QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 16 2007, 03:15 AM)
Arthur:
WFC 3 was parallel to WTC 1 , but WFC 2 was parallel to West street. West street runs almost true north while the west face of WTC 1 is inclined about 10 degrees to the east of West Street. This face aligns almost perfectly with the Winter Garden.
Aman Zafar's photograph was taken looking slightly north of due east. The debris cloud marked by AB is falling mostly towards the Winter Garden suggesting to me that we are looking at the collapse of the west face of WTC 1 as it fell approx west by north west.
AceBaker:
It is interesting to mark where the top of WTC 1 would have been on Aman Zafar's picture prior to collpase.
NF
NF -
Upon further consideration, I think the apparent left movement is an optical illusion as you state. I found a video from the west which does not show the same pattern. The explosives threw the material so far to the west, with such an arc, that from Zafar's vantage those curves appear as left-drifting.
This is combined with a simple wind drift. The wind is blowing from left to right basically, so the material that had been in the air the longest would have drifted to the right.
WFC 3 was parallel to WTC 1 , but WFC 2 was parallel to West street. West street runs almost true north while the west face of WTC 1 is inclined about 10 degrees to the east of West Street. This face aligns almost perfectly with the Winter Garden.
Aman Zafar's photograph was taken looking slightly north of due east. The debris cloud marked by AB is falling mostly towards the Winter Garden suggesting to me that we are looking at the collapse of the west face of WTC 1 as it fell approx west by north west.
AceBaker:
It is interesting to mark where the top of WTC 1 would have been on Aman Zafar's picture prior to collpase.
NF
NF -
Upon further consideration, I think the apparent left movement is an optical illusion as you state. I found a video from the west which does not show the same pattern. The explosives threw the material so far to the west, with such an arc, that from Zafar's vantage those curves appear as left-drifting.
This is combined with a simple wind drift. The wind is blowing from left to right basically, so the material that had been in the air the longest would have drifted to the right.
Here is a video looking about south by southeast. You can see the same kind of optical illusion in the other direction. Too bad the beginning of the event is not on this one.
Your caption is BS however.
If you were interested in the TRUTH you would add the second line
It also takes STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
Arthur
If you were interested in the TRUTH you would add the second line
It also takes STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
Arthur
AceBaker
"But airplane collisions +fires can".
Grumpy
QUOTE
Office fires can't do this
"But airplane collisions +fires can".
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 17 2007, 12:34 AM)
Your caption is BS however.
If you were interested in the TRUTH you would add the second line
It also takes STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
Arthur
Pretty funny Arthur. I guess we can divide people into two categories:
1) Those who think that a building collapse can pulverize 99% of the concrete into fine powder, ejecting structural members up to 600 feet in all directions, generating pyroclastic flows of dense dust, a towering mushroom cloud, a bright afterglow, disintegrating steel into dust, and leaving a tiny pile of rubble relative to the size of the building . . .
2) Those who think that it cannot.
Perhaps I could change the caption to "Neither office fires, nor structural damage, nor even conventional explosives can to this . . ."
If you were interested in the TRUTH you would add the second line
It also takes STRUCTURAL DAMAGE.
Arthur
Pretty funny Arthur. I guess we can divide people into two categories:
1) Those who think that a building collapse can pulverize 99% of the concrete into fine powder, ejecting structural members up to 600 feet in all directions, generating pyroclastic flows of dense dust, a towering mushroom cloud, a bright afterglow, disintegrating steel into dust, and leaving a tiny pile of rubble relative to the size of the building . . .
2) Those who think that it cannot.
Perhaps I could change the caption to "Neither office fires, nor structural damage, nor even conventional explosives can to this . . ."
Too bad you can't even get the groups right.
As your last vid shows, there is NO towering mushroom cloud, nor bright afterglow.
We dealt with the fact that there was OBVIOUSLY no pyroclastic flow in the previous thread.
There are no examples of steel disintergrating into dust.
A FEW structural members went somewhat over 400 ft. but the VAST majority did not.
No one has an exact figure, but no one has shown that 99% of the concrete was turned ot dust either. The CLOSE UP photos of GZ show this is clearly NOT the case.
As we showed in the last thread, the rubble pile is ~ 10% of the building height. Considering the building was MOSTLY air, that's about right.
Arthur
As your last vid shows, there is NO towering mushroom cloud, nor bright afterglow.
We dealt with the fact that there was OBVIOUSLY no pyroclastic flow in the previous thread.
There are no examples of steel disintergrating into dust.
A FEW structural members went somewhat over 400 ft. but the VAST majority did not.
No one has an exact figure, but no one has shown that 99% of the concrete was turned ot dust either. The CLOSE UP photos of GZ show this is clearly NOT the case.
As we showed in the last thread, the rubble pile is ~ 10% of the building height. Considering the building was MOSTLY air, that's about right.
Arthur
AceBaker
An office fire is one that starts in one cubicle(say in a trash can) and, over time, spreads to other parts of the office space.
What happened in the twin towers was NOT an office fire but was a multifloor widespread conflagration where large amounts of fuel(kerosene and floor contents) was ignited simultainiously.
They are in no way comparable any more than a squirt gun and a fire hose would be.
Grumpy
An office fire is one that starts in one cubicle(say in a trash can) and, over time, spreads to other parts of the office space.
What happened in the twin towers was NOT an office fire but was a multifloor widespread conflagration where large amounts of fuel(kerosene and floor contents) was ignited simultainiously.
They are in no way comparable any more than a squirt gun and a fire hose would be.
Grumpy
Funny how the conspiracy theorists run the debate by questioning the NIST report without EVER questioning the conspiracy story...
How much of what explosive would be needed to blow up the towers THE WAY WE SEE IT. Slow inward pulling of the perimeter columns and all... I bet NOT ONE will have this answer...
How much of what explosive would be needed to blow up the towers THE WAY WE SEE IT. Slow inward pulling of the perimeter columns and all... I bet NOT ONE will have this answer...
I am not an advocate of the NO plane theory (to many easy to expose lies in the OCT to bother with NO planes). Watch this video at 1:56 and 2:15. Two stations from nearly the same angle, one with a plane and one without. What is the OTC explanation for this anomaly? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl9kyH7cgA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl9kyH7cgA
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 16 2007, 07:21 PM)
Funny how the conspiracy theorists run the debate by questioning the NIST report without EVER questioning the conspiracy story...
How much of what explosive would be needed to blow up the towers THE WAY WE SEE IT. Slow inward pulling of the perimeter columns and all... I bet NOT ONE will have this answer...
Because we do question the conspiracy theory and obviously don’t know what explosives it would take. Unlike the unquestioning OTC supporters and pseudo-scientist, we can admit this.
Just a few of the questions the OCT ignore or BS's about.
“No molten steel”, when you have pages of quotes and a study of the molten steel flow.
“The evidence was inspected and not destroyed”, when it is obvious that is not what happened.
No need to model the collapse and just use the videos to prove “global collapse ensued”, when this should be a critical part of the report.
How much of what explosive would be needed to blow up the towers THE WAY WE SEE IT. Slow inward pulling of the perimeter columns and all... I bet NOT ONE will have this answer...
Because we do question the conspiracy theory and obviously don’t know what explosives it would take. Unlike the unquestioning OTC supporters and pseudo-scientist, we can admit this.
Just a few of the questions the OCT ignore or BS's about.
“No molten steel”, when you have pages of quotes and a study of the molten steel flow.
“The evidence was inspected and not destroyed”, when it is obvious that is not what happened.
No need to model the collapse and just use the videos to prove “global collapse ensued”, when this should be a critical part of the report.
reasonwhy
You don't know if or what type of explosives, yet you continue to say it must have been explosives with absolutely no evidence but with absolute certainty. That is not science, that is BS. You would have the exact same amount of evidence that a UFO came down with it's death ray and killed everyone in NY and replaced them with pod people. Didn't happen.
The actual evidence reveals that no explosives were used, the seismic, physical and audio records all say the same thing. The investigation by the best scientists in the world found that the collapse was caused by the aircraft impacts and fires, noone has challenged any of their reports sucessfully and they stand as one of the most thourough investigations in the history of mankind. The little yappy type dogs of the CTer movement notwithstanding, they make all sorts of noise but in the end it is meaningless.
You don't know if or what type of explosives, yet you continue to say it must have been explosives with absolutely no evidence but with absolute certainty. That is not science, that is BS. You would have the exact same amount of evidence that a UFO came down with it's death ray and killed everyone in NY and replaced them with pod people. Didn't happen.
The actual evidence reveals that no explosives were used, the seismic, physical and audio records all say the same thing. The investigation by the best scientists in the world found that the collapse was caused by the aircraft impacts and fires, noone has challenged any of their reports sucessfully and they stand as one of the most thourough investigations in the history of mankind. The little yappy type dogs of the CTer movement notwithstanding, they make all sorts of noise but in the end it is meaningless.
“No molten steel”, when you have pages of quotes and a study of the molten steel flow.
But what about the pesky little fact that NO MOLTEN STEEL WAS FOUND ANYWHERE ON THE WHOLE SITE. You've yet to show the first little bit of evidence(I know it means little to a CTer, but it is required by scientists) for even one little puddle of molten steel. Those who said they saw such are simply wrong. Didn't happen.
Six months or more the steel was available for inspection at Freshkills. How long does it take to examine and sample. NIST kept over 200 relivant samples(most of the steel was irrelivant) and it is STILL available for qualified investigators. The huge amount of evidence is mostly available from NIST, I think it only costs about 1200 dollars in duplication costs and a big truck to haul it in.
Six months or more the steel was available for inspection at Freshkills. How long does it take to examine and sample. NIST kept over 200 relivant samples(most of the steel was irrelivant) and it is STILL available for qualified investigators. The huge amount of evidence is mostly available from NIST, I think it only costs about 1200 dollars in duplication costs and a big truck to haul it in.
No need to model the collapse and just use the videos to prove “global collapse ensued”, when this should be a critical part of the report.
Anything less than full size modeling is useless, and full size modelling is much too expensive, so the computer modelling is as good as it gets. Backed up by all the material tests NIST did the computer models are pretty good. If you have a specific problem with the computer models, write a paper about it, get it published and peer reviewed or shut the heck up, that's enough yapping.
Grumpy
I think Judy Wood may be right. I think the steel from the top of the towers disintegrated. There was no need to ship it anywhere or do anything. It was already gone. The above is a cover story. There is no evidence that the top 80 or so stories of steel survived, and plenty of evidence that it did not.
reasonwhy, I support your right to do this.
“No molten steel”, when you have pages of quotes and a study of the molten steel flow.
QUOTE
Becouse we do question the conspiracy theory and obviously don’t know what explosives it would take. Unlike the unquestioning OTC supporters and pseudo-scientist, we can admit this. biggrin.gif
You don't know if or what type of explosives, yet you continue to say it must have been explosives with absolutely no evidence but with absolute certainty. That is not science, that is BS. You would have the exact same amount of evidence that a UFO came down with it's death ray and killed everyone in NY and replaced them with pod people. Didn't happen.
The actual evidence reveals that no explosives were used, the seismic, physical and audio records all say the same thing. The investigation by the best scientists in the world found that the collapse was caused by the aircraft impacts and fires, noone has challenged any of their reports sucessfully and they stand as one of the most thourough investigations in the history of mankind. The little yappy type dogs of the CTer movement notwithstanding, they make all sorts of noise but in the end it is meaningless.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Becouse we do question the conspiracy theory and obviously don’t know what explosives it would take. Unlike the unquestioning OTC supporters and pseudo-scientist, we can admit this. biggrin.gif |
You don't know if or what type of explosives, yet you continue to say it must have been explosives with absolutely no evidence but with absolute certainty. That is not science, that is BS. You would have the exact same amount of evidence that a UFO came down with it's death ray and killed everyone in NY and replaced them with pod people. Didn't happen.
The actual evidence reveals that no explosives were used, the seismic, physical and audio records all say the same thing. The investigation by the best scientists in the world found that the collapse was caused by the aircraft impacts and fires, noone has challenged any of their reports sucessfully and they stand as one of the most thourough investigations in the history of mankind. The little yappy type dogs of the CTer movement notwithstanding, they make all sorts of noise but in the end it is meaningless.
“No molten steel”, when you have pages of quotes and a study of the molten steel flow.
But what about the pesky little fact that NO MOLTEN STEEL WAS FOUND ANYWHERE ON THE WHOLE SITE. You've yet to show the first little bit of evidence(I know it means little to a CTer, but it is required by scientists) for even one little puddle of molten steel. Those who said they saw such are simply wrong. Didn't happen.
QUOTE
“The evidence was inspected and not destroyed”, when it is obvious that is not what happened.
Six months or more the steel was available for inspection at Freshkills. How long does it take to examine and sample. NIST kept over 200 relivant samples(most of the steel was irrelivant) and it is STILL available for qualified investigators. The huge amount of evidence is mostly available from NIST, I think it only costs about 1200 dollars in duplication costs and a big truck to haul it in.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| “The evidence was inspected and not destroyed”, when it is obvious that is not what happened. |
Six months or more the steel was available for inspection at Freshkills. How long does it take to examine and sample. NIST kept over 200 relivant samples(most of the steel was irrelivant) and it is STILL available for qualified investigators. The huge amount of evidence is mostly available from NIST, I think it only costs about 1200 dollars in duplication costs and a big truck to haul it in.
No need to model the collapse and just use the videos to prove “global collapse ensued”, when this should be a critical part of the report.
Anything less than full size modeling is useless, and full size modelling is much too expensive, so the computer modelling is as good as it gets. Backed up by all the material tests NIST did the computer models are pretty good. If you have a specific problem with the computer models, write a paper about it, get it published and peer reviewed or shut the heck up, that's enough yapping.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 16 2007, 09:18 PM)
reasonwhy
You don't know if or what type of explosives, yet you continue to say it must have been explosives with absolutely no evidence but with absolute certainty. That is not science, that is BS. You would have the exact same amount of evidence that a UFO came down with it's death ray and killed everyone in NY and replaced them with pod people. Didn't happen.
The actual evidence reveals that no explosives were used, the seismic, physical and audio records all say the same thing. The investigation by the best scientists in the world found that the collapse was caused by the aircraft impacts and fires, noone has challenged any of their reports sucessfully and they stand as one of the most thourough investigations in the history of mankind. The little yappy type dogs of the CTer movement notwithstanding, they make all sorts of noise but in the end it is meaningless.
But what about the pesky little fact that NO MOLTEN STEEL WAS FOUND ANYWHERE ON THE WHOLE SITE. You've yet to show the first little bit of evidence(I know it means little to a CTer, but it is required by scientists) for even one little puddle of molten steel. Those who said they saw such are simply wrong. Didn't happen.
Six months or more the steel was available for inspection at Freshkills. How long does it take to examine and sample. NIST kept over 200 relivant samples(most of the steel was irrelivant) and it is STILL available for qualified investigators. The huge amount of evidence is mostly available from NIST, I think it only costs about 1200 dollars in duplication costs and a big truck to haul it in.
Anything less than full size modeling is useless, and full size modelling is much too expensive, so the computer modelling is as good as it gets. Backed up by all the material tests NIST did the computer models are pretty good. If you have a specific problem with the computer models, write a paper about it, get it published and peer reviewed or shut the heck up, that's enough yapping.
Grumpy )
Grumpster reminds me of a MOB boss who buried a body were he knows it will not be found, then claiming his innocence because their is no evidence.
TO Grumpster Jimmy Hoffa is still alive.
Let’s go back (again) to what the government said about destroying evidence:
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).We know the government would not lie!
I realize the OCT is a little slow but having to prove you wrong day after day is getting old.
So the evidence is not just removed but destroyed and Grumster claims the witnesses don’t know what they are talking about (unless it is WTC7).
Doesn’t this sound just like another group of infamous deniers?
You don't know if or what type of explosives, yet you continue to say it must have been explosives with absolutely no evidence but with absolute certainty. That is not science, that is BS. You would have the exact same amount of evidence that a UFO came down with it's death ray and killed everyone in NY and replaced them with pod people. Didn't happen.
The actual evidence reveals that no explosives were used, the seismic, physical and audio records all say the same thing. The investigation by the best scientists in the world found that the collapse was caused by the aircraft impacts and fires, noone has challenged any of their reports sucessfully and they stand as one of the most thourough investigations in the history of mankind. The little yappy type dogs of the CTer movement notwithstanding, they make all sorts of noise but in the end it is meaningless.
But what about the pesky little fact that NO MOLTEN STEEL WAS FOUND ANYWHERE ON THE WHOLE SITE. You've yet to show the first little bit of evidence(I know it means little to a CTer, but it is required by scientists) for even one little puddle of molten steel. Those who said they saw such are simply wrong. Didn't happen.
Six months or more the steel was available for inspection at Freshkills. How long does it take to examine and sample. NIST kept over 200 relivant samples(most of the steel was irrelivant) and it is STILL available for qualified investigators. The huge amount of evidence is mostly available from NIST, I think it only costs about 1200 dollars in duplication costs and a big truck to haul it in.
Anything less than full size modeling is useless, and full size modelling is much too expensive, so the computer modelling is as good as it gets. Backed up by all the material tests NIST did the computer models are pretty good. If you have a specific problem with the computer models, write a paper about it, get it published and peer reviewed or shut the heck up, that's enough yapping.
Grumpy )
Grumpster reminds me of a MOB boss who buried a body were he knows it will not be found, then claiming his innocence because their is no evidence.
TO Grumpster Jimmy Hoffa is still alive.
Let’s go back (again) to what the government said about destroying evidence:
QUOTE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
Noon to 2:00 p.m.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7-12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear. Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings
In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
Noon to 2:00 p.m.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7-12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear. Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings
In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).We know the government would not lie!
I realize the OCT is a little slow but having to prove you wrong day after day is getting old.
So the evidence is not just removed but destroyed and Grumster claims the witnesses don’t know what they are talking about (unless it is WTC7).
Doesn’t this sound just like another group of infamous deniers?
What caused the damage seen on the left side of this photo? It seems to be well above where the "wing" went through.
QUOTE
In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.
I think Judy Wood may be right. I think the steel from the top of the towers disintegrated. There was no need to ship it anywhere or do anything. It was already gone. The above is a cover story. There is no evidence that the top 80 or so stories of steel survived, and plenty of evidence that it did not.
A crush-up at the start of the collapse would cause mass to accumulate on the top floor of the lower section. The floors between the core and perimeter couldn't maintain the mass of a couple stories in the static state, let alone that amount of mass falling on them, due to the limited strength of the connections. The 81st floor apparently needed to be reinforced to hold some batteries. A crush-down of the main floors would be inevitable after a few impacts. Once falling mass builds up at the front, it is able to continue the crush-down on its own. At that point, one could theoretically lift off whatever was left of the upper block and the front would continue to propagate the collapse, although at a slower rate.
Part of the core was left in WTC2 at the end of collapse, so the upper section must have been damaged on the way down. The mass of whatever was left of it at the front was able to continue the collapse through the main floor sections.
Part of the core was left in WTC2 at the end of collapse, so the upper section must have been damaged on the way down. The mass of whatever was left of it at the front was able to continue the collapse through the main floor sections.
"Gordon Ross 23rd February 2006
A similar flaw occurs when the author (Greening) discusses strain energy. Firstly and most importantly he uses the same value, 600MJ, for each of the storeys within the structure. There is no way this can be true and the values would lie over a wide range. For instance the 100th storey normally carries the ten storeys and the hat truss above and would be built with this in mind. The tenth floor would carry 100 upper storeys and the hat truss, so its geometry would reflect this. The author’s use of a constant value for this strain energy requirement does not reflect the situation which actually did exist."
---------------
That'a a legitimate issue. It turns out that collapse duration is insensitive to E1 increasing toward the ground level unless E1 is near the value that halts the collapse.
I tried increasing the value of E1 in proportional to the number of stories that a particular story is supporting above it. The model is of the same type that Greening used. The results for the collapse duration are:
WTC1: 13.2 s E1=0.6 GJ
WTC1: 13.6 s, E1(start of stage 1)=0.6 GJ, E1(end of stage 1)=2.4 GJ
WTC2: 12.0 s E1=0.8 GJ
WTC2: 12.4 s, E1(start of stage 1)=0.8 GJ, E1(end of stage 1)=3.2 GJ
For an E1 that increases toward the ground level, the collapse duration increases by about 0.4 s compared with a constant E1. When E1 is not near the value needed to halt collapse, the KE increases quickly and swamps out the slowing effect of an increasing E1.
The continuum model of Bazant and Verdure shows the same behavior, as seen in their parametric curves for variable E1 at the end of their paper.
A similar flaw occurs when the author (Greening) discusses strain energy. Firstly and most importantly he uses the same value, 600MJ, for each of the storeys within the structure. There is no way this can be true and the values would lie over a wide range. For instance the 100th storey normally carries the ten storeys and the hat truss above and would be built with this in mind. The tenth floor would carry 100 upper storeys and the hat truss, so its geometry would reflect this. The author’s use of a constant value for this strain energy requirement does not reflect the situation which actually did exist."
---------------
That'a a legitimate issue. It turns out that collapse duration is insensitive to E1 increasing toward the ground level unless E1 is near the value that halts the collapse.
I tried increasing the value of E1 in proportional to the number of stories that a particular story is supporting above it. The model is of the same type that Greening used. The results for the collapse duration are:
WTC1: 13.2 s E1=0.6 GJ
WTC1: 13.6 s, E1(start of stage 1)=0.6 GJ, E1(end of stage 1)=2.4 GJ
WTC2: 12.0 s E1=0.8 GJ
WTC2: 12.4 s, E1(start of stage 1)=0.8 GJ, E1(end of stage 1)=3.2 GJ
For an E1 that increases toward the ground level, the collapse duration increases by about 0.4 s compared with a constant E1. When E1 is not near the value needed to halt collapse, the KE increases quickly and swamps out the slowing effect of an increasing E1.
The continuum model of Bazant and Verdure shows the same behavior, as seen in their parametric curves for variable E1 at the end of their paper.
reasonwhy, I support your right to do this.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 17 2007, 04:56 AM)
“No molten steel”, when you have pages of quotes and a study of the molten steel flow.
What study of molten steel flow?
You don't mean this GeoNews article on thermal imagery that you posted earlier.
The article wasn't a study, it was documentation of the mapping and thermal imaging done at ground zero.
The comments about molten steel were speculation on the part of the author or someone interviewed.
There was no factual connection made between the thermal images and any molten steel in the debris pile.
The temperatures obtained from the imagery were not high enough to support the presence of molten steel.
You don't mean this GeoNews article on thermal imagery that you posted earlier.
The article wasn't a study, it was documentation of the mapping and thermal imaging done at ground zero.
The comments about molten steel were speculation on the part of the author or someone interviewed.
There was no factual connection made between the thermal images and any molten steel in the debris pile.
The temperatures obtained from the imagery were not high enough to support the presence of molten steel.
Someone posted a helicopter view of a CD of a tower. The collapse front was spatially local and traveling from the bottom to the top of the tower throughout the collapse. The entire tower didn't disintegrate at once but rather in a stepwise fashion.
One or two floors at the ground level are usually CDed to insure the collapse will start and continue to propagate. The video shows charges going off at the ground level and throughout the height of the building before but not during the collapse.
Even with all of that weakening and the collapse front having the energy of the entire falling mass of the building, the front remained local and the rest of the tower didn't disintegrate all at once. That shows that it's difficult for energy to move away from the front. Failure mechanisms such as buckling near the front tend to keep the front local. Cutter charges weren't going off during the collapse, so the stepwise behavior is not due to cutter charges blowing out each floor in sync with the front.
A debris pile builds up at the base of a bottom-up collapse which enables off-axis strikes for the next story falling onto the pile. It's similar to the debris pile of a top-down collapse such as the WTC towers where the pile fails the next story below in part by striking columns off-axis causing buckling or splice failure or by fracturing floor connections.
One or two floors at the ground level are usually CDed to insure the collapse will start and continue to propagate. The video shows charges going off at the ground level and throughout the height of the building before but not during the collapse.
Even with all of that weakening and the collapse front having the energy of the entire falling mass of the building, the front remained local and the rest of the tower didn't disintegrate all at once. That shows that it's difficult for energy to move away from the front. Failure mechanisms such as buckling near the front tend to keep the front local. Cutter charges weren't going off during the collapse, so the stepwise behavior is not due to cutter charges blowing out each floor in sync with the front.
A debris pile builds up at the base of a bottom-up collapse which enables off-axis strikes for the next story falling onto the pile. It's similar to the debris pile of a top-down collapse such as the WTC towers where the pile fails the next story below in part by striking columns off-axis causing buckling or splice failure or by fracturing floor connections.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 17 2007, 07:08 AM)
Grumpster reminds me of a MOB boss who buried a body were he knows it will not be found, then claiming his innocence because their is no evidence.
TO Grumpster Jimmy Hoffa is still alive.
Let’s go back (again) to what the government said about destroying evidence:
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
Noon to 2:00 p.m.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7-12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear. Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings
In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).We know the government would not lie!
I realize the OCT is a little slow but having to prove you wrong day after day is getting old.
So the evidence is not just removed but destroyed and Grumster claims the witnesses don’t know what they are talking about (unless it is WTC7).
Doesn’t this sound just like another group of infamous deniers?
From the testimony of W. Gene Corley, who led the 23 member FEMA BPAT team:
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).We know the government would not lie!
I realize the OCT is a little slow but having to prove you wrong day after day is getting old.
So the evidence is not just removed but destroyed and Grumster claims the witnesses don’t know what they are talking about (unless it is WTC7).
Doesn’t this sound just like another group of infamous deniers?
From the testimony of W. Gene Corley, who led the 23 member FEMA BPAT team:There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.
I think Judy Wood may be right. I think the steel from the top of the towers disintegrated. There was no need to ship it anywhere or do anything. It was already gone. The above is a cover story. There is no evidence that the top 80 or so stories of steel survived, and plenty of evidence that it did not.
Oh, please, please follow up on this claim.
How was it "disintegrated?"
What happened to the mass of iron, carbon and other elements that make up steel?
What specific "evidence" do you have that definitively proves that the steel from the top of the building did not survive.
let's hear it, ace, I'm bored and need a good laugh.
TO Grumpster Jimmy Hoffa is still alive.
Let’s go back (again) to what the government said about destroying evidence:
QUOTE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
Noon to 2:00 p.m.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7-12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear. Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings
In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).We know the government would not lie!
I realize the OCT is a little slow but having to prove you wrong day after day is getting old.
So the evidence is not just removed but destroyed and Grumster claims the witnesses don’t know what they are talking about (unless it is WTC7).
Doesn’t this sound just like another group of infamous deniers?
From the testimony of W. Gene Corley, who led the 23 member FEMA BPAT team:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HEARING CHARTER Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Wednesday, March 6, 2002 Noon to 2:00 p.m. 2318 Rayburn House Office Building The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7-12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear. Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection. |
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).We know the government would not lie!
I realize the OCT is a little slow but having to prove you wrong day after day is getting old.
So the evidence is not just removed but destroyed and Grumster claims the witnesses don’t know what they are talking about (unless it is WTC7).
Doesn’t this sound just like another group of infamous deniers?
From the testimony of W. Gene Corley, who led the 23 member FEMA BPAT team:There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.
reasonless
Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley
Senior Vice President
CTL Engineering
Chicago, IL
On behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards
& Subcommittee on Research
Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous.
Obtaining access to the site of a disaster is always difficult and clearly the search and rescue efforts and any criminal investigation must take first priority. However, in all
studies of this nature, gaining access to the site as soon as possible is important in
order to observe and document the debris and site conditions. For the future, it may be useful to consider some protocol or process whereby selected individuals from the
BPST would be allowed on site in the initial days after a catastrophic event to gather
critical data.
There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently
been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
So much for your lies reasonless. The various investigators were allowed on site and given free access as soon as the rescue operations and hazmat inspections were complete. No steel was shipped out of Freshkills before there was ample opportunity to inspect it, that is just another CTer lie. When they find that the facts are not on their side they make it up!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7-12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear.
Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley
Senior Vice President
CTL Engineering
Chicago, IL
On behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards
& Subcommittee on Research
Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas which were determined to be extremely hazardous.
Obtaining access to the site of a disaster is always difficult and clearly the search and rescue efforts and any criminal investigation must take first priority. However, in all
studies of this nature, gaining access to the site as soon as possible is important in
order to observe and document the debris and site conditions. For the future, it may be useful to consider some protocol or process whereby selected individuals from the
BPST would be allowed on site in the initial days after a catastrophic event to gather
critical data.
There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently
been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
So much for your lies reasonless. The various investigators were allowed on site and given free access as soon as the rescue operations and hazmat inspections were complete. No steel was shipped out of Freshkills before there was ample opportunity to inspect it, that is just another CTer lie. When they find that the facts are not on their side they make it up!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 17 2007, 02:07 AM)
I think Judy Wood may be right. I think the steel from the top of the towers disintegrated. There was no need to ship it anywhere or do anything. It was already gone. The above is a cover story. There is no evidence that the top 80 or so stories of steel survived, and plenty of evidence that it did not.
Oh, please, please follow up on this claim.
How was it "disintegrated?"
What happened to the mass of iron, carbon and other elements that make up steel?
What specific "evidence" do you have that definitively proves that the steel from the top of the building did not survive.
let's hear it, ace, I'm bored and need a good laugh.
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 17 2007, 02:02 AM)
What caused the damage seen on the left side of this photo? It seems to be well above where the "wing" went through.
What part of the concept of "fire" don't you understand?
What part of the concept of "fire" don't you understand?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 16 2007, 08:25 PM)
AceBaker
An office fire is one that starts in one cubicle(say in a trash can) and, over time, spreads to other parts of the office space.
What happened in the twin towers was NOT an office fire but was a multifloor widespread conflagration where large amounts of fuel(kerosene and floor contents) was ignited simultainiously.
They are in no way comparable any more than a squirt gun and a fire hose would be.
Grumpy
Even a simple cubicle fire can unleash a huge amount of thermal energy.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst_descriptive_link.htm
An office fire is one that starts in one cubicle(say in a trash can) and, over time, spreads to other parts of the office space.
What happened in the twin towers was NOT an office fire but was a multifloor widespread conflagration where large amounts of fuel(kerosene and floor contents) was ignited simultainiously.
They are in no way comparable any more than a squirt gun and a fire hose would be.
Grumpy
Even a simple cubicle fire can unleash a huge amount of thermal energy.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/ncst_descriptive_link.htm
Clearly we are down to the bottom of the barrel of the few remaining CT'ers.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 16 2007, 11:56 PM)
Because we do question the conspiracy theory and obviously don’t know what explosives it would take. Unlike the unquestioning OTC supporters and pseudo-scientist, we can admit this.
Just a few of the questions the OCT ignore or BS's about.
“No molten steel”, when you have pages of quotes and a study of the molten steel flow.
“The evidence was inspected and not destroyed”, when it is obvious that is not what happened.
No need to model the collapse and just use the videos to prove “global collapse ensued”, when this should be a critical part of the report.
You don't have to know what explosive it was and you know it. You only have to say what explosive it COULD be, how much it would take, where it would have to be placed, ETC... All should be backed up with physics like the NIST and people here on the collapse by gravity side are doing. All should be verified by video evidence. Are you saying it's impossible to know before the event? PLEASE tell me you're saying that. Because if you are then it was also impossible for the government to do it and you just made my point.
You're killing your our conspiracy story. Stop dodging and tell us how the government pulled this off with the evidence we have. You can't because you believe the leaders of the conspiracy story without question. You're a lemming.
Just a few of the questions the OCT ignore or BS's about.
“No molten steel”, when you have pages of quotes and a study of the molten steel flow.
“The evidence was inspected and not destroyed”, when it is obvious that is not what happened.
No need to model the collapse and just use the videos to prove “global collapse ensued”, when this should be a critical part of the report.
You don't have to know what explosive it was and you know it. You only have to say what explosive it COULD be, how much it would take, where it would have to be placed, ETC... All should be backed up with physics like the NIST and people here on the collapse by gravity side are doing. All should be verified by video evidence. Are you saying it's impossible to know before the event? PLEASE tell me you're saying that. Because if you are then it was also impossible for the government to do it and you just made my point.
You're killing your our conspiracy story. Stop dodging and tell us how the government pulled this off with the evidence we have. You can't because you believe the leaders of the conspiracy story without question. You're a lemming.
Their story steps all over each other. It decentigrated yet it was ejected out to hit other buildings. Maybe it hit other buildings THEN decentigrated! Yeah, that's the ticket!!!
Incase people need to see it again...
http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg
Doesn't look like it's "decentigrated" to me... Heh! It also doesn't look like "it fell in it's own footprint" either. Heh!
Incase people need to see it again...
http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg
Doesn't look like it's "decentigrated" to me... Heh! It also doesn't look like "it fell in it's own footprint" either. Heh!
I see the Holocaust... (Ops)... I mean “Molten Steel Deniers” are back to the same useless arguments and I will debunk them later (if they had all the sample needed, 600F is the max temp reached, end of OCT fairytale).
Nobody answered this:
Awesome video Common Sense!
perhaps the planes were supposed to hit the tv stations then and hit the towers by mistake?
g.
Awesome video Common Sense!
Some of best CGI I've ever seen.
If one wasn't aware of the truth, this video could easily convince you that a plane hit that building.
From the testimony of W. Gene Corley, who led the 23 member FEMA BPAT team:
Homo & sterilization Promoter, This reads like a press release or someone soliciting future government grants!
If removing the steel in weeks from WTC7 did not hinder the investigation, why do we still not have a report after more then 5 years?
Why are we left with computer generated hypothetical simulations that are not verified by the forensic evidence?
Why do we have all the eyewitness reports of molten steel ignored in all the government authorized and paid for Reports?
reasonwhy, I support your right to do this.
Is this a picture of your latest conversions? You must be moving right up the "kill the people, save the planet", pyrimid.
To save the planet, you better advocate promoting homosexual cows also:
http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article88
http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article88
What study of molten steel flow?
You don't mean this GeoNews article on thermal imagery that you posted earlier.
The article wasn't a study, it was documentation of the mapping and thermal imaging done at ground zero.
The comments about molten steel were speculation on the part of the author or someone interviewed.
There was no factual connection made between the thermal images and any molten steel in the debris pile.
The temperatures obtained from the imagery were not high enough to support the presence of molten steel.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02.gif
Above: Thermal Imagery of the progression of molten steel hotspots
from September 18 to September25.
Dr. Sean Ahearn is working with the OEM (New York City Office of Emergency Management) who had engineers on the ground (Rich Garlock and others) with temperature sensors monitoring the buildings and they don’t verify the maps they are passing out to help the recovery workers?
Don't you think there would be pictures and 'quotes' about the recovered puddles, if any existed? ugh!
Considering that it was obviously the same group that removed and destroyed the evidence, that also was not allowing photographs, NO.
Read the quotes again, they do talk about what remained.
Nobody answered this:
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 16 2007, 08:49 PM)
I am not an advocate of the NO plane theory (to many easy to expose lies in the OCT to bother with NO planes). Watch this video at 1:56 and 2:15. Two stations from nearly the same angle, one with a plane and one without. What is the OTC explanation for this anomaly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl9kyH7cgA
How do you remove a plane from a live News feed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl9kyH7cgA
How do you remove a plane from a live News feed?
reasonwhy
That film certainly proves it, Killtown and most of the other CTers are certifiably insane. The sad thing is all the idiots who think they are right. Between this and Ace's meltdown I am at a loss to name this weeks looniest toon, but keep it up reasonless, you'll get there soon, at this rate.
Grumpy
QUOTE
QUOTE (reasonwhy @ Feb 16 2007, 08:49 PM)
I am not an advocate of the NO plane theory (to many easy to expose lies in the OCT to bother with NO planes). Watch this video at 1:56 and 2:15. Two stations from nearly the same angle, one with a plane and one without. What is the OTC explanation for this anomaly?
I am not an advocate of the NO plane theory (to many easy to expose lies in the OCT to bother with NO planes). Watch this video at 1:56 and 2:15. Two stations from nearly the same angle, one with a plane and one without. What is the OTC explanation for this anomaly?
That film certainly proves it, Killtown and most of the other CTers are certifiably insane. The sad thing is all the idiots who think they are right. Between this and Ace's meltdown I am at a loss to name this weeks looniest toon, but keep it up reasonless, you'll get there soon, at this rate.
Grumpy
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 17 2007, 04:49 AM)
I am not an advocate of the NO plane theory (to many easy to expose lies in the OCT to bother with NO planes). Watch this video at 1:56 and 2:15. Two stations from nearly the same angle, one with a plane and one without. What is the OTC explanation for this anomaly?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl9kyH7cgA
Take another look (from one of the youtube comments):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUl9kyH7cgA
Take another look (from one of the youtube comments):
QUOTE
at 00:33 direct your eyes to the upper edge of the shot, 3/4 to the right, the plane comes in, travels down and to the left, and reaches the tower perfectly consistently with the apparent speed and direction.
eigenvalue
Sadly reasonless is not interested in facts. You should prepare yourself for a s___storm of abuse from him, it's all he has to work with.
Grumpy
QUOTE
at 00:33 direct your eyes to the upper edge of the shot, 3/4 to the right, the plane comes in, travels down and to the left, and reaches the tower perfectly consistently with the apparent speed and direction.
Sadly reasonless is not interested in facts. You should prepare yourself for a s___storm of abuse from him, it's all he has to work with.
Grumpy
QUOTE (eigenvalue+Feb 17 2007, 10:01 AM)
Take another look (from one of the youtube comments):
Thanks,
Ok , I see what could be a plane. SO, killtown is making fake videos.
Thanks,
Ok , I see what could be a plane. SO, killtown is making fake videos.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 17 2007, 06:13 PM)
Ok , I see what could be a plane. SO, killtown is making fake videos.
It was very easy too miss, in this video it is more of an indistinct blur which is at least (and maybe mostly) due to the quality of the video.
I don't know about killtown making fake videos, he is at least misinterpreting this one.
It was very easy too miss, in this video it is more of an indistinct blur which is at least (and maybe mostly) due to the quality of the video.
I don't know about killtown making fake videos, he is at least misinterpreting this one.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 17 2007, 10:12 AM)
eigenvalue
Sadly reasonless is not interested in facts. You should prepare yourself for a s___storm of abuse from him, it's all he has to work with.
Grumpy
No, I save that for the ignorant and pseudo-scientist.
Sadly reasonless is not interested in facts. You should prepare yourself for a s___storm of abuse from him, it's all he has to work with.
Grumpy
No, I save that for the ignorant and pseudo-scientist.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 17 2007, 01:36 PM)
How do you remove a plane from a live News feed?
Because NEITHER is a LIVE NEWS FEED.
Are YOU that dense?
These were, of course recorded FROM Live news feeds but the first one that "appears" to be planeless actually has the plane in it.
As one of the responders said:
no plane on the chopper 4 footage? at 00:33 direct your eyes to the upper edge of the shot, 3/4 to the right, the plane comes in, travels down and to the left, and reaches the tower perfectly consistently with the apparent speed and direction.
do you guys actually base your observations on good quality footage, or do you just analyse badly compressed third hand material from other youtube postings?
someone else pointed out that the video had been edited to TRY to obscure the plane, they just did a poor job of it.
As I have said many times, there is no theory so stupid that you won't find at least a FEW CT'ers standing up for and swearing by.
This and ACE's disappearing steel are great examples of this amazingly common CT'er trait.
Arthur
Because NEITHER is a LIVE NEWS FEED.
Are YOU that dense?
These were, of course recorded FROM Live news feeds but the first one that "appears" to be planeless actually has the plane in it.
As one of the responders said:
no plane on the chopper 4 footage? at 00:33 direct your eyes to the upper edge of the shot, 3/4 to the right, the plane comes in, travels down and to the left, and reaches the tower perfectly consistently with the apparent speed and direction.
do you guys actually base your observations on good quality footage, or do you just analyse badly compressed third hand material from other youtube postings?
someone else pointed out that the video had been edited to TRY to obscure the plane, they just did a poor job of it.
As I have said many times, there is no theory so stupid that you won't find at least a FEW CT'ers standing up for and swearing by.
This and ACE's disappearing steel are great examples of this amazingly common CT'er trait.
Arthur
AceBaker --- NIST has identified core columns from high in the north tower. Not disintegrated. See the NIST steel inventory report, NCSTAR1-3B.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 17 2007, 12:36 PM)
I see the Holocaust... (Ops)... I mean “Molten Steel Deniers” are back to the same useless arguments and I will debunk them later (if they had all the sample needed, 600F is the max temp reached, end of OCT fairytale).
Nobody answered this:
How do you remove a plane from a live News feed?
You can just barely see the plane due to the absurdly poor resolution of this INTERNET video. It comes from the the upper right hand corner then comes down into the south tower. It's a blur.
The stupid idiot says one camera is moving and that's why you can't see the image without explaining why THOUSANDS saw the plane coming into the building. Everyone was stationary? How absurd!.
Did the conspiracy theorist remove the plane and the artifacts I see are what's left? That or the video the idiot is using is so poor that the artifacts I see are normal due to video compression and such. Anyway, it's either really retarded or really dishonest.
The idiot also uses two videos taken from the north with one taken from the west.
Maybe if they used good quality video you conspiracy theorists couldn't continue the farce.
http://www.debunking911.com/planehi.avi
http://www.debunking911.com/planehi2.mov (41 megs)
Another conspiracy story con game.
Have you figured out how much of what kind of explosive it would take placed exactly where in order to create the effects we see? No, you haven't. You bring up this blatant stupidity.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten
Nobody answered this:
How do you remove a plane from a live News feed?
You can just barely see the plane due to the absurdly poor resolution of this INTERNET video. It comes from the the upper right hand corner then comes down into the south tower. It's a blur.
The stupid idiot says one camera is moving and that's why you can't see the image without explaining why THOUSANDS saw the plane coming into the building. Everyone was stationary? How absurd!.
Did the conspiracy theorist remove the plane and the artifacts I see are what's left? That or the video the idiot is using is so poor that the artifacts I see are normal due to video compression and such. Anyway, it's either really retarded or really dishonest.
The idiot also uses two videos taken from the north with one taken from the west.
Maybe if they used good quality video you conspiracy theorists couldn't continue the farce.
http://www.debunking911.com/planehi.avi
http://www.debunking911.com/planehi2.mov (41 megs)
Another conspiracy story con game.
Have you figured out how much of what kind of explosive it would take placed exactly where in order to create the effects we see? No, you haven't. You bring up this blatant stupidity.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten
Last night I was unable to effectively play the You Tube video, but today it plays well.
After reviewing the video, I have concluded that there was collusion between the various media outlets.
Did anyone else notice that all three TV stations were playing Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac during the coverage of the alleged attacks?
After reviewing the video, I have concluded that there was collusion between the various media outlets.
Did anyone else notice that all three TV stations were playing Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac during the coverage of the alleged attacks?
QUOTE
http://www.debunking911.com/planehi2.mov (41 megs)
Awesome video Common Sense!
QUOTE
Did anyone else notice that all three TV stations were playing Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac during the coverage of the alleged attacks?
perhaps the planes were supposed to hit the tv stations then and hit the towers by mistake?
g.
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Feb 17 2007, 10:37 PM)
Awesome video Common Sense!
Some of best CGI I've ever seen.
If one wasn't aware of the truth, this video could easily convince you that a plane hit that building.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 17 2007, 05:14 PM)
Their story steps all over each other. It decentigrated yet it was ejected out to hit other buildings. Maybe it hit other buildings THEN decentigrated! Yeah, that's the ticket!!!
Incase people need to see it again...
http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg
Doesn't look like it's "decentigrated" to me... Heh! It also doesn't look like "it fell in it's own footprint" either. Heh!
The perimeter sections laying there on the Westside Highway represent about 20 stories worth of material from the west face of WTC1. It did not disintegrate. Now go looking for the upper 90 stories. There is no evidence for the survival of about 80% of the steel that was in the towers.
Incase people need to see it again...
http://www.debunking911.com/columnd.jpg
Doesn't look like it's "decentigrated" to me... Heh! It also doesn't look like "it fell in it's own footprint" either. Heh!
The perimeter sections laying there on the Westside Highway represent about 20 stories worth of material from the west face of WTC1. It did not disintegrate. Now go looking for the upper 90 stories. There is no evidence for the survival of about 80% of the steel that was in the towers.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 17 2007, 07:04 PM)
AceBaker --- NIST has identified core columns from high in the north tower. Not disintegrated. See the NIST steel inventory report, NCSTAR1-3B.
There were some perimeter sections from high in the towers that survived, we see them falling and trailing all that expanding dust behind. The problem is, there is just not nearly enough of it. We would expect to see about 600 of the 3 x 3 perimeter sections per face, that's 2400 sections per tower x 2 towers. There is nothing remotely resembling that amount. Same goes for the core columns. Some of it is there, but not nearly enough.
In case you hadn't noticed, we don't believe the NIST report. I'm sure all the government reports agree with the official story. Why wouldn't they?
There were some perimeter sections from high in the towers that survived, we see them falling and trailing all that expanding dust behind. The problem is, there is just not nearly enough of it. We would expect to see about 600 of the 3 x 3 perimeter sections per face, that's 2400 sections per tower x 2 towers. There is nothing remotely resembling that amount. Same goes for the core columns. Some of it is there, but not nearly enough.
In case you hadn't noticed, we don't believe the NIST report. I'm sure all the government reports agree with the official story. Why wouldn't they?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 17 2007, 10:05 PM)
You can just barely see the plane due to the absurdly poor resolution of this INTERNET video. It comes from the the upper right hand corner then comes down into the south tower. It's a blur.
The stupid idiot says one camera is moving and that's why you can't see the image without explaining why THOUSANDS saw the plane coming into the building. Everyone was stationary? How absurd!.
Did the conspiracy theorist remove the plane and the artifacts I see are what's left? That or the video the idiot is using is so poor that the artifacts I see are normal due to video compression and such. Anyway, it's either really retarded or really dishonest.
The idiot also uses two videos taken from the north with one taken from the west.
Maybe if they used good quality video you conspiracy theorists couldn't continue the farce.
http://www.debunking911.com/planehi.avi
http://www.debunking911.com/planehi2.mov (41 megs)
Another conspiracy story con game.
Have you figured out how much of what kind of explosive it would take placed exactly where in order to create the effects we see? No, you haven't. You bring up this blatant stupidity.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten
The hires avi does not show the "nose out".
The stupid idiot says one camera is moving and that's why you can't see the image without explaining why THOUSANDS saw the plane coming into the building. Everyone was stationary? How absurd!.
Did the conspiracy theorist remove the plane and the artifacts I see are what's left? That or the video the idiot is using is so poor that the artifacts I see are normal due to video compression and such. Anyway, it's either really retarded or really dishonest.
The idiot also uses two videos taken from the north with one taken from the west.
Maybe if they used good quality video you conspiracy theorists couldn't continue the farce.
http://www.debunking911.com/planehi.avi
http://www.debunking911.com/planehi2.mov (41 megs)
Another conspiracy story con game.
Have you figured out how much of what kind of explosive it would take placed exactly where in order to create the effects we see? No, you haven't. You bring up this blatant stupidity.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten
The hires avi does not show the "nose out".
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 17 2007, 11:14 PM)
we don't believe the NIST report.
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 17 2007, 09:33 PM)
Some of best CGI I've ever seen.
If one wasn't aware of the truth, this video could easily convince you that a plane hit that building.
HAHAHA! DENIER!!!
He rather take the fuzzy conspiracy nutter video over a much better video which is proof positive the plane hit.
I have to tell you, it sickens me to see people poo pooing the lives of those on board. CGI
If one wasn't aware of the truth, this video could easily convince you that a plane hit that building.
HAHAHA! DENIER!!!
He rather take the fuzzy conspiracy nutter video over a much better video which is proof positive the plane hit.
I have to tell you, it sickens me to see people poo pooing the lives of those on board. CGI
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 17 2007, 10:04 PM)
The perimeter sections laying there on the Westside Highway represent about 20 stories worth of material from the west face of WTC1. It did not disintegrate. Now go looking for the upper 90 stories. There is no evidence for the survival of about 80% of the steel that was in the towers.
I see much more. But anyway, that's only looking at the west side highway. It doesn't even show you north, east and south! Heh! Now add your 20 stories for the sides you can't see in this image and you get 80 stories of perimeter columns outside the "FOOT PRINT". Heh!
BTW, I believe NEU-FONZE has the figures for how much steel was carted away. Now they have to include the trucking companies and landfill workers in their MASSIVE CONSPIRACY. Heh!
The photos conspiracy theorists use to show ground zero are taken well after the event and after crews have carted away the steel in the streets. Common sense tells you they would have carted away the steel in the streets first so they could get around easier. They use these cleaned up photos to con people like ace into thinking the collapse was nice and neat. I see it works in the weak minded.
I see much more. But anyway, that's only looking at the west side highway. It doesn't even show you north, east and south! Heh! Now add your 20 stories for the sides you can't see in this image and you get 80 stories of perimeter columns outside the "FOOT PRINT". Heh!
BTW, I believe NEU-FONZE has the figures for how much steel was carted away. Now they have to include the trucking companies and landfill workers in their MASSIVE CONSPIRACY. Heh!
The photos conspiracy theorists use to show ground zero are taken well after the event and after crews have carted away the steel in the streets. Common sense tells you they would have carted away the steel in the streets first so they could get around easier. They use these cleaned up photos to con people like ace into thinking the collapse was nice and neat. I see it works in the weak minded.
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 17 2007, 05:22 AM)
From the testimony of W. Gene Corley, who led the 23 member FEMA BPAT team:
Homo & sterilization Promoter, This reads like a press release or someone soliciting future government grants!
If removing the steel in weeks from WTC7 did not hinder the investigation, why do we still not have a report after more then 5 years?
Why are we left with computer generated hypothetical simulations that are not verified by the forensic evidence?
Why do we have all the eyewitness reports of molten steel ignored in all the government authorized and paid for Reports?
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 18 2007, 12:53 AM)
Why do we have all the eyewitness reports of molten steel ignored in all the government authorized and paid for Reports?
Because no CORROBORATING evidence was found of these few ERRONEOUS reports.
Like the description of the aircraft crash I posted earlier.
The eyewitnesses there WERE wrong as well. The clothes they saw hanging from the trees DIDN'T come from the bodies and just like at GZ they also used the term MOLTEN to describe the fuselage of the plane, but it hadn't really melted or even become molten.
Face it RW, you are GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Arthur
Because no CORROBORATING evidence was found of these few ERRONEOUS reports.
Like the description of the aircraft crash I posted earlier.
The eyewitnesses there WERE wrong as well. The clothes they saw hanging from the trees DIDN'T come from the bodies and just like at GZ they also used the term MOLTEN to describe the fuselage of the plane, but it hadn't really melted or even become molten.
Face it RW, you are GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 17 2007, 09:22 PM)
Because no CORROBORATING evidence was found of these few ERRONEOUS reports.
Like the description of the aircraft crash I posted earlier.
The eyewitnesses there WERE wrong as well. The clothes they saw hanging from the trees DIDN'T come from the bodies and just like at GZ they also used the term MOLTEN to describe the fuselage of the plane, but it hadn't really melted or even become molten.
Face it RW, you are GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Arthur
Reposted for the "molten Steel Deniers"
More quotes for the "molten steel deniers" to make shitt up and try to explain away (Glass, ice, water, you name it ,nothing is to ridiculous for a "molten steel denier" )
Molten Steel Quotes
1
- Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
May 29, 2002
[...] When [Joe] O'Toole signed on for trade center duty in January, he thought it would be a 30-day assignment. But after one month, he volunteered for another. And another. And another. And another.
[...] Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.
cache
2
[...] A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, [Ron] Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. "Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen's and the thousands who fled that disaster," he said. "It could have been a tornado or an avalanche or a volcano."
Ground Zero was a disaster site like no other---with hazards everywhere. Shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering red hot metal beams excavated from deep beneath layers of sub-floors, exposing further dark crevasses.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
3
Ironworkers' Job of Clearing Ground Zero Is Over, but the Trauma Lingers
By COREY KILGANNON
November 11, 2002
[...] The four men sat on a sunny sidewalk in Greenwich Village on a recent workday and ate their lunch staring at the steel skeleton of a building going up on West Third Street.
One of them commented on how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris.
NYT
4
Reflections in the Wake of September 11:
Visit to Ground Zero, New York City
by Father Edward A. Malloy, CSC
[...] Eddie and I walked down into the depths of the South Tower, Building Two, which was the first to collapse. Large front end loaders were engaged in their task. Gigantic cranes were lifting pieces of steel weighing tons, some of which were being placed on the back of semi trucks. Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500 F. so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down.
http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/reflect/malloydiary.html
5
RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.
PBS, September 2002
6
TWO WEEKS AT GROUND ZERO
By Guy Lounsbury
[...] My particular part was to help maintain security in and around the perimeter of the site.
[...] Two weeks after the attack, one fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains.
home.nycap.rr.com
7
At Ground Zero
NIH'ers Respond to Tragedy in NYC
By Rich McManus
Photos by Van Hubbard, Susan Orsega, Rich McManus
[...] Ed Pfister's Diary:
[...] I spent several hours tonight, walking "the pile" and attempting to soak it all in for the last time and find a bit of closure...deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and boiled with molten material. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above.
http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/10_30_2001/story01.htm
8
Reluctant hero narrates horror of N.Y. mission
September 11, 2002
[...] Interim Bryan Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho was one of those sent to "ground zero," as the World Trade Center site quickly became known. [...] Here is Donoho's story, as told to Eagle staff writer John LeBas:
[...] What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse.
We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can't recognize what it is, that's what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed.
With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel.
http://www.theeagle.com/septanniv/091102firefighter.htm
Tell these heroes you are calling liars that I am just "GRASPING AT STRAWS".
Like the description of the aircraft crash I posted earlier.
The eyewitnesses there WERE wrong as well. The clothes they saw hanging from the trees DIDN'T come from the bodies and just like at GZ they also used the term MOLTEN to describe the fuselage of the plane, but it hadn't really melted or even become molten.
Face it RW, you are GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Arthur
Reposted for the "molten Steel Deniers"
More quotes for the "molten steel deniers" to make shitt up and try to explain away (Glass, ice, water, you name it ,nothing is to ridiculous for a "molten steel denier" )
Molten Steel Quotes
1
- Recovery worker reflects on months spent at Ground Zero
Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
May 29, 2002
[...] When [Joe] O'Toole signed on for trade center duty in January, he thought it would be a 30-day assignment. But after one month, he volunteered for another. And another. And another. And another.
[...] Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.
cache
2
[...] A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, [Ron] Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. "Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen's and the thousands who fled that disaster," he said. "It could have been a tornado or an avalanche or a volcano."
Ground Zero was a disaster site like no other---with hazards everywhere. Shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering red hot metal beams excavated from deep beneath layers of sub-floors, exposing further dark crevasses.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
3
Ironworkers' Job of Clearing Ground Zero Is Over, but the Trauma Lingers
By COREY KILGANNON
November 11, 2002
[...] The four men sat on a sunny sidewalk in Greenwich Village on a recent workday and ate their lunch staring at the steel skeleton of a building going up on West Third Street.
One of them commented on how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris.
NYT
4
Reflections in the Wake of September 11:
Visit to Ground Zero, New York City
by Father Edward A. Malloy, CSC
[...] Eddie and I walked down into the depths of the South Tower, Building Two, which was the first to collapse. Large front end loaders were engaged in their task. Gigantic cranes were lifting pieces of steel weighing tons, some of which were being placed on the back of semi trucks. Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500 F. so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down.
http://www.nd.edu/~ndmag/reflect/malloydiary.html
5
RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.
PBS, September 2002
6
TWO WEEKS AT GROUND ZERO
By Guy Lounsbury
[...] My particular part was to help maintain security in and around the perimeter of the site.
[...] Two weeks after the attack, one fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains.
home.nycap.rr.com
7
At Ground Zero
NIH'ers Respond to Tragedy in NYC
By Rich McManus
Photos by Van Hubbard, Susan Orsega, Rich McManus
[...] Ed Pfister's Diary:
[...] I spent several hours tonight, walking "the pile" and attempting to soak it all in for the last time and find a bit of closure...deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and boiled with molten material. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above.
http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/10_30_2001/story01.htm
8
Reluctant hero narrates horror of N.Y. mission
September 11, 2002
[...] Interim Bryan Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho was one of those sent to "ground zero," as the World Trade Center site quickly became known. [...] Here is Donoho's story, as told to Eagle staff writer John LeBas:
[...] What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse.
We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can't recognize what it is, that's what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed.
With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel.
http://www.theeagle.com/septanniv/091102firefighter.htm
Tell these heroes you are calling liars that I am just "GRASPING AT STRAWS".
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 17 2007, 04:23 AM)
reasonwhy, I support your right to do this.
Is this a picture of your latest conversions? You must be moving right up the "kill the people, save the planet", pyrimid.
To save the planet, you better advocate promoting homosexual cows also:
QUOTE
Save The Planet: Kill The Farting Cows
United Nations Says Cows Are More Harmful To Enviornment than Cars!
United Nations Says Cows Are More Harmful To Enviornment than Cars!
http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article88
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Save The Planet: Kill The Farting Cows United Nations Says Cows Are More Harmful To Enviornment than Cars! |
http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article88
What study of molten steel flow?
You don't mean this GeoNews article on thermal imagery that you posted earlier.
The article wasn't a study, it was documentation of the mapping and thermal imaging done at ground zero.
The comments about molten steel were speculation on the part of the author or someone interviewed.
There was no factual connection made between the thermal images and any molten steel in the debris pile.
The temperatures obtained from the imagery were not high enough to support the presence of molten steel.
QUOTE
HUNTER COLLEGE
Department of Geography
Volume 15, number 1, October 2001
Mapping Ground Zero
By Maddalena Romano
Last spring, Hunter College's Center for the Analysis and Research of Spatial Information, or CARSI, introduced the NY-CMap, an ortho-rectified photograph of the five boroughs of New York City accurate to within 18 inches. On September 11, the geographers at CARSI used this map to aid in the rescue effort at the World Trade Center (WTC) attack site, now commonly referred to as “Ground Zero”. Jeff Bliss, a research associate at the CARSI Lab, gave a timeline of the development, and explained how the visual spectrum, LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), and thermal imagery were brought into play to detect areas of possible collapse.
September 11—Researchers began at 7 pm on the day of the attack, assisting the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) by printing 54” by 70” cartographic maps from the NYCMap database. Specifically, these maps contained building “footprints” (outlines of buildings, street center-lines, curb lines, etc.) This is a planimetric or blue-print superimposed over the original ortho-rectified photograph of the area. Once completed, these maps were delivered to bunkers at the temporary command center at the policy academy.
September 13—Daily Fly-overs of the WTC site took aerial photographs of the debris surface, yet in printing out these new ortho-rectified images, a good portion of the images were smoke-compromised, and thus it was difficult to get a good idea of what the site looked like. It was at this time that LIDAR was suggested as a way to penetrate the smoke.
September 15—The first LIDAR dataset is produced from the EarthData International flyovers. LIDAR measures the time it takes for a laser pulse to travel to the ground and back. Not only can LIDAR penetrate the smoke, but global positioning instruments on the plane give the locations coordinates and elevations, producing 3dimensional dataset accurate to within six inches. A grid of about 100,000 points spaced about a yard apart is produced, and then analyzed by CARSI. Colors were used Since September 15, LIDAR passes have been done every other day
September 16—Thermal imagery measures the progression of underground heat on about a weekly basis. These images are produced in 8-bit grayscale, with brightness levels of 0-255, 0 being the hottest and expressed as pure white. This is known as emissive data, or heat being given off from the structure from underlying hot debris or molten steel. Smoldering is yet undetectable, because potential fires appear cold until they are exposed to air. The first thermal images produced began on September 16, and are repeated on two day intervals.
I would like to thank Jeff Bliss for the wonderful information and imagery he provided for this story, and acknowledge the 16-20 hours days CARSI Lab director Dr. Sean Ahearn has been putting in at the OEM. I would also like to credit Jeff Bliss, Constandinos Theophilides, and Bob Sklar for their tireless analysis. For a more in-depth look on CARSI, see the upcoming January special issue.
See the article by Kenneth Chang in the Sunday New York Times on September
23, 2001, entitled, From 5000 feet up, Mapping Terrain for Ground Zero Workers, available for sale at
http://www.nytimes.com.
Hunter Geographers Help NYC Office of Emergency Management With "Ground Zero" Recovery
"We're also analyzing thermal imagery of the site to determine where fires may still be smoldering, and are monitoring the damage of every building and the progress of debris removal," says Professor Ahearn
Department of Geography
Volume 15, number 1, October 2001
Mapping Ground Zero
By Maddalena Romano
Last spring, Hunter College's Center for the Analysis and Research of Spatial Information, or CARSI, introduced the NY-CMap, an ortho-rectified photograph of the five boroughs of New York City accurate to within 18 inches. On September 11, the geographers at CARSI used this map to aid in the rescue effort at the World Trade Center (WTC) attack site, now commonly referred to as “Ground Zero”. Jeff Bliss, a research associate at the CARSI Lab, gave a timeline of the development, and explained how the visual spectrum, LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging), and thermal imagery were brought into play to detect areas of possible collapse.
September 11—Researchers began at 7 pm on the day of the attack, assisting the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM) by printing 54” by 70” cartographic maps from the NYCMap database. Specifically, these maps contained building “footprints” (outlines of buildings, street center-lines, curb lines, etc.) This is a planimetric or blue-print superimposed over the original ortho-rectified photograph of the area. Once completed, these maps were delivered to bunkers at the temporary command center at the policy academy.
September 13—Daily Fly-overs of the WTC site took aerial photographs of the debris surface, yet in printing out these new ortho-rectified images, a good portion of the images were smoke-compromised, and thus it was difficult to get a good idea of what the site looked like. It was at this time that LIDAR was suggested as a way to penetrate the smoke.
September 15—The first LIDAR dataset is produced from the EarthData International flyovers. LIDAR measures the time it takes for a laser pulse to travel to the ground and back. Not only can LIDAR penetrate the smoke, but global positioning instruments on the plane give the locations coordinates and elevations, producing 3dimensional dataset accurate to within six inches. A grid of about 100,000 points spaced about a yard apart is produced, and then analyzed by CARSI. Colors were used Since September 15, LIDAR passes have been done every other day
September 16—Thermal imagery measures the progression of underground heat on about a weekly basis. These images are produced in 8-bit grayscale, with brightness levels of 0-255, 0 being the hottest and expressed as pure white. This is known as emissive data, or heat being given off from the structure from underlying hot debris or molten steel. Smoldering is yet undetectable, because potential fires appear cold until they are exposed to air. The first thermal images produced began on September 16, and are repeated on two day intervals.
I would like to thank Jeff Bliss for the wonderful information and imagery he provided for this story, and acknowledge the 16-20 hours days CARSI Lab director Dr. Sean Ahearn has been putting in at the OEM. I would also like to credit Jeff Bliss, Constandinos Theophilides, and Bob Sklar for their tireless analysis. For a more in-depth look on CARSI, see the upcoming January special issue.
See the article by Kenneth Chang in the Sunday New York Times on September
23, 2001, entitled, From 5000 feet up, Mapping Terrain for Ground Zero Workers, available for sale at
http://www.nytimes.com.
Hunter Geographers Help NYC Office of Emergency Management With "Ground Zero" Recovery
"We're also analyzing thermal imagery of the site to determine where fires may still be smoldering, and are monitoring the damage of every building and the progress of debris removal," says Professor Ahearn
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02.gif
Above: Thermal Imagery of the progression of molten steel hotspots
from September 18 to September25.
Dr. Sean Ahearn is working with the OEM (New York City Office of Emergency Management) who had engineers on the ground (Rich Garlock and others) with temperature sensors monitoring the buildings and they don’t verify the maps they are passing out to help the recovery workers?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 17 2007, 09:08 AM)
You don't have to know what explosive it was and you know it. You only have to say what explosive it COULD be, how much it would take, where it would have to be placed, ETC... All should be backed up with physics like the NIST and people here on the collapse by gravity side are doing. All should be verified by video evidence. Are you saying it's impossible to know before the event? PLEASE tell me you're saying that. Because if you are then it was also impossible for the government to do it and you just made my point.
You're killing your our conspiracy story. Stop dodging and tell us how the government pulled this off with the evidence we have. You can't because you believe the leaders of the conspiracy story without question. You're a lemming.
I would have to go with what Romero claimed (before his promotions):
http://web.archive.org/web/20011106213046/...van09-11-01.htm
For the ignorant, anything that could be done with gravity is easier with explosives and gravity.
You're killing your our conspiracy story. Stop dodging and tell us how the government pulled this off with the evidence we have. You can't because you believe the leaders of the conspiracy story without question. You're a lemming.
I would have to go with what Romero claimed (before his promotions):
QUOTE
Explosives Planted In Towers, N.M. Tech Expert Says
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.
"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.
"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011106213046/...van09-11-01.htm
For the ignorant, anything that could be done with gravity is easier with explosives and gravity.
Just some thoughts on column splices after a short note from Dr. Benson.
What I seen ironworkers doing is... basically they had guys walking the steel putting it together with the cranes (connectors), another crew coming behind them (several floors behind) plumbing them up with come-alongs and cables with turnbuckles, then they tightened the bolts with impact guns. Then, the welders would come behind that bunch and do their thing as well. I couldn't tell you how many passes with the welding rods each column got, but it wasn't just one or two.
I seen quite often the practice of using large columns of 3 floors at a time length, only it was a half-floor at bottom and a half-floor at top, with two full floors in the middle. Lot's easier connecting them that way as well, with the ironworker standing and reaching instead of sitting and leaning down (if it was floor level), to reach the bolt holes while prying with his 'bullprick'... the wrenches or adjustable wrenches with the sharp points on the other end (goes through bolt holes on the gusset plates and the columns as well, to align the holes for bolt placement).
I liked installing elevators (as the building was built) on steel 'n glass buildings LOTS better than the concrete buildings. Steel buildings had open hatches you could get to easier (by walking out there on the beams) to c-clamp and weld rail brackets, as opposed to 'slick-wall' concrete hatches where you had to hang in a basket or a 'work jack', that used a cable climber similiar to a window washers to drill in concrete and mount anchor bolts. That was alot dustier.
Anyway, for the beams and columns, the splices were both bolted and welded.
What I seen ironworkers doing is... basically they had guys walking the steel putting it together with the cranes (connectors), another crew coming behind them (several floors behind) plumbing them up with come-alongs and cables with turnbuckles, then they tightened the bolts with impact guns. Then, the welders would come behind that bunch and do their thing as well. I couldn't tell you how many passes with the welding rods each column got, but it wasn't just one or two.
I seen quite often the practice of using large columns of 3 floors at a time length, only it was a half-floor at bottom and a half-floor at top, with two full floors in the middle. Lot's easier connecting them that way as well, with the ironworker standing and reaching instead of sitting and leaning down (if it was floor level), to reach the bolt holes while prying with his 'bullprick'... the wrenches or adjustable wrenches with the sharp points on the other end (goes through bolt holes on the gusset plates and the columns as well, to align the holes for bolt placement).
I liked installing elevators (as the building was built) on steel 'n glass buildings LOTS better than the concrete buildings. Steel buildings had open hatches you could get to easier (by walking out there on the beams) to c-clamp and weld rail brackets, as opposed to 'slick-wall' concrete hatches where you had to hang in a basket or a 'work jack', that used a cable climber similiar to a window washers to drill in concrete and mount anchor bolts. That was alot dustier.
Anyway, for the beams and columns, the splices were both bolted and welded.
Dang it RW, you just don't get it. Those "molten" quotes of yours are from people that are MISTAKEN. Red-hot? Maybe, but NOT MOLTEN.
When ANY kind of metal is molten, that means liquid, and there would be PUDDLES of it. Still liquid PUDDLES if it was still hot, or... hardened PUDDLES if it was recovered after it cooled. There were NO reports anywhere, by mistaken eyewitnesses or by smarter ones, of PUDDLES recovered of any kind.
Don't you think there would be pictures and 'quotes' about the recovered puddles, if any existed? ugh!
When ANY kind of metal is molten, that means liquid, and there would be PUDDLES of it. Still liquid PUDDLES if it was still hot, or... hardened PUDDLES if it was recovered after it cooled. There were NO reports anywhere, by mistaken eyewitnesses or by smarter ones, of PUDDLES recovered of any kind.
Don't you think there would be pictures and 'quotes' about the recovered puddles, if any existed? ugh!
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Feb 18 2007, 12:10 AM)
Don't you think there would be pictures and 'quotes' about the recovered puddles, if any existed? ugh!
Considering that it was obviously the same group that removed and destroyed the evidence, that also was not allowing photographs, NO.
Read the quotes again, they do talk about what remained.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 18 2007, 04:31 AM)
HAHAHA! DENIER!!!
He rather take the fuzzy conspiracy nutter video over a much better video which is proof positive the plane hit.
I have to tell you, it sickens me to see people poo pooing the lives of those on board. CGI
This was my response to reasonwhy's silly YouTube video
reasonwhy, I support your right to do this.
Is this a picture of your latest conversions? You must be moving right up the "kill the people, save the planet", pyrimid.
He rather take the fuzzy conspiracy nutter video over a much better video which is proof positive the plane hit.
I have to tell you, it sickens me to see people poo pooing the lives of those on board. CGI
This was my response to reasonwhy's silly YouTube video
QUOTE (Capracus+ Feb 17 2007, 10:09 PM)
Last night I was unable to effectively play the You Tube video, but today it plays well.
After reviewing the video, I have concluded that there was collusion between the various media outlets.
Did anyone else notice that all three TV stations were playing Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac during the coverage of the alleged attacks?
After reviewing the video, I have concluded that there was collusion between the various media outlets.
Did anyone else notice that all three TV stations were playing Little Lies by Fleetwood Mac during the coverage of the alleged attacks?
I know such comments are par for the course for CTs, but if you were to sample some of my other posts, you would recognize my sarcasm.
And no, I haven't made a conversion.
I use to argue with CTs in other forums, and would often refer them to your site for edification, only to have them return with the opinion that you were an apologist for G W Bush.
Because I read the contents of your site, I know your politics are not sympathetic to the War Criminal in Chief.
And no, I haven't made a conversion.
I use to argue with CTs in other forums, and would often refer them to your site for edification, only to have them return with the opinion that you were an apologist for G W Bush.
Because I read the contents of your site, I know your politics are not sympathetic to the War Criminal in Chief.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 18 2007, 06:07 AM)
reasonwhy, I support your right to do this.
Is this a picture of your latest conversions? You must be moving right up the "kill the people, save the planet", pyrimid.
The picture represents one of the later steps of your favorite pastime, chute packing.
QUOTE
To save the planet, you better advocate promoting homosexual cows also:
reasonwhy, let's leave your friends and relatives out of this. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To save the planet, you better advocate promoting homosexual cows also: |
reasonwhy, let's leave your friends and relatives out of this.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02.gif
Above: Thermal Imagery of the progression of molten steel hotspots
from September 18 to September25.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02.gif
Above: Thermal Imagery of the progression of molten steel hotspots
from September 18 to September25.
The mapping and thermal imagery were not done to follow the progression of molten steel, it was done so that recovery workers would be aware of settling and fires in the debris pile.
How can you have molten steel in the debris pile when the thermal imagery indicates that temperatures in the pile would not allow for it?
Did you know that the thermal imaging indicated temperatures only as high as 1019 C?
Steel melts at 1370 C.
How can you have molten steel in the debris pile when the thermal imagery indicates that temperatures in the pile would not allow for it?
Did you know that the thermal imaging indicated temperatures only as high as 1019 C?
Steel melts at 1370 C.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 18 2007, 01:38 AM)
Tell these heroes you are calling liars that I am just "GRASPING AT STRAWS".
Nope it is YOU who are TWISTING these hero's words for your OWN ENDS.
MOLTEN STEEL does NOT EQUAL MELTED STEEL.
Nope it is YOU who are TWISTING these hero's words for your OWN ENDS.
MOLTEN STEEL does NOT EQUAL MELTED STEEL.
QUOTE (Alex+)
Dang it RW, you just don't get it. Those "molten" quotes of yours are from people that are MISTAKEN. Red-hot? Maybe, but NOT MOLTEN.
When ANY kind of metal is molten, that means liquid, and there would be PUDDLES of it.
Unfortunately you are wrong Alex. while some time ago I also thought that molten = melted it was quickly pointed out to me (by a CT'er on this forum no less) that the CORRECT definition of Molten ALSO means GLOWING HOT. Thus WITHOUT OTHER EVIDENCE one can not assume that the definition of MOLTEN used was that the Steel was melted.
You see, RW, we AGREE with the temperatures reported.
They are WELL BELOW the temp of MELTED STEEL.
They are also WAY BELOW the temp of Thermite/Thermate.
So quotes like:
What IT was, is not specified, so don't jump to conclusions that IT was steel.
What IT was, is not specified, so don't jump to conclusions that IT was steel.
"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel,... uncovering red hot metal beams
Molten does NOT equal MELTED and we would EXPECT Red Hot Metal Beams to be pulled from that "roaring furnace" as described by the fireman there and by the thermal imaging.
Molten once again does NOT equal melted.
or
Molten once again does NOT equal melted.
or
The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.
Its DEBRIS that is red hot, molten & running. The type of debris is not identified, again, don't jump to conclusions that it is steel.
Then you have to allow for LITERARY LICENCE.
So YES, RW, you are GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Like when you say anything that gravity could do anything explosives could do, you now just have to explain how explosives caused the SLOW PULL IN of the Perimeter walls.
Arthur
Considering that it was obviously the same group that removed and destroyed the evidence, that also was not allowing photographs, NO.
The evidence wasn't destroyed, it was searched BY HAND first.
There are NUMEROUS pictures of the painstaking review of ALL the material taken from the site.
The steel was examined.
As the previous posts show the examiners were there 3 weeks after the event and at the land fills and had access to the debris removal from then on. An event which took 32 weeks, so clearly, any melted steel would have been at or near the BOTTOM of the pile and was NOT found.
As previous posts show, the apparently barely enforced rule by the mayor to prevent picture taking lasted all of one day. There are literally THOUSANDS of photos of the clean up, NONE of which show any puddles of MELTED STEEL, or streams of MELTED STEEL.
Once again, GRASPING AT STAWS.
Arthur
yeah, using #3 in this definition would agree with your statement Arthur.
Wordsmyth === molten
mol tEn
1. made liquid, esp. by extreme heat, as metal or rock; melted.
2. created by melting and casting.
3. brightly glowing.
The contractor's surveyors would be up there with their transits telling them "when"... as they pulled or pushed on columns, to make them plumb.
We would have the surveyors shoot us a line as well... something we could measure off of to set our "target lines", which were piano wire dropped down the hatch and secured top and bottom, used as somewhat of a plumb bob (I'll explain later), to locate where the rails go that elevators go up 'n down on. EVERYTHING on the elevator was measured off the center line between the main rails (counterweights also had their own rails), and that's why you could have a very fast moving cab with only an inch and a quarter clearance to the floor sill on the building. K, the "target lines" weren't actually plumb, unless the building was exactly plumb. We set the "target lines" to building lines at the bottom and building lines at the top, therefore, if the bulding leaned a little, the elevators leaned right with it.
More quotes for the "molten steel deniers" to make shitt up and try to explain away (Glass, ice, water, you name it ,nothing is to ridiculous for a "molten steel denier" )
Did I predict what the “Molten steel deniers”, ignorant and pseudo-scientist were going to do (Rookwool and dirty water)?
When ANY kind of metal is molten, that means liquid, and there would be PUDDLES of it.
Unfortunately you are wrong Alex. while some time ago I also thought that molten = melted it was quickly pointed out to me (by a CT'er on this forum no less) that the CORRECT definition of Molten ALSO means GLOWING HOT. Thus WITHOUT OTHER EVIDENCE one can not assume that the definition of MOLTEN used was that the Steel was melted.
You see, RW, we AGREE with the temperatures reported.
They are WELL BELOW the temp of MELTED STEEL.
They are also WAY BELOW the temp of Thermite/Thermate.
So quotes like:
QUOTE
"It was dripping from the molten steel,"
What IT was, is not specified, so don't jump to conclusions that IT was steel.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "It was dripping from the molten steel," |
What IT was, is not specified, so don't jump to conclusions that IT was steel.
"Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel,... uncovering red hot metal beams
Molten does NOT equal MELTED and we would EXPECT Red Hot Metal Beams to be pulled from that "roaring furnace" as described by the fireman there and by the thermal imaging.
QUOTE
how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris.
Molten once again does NOT equal melted.
or
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris. |
Molten once again does NOT equal melted.
or
The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running.
Its DEBRIS that is red hot, molten & running. The type of debris is not identified, again, don't jump to conclusions that it is steel.
Then you have to allow for LITERARY LICENCE.
QUOTE
A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel.
So YES, RW, you are GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Like when you say anything that gravity could do anything explosives could do, you now just have to explain how explosives caused the SLOW PULL IN of the Perimeter walls.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 18 2007, 05:41 AM)
Considering that it was obviously the same group that removed and destroyed the evidence, that also was not allowing photographs, NO.
The evidence wasn't destroyed, it was searched BY HAND first.
There are NUMEROUS pictures of the painstaking review of ALL the material taken from the site.
The steel was examined.
As the previous posts show the examiners were there 3 weeks after the event and at the land fills and had access to the debris removal from then on. An event which took 32 weeks, so clearly, any melted steel would have been at or near the BOTTOM of the pile and was NOT found.
As previous posts show, the apparently barely enforced rule by the mayor to prevent picture taking lasted all of one day. There are literally THOUSANDS of photos of the clean up, NONE of which show any puddles of MELTED STEEL, or streams of MELTED STEEL.
Once again, GRASPING AT STAWS.
Arthur
Molten something or other ---
My desk dictionary states that molten = melted, liquid.
Capracus, I believe it was, pointed out that at the prevailing temperatures in Ground Zero, rock wool will melt. So being something like lava, it would be red-hot and molten, dripping off the ends of beams where it had previously been the insulation.
Alan --- Thanks. I have a better understanding now. Did somebody come along to measure that the columns were straight up before the welders did their thing?
My desk dictionary states that molten = melted, liquid.
Capracus, I believe it was, pointed out that at the prevailing temperatures in Ground Zero, rock wool will melt. So being something like lava, it would be red-hot and molten, dripping off the ends of beams where it had previously been the insulation.
Alan --- Thanks. I have a better understanding now. Did somebody come along to measure that the columns were straight up before the welders did their thing?
David B. Benson
You know, with all the sea water pumped into the pile what people could have been seeing is streams of dirty water flowing beneath glowing metal, reflecting the red glow above them.
Whatever, no cooled pools of liquid steel were found. Whatever those people did see, it was not liquid steel.
Grumpy
You know, with all the sea water pumped into the pile what people could have been seeing is streams of dirty water flowing beneath glowing metal, reflecting the red glow above them.
Whatever, no cooled pools of liquid steel were found. Whatever those people did see, it was not liquid steel.
Grumpy
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 18 2007, 01:38 PM)
Molten something or other ---
My desk dictionary states that molten = melted, liquid.
David, you need a better dictionary.
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury"
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/molten
A bed of coals does not melt.
My desk dictionary states that molten = melted, liquid.
David, you need a better dictionary.
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury"
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/molten
A bed of coals does not melt.
QUOTE
Unfortunately you are wrong Alex. while some time ago I also thought that molten = melted it was quickly pointed out to me (by a CT'er on this forum no less) that the CORRECT definition of Molten ALSO means GLOWING HOT.
yeah, using #3 in this definition would agree with your statement Arthur.
Wordsmyth === molten
mol tEn
1. made liquid, esp. by extreme heat, as metal or rock; melted.
2. created by melting and casting.
3. brightly glowing.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 18 2007, 02:12 AM)
I would have to go with what Romero claimed (before his promotions):
http://web.archive.org/web/20011106213046/...van09-11-01.htm
For the ignorant, anything that could be done with gravity is easier with explosives and gravity.
Lets forget that Romero doesn't believe the towers were blown up. He says you conspiracy theorists are taking his comment out of context. (Like everyone else's quotes you mine.)
That still dodges the question. HOW MUCH OF WHAT KIND OF EXPLOSIVE would have to be placed WHERE in order to create the effects we see on 9/11.
You haven't thought about that one bit have you... You're like the Lemmings who believed Saddam had WMD because Rummy said he knew they were north, south east and west around baghdad.
Lemming! Heh!
http://web.archive.org/web/20011106213046/...van09-11-01.htm
For the ignorant, anything that could be done with gravity is easier with explosives and gravity.
Lets forget that Romero doesn't believe the towers were blown up. He says you conspiracy theorists are taking his comment out of context. (Like everyone else's quotes you mine.)
That still dodges the question. HOW MUCH OF WHAT KIND OF EXPLOSIVE would have to be placed WHERE in order to create the effects we see on 9/11.
You haven't thought about that one bit have you... You're like the Lemmings who believed Saddam had WMD because Rummy said he knew they were north, south east and west around baghdad.
Lemming! Heh!
Arthur & Alan --- My 1947 copyright desk dictionary only gives the first two uses. Goes to show how the language has deteriorated in the past 60 years. 
QUOTE
Did somebody come along to measure that the columns were straight up before the welders did their thing?
The contractor's surveyors would be up there with their transits telling them "when"... as they pulled or pushed on columns, to make them plumb.
We would have the surveyors shoot us a line as well... something we could measure off of to set our "target lines", which were piano wire dropped down the hatch and secured top and bottom, used as somewhat of a plumb bob (I'll explain later), to locate where the rails go that elevators go up 'n down on. EVERYTHING on the elevator was measured off the center line between the main rails (counterweights also had their own rails), and that's why you could have a very fast moving cab with only an inch and a quarter clearance to the floor sill on the building. K, the "target lines" weren't actually plumb, unless the building was exactly plumb. We set the "target lines" to building lines at the bottom and building lines at the top, therefore, if the bulding leaned a little, the elevators leaned right with it.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 17 2007, 09:38 PM)
More quotes for the "molten steel deniers" to make shitt up and try to explain away (Glass, ice, water, you name it ,nothing is to ridiculous for a "molten steel denier" )
Did I predict what the “Molten steel deniers”, ignorant and pseudo-scientist were going to do (Rookwool and dirty water)?
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 18 2007, 12:22 PM)
David, you need a better dictionary.
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury"(Richard Wright).
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/molten
A bed of coals does not melt.
Considering it is only in The Free Dictionary and that was not in existence before :
And Alan's Wordsmyth added it in 2006:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?scr...matchtype=exact
In 2001 They would have used the real definition (not from a passage in a book they most likely didn’t read).
And Alan's Wordsmyth added it in 2006:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?scr...matchtype=exact
In 2001 They would have used the real definition (not from a passage in a book they most likely didn’t read).
Definitions of molten on the Web:
• reduced to liquid form by heating; "a mass of molten rock"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• In physics, melting is the process of heating a solid substance to a point (called melting point) where it turns liquid. An object, which has melted, is molten. Freezing is the opposite of melting. It is the process of turning a liquid to a solid. Consequently the freezing point is the same temperature as the melting point. See the phase article for more detail.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten
• melted or liquefied by heat
library.thinkquest.org/21988/dictionary.htm
• melted, as in metal
centrecountyhistory.org/ironterms.html
The mapping and thermal imagery were not done to follow the progression of molten steel, it was done so that recovery workers would be aware of settling and fires in the debris pile..
The mapping and thermal imagery was also done so 35-50 ton excavators did not fall into the molten steel.
In language that you can even understand. Machine fall into fire , not good. Machine fall into MOLTEN steel, very, very BAD (ask your hero, Brent Blanchard).
How can you have molten steel in the debris pile when the thermal imagery indicates that temperatures in the pile would not allow for it?
Did you know that the thermal imaging indicated temperatures only as high as 1019 C?
Steel melts at 1370 C.
The thermal imagery is surface temperatures, that is why you have people validate the information on the ground with sensors.
Did I predict what the “Molten steel deniers”, ignorant and pseudo-scientist were going to do (Rookwool and dirty water)?
Considering it is only in The Free Dictionary and that was not in existence before :
And Alan's Wordsmyth added it in 2006:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?scr...matchtype=exact
In 2001 They would have used the real definition (not from a passage in a book they most likely didn’t read).
NOPE
mol·ten (mōl'tən) Pronunciation Key
v. Archaic
A past participle of melt.
adj.
1. Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2. Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury" (Richard Wright).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molten
So, in the COMPLETE ABSENSE of ANY PICTURES of MELTED STEEL or ANY PICTURES of SOLIDIFIED REMAINS or ANY TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS high enough to produce MELTED STEEL, we'll just have to assume they were using literary license.
Which means you are STILL GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Arthur
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury"(Richard Wright).
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/molten
A bed of coals does not melt.
Considering it is only in The Free Dictionary and that was not in existence before :
QUOTE
Registrar: NAMESDIRECT
Domain Name: THEFREEDICTIONARY.COM
Created on: 05-JUN-03
Domain Name: THEFREEDICTIONARY.COM
Created on: 05-JUN-03
And Alan's Wordsmyth added it in 2006:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?scr...matchtype=exact
In 2001 They would have used the real definition (not from a passage in a book they most likely didn’t read).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Registrar: NAMESDIRECT Domain Name: THEFREEDICTIONARY.COM Created on: 05-JUN-03 |
And Alan's Wordsmyth added it in 2006:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?scr...matchtype=exact
In 2001 They would have used the real definition (not from a passage in a book they most likely didn’t read).
Definitions of molten on the Web:
• reduced to liquid form by heating; "a mass of molten rock"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• In physics, melting is the process of heating a solid substance to a point (called melting point) where it turns liquid. An object, which has melted, is molten. Freezing is the opposite of melting. It is the process of turning a liquid to a solid. Consequently the freezing point is the same temperature as the melting point. See the phase article for more detail.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten
• melted or liquefied by heat
library.thinkquest.org/21988/dictionary.htm
• melted, as in metal
centrecountyhistory.org/ironterms.html
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 18 2007, 03:14 AM)
The mapping and thermal imagery were not done to follow the progression of molten steel, it was done so that recovery workers would be aware of settling and fires in the debris pile..
The mapping and thermal imagery was also done so 35-50 ton excavators did not fall into the molten steel.
In language that you can even understand. Machine fall into fire , not good. Machine fall into MOLTEN steel, very, very BAD (ask your hero, Brent Blanchard).
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 18 2007, 03:14 AM)
How can you have molten steel in the debris pile when the thermal imagery indicates that temperatures in the pile would not allow for it?
Did you know that the thermal imaging indicated temperatures only as high as 1019 C?
Steel melts at 1370 C.
The thermal imagery is surface temperatures, that is why you have people validate the information on the ground with sensors.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 18 2007, 11:54 PM)
Did I predict what the “Molten steel deniers”, ignorant and pseudo-scientist were going to do (Rookwool and dirty water)?
Considering it is only in The Free Dictionary and that was not in existence before :
And Alan's Wordsmyth added it in 2006:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?scr...matchtype=exact
In 2001 They would have used the real definition (not from a passage in a book they most likely didn’t read).
NOPE
mol·ten (mōl'tən) Pronunciation Key
v. Archaic
A past participle of melt.
adj.
1. Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2. Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury" (Richard Wright).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molten
So, in the COMPLETE ABSENSE of ANY PICTURES of MELTED STEEL or ANY PICTURES of SOLIDIFIED REMAINS or ANY TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS high enough to produce MELTED STEEL, we'll just have to assume they were using literary license.
Which means you are STILL GRASPING AT STRAWS.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 18 2007, 08:32 PM)
Nope:
mol·ten (mōl'tən) Pronunciation Key
v. Archaic
A past participle of melt.
adj.
1. Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2. Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury" (Richard Wright).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molten
I wonder how many people read this new definition in the year before 9/11 (look at all the other dictionary references)?
And you conveniently left this out:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...NiQ3OC8YheugMMF
mol·ten (mōl'tən) Pronunciation Key
v. Archaic
A past participle of melt.
adj.
1. Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead.
2. Made by melting and casting in a mold.
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury" (Richard Wright).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molten
I wonder how many people read this new definition in the year before 9/11 (look at all the other dictionary references)?
And you conveniently left this out:
QUOTE
Important Information
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...NiQ3OC8YheugMMF
It WOULDN'T have made it into the Dictonary in 2000 if it WASN'T in common usage for some time BEFORE then.
Dictonaries are actually SLOW to change and LAG the common usage of terms, often by many years.
Since I've shown it WAS in a dictionary a good year BEFORE 2001 it BLOWS your assertion that these people MEANT melted.
Arthur
Dictonaries are actually SLOW to change and LAG the common usage of terms, often by many years.
Since I've shown it WAS in a dictionary a good year BEFORE 2001 it BLOWS your assertion that these people MEANT melted.
Arthur
And REASONWHY CONVENIENTLY LIED.
Getting so DESPERATE you have to resort to LYING Reasonwhy???
I didn't leave ANYTHING out.
That line about being updated in 2003 is NOT THERE
SEE http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molten
Also see:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...efid=1861630846
mol·ten
adjective
Definition:
1. melted: changed into liquid form by heat
2. molded: produced by melting a material and then shaping it in a mold
3. glowing: glowing with great heat
or
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Molten
molten (no comparative or superlative)
1. Melted.
molten wax
molten rock
2. made from molten substance
3. glowing red-hot
or
http://www.bartleby.com/61/67/M0376700.html
mol·ten
PRONUNCIATION: mltn
VERB: Archaic A past participle of melt.
ADJECTIVE: 1. Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead. 2. Made by melting and casting in a mold. 3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?scr...matchtype=exact
mol tEn
Definition 1. made liquid, esp. by extreme heat, as metal or rock; melted.
Definition 2. created by melting and casting.
Definition 3. brightly glowing.
Synonyms shining (1) , radiant (1) , bright (1) , glowing {glow (vi 1)}
Similar Words brilliant
The FACT is that MOLTEN is, and WAS IN 2001, considered a PERFECTLY good term to describe something that is simply GLOWING BRIGHTLY or GLOWING RED HOT.
NEED MORE????
Arthur
Getting so DESPERATE you have to resort to LYING Reasonwhy???
I didn't leave ANYTHING out.
That line about being updated in 2003 is NOT THERE
SEE http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molten
Also see:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...efid=1861630846
mol·ten
adjective
Definition:
1. melted: changed into liquid form by heat
2. molded: produced by melting a material and then shaping it in a mold
3. glowing: glowing with great heat
or
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Molten
molten (no comparative or superlative)
1. Melted.
molten wax
molten rock
2. made from molten substance
3. glowing red-hot
or
http://www.bartleby.com/61/67/M0376700.html
mol·ten
PRONUNCIATION: mltn
VERB: Archaic A past participle of melt.
ADJECTIVE: 1. Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead. 2. Made by melting and casting in a mold. 3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?scr...matchtype=exact
mol tEn
Definition 1. made liquid, esp. by extreme heat, as metal or rock; melted.
Definition 2. created by melting and casting.
Definition 3. brightly glowing.
Synonyms shining (1) , radiant (1) , bright (1) , glowing {glow (vi 1)}
Similar Words brilliant
The FACT is that MOLTEN is, and WAS IN 2001, considered a PERFECTLY good term to describe something that is simply GLOWING BRIGHTLY or GLOWING RED HOT.
NEED MORE????
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 18 2007, 08:49 PM)
And REASONWHY CONVENIENTLY LIED.
Getting so DESPERATE you have to resort to LYING Reasonwhy???
I didn't leave ANYTHING out.
That line about being updated in 2003 is NOT THERE
SEE http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molten
Also see:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...efid=1861630846
mol·ten
adjective
Definition:
1. melted: changed into liquid form by heat
2. molded: produced by melting a material and then shaping it in a mold
3. glowing: glowing with great heat
or
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Molten
molten (no comparative or superlative)
1. Melted.
molten wax
molten rock
2. made from molten substance
3. glowing red-hot
or
http://www.bartleby.com/61/67/M0376700.html
mol·ten
PRONUNCIATION: mltn
VERB: Archaic A past participle of melt.
ADJECTIVE: 1. Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead. 2. Made by melting and casting in a mold. 3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
The FACT is that MOLTEN is, and WAS IN 2001, considered a PERFECTLY good term to describe something that is simply GLOWING BRIGHTLY or GLOWING RED HOT.
NEED MORE????
Arthur
Getting so DESPERATE you have to resort to LYING Reasonwhy???
I didn't leave ANYTHING out.
That line about being updated in 2003 is NOT THERE
SEE http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/molten
Also see:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dic...efid=1861630846
mol·ten
adjective
Definition:
1. melted: changed into liquid form by heat
2. molded: produced by melting a material and then shaping it in a mold
3. glowing: glowing with great heat
or
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Molten
molten (no comparative or superlative)
1. Melted.
molten wax
molten rock
2. made from molten substance
3. glowing red-hot
or
http://www.bartleby.com/61/67/M0376700.html
mol·ten
PRONUNCIATION: mltn
VERB: Archaic A past participle of melt.
ADJECTIVE: 1. Made liquid by heat; melted: molten lead. 2. Made by melting and casting in a mold. 3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: “A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury” (Richard Wright).
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
The FACT is that MOLTEN is, and WAS IN 2001, considered a PERFECTLY good term to describe something that is simply GLOWING BRIGHTLY or GLOWING RED HOT.
NEED MORE????
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 18 2007, 12:22 PM)
David, you need a better dictionary.
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury"
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/molten
A bed of coals does not melt.
The link at the bottom of the page.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...NiQ3OC8YheugMMF
What a numbnut (making up quotes)!
It does not matter, that is not how it was used and you know it.
You can get all the shills to agree , that does not change the fact they were not using it as “glowing red-hot.”
Most people would not even know that is now a definition.
A writer (Richard Wright) might use it, but not a scientist or engineer.
3. Brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury"
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/molten
A bed of coals does not melt.
The link at the bottom of the page.
QUOTE
Important Information
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...NiQ3OC8YheugMMF
What a numbnut (making up quotes)!
It does not matter, that is not how it was used and you know it.
You can get all the shills to agree , that does not change the fact they were not using it as “glowing red-hot.”
Most people would not even know that is now a definition.
A writer (Richard Wright) might use it, but not a scientist or engineer.
Duplicate post
The forth edition may have been UPDATED in 2003, but the versions I cited only contain the original 2000 date, therefore that definition existed prior to 2001 and had to have been in COMMON usage well before then for the dictionary to get changed.
You are lying again, I made up NO quotes.
As to
BS
I know that's what YOU want, but that unfortunately is NOT the case.
So, in the ABSENSE of any corroborating proof, such as TESTIMONY from the people clarifing what they meant or pictures of solidified pools of steel we will just have to assume that since NO TEMPERATURE readings were high enough to support MELTED STEEL, that whatever they DID see, it wasn't MELTED STEEL.
Arthur
You are lying again, I made up NO quotes.
As to
QUOTE
It does not matter, that is not how it was used and you know it.
BS
I know that's what YOU want, but that unfortunately is NOT the case.
So, in the ABSENSE of any corroborating proof, such as TESTIMONY from the people clarifing what they meant or pictures of solidified pools of steel we will just have to assume that since NO TEMPERATURE readings were high enough to support MELTED STEEL, that whatever they DID see, it wasn't MELTED STEEL.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 18 2007, 12:30 PM)
Lets forget that Romero doesn't believe the towers were blown up. He says you conspiracy theorists are taking his comment out of context. (Like everyone else's quotes you mine.)
That still dodges the question. HOW MUCH OF WHAT KIND OF EXPLOSIVE would have to be placed WHERE in order to create the effects we see on 9/11.
You haven't thought about that one bit have you... You're like the Lemmings who believed Saddam had WMD because Rummy said he knew they were north, south east and west around baghdad.
Lemming! Heh!
I have already expalined the best way to do that:
The mapping and thermal imagery was also done so 35-50 ton excavators did not fall into the molten steel.
In language that you can even understand. Machine fall into fire , not good. Machine fall into MOLTEN steel, very, very BAD (ask your hero, Brent Blanchard).
you can see that things are indeed very complex. It is hard to see how the collapse would even get started from this point. Just for one example, the perimeter columns were designed so that "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
to explain how they would fail all around the tower at the same floor level at the exact same time would be very hard it would seem.
The formula you are looking for is called the Euler buckling formula.
Google it and learn.
Hmmm. I seem to recall that the NIST report covered the inward sagging of the floors and the resulting pull in forces quite extensively. Perhaps you need to reread that section also.
That still dodges the question. HOW MUCH OF WHAT KIND OF EXPLOSIVE would have to be placed WHERE in order to create the effects we see on 9/11.
You haven't thought about that one bit have you... You're like the Lemmings who believed Saddam had WMD because Rummy said he knew they were north, south east and west around baghdad.
Lemming! Heh!
I have already expalined the best way to do that:
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 10 2007, 07:25 PM)
If I had the time and resources (to get the model from EAI), I would start by asking ENGINEERING ANALYSIS INC. for the model of the WTC and take a HEXDAM, VEXDAM, VASDIP, HEXFRAG TRAINING COURSE.
http://jmcleland.home.mindspring.com/EAIprs83.html
http://eai.home.mindspring.com/5WTCanim.gif
Notice the vapor cloud explosion does not go down the elevator shafts.
Then I could experiment with all the different explosives until the model matched what we saw on 9/11.
For some reason their are models of most everything al qaida and domestic terrorist have blown up.
http://eai.home.mindspring.com/
I could also use the model of WTC7 and show how CD could bring the building down.
http://jmcleland.home.mindspring.com/EAIprs83.html
http://eai.home.mindspring.com/5WTCanim.gif
Notice the vapor cloud explosion does not go down the elevator shafts.
Then I could experiment with all the different explosives until the model matched what we saw on 9/11.
For some reason their are models of most everything al qaida and domestic terrorist have blown up.
http://eai.home.mindspring.com/
I could also use the model of WTC7 and show how CD could bring the building down.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 18 2007, 09:35 PM)
The forth edition may have been UPDATED in 2003, but the versions I cited only contain the original 2000 date, therefore that definition existed prior to 2001 and had to have been in COMMON usage well before then for the dictionary to get changed.
You are lying again, I made up NO quotes.
As to
BS
I know that's what YOU want, but that unfortunately is NOT the case.
So, in the ABSENSE of any corroborating proof, such as TESTIMONY from the people clarifing what they meant or pictures of solidified pools of steel we will just have to assume that since NO TEMPERATURE readings were high enough to support MELTED STEEL, that whatever they DID see, it wasn't MELTED STEEL.
Arthur
You mean because FEMA, The Commission and NIST did not do there jobs, forget about all the eye wittiness reports?
Surface tempertures do not tell you the max temperture if it is molten.
You are lying again, I made up NO quotes.
As to
BS
I know that's what YOU want, but that unfortunately is NOT the case.
So, in the ABSENSE of any corroborating proof, such as TESTIMONY from the people clarifing what they meant or pictures of solidified pools of steel we will just have to assume that since NO TEMPERATURE readings were high enough to support MELTED STEEL, that whatever they DID see, it wasn't MELTED STEEL.
Arthur
You mean because FEMA, The Commission and NIST did not do there jobs, forget about all the eye wittiness reports?
Surface tempertures do not tell you the max temperture if it is molten.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 19 2007, 04:23 AM)
The mapping and thermal imagery was also done so 35-50 ton excavators did not fall into the molten steel.
In language that you can even understand. Machine fall into fire , not good. Machine fall into MOLTEN steel, very, very BAD (ask your hero, Brent Blanchard).
The main concerns about high temperatures at ground zero were not for the heavy machinery, but for the rescue and recovery workers in the suspected areas.
Other than the obvious risk of heat exposure, the fire zones carried the dangers of explosions and toxic byproducts.
I would be surprised if you could quote any machine operator fearing a plunge into a pool of molten steel.
The areas of highest temperature in the piles were those with adequate oxygen supplies, and they tended to be close to the surface of the piles.
It's true that the deeper pockets of heat lasted longer, but did not burn as hot.
I don't dispute that molten steel could not have existed in the piles, in fact like many other poster's in this thread, I have made arguments in favor of the possibility.
At Common Sense's website, he devotes a section to the subject.
Manuel Garcia in his article The Thermodynamics of 9/11 , believes it is possible, but not likely that steel melted.
While I believe in the possibility of molten steel in the debris piles, no documented evidence exists to prove it.
You claim that ground personnel with sensors validated temperatures high enough to melt steel, which is 2500 F degrees.
I have done a lot of searching, and can't find any source associated with the recovery that documents a temperature of over 2000 F degrees.
If you can find documentation of higher temperatures, I would love to see it.
Other than the obvious risk of heat exposure, the fire zones carried the dangers of explosions and toxic byproducts.
I would be surprised if you could quote any machine operator fearing a plunge into a pool of molten steel.
QUOTE
The thermal imagery is surface temperatures, that is why you have people validate the information on the ground with sensors.
If there were reason to believe that a deep source of heat generation existed in the debris pile, you would be correct, but in this case it was not likely or suspected.The areas of highest temperature in the piles were those with adequate oxygen supplies, and they tended to be close to the surface of the piles.
It's true that the deeper pockets of heat lasted longer, but did not burn as hot.
I don't dispute that molten steel could not have existed in the piles, in fact like many other poster's in this thread, I have made arguments in favor of the possibility.
At Common Sense's website, he devotes a section to the subject.
Manuel Garcia in his article The Thermodynamics of 9/11 , believes it is possible, but not likely that steel melted.
While I believe in the possibility of molten steel in the debris piles, no documented evidence exists to prove it.
You claim that ground personnel with sensors validated temperatures high enough to melt steel, which is 2500 F degrees.
I have done a lot of searching, and can't find any source associated with the recovery that documents a temperature of over 2000 F degrees.
If you can find documentation of higher temperatures, I would love to see it.
Obviously we can argue about what those alleged eyewitness reports about "molten metal/steel" in the rubble pile really mean.... FOR EVER!
But are we getting anywhere with this?
I think we all agree on a few points:
* that parts of the rubble pile were VERY hot for a long time
* that near surface temperatures as high as 1100 K (not C!) were recorded
* this is hot enough to melt some metals (e.g. lead and aluminum), but not steel
I think the point we need to address is WHY the rubble pile was so hot for so long. To a chemist it suggests that potent exothermic reactions were underway.
Combustion reactions of solid and liquid materials known to be present in the rubble pile are obvious candidates - materials such as diesel fuel, plastics, wood, paper, etc.
However, many other chemical reactions between HOT, (but not necessarily molten!), iron, lead, aluminum, carbon, calcium oxide/hydroxide/carbonate/sulfate and gases that could be present in the rubble pile such as O2, SO2, Cl2, HCl, H2S, H2O, CO, H2, etc, are possible.
I think anyone who denies the possibility of such reactions should tell us why.....
and suggest some REASONABLE alternatives. These alternatives must involve chemical reactions between materials in the rubble pile that could produce lots of heat AND go on for days.....
NF
But are we getting anywhere with this?
I think we all agree on a few points:
* that parts of the rubble pile were VERY hot for a long time
* that near surface temperatures as high as 1100 K (not C!) were recorded
* this is hot enough to melt some metals (e.g. lead and aluminum), but not steel
I think the point we need to address is WHY the rubble pile was so hot for so long. To a chemist it suggests that potent exothermic reactions were underway.
Combustion reactions of solid and liquid materials known to be present in the rubble pile are obvious candidates - materials such as diesel fuel, plastics, wood, paper, etc.
However, many other chemical reactions between HOT, (but not necessarily molten!), iron, lead, aluminum, carbon, calcium oxide/hydroxide/carbonate/sulfate and gases that could be present in the rubble pile such as O2, SO2, Cl2, HCl, H2S, H2O, CO, H2, etc, are possible.
I think anyone who denies the possibility of such reactions should tell us why.....
and suggest some REASONABLE alternatives. These alternatives must involve chemical reactions between materials in the rubble pile that could produce lots of heat AND go on for days.....
NF
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 19 2007, 02:18 AM)
You mean because FEMA, The Commission and NIST did not do there jobs, forget about all the eye wittiness reports?
Surface tempertures do not tell you the max temperture if it is molten.
The DESPERATION is palpable.
FEMA had a team there within weeks and then for the duration of the recovery. They examined steel at the site and at the landfill. They did not however report any solidified pools of melted steel.
AFAIK the Commisson report had nothing to do with this subject.
The NIST was not involved until after the cleanup was complete and their charter/report does not encompass the AFTERMATH of the collapse. Since their evaluation of the conditions leading up to the collapse showed that NO EXPLOSIVES or indeed any external force besides GRAVITY were required for the collapse.
An EYE witness can NOT determine the make up of a material.
For instance we are ALL "eye witnesses" to the molten material that fell from tower but NONE of us can say with any degree of certainty WHAT the material was.
While Surface temps might not tell you max temps in the pile you still can't ASSUME that the temps in the pile were hot enough to melt steel without PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that they did so.
Arthur
Surface tempertures do not tell you the max temperture if it is molten.
The DESPERATION is palpable.
FEMA had a team there within weeks and then for the duration of the recovery. They examined steel at the site and at the landfill. They did not however report any solidified pools of melted steel.
AFAIK the Commisson report had nothing to do with this subject.
The NIST was not involved until after the cleanup was complete and their charter/report does not encompass the AFTERMATH of the collapse. Since their evaluation of the conditions leading up to the collapse showed that NO EXPLOSIVES or indeed any external force besides GRAVITY were required for the collapse.
An EYE witness can NOT determine the make up of a material.
For instance we are ALL "eye witnesses" to the molten material that fell from tower but NONE of us can say with any degree of certainty WHAT the material was.
While Surface temps might not tell you max temps in the pile you still can't ASSUME that the temps in the pile were hot enough to melt steel without PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that they did so.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 16 2007, 10:42 PM)
As far as I can understand (at a quick look) is the Bazant paper in fact Greening for a uniform mass and energy distribution. I was shocked when I saw those pictures about crush-down and crush-up. I hoped they had solved that also. Did they ? Could someone help explaining it a little bit ? Theoretically a crush-up and crush-down from the beginning should also be able to continue [?], however much more mass will be ejected. It is also not easy how this mass loss/ejected will occur. A percentage per collision of course gives a different result than a percentage per floor per collision. Lozenge, you indeed first need a realistic model to start but in general analytic solvable models need special assumptions.
Hi einsteen,
The assumptions that underlie the Greening and Bazant/Verdure approach with E1 are so unrealistic that their whole analysis is worthless in my opinion. In spite of this, this method seems to be used over and over by posters here to "prove" that it was inevitable that the towers would collapse, and that the observed time of collapse is consistent with "basic physics". That's why I ended up posting an animation to show that the model is actually quite ridiculous:
It's interesting that time after time in this forum all these complex E1 calculations are posted but never with an accompanying diagram to show what is being assumed.
I agree with you that you that a solvable model has to contain some simplifying assumptions, and I find the best "block falling on tower" analysis was done by Jim Hoffman ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/ ). I don't really think things can be taken much further than that... Especially, because all these models bypass the all-important "collapse initation" question by magically creating a space between the falling portion and standing tower.
If you look at this picture that someone posted (apparently it comes from the Silverstein insurance trial):
you can see that things are indeed very complex. It is hard to see how the collapse would even get started from this point. Just for one example, the perimeter columns were designed so that "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." (ref); to explain how they would fail all around the tower at the same floor level at the exact same time would be very hard it would seem. That's why in my other post I asked for the posters who are so quick to "prove" mathematically the collapse & collapse times, to come up with a diagram showing how it happens in practice. After all, that's how you usually solve a mechanics problem isn't it? You draw a diagram, draw the forces, etc then you do the math. If they don't like my diagrams they could even use this as a starting point:
I'm not holding my breath though, because the NIST themselves weren't able to come up with anything. Even for the people who want to believe the official story, this must be a little troubling.
( http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html )
Hi einsteen,
The assumptions that underlie the Greening and Bazant/Verdure approach with E1 are so unrealistic that their whole analysis is worthless in my opinion. In spite of this, this method seems to be used over and over by posters here to "prove" that it was inevitable that the towers would collapse, and that the observed time of collapse is consistent with "basic physics". That's why I ended up posting an animation to show that the model is actually quite ridiculous:
It's interesting that time after time in this forum all these complex E1 calculations are posted but never with an accompanying diagram to show what is being assumed.
I agree with you that you that a solvable model has to contain some simplifying assumptions, and I find the best "block falling on tower" analysis was done by Jim Hoffman ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/models/ ). I don't really think things can be taken much further than that... Especially, because all these models bypass the all-important "collapse initation" question by magically creating a space between the falling portion and standing tower.
If you look at this picture that someone posted (apparently it comes from the Silverstein insurance trial):
you can see that things are indeed very complex. It is hard to see how the collapse would even get started from this point. Just for one example, the perimeter columns were designed so that "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." (ref); to explain how they would fail all around the tower at the same floor level at the exact same time would be very hard it would seem. That's why in my other post I asked for the posters who are so quick to "prove" mathematically the collapse & collapse times, to come up with a diagram showing how it happens in practice. After all, that's how you usually solve a mechanics problem isn't it? You draw a diagram, draw the forces, etc then you do the math. If they don't like my diagrams they could even use this as a starting point:
I'm not holding my breath though, because the NIST themselves weren't able to come up with anything. Even for the people who want to believe the official story, this must be a little troubling.
( http://911review.com/coverup/nist.html )
No cooled puddles of steel=no melted steel,PERIOD.
Those who say they saw such are, as most eyewitnesses are, mistaken. Unless they had spectroscopic devices in their eyes, they are not capable of determining the composition of what they see glowing. Most of the sightings were probably dirty water reflecting the glowing hot material around and above it, that's all.
Grumpy
Those who say they saw such are, as most eyewitnesses are, mistaken. Unless they had spectroscopic devices in their eyes, they are not capable of determining the composition of what they see glowing. Most of the sightings were probably dirty water reflecting the glowing hot material around and above it, that's all.
Grumpy
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 19 2007, 12:01 PM)
The assumptions that underlie the Greening and Bazant/Verdure approach with E1 are so unrealistic that their whole analysis is worthless in my opinion.
So all you have to do is WRITE A PAPER and PROVE that Bazant's analysis was wrong.
Otherwise its your OPINION of a PUBLISHED PEER REVIEWED PAPER that is worthless.
Arthur
So all you have to do is WRITE A PAPER and PROVE that Bazant's analysis was wrong.
Otherwise its your OPINION of a PUBLISHED PEER REVIEWED PAPER that is worthless.
Arthur
lozenge124 --- NIST didn't bother to draw a diagram for you. Instead, for WTC 1, they state as collapse initiation:
(1) Exterior walls pull-in on south, east and west sides.
(2) Exterior walls break and wedge into the lower positions of the exterior walls.
(3) Top block tilts, hinged on the north wall.
(4) After about 8 arc-degrees of tilting, north wall breaks, wedges in.
(5) Top block descends upon bottom block.
Feel free to ask questions about this, which can also read about in NCSTAR1-6 and 1-6D.
By the way, did you know that Professor Bazant is a holder of the Von Karman Medal, and well as many other honors? Maybe you ought, instead of sounding off, you ought to read and understand his work? And maybe reflect upon the fact that Greening independently arrived at essentially the same equations before Bazant & Verdure derived the differential equation form?
(1) Exterior walls pull-in on south, east and west sides.
(2) Exterior walls break and wedge into the lower positions of the exterior walls.
(3) Top block tilts, hinged on the north wall.
(4) After about 8 arc-degrees of tilting, north wall breaks, wedges in.
(5) Top block descends upon bottom block.
Feel free to ask questions about this, which can also read about in NCSTAR1-6 and 1-6D.
By the way, did you know that Professor Bazant is a holder of the Von Karman Medal, and well as many other honors? Maybe you ought, instead of sounding off, you ought to read and understand his work? And maybe reflect upon the fact that Greening independently arrived at essentially the same equations before Bazant & Verdure derived the differential equation form?
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 19 2007, 10:01 AM)
you can see that things are indeed very complex. It is hard to see how the collapse would even get started from this point. Just for one example, the perimeter columns were designed so that "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.
to explain how they would fail all around the tower at the same floor level at the exact same time would be very hard it would seem.
The formula you are looking for is called the Euler buckling formula.
Google it and learn.
QUOTE
I'm not holding my breath though, because the NIST themselves weren't able to come up with anything. Even for the people who want to believe the official story, this must be a little troubling.
Hmmm. I seem to recall that the NIST report covered the inward sagging of the floors and the resulting pull in forces quite extensively. Perhaps you need to reread that section also.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 19 2007, 04:45 PM)
lozenge124 --- NIST didn't bother to draw a diagram for you. Instead, for WTC 1, they state as collapse initiation:
(1) Exterior walls pull-in on south, east and west sides.
(2) Exterior walls break and wedge into the lower positions of the exterior walls.
(3) Top block tilts, hinged on the north wall.
(4) After about 8 arc-degrees of tilting, north wall breaks, wedges in.
(5) Top block descends upon bottom block.
Feel free to ask questions about this, which can also read about in NCSTAR1-6 and 1-6D.
They came to their collapse initiation sequence by way of a computer model that is seriously flawed. I suggest you take a ook at these critiques if you do not see the problems:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html
(feel free to ask if you have any questions)
In addition, they did not even attempt to go any further than collapse initation. As you can see in the article I posted from the "New Civil Engineer" it is common practice to validate computer models with visualizations. To simply state that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," is completely unacceptable even if you lean towards the official story.
Yes, and regardless of their titles their assumptions are nonsense. I repeat my invitation to you (or anybody) to produce a sketch/diagram of the progressive collapse (including core columns) as predicted by the Greening/Bazant equations.
(1) Exterior walls pull-in on south, east and west sides.
(2) Exterior walls break and wedge into the lower positions of the exterior walls.
(3) Top block tilts, hinged on the north wall.
(4) After about 8 arc-degrees of tilting, north wall breaks, wedges in.
(5) Top block descends upon bottom block.
Feel free to ask questions about this, which can also read about in NCSTAR1-6 and 1-6D.
They came to their collapse initiation sequence by way of a computer model that is seriously flawed. I suggest you take a ook at these critiques if you do not see the problems:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html
(feel free to ask if you have any questions)
In addition, they did not even attempt to go any further than collapse initation. As you can see in the article I posted from the "New Civil Engineer" it is common practice to validate computer models with visualizations. To simply state that "once the upper building section began to move downwards . . ., global collapse ensued," is completely unacceptable even if you lean towards the official story.
QUOTE
By the way, did you know that Professor Bazant is a holder of the Von Karman Medal, and well as many other honors? Maybe you ought, instead of sounding off, you ought to read and understand his work? And maybe reflect upon the fact that Greening independently arrived at essentially the same equations before Bazant & Verdure derived the differential equation form?
Yes, and regardless of their titles their assumptions are nonsense. I repeat my invitation to you (or anybody) to produce a sketch/diagram of the progressive collapse (including core columns) as predicted by the Greening/Bazant equations.
Adoucette,
A model is a model and you can peer review a model under its assumptions. I thought they used a kind of coupled differential equations implying a crush-up and crush-down at the same moment but what I understand they don't do that. They also give no explicit values for what their k_out is. Also not their collapse times but that is also not really interesting unless they are really much higher than the observed times.
If a block delivers kinetic energy as it was a solid object to only the upper intact stories step by step (for a continuous model that would be a dE/dx situation)
then the fact that the full energy contributes implies that all E1s from the block are in fact able to interchange elastic energy. Although I don't know much about Gordon Ross (I had a quick look at his site) I think he has a point.
If you only use the per storey model, then you should also do it for the "hammering" block. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH.
A possible working collapse model is a one in which a couple of floors are collected at the remaining building until the building gives up. At that moment the floors are already merged together and this merged part can 'hammer'. It is a detail but an important thing imo. It will (if possible) afect the collapse time a little bit because it has a slower speed compared to when it hits the ground.
Lozenge,
What is the source of those nice pictures ? Probably not from NIST because they only looked at initiation.
ps. What is their argument that crush-up follows after the crush-down, I couldn't find it
A model is a model and you can peer review a model under its assumptions. I thought they used a kind of coupled differential equations implying a crush-up and crush-down at the same moment but what I understand they don't do that. They also give no explicit values for what their k_out is. Also not their collapse times but that is also not really interesting unless they are really much higher than the observed times.
If a block delivers kinetic energy as it was a solid object to only the upper intact stories step by step (for a continuous model that would be a dE/dx situation)
then the fact that the full energy contributes implies that all E1s from the block are in fact able to interchange elastic energy. Although I don't know much about Gordon Ross (I had a quick look at his site) I think he has a point.
If you only use the per storey model, then you should also do it for the "hammering" block. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH.
A possible working collapse model is a one in which a couple of floors are collected at the remaining building until the building gives up. At that moment the floors are already merged together and this merged part can 'hammer'. It is a detail but an important thing imo. It will (if possible) afect the collapse time a little bit because it has a slower speed compared to when it hits the ground.
Lozenge,
What is the source of those nice pictures ? Probably not from NIST because they only looked at initiation.
ps. What is their argument that crush-up follows after the crush-down, I couldn't find it
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 19 2007, 04:59 PM)
Yes, and regardless of their titles their assumptions are nonsense. I repeat my invitation to you (or anybody) to produce a sketch/diagram of the progressive collapse (including core columns) as predicted by the Greening/Bazant equations.
Ok, B&V clearly state their four assumptions. Exactly what, in your opinion, is nonsense about each of the four?
Your moving graphic is close enough. You would have to set the rate properly. But using that the drop, d, depends upon time, t, as
d = (1/2)(2/3)gt^2
would be close enough for the first few seconds.
Ok, B&V clearly state their four assumptions. Exactly what, in your opinion, is nonsense about each of the four?
Your moving graphic is close enough. You would have to set the rate properly. But using that the drop, d, depends upon time, t, as
d = (1/2)(2/3)gt^2
would be close enough for the first few seconds.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 19 2007, 11:45 AM)
lozenge124 --- NIST didn't bother to draw a diagram for you. Instead, for WTC 1, they state as collapse initiation:
(1) Exterior walls pull-in on south, east and west sides.
(2) Exterior walls break and wedge into the lower positions of the exterior walls.
(3) Top block tilts, hinged on the north wall.
(4) After about 8 arc-degrees of tilting, north wall breaks, wedges in.
(5) Top block descends upon bottom block.
Feel free to ask questions about this, which can also read about in NCSTAR1-6 and 1-6D.
By the way, did you know that Professor Bazant is a holder of the Von Karman Medal, and well as many other honors? Maybe you ought, instead of sounding off, you ought to read and understand his work? And maybe reflect upon the fact that Greening independently arrived at essentially the same equations before Bazant & Verdure derived the differential equation form?
I suggest the top block decends inside the bottom block. What do you think DBB?
(1) Exterior walls pull-in on south, east and west sides.
(2) Exterior walls break and wedge into the lower positions of the exterior walls.
(3) Top block tilts, hinged on the north wall.
(4) After about 8 arc-degrees of tilting, north wall breaks, wedges in.
(5) Top block descends upon bottom block.
Feel free to ask questions about this, which can also read about in NCSTAR1-6 and 1-6D.
By the way, did you know that Professor Bazant is a holder of the Von Karman Medal, and well as many other honors? Maybe you ought, instead of sounding off, you ought to read and understand his work? And maybe reflect upon the fact that Greening independently arrived at essentially the same equations before Bazant & Verdure derived the differential equation form?
I suggest the top block decends inside the bottom block. What do you think DBB?
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 19 2007, 06:14 PM)
I suggest the top block decends[sic] inside the bottom block. What do you think DBB?
At least for the first few seconds of WTC 1, within appears to be correct. I should have said that. Thanks.
At least for the first few seconds of WTC 1, within appears to be correct. I should have said that. Thanks.
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 19 2007, 05:00 PM)
Lozenge,
What is the source of those nice pictures ? Probably not from NIST because they only looked at initiation.
They are on the debunking911.com site:
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
But I believe their source is the Silverstein trial because I found this article where these pictures are linked to:
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021104d.asp
It's interesting to see what they were saying at the time (November 2004):
Apparently completely at odds with the NIST theory! Something to bear in mind next time an official engineer says "There is no doubt left about" something.
There are also some other interesting graphics showing plane impact & WTC1:
To me it's striking how even though the plane impacts differ quite a bit, and the graphic at "collapse initation" for WTC1 & 2 are also different, the collapse of 1&2 "after initiation" was for the most part identical.
What is the source of those nice pictures ? Probably not from NIST because they only looked at initiation.
They are on the debunking911.com site:
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
But I believe their source is the Silverstein trial because I found this article where these pictures are linked to:
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021104d.asp
It's interesting to see what they were saying at the time (November 2004):
QUOTE
The most comprehensive study yet on the destruction of the World Trade Center concludes that columns robbed of fireproofing failed first--not floor trusses--when the twin 110-story towers collapsed after being hit by terrorist plane attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. The proof is in the smoke that emanated from the burning towers before the collapses.
"There is no doubt left about the sequence of failure," says Matthys P. Levy, chairman of Weidlinger Associates Inc., the New York City-based engineer that led the study.
"Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," says the report. Levy describes the floor truss system as "not unsubstantial," acting more like a membrane than a one-way system. "There was nothing wrong with it," he says. If the floor trusses had collapsed first, there would have been a mass of smoke as opposed to differentiated smoke, floor by floor, he adds.
"There is no doubt left about the sequence of failure," says Matthys P. Levy, chairman of Weidlinger Associates Inc., the New York City-based engineer that led the study.
"Failure of the floors...was shown not to have had any significant role in the initiation of the collapses," says the report. Levy describes the floor truss system as "not unsubstantial," acting more like a membrane than a one-way system. "There was nothing wrong with it," he says. If the floor trusses had collapsed first, there would have been a mass of smoke as opposed to differentiated smoke, floor by floor, he adds.
Apparently completely at odds with the NIST theory! Something to bear in mind next time an official engineer says "There is no doubt left about" something.
There are also some other interesting graphics showing plane impact & WTC1:
To me it's striking how even though the plane impacts differ quite a bit, and the graphic at "collapse initation" for WTC1 & 2 are also different, the collapse of 1&2 "after initiation" was for the most part identical.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 19 2007, 01:26 PM)
They are on the debunking911.com site:
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
But I believe their source is the Silverstein trial because I found this article where these pictures are linked to:
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021104d.asp
It's interesting to see what they were saying at the time (November 2004):
Apparently completely at odds with the NIST theory! Something to bear in mind next time an official engineer says "There is no doubt left about" something.
There are also some other interesting graphics showing plane impact & WTC1:
To me it's striking how even though the plane impacts differ quite a bit, and the graphic at "collapse initation" for WTC1 & 2 are also different, the collapse of 1&2 "after initiation" was for the most part identical.
I see NOTHING at adds with the NIST report. The NIST NEVER said the trusses failed first. That was conspiracy theorists conflating the NIST report with the PBS special. Now YOU are doing it. The NIST NEVER said pancaking/trusses CAUSED the collapse.
http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
But I believe their source is the Silverstein trial because I found this article where these pictures are linked to:
http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Hea...R/20021104d.asp
It's interesting to see what they were saying at the time (November 2004):
Apparently completely at odds with the NIST theory! Something to bear in mind next time an official engineer says "There is no doubt left about" something.
There are also some other interesting graphics showing plane impact & WTC1:
To me it's striking how even though the plane impacts differ quite a bit, and the graphic at "collapse initation" for WTC1 & 2 are also different, the collapse of 1&2 "after initiation" was for the most part identical.
I see NOTHING at adds with the NIST report. The NIST NEVER said the trusses failed first. That was conspiracy theorists conflating the NIST report with the PBS special. Now YOU are doing it. The NIST NEVER said pancaking/trusses CAUSED the collapse.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 19 2007, 06:26 PM)
Apparently completely at odds with the NIST theory! Something to bear in mind next time an official engineer says "There is no doubt left about" something.
... the collapse of 1&2 "after initiation" was for the most part identical.
Not at all at odds with NIST. Do you know about the Professional Engineer's code of ethics?
Collapses were mostly straight down, but there are many, many differences. Thus a single theory of collapse progression, encompassing both, is now shown to be correct (enough), twice over.
When will you be ready to defend your assertion that the four assumptions in B&V are nonsense?
... the collapse of 1&2 "after initiation" was for the most part identical.
Not at all at odds with NIST. Do you know about the Professional Engineer's code of ethics?
Collapses were mostly straight down, but there are many, many differences. Thus a single theory of collapse progression, encompassing both, is now shown to be correct (enough), twice over.
When will you be ready to defend your assertion that the four assumptions in B&V are nonsense?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 19 2007, 01:24 PM)
At least for the first few seconds of WTC 1, within appears to be correct. I should have said that. Thanks.
I just wanted to point that out to the ones who see a missapplied animation which doesn't take that into account. I doubt they could imagine the weight/force of all the perimeter columns, core columns and hot truss falling on those 5/8" bolts/angled plates. It's unbelievably absurd to expect them to hold that kind of weight. I don't care what the bolt or plates are made of.
I just wanted to point that out to the ones who see a missapplied animation which doesn't take that into account. I doubt they could imagine the weight/force of all the perimeter columns, core columns and hot truss falling on those 5/8" bolts/angled plates. It's unbelievably absurd to expect them to hold that kind of weight. I don't care what the bolt or plates are made of.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 19 2007, 07:01 PM)
It's unbelievably absurd to expect them to hold that kind of weight.
Since we are being nicely precise today, in the intact structures, not moving vertically, indeed the connections could hold the weight. But once vertical motion began, the connections could not withstand the energy supplied by the moving mass.
Since we are being nicely precise today, in the intact structures, not moving vertically, indeed the connections could hold the weight. But once vertical motion began, the connections could not withstand the energy supplied by the moving mass.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 19 2007, 05:30 PM)
Ok, B&V clearly state their four assumptions. Exactly what, in your opinion, is nonsense about each of the four?
This is item 4 of B&V's failure scenario:
(click on fig for larger version) (bold added by me)
I have 2 problems with the section in bold:
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged. In addition, the videos of the event do not look anything like their fig1(b ) & (c ), and after collapse started there was no arrest as the block (allegedly) hit the floor below.
2) I think it helps to take a quote from further down in the paper
(click on fig for larger version) (bold added by me)
I have 2 problems with the section in bold:
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged. In addition, the videos of the event do not look anything like their fig1(b ) & (c ), and after collapse started there was no arrest as the block (allegedly) hit the floor below.
2) I think it helps to take a quote from further down in the paper
The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the
floor below was found to be about 8.4x larger than the plastic
energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably
higher than that if fracturing were taken into account
My problem here as with all E1 type analyses is that in considering the impact of the upper block on the lower portion, they just consider the "energy absorption capability of the underlying story" as if it was standing in mid-air unconnected to the rest of the structure. Again, we have these massive perimeter columns and the core that are going to transfer the impact downwards towards the ground.
DBB I respect your opinion if you agree with their analysis, but it is very far from an "airtight" case. I don't think it is warranted to quote this paper all the time as the final word on what happened, everytime someone posts something to the contrary.
This is item 4 of B&V's failure scenario:
QUOTE
The combination of seven effects—
1- Overstress of some columns due to initial load redistribution;
2- overheating due to loss of steel insulation;
3- drastic lowering of yield limit and creep threshold by heat;
4- lateral deflections of many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor trusses;
5- weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffness of sagging floors;
6- multistory bowing of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling) and;
7- local plastic buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of columns [Fig. 1(b )]
As a result, the upper part of the tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded (by an order of magnitude) the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of the tower.
1- Overstress of some columns due to initial load redistribution;
2- overheating due to loss of steel insulation;
3- drastic lowering of yield limit and creep threshold by heat;
4- lateral deflections of many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor trusses;
5- weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffness of sagging floors;
6- multistory bowing of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling) and;
7- local plastic buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of columns [Fig. 1(b )]
As a result, the upper part of the tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded (by an order of magnitude) the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of the tower.
(click on fig for larger version) (bold added by me)
I have 2 problems with the section in bold:
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged. In addition, the videos of the event do not look anything like their fig1(b ) & (c ), and after collapse started there was no arrest as the block (allegedly) hit the floor below.
2) I think it helps to take a quote from further down in the paper
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The combination of seven effects— 1- Overstress of some columns due to initial load redistribution; 2- overheating due to loss of steel insulation; 3- drastic lowering of yield limit and creep threshold by heat; 4- lateral deflections of many columns due to thermal strains and sagging floor trusses; 5- weakened lateral support due to reduced in-plane stiffness of sagging floors; 6- multistory bowing of some columns (for which the critical load is an order of magnitude less than it is for one-story buckling) and; 7- local plastic buckling of heated column webs—finally led to buckling of columns [Fig. 1(b )] As a result, the upper part of the tower fell, with little resistance, through at least one floor height, impacting the lower part of the tower. This triggered progressive collapse because the kinetic energy of the falling upper part exceeded (by an order of magnitude) the energy that could be absorbed by limited plastic deformations and fracturing in the lower part of the tower. |
(click on fig for larger version) (bold added by me)
I have 2 problems with the section in bold:
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged. In addition, the videos of the event do not look anything like their fig1(b ) & (c ), and after collapse started there was no arrest as the block (allegedly) hit the floor below.
2) I think it helps to take a quote from further down in the paper
The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the
floor below was found to be about 8.4x larger than the plastic
energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably
higher than that if fracturing were taken into account
My problem here as with all E1 type analyses is that in considering the impact of the upper block on the lower portion, they just consider the "energy absorption capability of the underlying story" as if it was standing in mid-air unconnected to the rest of the structure. Again, we have these massive perimeter columns and the core that are going to transfer the impact downwards towards the ground.
DBB I respect your opinion if you agree with their analysis, but it is very far from an "airtight" case. I don't think it is warranted to quote this paper all the time as the final word on what happened, everytime someone posts something to the contrary.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 19 2007, 05:30 PM)
Your moving graphic is close enough. You would have to set the rate properly. But using that the drop, d, depends upon time, t, as
d = (1/2)(2/3)gt^2
would be close enough for the first few seconds.
I find it interesting that you accept my graphic, because I made it to show the absurdity of these E1 models!
How is it possible that the vertical kinetic energy of the falling block neatly damages one story at a time - severing the core and perimeter columns exactly one story length below impact - without doing any kind of damage further down?
d = (1/2)(2/3)gt^2
would be close enough for the first few seconds.
I find it interesting that you accept my graphic, because I made it to show the absurdity of these E1 models!
How is it possible that the vertical kinetic energy of the falling block neatly damages one story at a time - severing the core and perimeter columns exactly one story length below impact - without doing any kind of damage further down?
Question for the debunking crowd...
How does your purely gravity-driven collapse explain how thick trails of dust follow, and stick to, sections of perimeter steel all the way to the ground?
How did this dust keep up with the steel, and get well ahead of the pancaking?
How does your purely gravity-driven collapse explain how thick trails of dust follow, and stick to, sections of perimeter steel all the way to the ground?
How did this dust keep up with the steel, and get well ahead of the pancaking?
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 19 2007, 07:14 PM)
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged.
...
I don't think it is warranted to quote this paper all the time as the final word on what happened, everytime someone posts something to the contrary.
B&V certainly have not 'proven' that. However, the inspection of the videos demonstrates that it occurred. The strength of perimeter columns was not involved, since the upper perimeter walls wedged in to push the lower parts outwards. Roughly as in your display graphic.
There are two matters:
(1) Collapse initiation. NIST explains this and both Greening and also B&V assume this occurs in presenting adequate theories of
(2) Collapse progression.
If you claim that collapse progressed other than in the crush-down equation manner, you need to do a better job of criticizing B&V than you have so far. Recall that I have validated this model against actual, measured data. So I will certainly quote it as a good explanation, not too complex, for what occurred.
As for collapse initiation, I posted the sequence of observable events which anyone can check.
NIST had only to explain the rather mysterious pull in of the perimeter walls. This they did.
Finally, nothing observable happened one story at a time. The perimeter wall sections were 3 stories tall as were the core columns. SInce there are no observations of what occured internally, it requires some estimation. However, the top block forcing apart the perimeter wall sections below agrees with observations.
...
I don't think it is warranted to quote this paper all the time as the final word on what happened, everytime someone posts something to the contrary.
B&V certainly have not 'proven' that. However, the inspection of the videos demonstrates that it occurred. The strength of perimeter columns was not involved, since the upper perimeter walls wedged in to push the lower parts outwards. Roughly as in your display graphic.
There are two matters:
(1) Collapse initiation. NIST explains this and both Greening and also B&V assume this occurs in presenting adequate theories of
(2) Collapse progression.
If you claim that collapse progressed other than in the crush-down equation manner, you need to do a better job of criticizing B&V than you have so far. Recall that I have validated this model against actual, measured data. So I will certainly quote it as a good explanation, not too complex, for what occurred.
As for collapse initiation, I posted the sequence of observable events which anyone can check.
NIST had only to explain the rather mysterious pull in of the perimeter walls. This they did.
Finally, nothing observable happened one story at a time. The perimeter wall sections were 3 stories tall as were the core columns. SInce there are no observations of what occured internally, it requires some estimation. However, the top block forcing apart the perimeter wall sections below agrees with observations.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 19 2007, 07:19 PM)
How does your purely gravity-driven collapse explain how thick trails of dust follow, and stick to, sections of perimeter steel all the way to the ground?
Insulation being blown off by the wind.
Insulation being blown off by the wind.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 19 2007, 02:11 PM)
Since we are being nicely precise today, in the intact structures, not moving vertically, indeed the connections could hold the weight. But once vertical motion began, the connections could not withstand the energy supplied by the moving mass.
I was talking about the top section falling on the foor system/truss bolts.
Could the weight of the perimeter, core columns and hat truss above the impact floors be held up by one story/truss system? Even at a dead stop it seems impossible to me.
I was talking about the top section falling on the foor system/truss bolts.
Could the weight of the perimeter, core columns and hat truss above the impact floors be held up by one story/truss system? Even at a dead stop it seems impossible to me.
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.