wcelliot --- AFAIK one engine passed through WTC 2 and ended up in the street far below. The other three engines remained in the towers, although possibly not intact...
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 17 2007, 07:39 PM)
Well DBB (I hope OCT believer never get to make the decision), I guess it depends on who defines lunatic (communist considered anyone crazy who did not believe in the system).
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/...chologists.html
As I've already commented elsewhere:
Most of these mental health professionals or academics are either full members or associate members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. To say that most of them think that folks who do not share their beliefs need to have their heads examined is a stretch. To say that thousands more think like them is pure speculation.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/...chologists.html
As I've already commented elsewhere:
Most of these mental health professionals or academics are either full members or associate members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. To say that most of them think that folks who do not share their beliefs need to have their heads examined is a stretch. To say that thousands more think like them is pure speculation.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 17 2007, 08:00 PM)
wcelliot --- AFAIK one engine passed through WTC 2 and ended up in the street far below. The other three engines remained in the towers, although possibly not intact...
interestingly, the 'scientifically accurate' purdue animation(of the first strike) shows the engines coming out the other side of the building, along with a signifigant pile of other plane parts, like the landing gear and shredded fuselage/wing material, and shows a huge hole that goes clean through the building.
interestingly, the 'scientifically accurate' purdue animation(of the first strike) shows the engines coming out the other side of the building, along with a signifigant pile of other plane parts, like the landing gear and shredded fuselage/wing material, and shows a huge hole that goes clean through the building.
Let's be real about this. The people who are accusing the government of being behind 9/11 aren't driven by any desire to find the Truth, they are anti-war ideologues who figure that the more dissent they can stir up in America, the quicker we'll pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
TOWARDS THAT END, you will find LOTS of people who figure it's worth SPREADING LIES to INFLUENCE POLICIES. They figure that by lying, they are saving lives, and that therefore, telling lies helps save lives.
This is an easy trap to fall into, philosophically, as most people, if they figured it'd save someone's life, would lie.
The problem with this is that you don't want to make policy decisions in a democracy based on lies. Policies need to be based in truth in order for them to work.
Shortening the war by lying about the situation to mislead the ignorant (which is a big enough fraction of the voting population that it can't be ignored completely) only makes for more bad policy in an area where good policies are absolutely necessary to prevent further 9/11-type attacks.
I'm sure that every one of those shrinks assumes that there's no correlation between our current military actions and future terrorist attacks, shrinks don't think like that. (I've known lots of psych-majors, none of them were capable of thinking in realistic terms about how the world works, they were all Utopian ideologues.) Also, none of the psych-majors I knew in school had the first clue how anything mechanical worked, so they wouldn't understand a structural collapse if they were inside it when it happened.
These otherwise nice people decided that by throwing their credentials behind a "little white lie", they may have disproportionate influence over the weak-minded fools out there and get more leverage on the government to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that would save the lives of the troops fighting over there, and also save the lives of the terrorist-wannabes they're killing.
None of them have given the matter of what happens next any significant thought, I can assure you.
I'm certain that they couldn't care less if Iraq got taken back over by the same bloodthirsty b@st@rds who ran Saddam Hussein's Secret Police, who kidnapped and tortured and killed anyone who was accused of disloyalty to Hussein, along with their families. Those people are still around, and they're the ones making the road-side bombs that are attacking our troops and car-bombs that are killing Iraqi civilians and assassinating anyone who volunteers to work for the new government. We pull our troops out too early and we're just handing the people who believed in our commitments over to the same gang of goons who ran Iraq under Hussein. There'll be carnage at a level that will appall all those nice shrinks, but they won't accept any of the responsibility for what happens as a foreseeable consequence of their actions because their brains don't work like that, they can't foresee those consequences, because they're nice people who believe in Utopian ideals. Revenge would be unthinkable for them (the shrinks) so they don't foresee the terrorists taking revenge against the Iraqis trying to make a go of their new government.
TOWARDS THAT END, you will find LOTS of people who figure it's worth SPREADING LIES to INFLUENCE POLICIES. They figure that by lying, they are saving lives, and that therefore, telling lies helps save lives.
This is an easy trap to fall into, philosophically, as most people, if they figured it'd save someone's life, would lie.
The problem with this is that you don't want to make policy decisions in a democracy based on lies. Policies need to be based in truth in order for them to work.
Shortening the war by lying about the situation to mislead the ignorant (which is a big enough fraction of the voting population that it can't be ignored completely) only makes for more bad policy in an area where good policies are absolutely necessary to prevent further 9/11-type attacks.
I'm sure that every one of those shrinks assumes that there's no correlation between our current military actions and future terrorist attacks, shrinks don't think like that. (I've known lots of psych-majors, none of them were capable of thinking in realistic terms about how the world works, they were all Utopian ideologues.) Also, none of the psych-majors I knew in school had the first clue how anything mechanical worked, so they wouldn't understand a structural collapse if they were inside it when it happened.
These otherwise nice people decided that by throwing their credentials behind a "little white lie", they may have disproportionate influence over the weak-minded fools out there and get more leverage on the government to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that would save the lives of the troops fighting over there, and also save the lives of the terrorist-wannabes they're killing.
None of them have given the matter of what happens next any significant thought, I can assure you.
I'm certain that they couldn't care less if Iraq got taken back over by the same bloodthirsty b@st@rds who ran Saddam Hussein's Secret Police, who kidnapped and tortured and killed anyone who was accused of disloyalty to Hussein, along with their families. Those people are still around, and they're the ones making the road-side bombs that are attacking our troops and car-bombs that are killing Iraqi civilians and assassinating anyone who volunteers to work for the new government. We pull our troops out too early and we're just handing the people who believed in our commitments over to the same gang of goons who ran Iraq under Hussein. There'll be carnage at a level that will appall all those nice shrinks, but they won't accept any of the responsibility for what happens as a foreseeable consequence of their actions because their brains don't work like that, they can't foresee those consequences, because they're nice people who believe in Utopian ideals. Revenge would be unthinkable for them (the shrinks) so they don't foresee the terrorists taking revenge against the Iraqis trying to make a go of their new government.
When NIST say "neither the BATF or the FBI found any evidence of explosives", I wonder what this really means.
The proper way to look for "evidence of explosive" is through chemical detection. This would involve collecting representative samples of WTC material and testing for the presence of a wide variety of explosive residues.
I would say that, at the very least, this would include testing for carbon-based explosives: RDX (C-4), PETN, TNT, TATP and HMX; as well as non-carbon based explosives: AN and AP. Each sample would have to be extracted in a suitable solvent and subjected to the appropriate chromatographic analysis:
Gas chromatography for TNT, RDX, PETN, and TATP
Liquid chromatography for HMX and C-4
Ion chromatography for AN and AP
In addition, pyrotechnic reaction residue analysis by SEM/EDS would be necessary to rule out flash powder, flares, thermite, etc.
Faced with the shear size and complexity of the WTC rubble pile, I would like to know how the FBI and/or the BATF carried out these tests:
Were samples collected BEFORE any debris was removed as part of the clean up operations?
Were samples collected BEFORE water was sprayed onto the rubble pile?
How many samples were collected for analysis and on what basis were the samples selected?
The proper way to look for "evidence of explosive" is through chemical detection. This would involve collecting representative samples of WTC material and testing for the presence of a wide variety of explosive residues.
I would say that, at the very least, this would include testing for carbon-based explosives: RDX (C-4), PETN, TNT, TATP and HMX; as well as non-carbon based explosives: AN and AP. Each sample would have to be extracted in a suitable solvent and subjected to the appropriate chromatographic analysis:
Gas chromatography for TNT, RDX, PETN, and TATP
Liquid chromatography for HMX and C-4
Ion chromatography for AN and AP
In addition, pyrotechnic reaction residue analysis by SEM/EDS would be necessary to rule out flash powder, flares, thermite, etc.
Faced with the shear size and complexity of the WTC rubble pile, I would like to know how the FBI and/or the BATF carried out these tests:
Were samples collected BEFORE any debris was removed as part of the clean up operations?
Were samples collected BEFORE water was sprayed onto the rubble pile?
How many samples were collected for analysis and on what basis were the samples selected?
QUOTE
interestingly, the 'scientifically accurate' purdue animation(of the first strike) shows the engines coming out the other side of the building, along with a significant pile of other plane parts, like the landing gear and shredded fuselage/wing material, and shows a huge hole that goes clean through the building.
That doesn't make it inaccurate, that just shows the problem with modeling a chaotic process - small differences in initial conditions can make large differences in the outcomes. If they ran that model again, moving the aircraft's point-of-impact over one inch, they might've ended up with none of the engines coming out through the other side.
Remember, too, the Purdue model didn't have anything like desks in the model. A desk wouldn't have stopped an engine, but it might've made it bounce higher and into the trusses holding up the ceiling and gotten snagged in them, weakening the support for the floor above and keeping the engines from coming out the other side of the building.
Look closely at the results of the model and you'll see that the titanium wing spars come straight through the building with their velocity-vectors along their long axes (almost exactly). If their angles were closer to broadside, they'd have done a lot more damage.
It was what it was - one run of a model of a chaotic process. To get a better idea of the sorts of things that would've happened, they would have to change their initial conditions slightly, within the envelope of uncertainties, and re-ran it dozens of times, then showed the things that happened most consistently and showed the range of extreme occurrences found. "In 49 of the 50 runs, 25% of the core supports were damaged, in ten of those runs, 50% of the core supports were damaged...". Monte Carlo simulations are usually indicated when modeling complex or chaotic processes. That was one run. I'd love to see >200 runs done.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| interestingly, the 'scientifically accurate' purdue animation(of the first strike) shows the engines coming out the other side of the building, along with a significant pile of other plane parts, like the landing gear and shredded fuselage/wing material, and shows a huge hole that goes clean through the building. |
That doesn't make it inaccurate, that just shows the problem with modeling a chaotic process - small differences in initial conditions can make large differences in the outcomes. If they ran that model again, moving the aircraft's point-of-impact over one inch, they might've ended up with none of the engines coming out through the other side.
Remember, too, the Purdue model didn't have anything like desks in the model. A desk wouldn't have stopped an engine, but it might've made it bounce higher and into the trusses holding up the ceiling and gotten snagged in them, weakening the support for the floor above and keeping the engines from coming out the other side of the building.
Look closely at the results of the model and you'll see that the titanium wing spars come straight through the building with their velocity-vectors along their long axes (almost exactly). If their angles were closer to broadside, they'd have done a lot more damage.
It was what it was - one run of a model of a chaotic process. To get a better idea of the sorts of things that would've happened, they would have to change their initial conditions slightly, within the envelope of uncertainties, and re-ran it dozens of times, then showed the things that happened most consistently and showed the range of extreme occurrences found. "In 49 of the 50 runs, 25% of the core supports were damaged, in ten of those runs, 50% of the core supports were damaged...". Monte Carlo simulations are usually indicated when modeling complex or chaotic processes. That was one run. I'd love to see >200 runs done.
The proper way to look for "evidence of explosive" is through chemical detection.
Or with bomb-sniffing dogs. They had over 300 S&R dogs volunteered to the rescue effort by ordinary civilians and private security firms, including a lot of dogs from Canada. Some of them were trained for bomb-sniffing. Their noses are good enough to detect hidden explosives, and according to the CDiots' theory, tons of the stuff had gone off (and so was no longer hidden). They're trained to detect explosive residues, too. Dogs are smart enough to do both.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 17 2007, 08:38 PM)
interestingly, the 'scientifically accurate' purdue[sic] animation(of the first strike) shows the engines coming out the other side of the building, along with a signifigant[sic] pile of other plane parts, like the landing gear and shredded fuselage/wing material, and shows a huge hole that goes clean through the building.
In the case of WTC 2 the landing gear, at least, were indeed expelled. Interestingly, one forward and the other backward.
The Purdue study did not include office contents and so would have somewhat different results than the NIST study.
In the case of WTC 2 the landing gear, at least, were indeed expelled. Interestingly, one forward and the other backward.
The Purdue study did not include office contents and so would have somewhat different results than the NIST study.
The WTC falling was just good luck for the bad guys. Originally the terrorists tried to take down the WTC by placing a truck bomb in the basement. But the steel and concrete there is the strongest because it has to support all the weight above. It was also easier for fire fighters to put out the fires. Their second try involved hitting the buildings higher, where weaker materials are used, since the bearing load is lighter.
The buildings were designed for a static load and not a dynamic load. For example, take 2-3 empty wax paper 1/2 pint milk cartons and gently place your weight in them. They might support you. Next, bounce your weight to create a dynamic impulse load. The extra stress might cause all of them to collapse.
If one took a equal sided triangle. It is very strong, with the load and stress designed to be all over. If we expand one of the sides with heating, the stress load increases and shifts. The apex between the two stable sides is going to see a new stress to increase its angle and the two stable sides will see a stress to stretch. If these don't want to move, the longer side will get the stress back and begin to buckle. This new buckled geometry can not take the triangle side design load, returning all the stresses back to the two stable sides and their apex. Now they are overloaded.
The heat from the burning not only weakened the upper building support materials but it also added expansion affects. This non-designed geometry added new stresses to stable areas, which were trying to resist, sending the stresses back to the weakened materials. When they started to buckle this shifted the stresses back to the stable areas. Once a dynamic load began, the rest of the building could not take the impulse load.
I believe the WTC was one of those tragic things. I don't think Bush or the govenment planned or wanted the WTC to happen. But the WTC did create an opportuniity to deal with some old business.
The buildings were designed for a static load and not a dynamic load. For example, take 2-3 empty wax paper 1/2 pint milk cartons and gently place your weight in them. They might support you. Next, bounce your weight to create a dynamic impulse load. The extra stress might cause all of them to collapse.
If one took a equal sided triangle. It is very strong, with the load and stress designed to be all over. If we expand one of the sides with heating, the stress load increases and shifts. The apex between the two stable sides is going to see a new stress to increase its angle and the two stable sides will see a stress to stretch. If these don't want to move, the longer side will get the stress back and begin to buckle. This new buckled geometry can not take the triangle side design load, returning all the stresses back to the two stable sides and their apex. Now they are overloaded.
The heat from the burning not only weakened the upper building support materials but it also added expansion affects. This non-designed geometry added new stresses to stable areas, which were trying to resist, sending the stresses back to the weakened materials. When they started to buckle this shifted the stresses back to the stable areas. Once a dynamic load began, the rest of the building could not take the impulse load.
I believe the WTC was one of those tragic things. I don't think Bush or the govenment planned or wanted the WTC to happen. But the WTC did create an opportuniity to deal with some old business.
NEU-FONZE
I have not read any reports from BATF or the FBI, but several statements to the effect that since the 93 explosion the first thought of both agencies was to look for evidence of explosives. They quickly determined there was no clue indicating explosives so the explosives sniffing dogs were replaced with cadaver dogs looking for remains. NIST came along months later and, assuming the BATF and the FBI were competent at their work, investigated the evidence they DID have, not to waste time in speculation about things for which no evidence was found.
Again, to the limits of the abilities of the respective agencies(made up of loyal and non-corrupt employees) no valid evidence of the use of explosives or thermite was found at any time during the cleanup. These people were experts in their fields, had no reason to lie and would not cover up for any "Grand Conspiracy" or corrupt administration.
Grumpy
I have not read any reports from BATF or the FBI, but several statements to the effect that since the 93 explosion the first thought of both agencies was to look for evidence of explosives. They quickly determined there was no clue indicating explosives so the explosives sniffing dogs were replaced with cadaver dogs looking for remains. NIST came along months later and, assuming the BATF and the FBI were competent at their work, investigated the evidence they DID have, not to waste time in speculation about things for which no evidence was found.
Again, to the limits of the abilities of the respective agencies(made up of loyal and non-corrupt employees) no valid evidence of the use of explosives or thermite was found at any time during the cleanup. These people were experts in their fields, had no reason to lie and would not cover up for any "Grand Conspiracy" or corrupt administration.
Grumpy
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 17 2007, 09:44 PM)
In the case of WTC 2 the landing gear, at least, were indeed expelled. Interestingly, one forward and the other backward.
That would indicate that Marwan Yousef al-Shehhi, who was the youngest of the four pilots, changed his mind and slammed the breaks to attempt a last second U-turn.
That would indicate that Marwan Yousef al-Shehhi, who was the youngest of the four pilots, changed his mind and slammed the breaks to attempt a last second U-turn.
Grumpy:
Explosive sniffing dogs cannot detect AN or AP or pyrotechnic residues.
Please remember that immediately after the towers collapsed, the rubble pile was emitting HCl from the combustion of PVC..... SO2 from diesel fuel/lead acid batteries/gypsum pyrolysis, NOx from high temperature hydrocarbon flames.... fluorine compounds from refrigerants... PCBs and dioxins from transformers...
No wonder many of the "sniffer" dogs have died.
Just like some of the first responders.
In any case, I am asking about laboratory tests for explosive residues, you know the REAL forensic evidence.
And, by the way, how do you know that the alleged hijackers didn't carry TATP bombs or smuggle "luggage bombs" onto the planes?
Don't you think the FBI should be looking into that kind of thing?
Explosive sniffing dogs cannot detect AN or AP or pyrotechnic residues.
Please remember that immediately after the towers collapsed, the rubble pile was emitting HCl from the combustion of PVC..... SO2 from diesel fuel/lead acid batteries/gypsum pyrolysis, NOx from high temperature hydrocarbon flames.... fluorine compounds from refrigerants... PCBs and dioxins from transformers...
No wonder many of the "sniffer" dogs have died.
Just like some of the first responders.
In any case, I am asking about laboratory tests for explosive residues, you know the REAL forensic evidence.
And, by the way, how do you know that the alleged hijackers didn't carry TATP bombs or smuggle "luggage bombs" onto the planes?
Don't you think the FBI should be looking into that kind of thing?
QUOTE
And, by the way, how do you know that the alleged hijackers didn't carry TATP bombs or smuggle "luggage bombs" onto the planes?
For what purpose? It wasn't like they were going to hop off the plane and plant the bombs before they crashed.
How much more damage do you think a few pounds of TATP would do that a quarter-million pounds of airplane and jet fuel going 450mph+ wouldn't?
And even terrorists have to do cost/benefits analyses for this sort of thing, increasing the likelihood of getting caught trying to carry explosives onto a plane that you're going to hijack with boxcutters.
The only thing the emergency authorities would've been worried about was whether they were carrying radioactive materials with them.
That would be the sort of thing that the emergency-response people would've wanted a helicopter for, to go up into the smoke with a Geiger counter so they could decide whether or not they needed to evacuate Manhattan.
wcelliott:
When it comes to 9/11 I don't think you can rule something out because it appears to be illogical to you. That's not being very scientific and is certainly NOT an argument for NOT searching for a particular chemical residue.
Can you prove to me that there was no explosive device on Flight 11 or Flight 175?
A good forensic scientist would do the tests I suggested in my previous posts REGARDLESS of any preconceptions he or she may have had.... just to be sure!
When it comes to 9/11 I don't think you can rule something out because it appears to be illogical to you. That's not being very scientific and is certainly NOT an argument for NOT searching for a particular chemical residue.
Can you prove to me that there was no explosive device on Flight 11 or Flight 175?
A good forensic scientist would do the tests I suggested in my previous posts REGARDLESS of any preconceptions he or she may have had.... just to be sure!
QUOTE
Can you prove to me that there was no explosive device on Flight 11 or Flight 175?
Can you prove to me that the "meteorite" wasn't Invisible-Godzilla scat?
I think the FBI has better things to do to keep them busy.
wcelliott:
Why do forensic scientists analyse for primer gunshot residues?
Do you believe there was ANY forensic analysis of WTC samples after 9/11?
If everything that happened on that day was SO OBVIOUS,
why the FEMA Report, the NIST Report, the Kean Report?
Why do forensic scientists analyse for primer gunshot residues?
Do you believe there was ANY forensic analysis of WTC samples after 9/11?
If everything that happened on that day was SO OBVIOUS,
why the FEMA Report, the NIST Report, the Kean Report?
NEU-FONZE
Then you need to ask the BATF and FBI how they determined that explosives were not present. It is their area of expertise, after all. I'm fairly certain if chemical tests were required, then they would know more about that than you or I. And given the 93 bomb, they would not be inclined to take any shortcuts, or do you think all these guys(every single one) were all "In on it"???
You do know that any use of explosives and thermite leave behind unmistakable PHYSICAL signs, do you not???Signs the professional demolition companies and their people would not miss. The total absence of any valid reports of those physical signs supports the conclusions of those first on the scene who reported no evidence of explosives. Or is every ground zero worker "In on it" too???
You know, there comes a time when one has to depend on those whose expertise you yourself don't have the time or opportunity to obtain yourself. I for one would take the word of a doctor if he says I don't need an operation, why would I question an FBI or BATF agent if he says there were no explosives??? Especially when we are talking HUNDREDS of officers, each one just as eager to nail the perps as you are, and each one just as loyal an American as any "troother" wishes they were.
So until someone comes up with some POSITIVE evidence for their use, we are safe saying they were not used.
Grumpy
Then you need to ask the BATF and FBI how they determined that explosives were not present. It is their area of expertise, after all. I'm fairly certain if chemical tests were required, then they would know more about that than you or I. And given the 93 bomb, they would not be inclined to take any shortcuts, or do you think all these guys(every single one) were all "In on it"???
You do know that any use of explosives and thermite leave behind unmistakable PHYSICAL signs, do you not???Signs the professional demolition companies and their people would not miss. The total absence of any valid reports of those physical signs supports the conclusions of those first on the scene who reported no evidence of explosives. Or is every ground zero worker "In on it" too???
You know, there comes a time when one has to depend on those whose expertise you yourself don't have the time or opportunity to obtain yourself. I for one would take the word of a doctor if he says I don't need an operation, why would I question an FBI or BATF agent if he says there were no explosives??? Especially when we are talking HUNDREDS of officers, each one just as eager to nail the perps as you are, and each one just as loyal an American as any "troother" wishes they were.
So until someone comes up with some POSITIVE evidence for their use, we are safe saying they were not used.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 17 2007, 06:34 PM)
NEU-FONZE
Then you need to ask the BATF and FBI how they determined that explosives were not present. It is their area of expertise, after all. I'm fairly certain if chemical tests were required, then they would know more about that than you or I. And given the 93 bomb, they would not be inclined to take any shortcuts, or do you think all these guys(every single one) were all "In on it"???
You do know that any use of explosives and thermite leave behind unmistakable PHYSICAL signs, do you not???Signs the professional demolition companies and their people would not miss. The total absence of any valid reports of those physical signs supports the conclusions of those first on the scene who reported no evidence of explosives. Or is every ground zero worker "In on it" too???
You know, there comes a time when one has to depend on those whose expertise you yourself don't have the time or opportunity to obtain yourself. I for one would take the word of a doctor if he says I don't need an operation, why would I question an FBI or BATF agent if he says there were no explosives??? Especially when we are talking HUNDREDS of officers, each one just as eager to nail the perps as you are, and each one just as loyal an American as any "troother" wishes they were.
So until someone come up with some POSITIVE evidence for their use, we are safe saying they were not used.
Grumpy
Were are you getting the information that BATF and the FBI investigated the crime sceen?
Then you need to ask the BATF and FBI how they determined that explosives were not present. It is their area of expertise, after all. I'm fairly certain if chemical tests were required, then they would know more about that than you or I. And given the 93 bomb, they would not be inclined to take any shortcuts, or do you think all these guys(every single one) were all "In on it"???
You do know that any use of explosives and thermite leave behind unmistakable PHYSICAL signs, do you not???Signs the professional demolition companies and their people would not miss. The total absence of any valid reports of those physical signs supports the conclusions of those first on the scene who reported no evidence of explosives. Or is every ground zero worker "In on it" too???
You know, there comes a time when one has to depend on those whose expertise you yourself don't have the time or opportunity to obtain yourself. I for one would take the word of a doctor if he says I don't need an operation, why would I question an FBI or BATF agent if he says there were no explosives??? Especially when we are talking HUNDREDS of officers, each one just as eager to nail the perps as you are, and each one just as loyal an American as any "troother" wishes they were.
So until someone come up with some POSITIVE evidence for their use, we are safe saying they were not used.
Grumpy
Were are you getting the information that BATF and the FBI investigated the crime sceen?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 18 2007, 02:34 AM)
NEU-FONZE
Then you need to ask the BATF and FBI how they determined that explosives were not present. It is their area of expertise, after all. I'm fairly certain if chemical tests were required, then they would know more about that than you or I. And given the 93 bomb, they would not be inclined to take any shortcuts, or do you think all these guys(every single one) were all "In on it"???
You do know that any use of explosives and thermite leave behind unmistakable PHYSICAL signs, do you not???Signs the professional demolition companies and their people would not miss. The total absence of any valid reports of those physical signs supports the conclusions of those first on the scene who reported no evidence of explosives. Or is every ground zero worker "In on it" too???
You know, there comes a time when one has to depend on those whose expertise you yourself don't have the time or opportunity to obtain yourself. I for one would take the word of a doctor if he says I don't need an operation, why would I question an FBI or BATF agent if he says there were no explosives??? Especially when we are talking HUNDREDS of officers, each one just as eager to nail the perps as you are, and each one just as loyal an American as any "troother" wishes they were.
So until someone comes up with some POSITIVE evidence for their use, we are safe saying they were not used.
Grumpy
What evidence does hydrogen which was a key explosive in the first 1993 bombing of the world trade center leave?
How did they rule out explosives in the chemical cocktail of ground zero?
It would almost be impossible not to find some type of explosive chemical compound in that mess.
The problem is the complexity of the conditions makes it hard to determine if any explosives were used or if residues, could have come from other sources, some completely natural.
That is why specific tests were important.
Then you need to ask the BATF and FBI how they determined that explosives were not present. It is their area of expertise, after all. I'm fairly certain if chemical tests were required, then they would know more about that than you or I. And given the 93 bomb, they would not be inclined to take any shortcuts, or do you think all these guys(every single one) were all "In on it"???
You do know that any use of explosives and thermite leave behind unmistakable PHYSICAL signs, do you not???Signs the professional demolition companies and their people would not miss. The total absence of any valid reports of those physical signs supports the conclusions of those first on the scene who reported no evidence of explosives. Or is every ground zero worker "In on it" too???
You know, there comes a time when one has to depend on those whose expertise you yourself don't have the time or opportunity to obtain yourself. I for one would take the word of a doctor if he says I don't need an operation, why would I question an FBI or BATF agent if he says there were no explosives??? Especially when we are talking HUNDREDS of officers, each one just as eager to nail the perps as you are, and each one just as loyal an American as any "troother" wishes they were.
So until someone comes up with some POSITIVE evidence for their use, we are safe saying they were not used.
Grumpy
What evidence does hydrogen which was a key explosive in the first 1993 bombing of the world trade center leave?
How did they rule out explosives in the chemical cocktail of ground zero?
It would almost be impossible not to find some type of explosive chemical compound in that mess.
The problem is the complexity of the conditions makes it hard to determine if any explosives were used or if residues, could have come from other sources, some completely natural.
That is why specific tests were important.
Chemical tests would not be done randomly. The CHANCE of finding something that way, considering the millions of tons of material would be ridiculously small.
They would have looked for UNUSUAL damage to the interior steel columns. Thus you really wouldn't have to look at that much steel. We KNOW that the steel was examined, and we know that damage to a steel column from a HE is going to be quite different than from the relatively low speeds achieved during the collapse.
Like the Lockerbie crash, where an airliner was blown apart by a HE at altitude, the investigators had no problem determining WHERE the explosive was located (a sealed steel cargo container), WHAT KIND of explosive it was (C4), How much there was (1.5 lbs) , what the C4 was contained in (a tape recorder) and where in the plane the cargo container was located. All of this was determined by looking at the steel and aluminum and seeing damage that was UNIQUE from the damage caused by the impact from the substantially slower fall (even though the plane made a HUGE crater where it hit).
Similarly, had a LOT of HE been used (at BOTH towers) then there would have been many DOZENS of severed columns that would have looked DISTINCTLY different than the others and at least SOME of them would have been photographed/tagged for further examination.
NONE WERE.
Why?
Because no explosives were in fact used.
Arthur
They would have looked for UNUSUAL damage to the interior steel columns. Thus you really wouldn't have to look at that much steel. We KNOW that the steel was examined, and we know that damage to a steel column from a HE is going to be quite different than from the relatively low speeds achieved during the collapse.
Like the Lockerbie crash, where an airliner was blown apart by a HE at altitude, the investigators had no problem determining WHERE the explosive was located (a sealed steel cargo container), WHAT KIND of explosive it was (C4), How much there was (1.5 lbs) , what the C4 was contained in (a tape recorder) and where in the plane the cargo container was located. All of this was determined by looking at the steel and aluminum and seeing damage that was UNIQUE from the damage caused by the impact from the substantially slower fall (even though the plane made a HUGE crater where it hit).
Similarly, had a LOT of HE been used (at BOTH towers) then there would have been many DOZENS of severed columns that would have looked DISTINCTLY different than the others and at least SOME of them would have been photographed/tagged for further examination.
NONE WERE.
Why?
Because no explosives were in fact used.
Arthur
QUOTE
Were are you getting the information that BATF and the FBI investigated the crime sceen?
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/0.../story23529.asp
Thousands of agents deployed in WTC investigation
8:51:41 PM
FBI director Robert Mueller has said that 4,000 special agents, 3,000 support personnel and 300 lab workers have been deployed at various sites around the US as part of the investigation into the World Trade Centre bombings.
"Our first objective was to identify the hijackers and their associates, to remove their associates and thereby remove the threat to our airspace," he said.
Mr Mueller, who confirmed that no arrests had yet been made, said some of the hijackers had already been identified.
"We have already identified a number of individuals who may have had something to do with the hijackings and we are pursuing those leads aggressively," he said.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 17 2007, 07:56 PM)
http://archives.tcm.ie/breakingnews/2001/0.../story23529.asp
Thousands of agents deployed in WTC investigation
8:51:41 PM
FBI director Robert Mueller has said that 4,000 special agents, 3,000 support personnel and 300 lab workers have been deployed at various sites around the US as part of the investigation into the World Trade Centre bombings.
"Our first objective was to identify the hijackers and their associates, to remove their associates and thereby remove the threat to our airspace," he said.
Mr Mueller, who confirmed that no arrests had yet been made, said some of the hijackers had already been identified.
"We have already identified a number of individuals who may have had something to do with the hijackings and we are pursuing those leads aggressively," he said.
Thanks, but that did not answer the question. I was asking about the WTC site.
post removed
Somebody requested the SAP 2000 imput files for the Global Model. He filed a FOIA request and NIST gave it to him for 58$!
I knew NIST had claimed the global model was available upon request for a fee. I was expecting the fee to be 20,000$ or something. This is pretty much as good as the original structural blueprints, and even better in some respects (live load details, etc). This seems to be another piece of datum the Truth Movement has been eagerly awaiting to ignore for years!
http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/
David B. Benson and NEU-FONZE,
Erratum
BLGB p.4: "(Precise data on \mu(z) are unavailable)"
should read "(Precise data on \mu(z) are available)"
I knew NIST had claimed the global model was available upon request for a fee. I was expecting the fee to be 20,000$ or something. This is pretty much as good as the original structural blueprints, and even better in some respects (live load details, etc). This seems to be another piece of datum the Truth Movement has been eagerly awaiting to ignore for years!
http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/
David B. Benson and NEU-FONZE,
Erratum
BLGB p.4: "(Precise data on \mu(z) are unavailable)"
should read "(Precise data on \mu(z) are available)"
An other proof that no explosives where used is the fact that they found a half intact passport. The fire was of course very intense and global collapse was inevitable, but simulations show that a fireball caused by airplanes is not able to burn a passport completely, because the kinetic energy of the passport is able to give it an effective shielding from fire. With explosives that passport would have vanished completely!
QUOTE (einsteen+Jun 18 2007, 03:17 AM)
An other proof that no explosives where used is the fact that they found a half intact passport. The fire was of course very intense and global collapse was inevitable, but simulations show that a fireball caused by airplanes is not able to burn a passport completely, because the kinetic energy of the passport is able to give it an effective shielding from fire. With explosives that passport would have vanished completely!
Remember, parts of both planes traversed the building and exited the other side so I'd say its fairly likely that this is when Satam Al Suqami's passport exited the building.
Arthur
Remember, parts of both planes traversed the building and exited the other side so I'd say its fairly likely that this is when Satam Al Suqami's passport exited the building.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 17 2007, 08:52 PM)
Can you prove to me that there was no explosive device on Flight 11 or Flight 175?
!
Yes.
Look at the relatively SLOW expansion of the fireballs.
No SUBSTANTIAL HE went off at ANY TIME following those crashes or its UNIQUE PHYSICAL EFFECTS would have been OBVIOUS.
Arthur
!
Yes.
Look at the relatively SLOW expansion of the fireballs.
No SUBSTANTIAL HE went off at ANY TIME following those crashes or its UNIQUE PHYSICAL EFFECTS would have been OBVIOUS.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 18 2007, 04:23 AM)
Remember, parts of both planes traversed the building and exited the other side so I'd say its fairly likely that this is when Satam Al Suqami's passport exited the building.
Arthur
YAWN
You can always tell when OCT'ers got nothing.
Arthur
YAWN
You can always tell when OCT'ers got nothing.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 18 2007, 06:00 AM)
Yes.
Look at the relatively SLOW expansion of the fireballs.
No SUBSTANTIAL HE went off at ANY TIME following those crashes or its UNIQUE PHYSICAL EFFECTS would have been OBVIOUS.
Arthur
YAWN
YAWN
You can always tell when OCT'ers really got nothing.
Look at the relatively SLOW expansion of the fireballs.
No SUBSTANTIAL HE went off at ANY TIME following those crashes or its UNIQUE PHYSICAL EFFECTS would have been OBVIOUS.
Arthur
YAWN
YAWN
You can always tell when OCT'ers really got nothing.
reasonlesswhine
http://www.reviewjournal.com/webextras/gal...F-Joe-Bomb-Dog/
It's what they do.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Were are you getting the information that BATF and the FBI investigated the crime sceen?
http://www.reviewjournal.com/webextras/gal...F-Joe-Bomb-Dog/
It's what they do.
Grumpy
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 18 2007, 10:14 AM)
YAWN
You can always tell when OCT'ers got nothing.
NOPE
Which means it had to have exited the building PRIOR to the collapse, and since it wasn't burnt that makes the most likely explanation that it transited the building during the crash (or alternatively blown out by the slight overpressure from the initial fireball).
Arthur
You can always tell when OCT'ers got nothing.
NOPE
QUOTE
MS. SUSAN GINSBURG: Beginning with passports. Four of the hijackers passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.
Which means it had to have exited the building PRIOR to the collapse, and since it wasn't burnt that makes the most likely explanation that it transited the building during the crash (or alternatively blown out by the slight overpressure from the initial fireball).
Arthur
This really sounds unlikely, ridiculous in my humble opinion, glad I have the right to disagree. Statistically I would say a low probability of occurrence, maybe possible in a Schwarzenegger movie, but let's give it 50% chance, which is extremely favourable. Let's give all individual unlikely events of that day a 50% chance and calculate your own (1/2)^N. Most people here are familiar with exponential functions, aren't we?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html
Flash presentation from the Director of NIST investigation.
Grumpy
Flash presentation from the Director of NIST investigation.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 18 2007, 04:59 PM)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html
Flash presentation from the Director of NIST investigation.
Grumpy
Nice!
The only significant inaccuracy I could spot was in the artist's rendition of the perimeter columns snapping as a result of the sagging floors pull-in forces.
Flash presentation from the Director of NIST investigation.
Grumpy
Nice!
The only significant inaccuracy I could spot was in the artist's rendition of the perimeter columns snapping as a result of the sagging floors pull-in forces.
QUOTE
YAWN
It's always the dumbest students that are the most bored in class.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 18 2007, 07:32 PM)
It's always the dumbest students that are the most bored in class.
maybe you'd find it amusing, as i do, that reasonwhy is imitating an arthurs trademark response.
i watched that NIST flash presentation.
oh my god, i laughed out loud when the floor truss broke the perimeter column, shearing it in TWO places.
NISTians and their zany myths. what a tragic comedy. they must be getting scared.
QUOTE
NISTians and their zany myths.
Unlike the perfectly plausible theories about shape-shifting lizards ruling Earth...
Or a clump of aggregated material being a new undiscovered element fused by sunlike temperatures from concrete and steel.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 18 2007, 07:56 PM)
Unlike the perfectly plausible theories about shape-shifting lizards ruling Earth...
Or a clump of aggregated material being a new undiscovered element fused by sunlike temperatures from concrete and steel.
so, then, do you agree that a (cooler, thicker, more massive)perimeter column would be sheared in two places by the kind of force that a 'silly putty' truss can exert?
in short, don't you find that illustration hilarious?
i thought we just had this discussion about how thinner, hotter, weaker stuff will fail before cooler, thicker, more massive stuff.
LOL!
you focus on my wild speculation, and ignore the obvious problems with the NIST steaming pile.
LOL!
QUOTE
i thought we just had this discussion about how thinner, hotter, weaker stuff will fail before cooler, thicker, more massive stuff
That's still my position, and I never claimed to support NIST regardless of whatever they said. I've said before that if they're 99% right, they have 99% of my support.
I don't support theories based on ideologies. That's what makes us different. I base my beliefs on the way the laws of physics work, and draw my philosophy from that, not the other way around.
As for the Silly Putty analogy, think about this for a minute: Take a steel rod three feet long, weighing ten pounds. Hold it at arms length by the ends. How much strength does that take?
Answer: It takes five pounds force in the vertical direction, per arm, to hold up the ten-pound rod.
Now take a ten-pound chain, same length, and hold it up at arm's length. How much strength does that take?
To hold it as straight as the rod, it would take more strength than you have. More strength, in fact, than the chain could sustain. It will sag, it's only a matter of how much. That ten-pound length of chain can easily exert 1000 pounds of force on its ends, if you're trying to pull it straight.
And I guess you never tried standing on that empty soda can and tapping the side, either.
newton
Yeah, that was a poor representation. It should have just buckled inward, but not because of the pull of the floor(that just determined the direction the columns would bend), it was the overload from above that buckled the columns.
Otherwise EVERYTHING else he said is thouroughly supported by the evidence, unlike anything from the nutjobs at "troother" sites.
Grumpy
QUOTE
oh my god, i laughed out loud when the floor truss broke the perimeter column, shearing it in TWO places.
Yeah, that was a poor representation. It should have just buckled inward, but not because of the pull of the floor(that just determined the direction the columns would bend), it was the overload from above that buckled the columns.
Otherwise EVERYTHING else he said is thouroughly supported by the evidence, unlike anything from the nutjobs at "troother" sites.
Grumpy
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 18 2007, 08:29 PM)
And I guess you never tried standing on that empty soda can and tapping the side, either.
Yeah, newton, please try this.
Yeah, newton, please try this.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 18 2007, 03:15 PM)
so, then, do you agree that a (cooler, thicker, more massive)perimeter column would be sheared in two places by the kind of force that a 'silly putty' truss can exert?
in short, don't you find that illustration hilarious?
i thought we just had this discussion about how thinner, hotter, weaker stuff will fail before cooler, thicker, more massive stuff.
NOPE
one has the weight of the floor on it.
The other is supporting the weight of ALL the floors that are above it.
BIG DIFFERENCE.
See cooler - thicker only has relevance when the structures are at the SAME LOAD.
But in this case they weren't.
The perimeter columns had much higher loads.
Arthur
Another thing to consider is how the metal was prepared at the foundry. For example, knife steel is harder then ribbon or cable steel. They are both steel, but knife steel uses a quicker chilling process. This make the steel crystals smaller making the steel harder. This type of steel is much better in compression but can shear under tension. The slower chilled ribbon or cable steel has bigger crystals and is more flexible and is better under tension loads, but will buckle under too much compression.
If you heat treat both of these steels at the same time, their compression and tension properties will change. If tension steel is designed to support a load plus 50% extra, any heat treatment changes the specs. If the compression steel is designed to carry its load plus 50% extra, any heat treatment will also change its specs. Heating begins by taking away the safety margin and then gets into specs.
A good design will spread the load. Once some of the steel specs changed by the heating, the failsafe extra in the other components are designed to pick up most of the slack. But now they have much less safety margin because of the higher loads, i.e., maybe now only 10% extra. They don't have to be heated as much to change specs below safe conditions.
If the WTC design had been less open and had more fire walls the failsafe support might have held the slack. But being open, this steel was also subject to the heat. I suppose a building is designed for both form and function. Nobody can plan for every unthinkable.
If you heat treat both of these steels at the same time, their compression and tension properties will change. If tension steel is designed to support a load plus 50% extra, any heat treatment changes the specs. If the compression steel is designed to carry its load plus 50% extra, any heat treatment will also change its specs. Heating begins by taking away the safety margin and then gets into specs.
A good design will spread the load. Once some of the steel specs changed by the heating, the failsafe extra in the other components are designed to pick up most of the slack. But now they have much less safety margin because of the higher loads, i.e., maybe now only 10% extra. They don't have to be heated as much to change specs below safe conditions.
If the WTC design had been less open and had more fire walls the failsafe support might have held the slack. But being open, this steel was also subject to the heat. I suppose a building is designed for both form and function. Nobody can plan for every unthinkable.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 18 2007, 08:53 PM)
Yeah, newton, please try this.
wow. i can't believe grumpy agrees with me. wonders never cease.
i have understood the tap a soda can principle for years. i don't have to try it to know that a chunk of the can does not shear out of the stress point, LOL!
the words that you should be trying to 'debunk', wcelliot, and david benson, are 'shear' and 'two places'.
as far as your chain/steel rod analogy goes, i should point out that i am not made of steel(contrary to what some of the girls may tell you). if you substitute 'piece of string' for 'chain' then i could put enough tension into it to pull it straight. i don't expect this peice of string to break me into two pieces because i'm pulling on it, but maybe i should be more cautious, if NIST and OCTs are to be believed.
wow. i can't believe grumpy agrees with me. wonders never cease.
i have understood the tap a soda can principle for years. i don't have to try it to know that a chunk of the can does not shear out of the stress point, LOL!
the words that you should be trying to 'debunk', wcelliot, and david benson, are 'shear' and 'two places'.
as far as your chain/steel rod analogy goes, i should point out that i am not made of steel(contrary to what some of the girls may tell you). if you substitute 'piece of string' for 'chain' then i could put enough tension into it to pull it straight. i don't expect this peice of string to break me into two pieces because i'm pulling on it, but maybe i should be more cautious, if NIST and OCTs are to be believed.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 18 2007, 11:39 PM)
as far as your chain/steel rod analogy goes, i should point out that i am not made of steel(contrary to what some of the girls may tell you). if you substitute 'piece of string' for 'chain' then i could put enough tension into it to pull it straight. i don't expect this peice of string to break me into two pieces because i'm pulling on it, [...]
The main point is this. Five circus acrobats stand on each other's shoulders to make a small human tower. Imagine that you are the acrobat standing in the middle of the human tower. Some clown grabs the little steel anchor attached to your mid-section and pulls. This reduces your ability to hold your partners up.
Another other point was that a soft catenary attached to your midsection pulls hardest when it sags the least.
One third point. If you are interested in knowing whether of not that little movie segment is an accurate representation of what Shyam Sunder meant in his narrative (or of what the NIST team found out regarding the failure mode of the perimeter columns) then the best place where to look is in the NIST report.
The main point is this. Five circus acrobats stand on each other's shoulders to make a small human tower. Imagine that you are the acrobat standing in the middle of the human tower. Some clown grabs the little steel anchor attached to your mid-section and pulls. This reduces your ability to hold your partners up.
Another other point was that a soft catenary attached to your midsection pulls hardest when it sags the least.
One third point. If you are interested in knowing whether of not that little movie segment is an accurate representation of what Shyam Sunder meant in his narrative (or of what the NIST team found out regarding the failure mode of the perimeter columns) then the best place where to look is in the NIST report.
newton
Even with a piece of string it takes many more times the force to hold it horizontal in a straight line than it would to just hold it's weight in your hand.
If you and I were standing ten feet apart we could easily hold a 40 pound beam of wood perfectly horizontal. But you and I together could not possibly hold a 40 pound piece of chain horizontal by holding the ends. It would take several hundred pounds of pull on each end to even get it close. In fact a man can move a truck easily by tying a strong rope to a tree, attaching the other end to the truck and then pushing on the middle of the rope. His weight applied to the rope will move the two ton truck. Just like the sagging floors will pull in with great force on the external frame of the towers, causing them to be vulnerable to buckling from the load of the top block.
Is newton finally joining the reasoned and logical side???
Grumpy
QUOTE
if you substitute 'piece of string' for 'chain' then i could put enough tension into it to pull it straight.
Even with a piece of string it takes many more times the force to hold it horizontal in a straight line than it would to just hold it's weight in your hand.
If you and I were standing ten feet apart we could easily hold a 40 pound beam of wood perfectly horizontal. But you and I together could not possibly hold a 40 pound piece of chain horizontal by holding the ends. It would take several hundred pounds of pull on each end to even get it close. In fact a man can move a truck easily by tying a strong rope to a tree, attaching the other end to the truck and then pushing on the middle of the rope. His weight applied to the rope will move the two ton truck. Just like the sagging floors will pull in with great force on the external frame of the towers, causing them to be vulnerable to buckling from the load of the top block.
Is newton finally joining the reasoned and logical side???
Grumpy
QUOTE
Is newton finally joining the reasoned and logical side???
No, he keeps denying these two simple concepts (buckling and catenary force).
He'll be denying gravity next.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 18 2007, 06:15 PM)
No, he keeps denying these two simple concepts (buckling and catenary force).
He'll be denying gravity next.
Please show the physical evidence for trusses in a catenary shape (not the single truss model that did not have the rest of the composite floor assembly components ) or columns that sheered in two places.
Try and make it better then your halfass response to the BATF and the FBI investigated the crime scene?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jun 19 2007, 03:11 AM)
Please show the physical evidence for trusses in a catenary shape (not the single truss model that did not have the rest of the composite floor assembly components ) or columns that sheered in two places.
Try and make it better then your halfass response to the BATF and the FBI investigated the crime scene?
The bowing of the walls is pretty strong evidence for this.
On edit: ...for the sagging that is. There is no evidence for the columns shearing in the way they are inaccurately presented to in this video.
Try and make it better then your halfass response to the BATF and the FBI investigated the crime scene?
The bowing of the walls is pretty strong evidence for this.
On edit: ...for the sagging that is. There is no evidence for the columns shearing in the way they are inaccurately presented to in this video.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 17 2007, 04:16 AM)
Hi RC, WELCOME BACK!
You were missed!
Arthur
Hi and thanks, adoucette!
If I had to prioritise my input before, I certainly have to even more NOW for a while until I can recover eyesight properly.
So I certainly won't be doing any 'catch up' reading of this thread for the duration! hehehe.
I'll visit now and then just to see how 'funny' things get with every newbie fresh from the CD/CT 'troofer-only' sites.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
You were missed!
Arthur
Hi and thanks, adoucette!
If I had to prioritise my input before, I certainly have to even more NOW for a while until I can recover eyesight properly.
So I certainly won't be doing any 'catch up' reading of this thread for the duration! hehehe.
I'll visit now and then just to see how 'funny' things get with every newbie fresh from the CD/CT 'troofer-only' sites.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 17 2007, 12:39 PM)
Let's be real about this. The people who are accusing the government of being behind 9/11 aren't driven by any desire to find the Truth, they are anti-war ideologues who figure that the more dissent they can stir up in America, the quicker we'll pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
TOWARDS THAT END, you will find LOTS of people who figure it's worth SPREADING LIES to INFLUENCE POLICIES. They figure that by lying, they are saving lives, and that therefore, telling lies helps save lives.
This is an easy trap to fall into, philosophically, as most people, if they figured it'd save someone's life, would lie.
The problem with this is that you don't want to make policy decisions in a democracy based on lies. Policies need to be based in truth in order for them to work.
Shortening the war by lying about the situation to mislead the ignorant (which is a big enough fraction of the voting population that it can't be ignored completely) only makes for more bad policy in an area where good policies are absolutely necessary to prevent further 9/11-type attacks.
I'm sure that every one of those shrinks assumes that there's no correlation between our current military actions and future terrorist attacks, shrinks don't think like that. (I've known lots of psych-majors, none of them were capable of thinking in realistic terms about how the world works, they were all Utopian ideologues.) Also, none of the psych-majors I knew in school had the first clue how anything mechanical worked, so they wouldn't understand a structural collapse if they were inside it when it happened.
These otherwise nice people decided that by throwing their credentials behind a "little white lie", they may have disproportionate influence over the weak-minded fools out there and get more leverage on the government to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that would save the lives of the troops fighting over there, and also save the lives of the terrorist-wannabes they're killing.
None of them have given the matter of what happens next any significant thought, I can assure you.
I'm certain that they couldn't care less if Iraq got taken back over by the same bloodthirsty b@st@rds who ran Saddam Hussein's Secret Police, who kidnapped and tortured and killed anyone who was accused of disloyalty to Hussein, along with their families. Those people are still around, and they're the ones making the road-side bombs that are attacking our troops and car-bombs that are killing Iraqi civilians and assassinating anyone who volunteers to work for the new government. We pull our troops out too early and we're just handing the people who believed in our commitments over to the same gang of goons who ran Iraq under Hussein. There'll be carnage at a level that will appall all those nice shrinks, but they won't accept any of the responsibility for what happens as a foreseeable consequence of their actions because their brains don't work like that, they can't foresee those consequences, because they're nice people who believe in Utopian ideals. Revenge would be unthinkable for them (the shrinks) so they don't foresee the terrorists taking revenge against the Iraqis trying to make a go of their new government.
I have noticed that people that support lies and try to justify it (lying to go to war is alright if it removes the terrible dictator the US put in power) think people with integrity and principles would do the same thing.
They also believe everyone is as ignorant as they are on foreign policy.
I am sure the shrinks are very aware that current policy will only make terrorism worse in the future:
Now, I find Osama bin Laden just as evil as everyone else (an ex CIA agent). But this is a question of fact – if you want to know why we were attacked (and believe the OCT), listen to the source to hear why. In Osama's well-publicized 1996 fatwa where he declared war on the United States, he said the following:
"More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children."
Osama's second fatwa from 1998:
"Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation."
The 9/11 Commission Report echoed these statements. While discussing Bin Laden's motivation for the attack:
"He [Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel."
If the OCT is true, the US should be attacking Pakistan were OBL resides (and has support) and not countries that were enemies of his such as Iraq run by Saddam Hussein .
If the OCT is true, the US should be attacking Pakistan were OBL resides (and has support) and not countries that were enemies of his such as Iraq run by Saddam Hussein .
First, Saddam Hussein abolished the Sharia legal system in Iraq. Therefore the argument that we invaded Iraq to to stop the sharia faithful or to slow the spread of sharia across the world holds no water. If anything, we should have continued with our support of Saddam Hussein, because “Saddam .. created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/saddam-hussein
Second, Saddam was a dictator of an authoritarian regime. He was not a Cleric of a theocracy. If you recall Saddam’s secular regime went to war against Iran’s sharia dominated theocracy. For Saddam Hussein to promote Sharia, one would have to accept the argument that he would be willing to be subservient to the rule of clerics, which authoritarians, by the very definition of the word, can not be.
Third, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein weren’t friends by any definition of that word. Prior to the war in which Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama, who was Saudi, was concerned that Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia and was actively addressing this in Saudi Arabia. Osama even “sent several letters to King Faisal instructing him how to protect the kingdom and offered to help fight the invaders” against Hussein.
TOWARDS THAT END, you will find LOTS of people who figure it's worth SPREADING LIES to INFLUENCE POLICIES. They figure that by lying, they are saving lives, and that therefore, telling lies helps save lives.
This is an easy trap to fall into, philosophically, as most people, if they figured it'd save someone's life, would lie.
The problem with this is that you don't want to make policy decisions in a democracy based on lies. Policies need to be based in truth in order for them to work.
Shortening the war by lying about the situation to mislead the ignorant (which is a big enough fraction of the voting population that it can't be ignored completely) only makes for more bad policy in an area where good policies are absolutely necessary to prevent further 9/11-type attacks.
I'm sure that every one of those shrinks assumes that there's no correlation between our current military actions and future terrorist attacks, shrinks don't think like that. (I've known lots of psych-majors, none of them were capable of thinking in realistic terms about how the world works, they were all Utopian ideologues.) Also, none of the psych-majors I knew in school had the first clue how anything mechanical worked, so they wouldn't understand a structural collapse if they were inside it when it happened.
These otherwise nice people decided that by throwing their credentials behind a "little white lie", they may have disproportionate influence over the weak-minded fools out there and get more leverage on the government to end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that would save the lives of the troops fighting over there, and also save the lives of the terrorist-wannabes they're killing.
None of them have given the matter of what happens next any significant thought, I can assure you.
I'm certain that they couldn't care less if Iraq got taken back over by the same bloodthirsty b@st@rds who ran Saddam Hussein's Secret Police, who kidnapped and tortured and killed anyone who was accused of disloyalty to Hussein, along with their families. Those people are still around, and they're the ones making the road-side bombs that are attacking our troops and car-bombs that are killing Iraqi civilians and assassinating anyone who volunteers to work for the new government. We pull our troops out too early and we're just handing the people who believed in our commitments over to the same gang of goons who ran Iraq under Hussein. There'll be carnage at a level that will appall all those nice shrinks, but they won't accept any of the responsibility for what happens as a foreseeable consequence of their actions because their brains don't work like that, they can't foresee those consequences, because they're nice people who believe in Utopian ideals. Revenge would be unthinkable for them (the shrinks) so they don't foresee the terrorists taking revenge against the Iraqis trying to make a go of their new government.
I have noticed that people that support lies and try to justify it (lying to go to war is alright if it removes the terrible dictator the US put in power) think people with integrity and principles would do the same thing.
They also believe everyone is as ignorant as they are on foreign policy.
I am sure the shrinks are very aware that current policy will only make terrorism worse in the future:
Now, I find Osama bin Laden just as evil as everyone else (an ex CIA agent). But this is a question of fact – if you want to know why we were attacked (and believe the OCT), listen to the source to hear why. In Osama's well-publicized 1996 fatwa where he declared war on the United States, he said the following:
QUOTE
"More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children."
Osama's second fatwa from 1998:
"Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation."
The 9/11 Commission Report echoed these statements. While discussing Bin Laden's motivation for the attack:
"He [Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel."
If the OCT is true, the US should be attacking Pakistan were OBL resides (and has support) and not countries that were enemies of his such as Iraq run by Saddam Hussein .
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children." Osama's second fatwa from 1998: "Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation." The 9/11 Commission Report echoed these statements. While discussing Bin Laden's motivation for the attack: "He [Bin Laden] inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel." |
If the OCT is true, the US should be attacking Pakistan were OBL resides (and has support) and not countries that were enemies of his such as Iraq run by Saddam Hussein .
First, Saddam Hussein abolished the Sharia legal system in Iraq. Therefore the argument that we invaded Iraq to to stop the sharia faithful or to slow the spread of sharia across the world holds no water. If anything, we should have continued with our support of Saddam Hussein, because “Saddam .. created a Western-style legal system, making Iraq the only country in the Persian Gulf region not ruled according to traditional Islamic law (Sharia). Saddam abolished the Sharia law courts, except for personal injury claims.”
http://www.answers.com/topic/saddam-hussein
Second, Saddam was a dictator of an authoritarian regime. He was not a Cleric of a theocracy. If you recall Saddam’s secular regime went to war against Iran’s sharia dominated theocracy. For Saddam Hussein to promote Sharia, one would have to accept the argument that he would be willing to be subservient to the rule of clerics, which authoritarians, by the very definition of the word, can not be.
Third, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein weren’t friends by any definition of that word. Prior to the war in which Iraq invaded Kuwait, Osama, who was Saudi, was concerned that Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia and was actively addressing this in Saudi Arabia. Osama even “sent several letters to King Faisal instructing him how to protect the kingdom and offered to help fight the invaders” against Hussein.
QUOTE (Reasonwhy+)
if you want to know why we were attacked (and believe the OCT), listen to the source to hear why. In Osama's well-publicized 1996 fatwa where he declared war on the United States, he said the following:
QUOTE (OBL+)
"More than 600,000 Iraqi children have died due to lack of food and medicine and as a result of the unjustifiable aggression (sanction) imposed on Iraq and its nation. The children of Iraq are our children. You, the USA, together with the Saudi regime are responsible for the shedding of the blood of these innocent children."
No Reasonwhy, the Iraqi children died because because the UN overseers were on the take and Saddam was appropriating the 'Oil for Food' money for his PALACES and WEAPONS.
But BIG SURPRISE, you stick up for OBL.
What a ......... you are.
I'd say it but YOU are not worth another warning.
In fact, IMHO, you are worse than totally worthless, much worse.
Arthur
I'd say it but YOU are not worth another warning.
In fact, IMHO, you are worse than totally worthless, much worse.
Arthur
What warnings are you talking about (is this a threat)?
Show were I ever supported OBL (an ex CIA operative).The US getting involved with him in the first place (Afghanistan,USSR war) was making a deal with the devil. US policy has done that many times supporting ruthless dictators and religious fanatics.
That was his statement and is backed by the 9/11 commission report.
NISTians just found out the pope isn't infallible, afterall.
i would be so embareassed if i were buddy.
That would be your take, but I suspect that it was one of those things where the presentation was 99% right and they just figured that was close enough.
Although I find it ironic that you of all people should be holding everyone else to a standard of perfection, while your views are seldom realistic, much less accurate, and you never seem to feel the slightest bit embarrassed about that.
NISTians just found out the pope isn't infallible, afterall.
i would be so embareassed if i were buddy.
Holy Crap....
The problem with this is that the entire motivation of the "troothers" is political, and they have no interest in the physics, because it consistently proves them wrong.
We've got over 300 pages of wild conspiracy theories and solid physics disproving them, and they haven't even slowed down.
I would suggest that the problem is that pure-physics answers aren't addressing their root issues, which are based in naive political ideologies (and lots of anti-American propaganda).
If our responses to politically-motivated accusations are limited to physics that they don't understand and don't really care about anyway, then we aren't discussing the real problem.
Since this is in the "Off-Topic" category, I think *some* off-physics discussion should be allowed, especially if it gets to the real points motivating the CDiots' posts.
No Reasonwhy, the Iraqi children died because because the UN overseers were on the take and Saddam was appropriating the 'Oil for Food' money for his PALACES and WEAPONS.
But BIG SURPRISE, you stick up for OBL.
What a ......... you are.
I'd say it but YOU are not worth another warning.
In fact, IMHO, you are worse than totally worthless, much worse.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 18 2007, 07:47 PM)
I'd say it but YOU are not worth another warning.
In fact, IMHO, you are worse than totally worthless, much worse.
Arthur
What warnings are you talking about (is this a threat)?
Show were I ever supported OBL (an ex CIA operative).The US getting involved with him in the first place (Afghanistan,USSR war) was making a deal with the devil. US policy has done that many times supporting ruthless dictators and religious fanatics.
That was his statement and is backed by the 9/11 commission report.
.
Hi again, adoucette.
Came back because my headache made me forget to add this to that last post:
I have had plenty of time in the last six months illness/convalescence to wonder what the CD/CT troofers would have 'latched onto' for their agenda-driven pseudo-logic/pseudo-science compaign IF the towers had collapsed ONLY from the top to the impact affected stories!
I wonder if they would have had to invent some 'conspiracy' because there was NO global collapse but SHOULD have been!?
Oh well, we'll never know...because they DID globally collapse.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Hi again, adoucette.
Came back because my headache made me forget to add this to that last post:
I have had plenty of time in the last six months illness/convalescence to wonder what the CD/CT troofers would have 'latched onto' for their agenda-driven pseudo-logic/pseudo-science compaign IF the towers had collapsed ONLY from the top to the impact affected stories!
I wonder if they would have had to invent some 'conspiracy' because there was NO global collapse but SHOULD have been!?
Oh well, we'll never know...because they DID globally collapse.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 19 2007, 03:20 AM)
There is no evidence for the columns shearing in the way they are inaccurately presented to in this video.
right on, brother. i literally laughed out loud when i saw it.
wow, two OCTs agreeing with me on ANYTHING. what's the world coming to?
right on, brother. i literally laughed out loud when i saw it.
wow, two OCTs agreeing with me on ANYTHING. what's the world coming to?
NISTians just found out the pope isn't infallible, afterall.
i would be so embareassed if i were buddy.
Well, Reaso, I didn't realize it was my role in life to do your research for you.
You don't think there were any FBI agents at the WTC sites? That's the unreasonable claim, so that's for YOU to back up. I have better things to do with my time. (And I did find sources that backed up the presence of FBI agents at the scene, I just didn't bother posting it.)
You don't think trusses sag into catenary shapes? What shapes do you think they sag into, trapezoids?
As for your half-assed politics/religious cr@p, you can cram that back where it came from.
See, here's the fun bit - All you do is post this cr@p on the internet, that's as close as you get to doing anything, I work in the US defense industry, so I get to actually BUILD stuff, 40-hours a week, and DESIGN NEW WEAPONS SYSTEMS to use against your terrorist buddies.
Actually understanding engineering principles, instead of useless islamic doctrine, has its fun side.
You don't think there were any FBI agents at the WTC sites? That's the unreasonable claim, so that's for YOU to back up. I have better things to do with my time. (And I did find sources that backed up the presence of FBI agents at the scene, I just didn't bother posting it.)
You don't think trusses sag into catenary shapes? What shapes do you think they sag into, trapezoids?
As for your half-assed politics/religious cr@p, you can cram that back where it came from.
See, here's the fun bit - All you do is post this cr@p on the internet, that's as close as you get to doing anything, I work in the US defense industry, so I get to actually BUILD stuff, 40-hours a week, and DESIGN NEW WEAPONS SYSTEMS to use against your terrorist buddies.
Actually understanding engineering principles, instead of useless islamic doctrine, has its fun side.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 19 2007, 04:31 AM)
NISTians just found out the pope isn't infallible, afterall.
Nobody claimed NIST was infaillible. But this is NOVA, not NIST. It is quite obvious NIST did not produce this video sequence. There are many more gross inaccuracies in it. They picture one continuous beam instead of spandrels, etc.
Nobody claimed NIST was infaillible. But this is NOVA, not NIST. It is quite obvious NIST did not produce this video sequence. There are many more gross inaccuracies in it. They picture one continuous beam instead of spandrels, etc.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 18 2007, 08:42 PM)
Well, Reaso, I didn't realize it was my role in life to do your research for you.
You don't think there were any FBI agents at the WTC sites? That's the unreasonable claim, so that's for YOU to back up. I have better things to do with my time. (And I did find sources that backed up the presence of FBI agents at the scene, I just didn't bother posting it.)
You don't think trusses sag into catenary shapes? What shapes do you think they sag into, trapezoids?
As for your half-assed politics/religious cr@p, you can cram that back where it came from.
See, here's the fun bit - All you do is post this cr@p on the internet, that's as close as you get to doing anything, I work in the US defense industry, so I get to actually BUILD stuff, 40-hours a week, and DESIGN NEW WEAPONS SYSTEMS to use against your terrorist buddies.
Actually understanding engineering principles, instead of useless islamic doctrine, has its fun side.
Show were I have ever supported terrorism you lying little prick (state sponsored like yourself or religious fanatics like OBL).
Terrorism is for cowards (and people like yourself making money from it).
Your post does help me understand your unconditional support for a never ending war on terrorism (you want to stay employed).
You don’t give a damn what it does to the US (bankruptcy and more terrorism) or its citizens as long as you personally profit.
You don't think there were any FBI agents at the WTC sites? That's the unreasonable claim, so that's for YOU to back up. I have better things to do with my time. (And I did find sources that backed up the presence of FBI agents at the scene, I just didn't bother posting it.)
You don't think trusses sag into catenary shapes? What shapes do you think they sag into, trapezoids?
As for your half-assed politics/religious cr@p, you can cram that back where it came from.
See, here's the fun bit - All you do is post this cr@p on the internet, that's as close as you get to doing anything, I work in the US defense industry, so I get to actually BUILD stuff, 40-hours a week, and DESIGN NEW WEAPONS SYSTEMS to use against your terrorist buddies.
Actually understanding engineering principles, instead of useless islamic doctrine, has its fun side.
Show were I have ever supported terrorism you lying little prick (state sponsored like yourself or religious fanatics like OBL).
Terrorism is for cowards (and people like yourself making money from it).
Your post does help me understand your unconditional support for a never ending war on terrorism (you want to stay employed).
You don’t give a damn what it does to the US (bankruptcy and more terrorism) or its citizens as long as you personally profit.
"Show were I have ever supported terrorism"
You're supporting terrorism with every one of your posts.
That's your whole intent, promoting Osama bin Laden's anti-American propaganda and undermining American support for the war on terror. At the very least, you're hoping that the bull you're spreading here will shorten the war (to save the lives of the terrorists our troops are killing over there), and I'm sure your greatest hope is to find some dimwit like Malmo who'll buy all of it and end up volunteering for training in Afghanistan.
The fact that I work in the defense industry isn't the reason I support the war on terror, it's the other way around. I work in the defense industry BECAUSE I support the war on terror. I'm proud of it, and I am personally gratified every time I hear that one of the weapons systems I helped design does its job and sends more of you and yours to their graves.
Too bad for you, all you get to do is TALK.
You're supporting terrorism with every one of your posts.
That's your whole intent, promoting Osama bin Laden's anti-American propaganda and undermining American support for the war on terror. At the very least, you're hoping that the bull you're spreading here will shorten the war (to save the lives of the terrorists our troops are killing over there), and I'm sure your greatest hope is to find some dimwit like Malmo who'll buy all of it and end up volunteering for training in Afghanistan.
The fact that I work in the defense industry isn't the reason I support the war on terror, it's the other way around. I work in the defense industry BECAUSE I support the war on terror. I'm proud of it, and I am personally gratified every time I hear that one of the weapons systems I helped design does its job and sends more of you and yours to their graves.
Too bad for you, all you get to do is TALK.
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 19 2007, 05:08 AM)
Nobody claimed NIST was infaillible. But this is NOVA, not NIST. It is quite obvious NIST did not produce this video sequence. There are many more gross inaccuracies in it. They picture one continuous beam instead of spandrels, etc.
it's obvious to me that NIST has no problem with this VERY IMPORTANT presentation.
it's obvious to me that NIST has no problem with this VERY IMPORTANT presentation.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 19 2007, 06:36 AM)
it's obvious to me that NIST has no problem with this VERY IMPORTANT presentation.
Why should they care at all? Journalistic presentations of technical and scientific matters always are approximate and inaccurate at several levels. They are aimed at the lay public. NIST can't be blamed if some investigators of the Truth Movement can not be bothered to study technical literature and must instead exclusively rely on the popular press and on randomly selected quotes and sequences from interviews and animations.
On edit: Moreover, this particular inacuracy is of no consequence whatsoever. A buckled columns is a buckled column is a buckled column. It might have failed at the splices, fractured or yielded in any other fashion... this makes no difference to the fate of the towers. The mode of failure that has been graphically represented just looks rather naïve.
Why should they care at all? Journalistic presentations of technical and scientific matters always are approximate and inaccurate at several levels. They are aimed at the lay public. NIST can't be blamed if some investigators of the Truth Movement can not be bothered to study technical literature and must instead exclusively rely on the popular press and on randomly selected quotes and sequences from interviews and animations.
On edit: Moreover, this particular inacuracy is of no consequence whatsoever. A buckled columns is a buckled column is a buckled column. It might have failed at the splices, fractured or yielded in any other fashion... this makes no difference to the fate of the towers. The mode of failure that has been graphically represented just looks rather naïve.
QUOTE
it's obvious to me that NIST has no problem with this VERY IMPORTANT presentation.
That would be your take, but I suspect that it was one of those things where the presentation was 99% right and they just figured that was close enough.
Although I find it ironic that you of all people should be holding everyone else to a standard of perfection, while your views are seldom realistic, much less accurate, and you never seem to feel the slightest bit embarrassed about that.
QUOTE (newton+Jun 19 2007, 04:31 AM)
NISTians just found out the pope isn't infallible, afterall.
i would be so embareassed if i were buddy.
Holy Crap....
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 18 2007, 11:08 PM)
Nobody claimed NIST was infaillible. But this is NOVA, not NIST. It is quite obvious NIST did not produce this video sequence. There are many more gross inaccuracies in it. They picture one continuous beam instead of spandrels, etc.
So, in other words this was made by a graphics artist, who probably has little engineering background.
So, in other words this was made by a graphics artist, who probably has little engineering background.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jun 18 2007, 08:17 AM)
An other proof that no explosives where used is the fact that they found a half intact passport. The fire was of course very intense and global collapse was inevitable, but simulations show that a fireball caused by airplanes is not able to burn a passport completely, because the kinetic energy of the passport is able to give it an effective shielding from fire. With explosives that passport would have vanished completely!
I think the survival of an object in any explosion would have more to do with its placement and ability to travel ahead of the super sonic blast wave, than on its Kinetic energy.
IF the object is caught in the supersonic wave that causes the big boom sound then it can survive totally intact, I once saw a paper wrapper from a dynamite stick survive an explosion at a coal mine.
Freaky stuff happens deal with it, The survival of the passport alone does not imply that the laws of physics have been violated in fact the laws of physics as they are known say that it is possible for that event to occur.
I think the survival of an object in any explosion would have more to do with its placement and ability to travel ahead of the super sonic blast wave, than on its Kinetic energy.
IF the object is caught in the supersonic wave that causes the big boom sound then it can survive totally intact, I once saw a paper wrapper from a dynamite stick survive an explosion at a coal mine.
Freaky stuff happens deal with it, The survival of the passport alone does not imply that the laws of physics have been violated in fact the laws of physics as they are known say that it is possible for that event to occur.
This was of course the [irony mode]... it should of course be compared with the other things that also went through the building.
btw does anyone at this forum know anything about plastic bifurcation ?
btw does anyone at this forum know anything about plastic bifurcation ?
Yes, Suqami’s passport survived the attack:
"...Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. "It was a significant piece of evidence for us," Mawn said..."
edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/inv.investigation.terrorism/index.html
"...a passerby picked it up from the World Trade Center and handed to a New York Police Department detective shortly before the towers collapsed. [...]
The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001
www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf
It is obvious. Hard proof!! But what I can not understand is why the British were doubting so obvious fact... and it seems that they are even doubting the video "found" in a house in Jalalabad!
Uncle Sam's lucky finds
...
"...but the idea that... passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism..."
www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html
(Note that, as in this Guardian account, the passport is frequently mistakenly referred to as Atta’s passport.)
Satam Al Suqami’s remarkably undamaged passport, marked and wrapped in plastic. It was shown as evidence in the 2006 Zacarias Moussaoui trial.
"...Last week, a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was found in the vicinity of Vesey Street, near the World Trade Center. "It was a significant piece of evidence for us," Mawn said..."
edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/inv.investigation.terrorism/index.html
"...a passerby picked it up from the World Trade Center and handed to a New York Police Department detective shortly before the towers collapsed. [...]
The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001
www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf
It is obvious. Hard proof!! But what I can not understand is why the British were doubting so obvious fact... and it seems that they are even doubting the video "found" in a house in Jalalabad!
Uncle Sam's lucky finds
...
"...but the idea that... passport had escaped from that inferno unsinged would have tested the credulity of the staunchest supporter of the FBI's crackdown on terrorism..."
www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,669961,00.html
(Note that, as in this Guardian account, the passport is frequently mistakenly referred to as Atta’s passport.)
Satam Al Suqami’s remarkably undamaged passport, marked and wrapped in plastic. It was shown as evidence in the 2006 Zacarias Moussaoui trial.
einsteen
Like I told reasonless(or was it newton, hard to tell them apart), this is not an accurate visualization. The computer graphics artist is the one at fault, not NIST. Otherwise this presentation is a fairly accurate portrayal of the events.
wcelliott
Don't get me wrong, I support our efforts to combat Islamic Fundamentalists(who use terror as a tactic), but the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from that fight. I supported our actions in Afghanistan and if W had continued there to completion he wouldn't be seen as such a failure. BUT NOOOO! He had to divert our focus onto Sadam because he had tried to kill Poppy. And he lied to us to do it. Now we are in a steaming pile of civil war with no real reason to be there(other than the occasional bad guy we frag). Unless they grow enough backbone to police themselves they are not worth the lives and treasure W has wasted there.
The only viable option I see is to form up and march back into Afghanistan, driving over every target of opportunity on the way, sealing the border there and then pulling stratigic strikes into Iraq everytime we find a concentration of force inside Iraq. We then will have to once again quell the Taliban in Afghanistan and wait for Iraq to settle it's own internal affairs.Yes, it's a mess, and cruel and hard on the innocents in Iraq, but those of Islamic faith must start policing their own religion/countrys to eliminate these radicals(as we have tried to do with the KKK and white supremisists).
Grumpy
QUOTE
Holy Crap....
Like I told reasonless(or was it newton, hard to tell them apart), this is not an accurate visualization. The computer graphics artist is the one at fault, not NIST. Otherwise this presentation is a fairly accurate portrayal of the events.
wcelliott
Don't get me wrong, I support our efforts to combat Islamic Fundamentalists(who use terror as a tactic), but the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from that fight. I supported our actions in Afghanistan and if W had continued there to completion he wouldn't be seen as such a failure. BUT NOOOO! He had to divert our focus onto Sadam because he had tried to kill Poppy. And he lied to us to do it. Now we are in a steaming pile of civil war with no real reason to be there(other than the occasional bad guy we frag). Unless they grow enough backbone to police themselves they are not worth the lives and treasure W has wasted there.
The only viable option I see is to form up and march back into Afghanistan, driving over every target of opportunity on the way, sealing the border there and then pulling stratigic strikes into Iraq everytime we find a concentration of force inside Iraq. We then will have to once again quell the Taliban in Afghanistan and wait for Iraq to settle it's own internal affairs.Yes, it's a mess, and cruel and hard on the innocents in Iraq, but those of Islamic faith must start policing their own religion/countrys to eliminate these radicals(as we have tried to do with the KKK and white supremisists).
Grumpy
Daru
What about the TONS of paper ejected unburned from both towers. Stuff Happens, get over it.
Grumpy
What about the TONS of paper ejected unburned from both towers. Stuff Happens, get over it.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 19 2007, 03:18 PM)
Daru
What about the TONS of paper ejected unburned from both towers. Stuff Happens, get over it.
Grumpy
the paper of which you speak wasn't in a terrorist's pocket.
What about the TONS of paper ejected unburned from both towers. Stuff Happens, get over it.
Grumpy
the paper of which you speak wasn't in a terrorist's pocket.
newton
So??? It wasn't doing 500 mph either, but it got out anyway. There was tons of items that survived unscathed. Stuff Happens, get over it.
Grumpy
QUOTE
the paper of which you speak wasn't in a terrorist's pocket.
So??? It wasn't doing 500 mph either, but it got out anyway. There was tons of items that survived unscathed. Stuff Happens, get over it.
Grumpy
All the proof needed that steel trusses DO collapse by fire alone.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19301684/
It happens all the time, everywhere.
Grumpy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19301684/
It happens all the time, everywhere.
Grumpy
QUOTE (newton+Jun 19 2007, 03:57 PM)
the paper of which you speak wasn't in a terrorist's pocket.
Can you prove that the pass port was in a terrorists pocket, or was it in the luggage section forward? Or had it dropped onto the decking in the cabin during a struggle?
The point is you do not actually know where the pass port was during the explosion, the only thing that can be said is that it is possible for light objects to be transported in a blast wave, that is the only scientifically accurate statement that can be made.
The problem I see is that people are constantly taking sides, and there really are no sides only science.
If your after truth then the first thing you have to do is determine what is possible and what is impossible. If we allow ourselves to be biased either direction by politics then we only do a disservice to ourselves.
I have seen though my own studies that several aspects of Sept, 11/2001 are completely possible, I have also seen that no theory yet proposed of Controlled Demolition has any way in that mythical hot place refereed to by many, of The Christians here, in explaining much of what we know about regarding 9/11/2001.
I have come to the conclusion that a multiple chain reaction event never before seen might in fact be responsible for the Sept. 11/ 2001 Collapse of the twin towers but it will be some time before I can continue to investigate it, first I have to do a little work, and gain enough material and funds to continue the research.
Right now I have only a few tons of stone to move, before I can once again begin experimenting with the silent witnesses to 9/11/2001, the physical compounds that composed the buildings and the fuels themselves. I have taken a job that no one else would so that I can gain the resources necessary to continue the experiments that actually need to be done. Basically making a stone trail over a cliff side without equipment and doing a little landscaping.
Even when using junk to do experiments, you still have to buy the junk from somewhere. It takes the right junk, in the right conditions and you might just discover the hidden secrets of the cosmos.
Well I only have about 46 ton of stone to move and rearrange, should take a couple more weeks especially for a one armed man, the anti gravity devices are helping out though, they are wonderful could not do the job without them.
At least it will be better than being on an INTERNET forum reading posts and watching people here argue like squabbling two year olds. If your going to discuss Science then the Science of 9/11 is what you should be discussing not the politics or the views that have no basis in empirical data.
This whole tread it seems always boils down to a contest of no merit, if your looking for answers into what happened on 9/11/2001 then the one honest thing I can tell you is you will not find them on the internet!
Good bye for now until I have more time and the chance to return.
I have to move a little rock by any means possible including explosives, something I have actually used on occasions for this purpose.
Can you prove that the pass port was in a terrorists pocket, or was it in the luggage section forward? Or had it dropped onto the decking in the cabin during a struggle?
The point is you do not actually know where the pass port was during the explosion, the only thing that can be said is that it is possible for light objects to be transported in a blast wave, that is the only scientifically accurate statement that can be made.
The problem I see is that people are constantly taking sides, and there really are no sides only science.
If your after truth then the first thing you have to do is determine what is possible and what is impossible. If we allow ourselves to be biased either direction by politics then we only do a disservice to ourselves.
I have seen though my own studies that several aspects of Sept, 11/2001 are completely possible, I have also seen that no theory yet proposed of Controlled Demolition has any way in that mythical hot place refereed to by many, of The Christians here, in explaining much of what we know about regarding 9/11/2001.
I have come to the conclusion that a multiple chain reaction event never before seen might in fact be responsible for the Sept. 11/ 2001 Collapse of the twin towers but it will be some time before I can continue to investigate it, first I have to do a little work, and gain enough material and funds to continue the research.
Right now I have only a few tons of stone to move, before I can once again begin experimenting with the silent witnesses to 9/11/2001, the physical compounds that composed the buildings and the fuels themselves. I have taken a job that no one else would so that I can gain the resources necessary to continue the experiments that actually need to be done. Basically making a stone trail over a cliff side without equipment and doing a little landscaping.
Even when using junk to do experiments, you still have to buy the junk from somewhere. It takes the right junk, in the right conditions and you might just discover the hidden secrets of the cosmos.
Well I only have about 46 ton of stone to move and rearrange, should take a couple more weeks especially for a one armed man, the anti gravity devices are helping out though, they are wonderful could not do the job without them.
At least it will be better than being on an INTERNET forum reading posts and watching people here argue like squabbling two year olds. If your going to discuss Science then the Science of 9/11 is what you should be discussing not the politics or the views that have no basis in empirical data.
This whole tread it seems always boils down to a contest of no merit, if your looking for answers into what happened on 9/11/2001 then the one honest thing I can tell you is you will not find them on the internet!
Good bye for now until I have more time and the chance to return.
I have to move a little rock by any means possible including explosives, something I have actually used on occasions for this purpose.
QUOTE (Pierre-Normand+Jun 19 2007, 07:00 AM)
A buckled columns is a buckled column is a buckled column. It might have failed at the splices, fractured or yielded in any other fashion... this makes no difference to the fate of the towers. The mode of failure that has been graphically represented just looks rather naïve.
Only because it shows (maybe) connection failure at both the top and bottom?
Only because it shows (maybe) connection failure at both the top and bottom?
Grumpy -
I think we're mostly in agreement over most important things, so I consider this point something we can agree to disagree about, but I don't think the decision to go to war with Iraq was the wrong call to make, even if GWB had had perfect intel on the existence of WMDs, which he didn't have. The Director of the CIA told him it was a "slam-dunk" that Saddam Hussein had/was developing WMDs, and he got that info from British Intelligence. In the intelligence community, you have to take everything with a grain of salt, so even if British Intelligence had said Iraq *wasn't* developing WMDs, they could've been wrong about it.
The thing that government-haters overlook is the fact that the government will be held accountable for foreseeable consequences of their non-actions as much as they are their actions, so while in everyday life, ordinary citizens can't get into legal trouble for doing nothing whenever they're in doubt, governments are held to higher standards of accountability, and if GWB had done nothing and Iraq suddenly ends up with nukes or more biological weapons (remember, Hussein *used* nerve gas on his own population, killing thousands), then he'd have been held accountable for *not* going to war when he *should've*.
As for the "killing Poppy" thing, "Poppy" was a former President of the US, and even though I didn't vote for him, allowing an assassination attempt against a former US President to go unpunished is asking for trouble downstream. It's a sad fact, but sometimes you have to commit troops to go to war over principles. Our numerous enemies around the world are happy to kill for less, and they only lose respect for us when we don't do likewise. It's a lesson some of us learn in school yards that appeasing bullies only encourages them. Some people won't respect you if you *don't* beat the cr@p out of them when they provoke you.
Iraq isn't over yet, we have systems coming that will enable us to track down and deal with terrorists making car bombs, and once we get those tangos off the streets, the Iraqi government can take over from there.
Likewise, we have systems under development that will allow us to find and deal with Osama bin Laden and his terrorist following. Be patient, victory is within sight on both fronts, and the world will be a better place when we finish them off.
I think we're mostly in agreement over most important things, so I consider this point something we can agree to disagree about, but I don't think the decision to go to war with Iraq was the wrong call to make, even if GWB had had perfect intel on the existence of WMDs, which he didn't have. The Director of the CIA told him it was a "slam-dunk" that Saddam Hussein had/was developing WMDs, and he got that info from British Intelligence. In the intelligence community, you have to take everything with a grain of salt, so even if British Intelligence had said Iraq *wasn't* developing WMDs, they could've been wrong about it.
The thing that government-haters overlook is the fact that the government will be held accountable for foreseeable consequences of their non-actions as much as they are their actions, so while in everyday life, ordinary citizens can't get into legal trouble for doing nothing whenever they're in doubt, governments are held to higher standards of accountability, and if GWB had done nothing and Iraq suddenly ends up with nukes or more biological weapons (remember, Hussein *used* nerve gas on his own population, killing thousands), then he'd have been held accountable for *not* going to war when he *should've*.
As for the "killing Poppy" thing, "Poppy" was a former President of the US, and even though I didn't vote for him, allowing an assassination attempt against a former US President to go unpunished is asking for trouble downstream. It's a sad fact, but sometimes you have to commit troops to go to war over principles. Our numerous enemies around the world are happy to kill for less, and they only lose respect for us when we don't do likewise. It's a lesson some of us learn in school yards that appeasing bullies only encourages them. Some people won't respect you if you *don't* beat the cr@p out of them when they provoke you.
Iraq isn't over yet, we have systems coming that will enable us to track down and deal with terrorists making car bombs, and once we get those tangos off the streets, the Iraqi government can take over from there.
Likewise, we have systems under development that will allow us to find and deal with Osama bin Laden and his terrorist following. Be patient, victory is within sight on both fronts, and the world will be a better place when we finish them off.
wcelliott:
I find your "bully" analogy quite curious...
Here are some countries that have been the victims of US military/CIA intervention (read "bullying") since WWII.
Korea (1945 53)
Iran (1953)
Guatemala (1953 -54)
Indonesia (1957 - 58)
Vietnam (1950 - 73)
Cambodia (1955 -73)
Laos (1957 -73)
Haiti (1959 63)
Uraguay (1964 -70)
Chile (1964 -73)
Bolivia (1964 - 75)
Libya (1981 - 89)
Nicaragua (1981 - 90)
Panama (1969 - 91)
El Salvador (1980 - 94)
Iraq (1990 - 07)
Afghanistan (1979 - 07)
Not to mention Cuba, Somalia, Serbia, China and Russia......
"The world will be a better place when we finish them off"
Mr. Elliott:
You will never win the HEARTS and the MINDS of the people with cluster bombs!
P.S. I too would prefer to stick to physics, but I could not let this one go without ONE comment
I find your "bully" analogy quite curious...
Here are some countries that have been the victims of US military/CIA intervention (read "bullying") since WWII.
Korea (1945 53)
Iran (1953)
Guatemala (1953 -54)
Indonesia (1957 - 58)
Vietnam (1950 - 73)
Cambodia (1955 -73)
Laos (1957 -73)
Haiti (1959 63)
Uraguay (1964 -70)
Chile (1964 -73)
Bolivia (1964 - 75)
Libya (1981 - 89)
Nicaragua (1981 - 90)
Panama (1969 - 91)
El Salvador (1980 - 94)
Iraq (1990 - 07)
Afghanistan (1979 - 07)
Not to mention Cuba, Somalia, Serbia, China and Russia......
"The world will be a better place when we finish them off"
Mr. Elliott:
You will never win the HEARTS and the MINDS of the people with cluster bombs!
P.S. I too would prefer to stick to physics, but I could not let this one go without ONE comment
wcelliott
-The first mistake that we made was listening to "British Intelligence". You would think that after they got us to fight so many other battles in the middle east for them....we wouldn't do it again. Seriously, just given the whole Iranian-Shah thing in 1953...wouldn't it be best to just ignore British Intelligence when they start telling us we need to attack a middle eastern country?
The other problem was Saddam Hussein. The guy was always trying to "start trouble". It was fairly obvious to me that he kept trying to provoke the world. He didn't want to fight, he wanted us to fight each other. He is like the stuck-up girl at a bar trying to get to guys to fight over her. We just played into his hand, and Bush was a little bit more gungho than expected....
Also, for all of you conspiracy nuts....answer me this.
We could have easily planted WMDs in Iraq. It would have been simple, easy, and would have saved our country and our president from global embarrassment. I even remember normal non-conspiracy theorists arguing that we would do it if we didnt find weapons.
So.....why didn't we?
Honestly, if we have the capabilities and the organizational skills to fake the 9/11 bombing(and do it in the most complex and convoluted way possible)....
Why couldn't we hide some WMDs in the desert, and discover them.
Saddam acted as though he had WMDs....
We thought he had WMDs....
Nobody definately knew he DIDNT(no one except maybe Saddam could stand up and say "That is impossible", and no one believed Saddam anyway)
So...why did we not execute this simple and obvious framejob?
-The first mistake that we made was listening to "British Intelligence". You would think that after they got us to fight so many other battles in the middle east for them....we wouldn't do it again. Seriously, just given the whole Iranian-Shah thing in 1953...wouldn't it be best to just ignore British Intelligence when they start telling us we need to attack a middle eastern country?
The other problem was Saddam Hussein. The guy was always trying to "start trouble". It was fairly obvious to me that he kept trying to provoke the world. He didn't want to fight, he wanted us to fight each other. He is like the stuck-up girl at a bar trying to get to guys to fight over her. We just played into his hand, and Bush was a little bit more gungho than expected....
Also, for all of you conspiracy nuts....answer me this.
We could have easily planted WMDs in Iraq. It would have been simple, easy, and would have saved our country and our president from global embarrassment. I even remember normal non-conspiracy theorists arguing that we would do it if we didnt find weapons.
So.....why didn't we?
Honestly, if we have the capabilities and the organizational skills to fake the 9/11 bombing(and do it in the most complex and convoluted way possible)....
Why couldn't we hide some WMDs in the desert, and discover them.
Saddam acted as though he had WMDs....
We thought he had WMDs....
Nobody definately knew he DIDNT(no one except maybe Saddam could stand up and say "That is impossible", and no one believed Saddam anyway)
So...why did we not execute this simple and obvious framejob?
PuckSR:
"So...why did we not execute this simple and obvious framejob?"
Because it would violate international law?
"So...why did we not execute this simple and obvious framejob?"
Because it would violate international law?
Could the several of you who wish to discuss politics and history agree upon another forum and go expose your ignorances there? This is a PhyOrgForum thread. 
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 19 2007, 07:42 PM)
Only because it shows (maybe) connection failure at both the top and bottom?
The animation rather displays the shearing of off the column bodies inches below and above the "spandrels". The latter are actually portrayed as continuous beams the trusses are attached to. There is little accuracy to this animation.
The animation rather displays the shearing of off the column bodies inches below and above the "spandrels". The latter are actually portrayed as continuous beams the trusses are attached to. There is little accuracy to this animation.
QUOTE
Could the several of you who wish to discuss politics and history agree upon another forum and go expose your ignorances there? This is a PhyOrgForum thread.
The problem with this is that the entire motivation of the "troothers" is political, and they have no interest in the physics, because it consistently proves them wrong.
We've got over 300 pages of wild conspiracy theories and solid physics disproving them, and they haven't even slowed down.
I would suggest that the problem is that pure-physics answers aren't addressing their root issues, which are based in naive political ideologies (and lots of anti-American propaganda).
If our responses to politically-motivated accusations are limited to physics that they don't understand and don't really care about anyway, then we aren't discussing the real problem.
Since this is in the "Off-Topic" category, I think *some* off-physics discussion should be allowed, especially if it gets to the real points motivating the CDiots' posts.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 20 2007, 12:42 AM)
We've got over 300 pages of wild conspiracy theories and solid physics disproving them, and they haven't even slowed down.
Since this is in the "Off-Topic" category, I think *some* off-physics discussion should be allowed, especially if it gets to the real points motivating the CDiots' posts.
Thread #1 was entitled Basic Physics: Correct Analysis of the WTC Towers Collapse, or something close to that. It went on for almost 1000 pages. Then admin closed it and opened
Thread #2 as the continuation, but this time in the Off-Topic section, I suppose because so many of the earlier posts were newton's folded money and other wacko stuff. Admin nonetheless issued a stern warning to stick to the topic or be banned. That thread went on for almost 1000 pages. Admin closed it and opened
Thread #3, which is now at 319 pages.
The wackos may not have slowed down, but many don't post on this thread anymore. Some lost interest, I think. Several were banned.
The ones we have now are of two sorts. Those who will never be convinced, no matter what, and a few, who having been confused and mislead by troofer sites, come to ask questions. The way they ask is often a bit odd: they insist on something misleading or wrong. Then several of us here attempt, each in our own way, to straighten then out.
Once in a while, somebody actually posts some relevant science, offers some analytic insights, references to approachable, foundational literature, etc. This will be rather heavily obscured if there is much in the way of (naive) analysis of historical and current events. And discussing it won't change anybody's mind about much of anything.
Since this is in the "Off-Topic" category, I think *some* off-physics discussion should be allowed, especially if it gets to the real points motivating the CDiots' posts.
Thread #1 was entitled Basic Physics: Correct Analysis of the WTC Towers Collapse, or something close to that. It went on for almost 1000 pages. Then admin closed it and opened
Thread #2 as the continuation, but this time in the Off-Topic section, I suppose because so many of the earlier posts were newton's folded money and other wacko stuff. Admin nonetheless issued a stern warning to stick to the topic or be banned. That thread went on for almost 1000 pages. Admin closed it and opened
Thread #3, which is now at 319 pages.
The wackos may not have slowed down, but many don't post on this thread anymore. Some lost interest, I think. Several were banned.
The ones we have now are of two sorts. Those who will never be convinced, no matter what, and a few, who having been confused and mislead by troofer sites, come to ask questions. The way they ask is often a bit odd: they insist on something misleading or wrong. Then several of us here attempt, each in our own way, to straighten then out.
Once in a while, somebody actually posts some relevant science, offers some analytic insights, references to approachable, foundational literature, etc. This will be rather heavily obscured if there is much in the way of (naive) analysis of historical and current events. And discussing it won't change anybody's mind about much of anything.
This section really doesn't exist for the purpose of discussion....
This section exists to give all of the people who enjoy posting this kind of stuff somewhere to discuss it. It keeps them out of the general chat population. It is the same idea as the Creation/Evolution section....but alas people always wind up posting it to the better categories.
This section exists to give all of the people who enjoy posting this kind of stuff somewhere to discuss it. It keeps them out of the general chat population. It is the same idea as the Creation/Evolution section....but alas people always wind up posting it to the better categories.
QUOTE (PuckSR+Jun 20 2007, 01:37 AM)
This section really doesn't exist for the purpose of discussion....
This section exists to give all of the people who enjoy posting this kind of stuff somewhere to discuss it.
This section exists to give all of the people who enjoy posting this kind of stuff somewhere to discuss it.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 19 2007, 09:23 PM)
Could the several of you who wish to discuss politics and history agree upon another forum and go expose your ignorances there? This is a PhyOrgForum thread.
Everything is connected
Everything is connected
The blackboxes are most likely to survive, they place them in the tail for maximal chance to survive, they where not found at the wtc sites.
Only some part of the landing gear and fuselage where found.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/...ain501989.shtml
Probably if the black boxes where placed in the cockpit, or maybe covered with the magical paper of a passport it would have been found intact.
Only some part of the landing gear and fuselage where found.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/02/25/...ain501989.shtml
Probably if the black boxes where placed in the cockpit, or maybe covered with the magical paper of a passport it would have been found intact.
einsteen
Then your explanation of the TONS of paper that was blown out of those buildings unburned is "magic"??? If it could happen to a single sheet of paper, why could it not then also happen to the passport???
Grumpy
QUOTE
Probably if the black boxes where placed in the cockpit, or maybe covered with the magical paper of a passport it would have been found intact.
Then your explanation of the TONS of paper that was blown out of those buildings unburned is "magic"??? If it could happen to a single sheet of paper, why could it not then also happen to the passport???
Grumpy
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jun 19 2007, 07:48 PM)
Our numerous enemies around the world are happy to kill for less, and they only lose respect for us when we don't do likewise. It's a lesson some of us learn in school yards that appeasing bullies only encourages them. Some people won't respect you if you *don't* beat the cr@p out of them when they provoke you.
(...) we have systems under development that will allow us to find and deal with Osama bin Laden and his terrorist following. Be patient, victory is within sight on both fronts, and the world will be a better place when we finish them off.
What are you, 10 years old?
Stop and think a moment how naive it sounds to me, someone trying to start a Revolution based on their lack of understanding of simple physics.
A Revolution?
In the US?
That will *never* happen.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete fool.
As for sophisticated politics versus school yard lessons, unfortunately, not every country is run by sophisticated people. Some countries are run by people who think that 16-yr-olds who have premarital sex *deserve* to be killed.
And however convincing their claims that they aren't afraid to die, they all seem to duck when we shoot at them.
(...) we have systems under development that will allow us to find and deal with Osama bin Laden and his terrorist following. Be patient, victory is within sight on both fronts, and the world will be a better place when we finish them off.
What are you, 10 years old?
QUOTE (wcelliott+)
I would suggest that the problem is that pure-physics answers aren't addressing their root issues, which are based in naive political ideologies
...
...
Did you know that Satam Al Suqami was one of five men named by the FBI as hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11. His passport was allegedly "found" in in the vicinty of Vesey Street.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jun 20 2007, 11:55 AM)
einsteen
Then your explanation of the TONS of paper that was blown out of those buildings unburned is "magic"??? If it could happen to a single sheet of paper, why could it not then also happen to the passport???
Grumpy
Then your explanation of the TONS of paper that was blown out of those buildings unburned is "magic"??? If it could happen to a single sheet of paper, why could it not then also happen to the passport???
Grumpy
QUOTE
What are you, 10 years old?
Stop and think a moment how naive it sounds to me, someone trying to start a Revolution based on their lack of understanding of simple physics.
A Revolution?
In the US?
That will *never* happen.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete fool.
As for sophisticated politics versus school yard lessons, unfortunately, not every country is run by sophisticated people. Some countries are run by people who think that 16-yr-olds who have premarital sex *deserve* to be killed.
And however convincing their claims that they aren't afraid to die, they all seem to duck when we shoot at them.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jun 20 2007, 02:58 AM)
The blackboxes are most likely to survive, they place them in the tail for maximal chance to survive, they where not found at the wtc sites.
Even though the crash was at over twice the normal speed for aircraft crashes its quite probable that the tail location allowed them to survive the initial impact.
Nothing was going to help them survive the subsequent fires and collapse of the towers however.
Arthur
Even though the crash was at over twice the normal speed for aircraft crashes its quite probable that the tail location allowed them to survive the initial impact.
Nothing was going to help them survive the subsequent fires and collapse of the towers however.
Arthur
Lisa Lefler's bag was already in the WTC, of course a lot should survive that, there were
even people waving (taped on camera). And during the collapse a lot of papers survived.
The chance of finding paper is very high when 220 stories collapse.
But what about the stuff in the plane ? The FDR’s are officially not found although they are designed to withstand crashes and have been recovered in crashes with mountains etc. As I said before you should compare it for example with the stuff surrounding it. As far as I know they found a piece of the fuselage and some parts of the landing gear… and a passport.
even people waving (taped on camera). And during the collapse a lot of papers survived.
The chance of finding paper is very high when 220 stories collapse.
But what about the stuff in the plane ? The FDR’s are officially not found although they are designed to withstand crashes and have been recovered in crashes with mountains etc. As I said before you should compare it for example with the stuff surrounding it. As far as I know they found a piece of the fuselage and some parts of the landing gear… and a passport.
einsteen
Isn't that amazing???Not really, there were many "anomolies" associated with 911. The law of averages allows for "fliers". And where the likelyhood of a PARTICULAR piece of paper surviving might be seen as great, the likelyhood that some random pieces surviving is almost a certainty(after all, tons of unburned paper did just that).
Stuff happens, get over it.
Grumpy
QUOTE
As far as I know they found a piece of the fuselage and some parts of the landing gear… and a passport.
Isn't that amazing???Not really, there were many "anomolies" associated with 911. The law of averages allows for "fliers". And where the likelyhood of a PARTICULAR piece of paper surviving might be seen as great, the likelyhood that some random pieces surviving is almost a certainty(after all, tons of unburned paper did just that).
Stuff happens, get over it.
Grumpy
QUOTE (einsteen+Jun 20 2007, 11:01 AM)
But what about the stuff in the plane ? The FDR’s are officially not found although they are designed to withstand crashes and have been recovered in crashes with mountains etc. As I said before you should compare it for example with the stuff surrounding it. As far as I know they found a piece of the fuselage and some parts of the landing gear… and a passport.
ONCE MORE.
They are designed to withstand crashes.
But they are NOT indestructable which is why they put them in the TAIL, to LESSEN the impact forces and exposure to FIRE.
They are NOT designed to withstand the impact forces, then the temps in an OFFICE FIRE (for that long) and then the forces involved in the collapse of the towers.
The passport, on the other hand, was EJECTED from the building PRIOR to the collapse.
What part of PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE do you NOT understand?????
Arthur
ONCE MORE.
They are designed to withstand crashes.
But they are NOT indestructable which is why they put them in the TAIL, to LESSEN the impact forces and exposure to FIRE.
They are NOT designed to withstand the impact forces, then the temps in an OFFICE FIRE (for that long) and then the forces involved in the collapse of the towers.
The passport, on the other hand, was EJECTED from the building PRIOR to the collapse.
What part of PRIOR TO THE COLLAPSE do you NOT understand?????
Arthur
And your point is?
Arthur
Arthur
Passports can bounce?
On Energy lost via seismic waves versus "other" means of loss
Despite wceliot's marvelous physical intuition, via which we have been informed that shock waves "bounce around" until they're absorbed, I saw no quantitative answer in his writings wrt my questions. Unfortunately, wceliot's intuition fails to generate quantitative expressions and values, but perhaps he has not full warmed up to the lofty (ha!) expectations that abound on this thread.
Unfortunately, I haven't found any good info on this, either, but here are two items of note:
from http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/cl.../magnitude.html
Both the magnitude and the seismic moment are related to the amount of energy that is radiated by an earthquake. Richter, working with Dr. Beno Gutenberg, early on developed a relationship between magnitude and energy. Their relationship is:
logES = 11.8 + 1.5M
giving the energy ES in ergs from the magnitude M. Note that ES is not the total ``intrinsic'' energy of the earthquake, transferred from sources such as gravitational energy or to sinks such as heat energy. It is only the amount radiated from the earthquake as seismic waves, which ought to be a small fraction of the total energy transfered during the earthquake process.
(emphasis mine)
A collapsing wtc building isn't the same as an "earthquake process". However I tend to believe that this quote may imply that energy transferred to the ground from a collapsing WTC will also only have a small fraction of it's Kinetic Energy radiate as seismic waves.
from http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98...45968.As.r.html
(emphasis mine)
A collapsing wtc building isn't the same as an "earthquake process". However I tend to believe that this quote may imply that energy transferred to the ground from a collapsing WTC will also only have a small fraction of it's Kinetic Energy radiate as seismic waves.
from http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98...45968.As.r.html
What about the other quantities you've mentioned? We can get a rough idea of the size of an earthquake generated by an asteroid strike by comparing with seismic waves generated by nuclear blasts. The equation for the magnitude of an earthquake is
M = 0.67 log10 E - 2.9
where E is the energy in joules. This is only the energy that ends up as seismic waves: for earthquakes, I think this accounts for most of the energy, but for nuclear blasts and asteroid impacts, lots of energy will be released as heat. I have had no luck figuring out or looking up the fraction of impact energy that ends up as heat, seismic waves, water waves, sound, and flying ejecta. I suspect almost all the energy goes into heat and seismic waves. I also suspect (but can't prove) that all large explosions have a similar fraction of their energy going into the various forms, so you could look up these data for common large explosions (such as surface nuclear blasts and volcanic eruptions) and scale them up proportional to the energy of the asteroid strike. An underground nuclear test is probably not a good model: since it's buried, much more of the blast's energy goes into seismic waves than for a surface explosion.
(emphasis mine)
Mostly guessing, but when the author of the quote above says he suspects most energy went into heat and seismic waves, he may not have thought through the "heat" part of it. I wonder if (assuming impact reaches elastic bedrock) whether a large spectrum of vibrational modes exist to carry off the energy, but only certain frequency ranges can result in measurable seismic waves? Thus, most of the energy may initially go into waves, but the 'non-seismic' waves go many miles before hitting aborbing boundaries or otherwise degrading into heat.
I would think that material scientists or engineers would have a good handle on the general question of frequency dependence of energy dissipating waves in solids.
Despite wceliot's marvelous physical intuition, via which we have been informed that shock waves "bounce around" until they're absorbed, I saw no quantitative answer in his writings wrt my questions. Unfortunately, wceliot's intuition fails to generate quantitative expressions and values, but perhaps he has not full warmed up to the lofty (ha!) expectations that abound on this thread.
Unfortunately, I haven't found any good info on this, either, but here are two items of note:
from http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/cl.../magnitude.html
QUOTE
Both the magnitude and the seismic moment are related to the amount of energy that is radiated by an earthquake. Richter, working with Dr. Beno Gutenberg, early on developed a relationship between magnitude and energy. Their relationship is:
logES = 11.8 + 1.5M
giving the energy ES in ergs from the magnitude M. Note that ES is not the total ``intrinsic'' energy of the earthquake, transferred from sources such as gravitational energy or to sinks such as heat energy. It is only the amount radiated from the earthquake as seismic waves, which ought to be a small fraction of the total energy transfered during the earthquake process.
(emphasis mine)
A collapsing wtc building isn't the same as an "earthquake process". However I tend to believe that this quote may imply that energy transferred to the ground from a collapsing WTC will also only have a small fraction of it's Kinetic Energy radiate as seismic waves.
from http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98...45968.As.r.html
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Both the magnitude and the seismic moment are related to the amount of energy that is radiated by an earthquake. Richter, working with Dr. Beno Gutenberg, early on developed a relationship between magnitude and energy. Their relationship is: logES = 11.8 + 1.5M giving the energy ES in ergs from the magnitude M. Note that ES is not the total ``intrinsic'' energy of the earthquake, transferred from sources such as gravitational energy or to sinks such as heat energy. It is only the amount radiated from the earthquake as seismic waves, which ought to be a small fraction of the total energy transfered during the earthquake process. |
(emphasis mine)
A collapsing wtc building isn't the same as an "earthquake process". However I tend to believe that this quote may imply that energy transferred to the ground from a collapsing WTC will also only have a small fraction of it's Kinetic Energy radiate as seismic waves.
from http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct98...45968.As.r.html
What about the other quantities you've mentioned? We can get a rough idea of the size of an earthquake generated by an asteroid strike by comparing with seismic waves generated by nuclear blasts. The equation for the magnitude of an earthquake is
M = 0.67 log10 E - 2.9
where E is the energy in joules. This is only the energy that ends up as seismic waves: for earthquakes, I think this accounts for most of the energy, but for nuclear blasts and asteroid impacts, lots of energy will be released as heat. I have had no luck figuring out or looking up the fraction of impact energy that ends up as heat, seismic waves, water waves, sound, and flying ejecta. I suspect almost all the energy goes into heat and seismic waves. I also suspect (but can't prove) that all large explosions have a similar fraction of their energy going into the various forms, so you could look up these data for common large explosions (such as surface nuclear blasts and volcanic eruptions) and scale them up proportional to the energy of the asteroid strike. An underground nuclear test is probably not a good model: since it's buried, much more of the blast's energy goes into seismic waves than for a surface explosion.
(emphasis mine)
Mostly guessing, but when the author of the quote above says he suspects most energy went into heat and seismic waves, he may not have thought through the "heat" part of it. I wonder if (assuming impact reaches elastic bedrock) whether a large spectrum of vibrational modes exist to carry off the energy, but only certain frequency ranges can result in measurable seismic waves? Thus, most of the energy may initially go into waves, but the 'non-seismic' waves go many miles before hitting aborbing boundaries or otherwise degrading into heat.
I would think that material scientists or engineers would have a good handle on the general question of frequency dependence of energy dissipating waves in solids.
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.