planes hit buildings, buildings fall down, go boom!!!
Grumpy
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.