To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Physics Of 9/11 Events - Part 3
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116

wcelliott
QUOTE
Politics is inseparable from 9-11.


Especially considering the fact that there's no *physical* evidence that it was caused by anything other than planes crashing into the towers.

None whatsoever.

350 pages of paranoid delusions, all disproved by people who understand physics and engineering.

And yet the paranoid CDiots keep trying to force that square peg into that round hole.

Pathetic.
NIST
wcelliott "The government clearly isn't preventing anyone from running their mouths about their politics, but when the nutjobs stop posturing and start making bombs, the government is just doing its job when it intervenes."

Like always you dont want to talk about the facts, you call people nutjobs instead. Whos the nutjob here if you believe in conspiracy's and laughs at people that are educated and believes in the truth. Maybe you have looked it up and knows that it is all true and stands for it?.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Article ll, Bill of Rights


9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building
Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower collpased. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...07interview.htm

Dead bodies in the lobby and explosions before the towers collapsed.

"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."

The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:

"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."

Heres the interview with the Security Official that works for Guiliani partners. http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3

NIST
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 4 2007, 10:53 AM)

Especially considering the fact that there's no *physical* evidence that it was caused by anything other than planes crashing into the towers.

None whatsoever.

350 pages of paranoid delusions, all disproved by people who understand physics and engineering.

And yet the paranoid CDiots keep trying to force that square peg into that round hole.

Pathetic.

Molten iron. Molted steel and metal. high temperatures in the rubbles weeks after. thermate coming out from the tower, the reason NIST said it was wood/computers is because they couldnt come up with a better lie because there was nothing that could make that glowing color, Steven jones debunked theme hard on that one, NIST said it as facts but didnt back it up with experiments, Steven jones did and debunked theme. So just admit that NIST lied. And off course all the fire tests on steel and trusses that dont supports the official story is evidence to. I wonder why the trusses didnt fail in the 700C WTC fire in 75. And they destroyed all the steel evidence. And they haven't released the (TWEAKED) computer model that shows the collapse of the towers.
adoucette
QUOTE (NIST+Jul 3 2007, 12:27 PM)
Watch some Alex jones if you want to know whats going on, and dont start to talk bad about a patriot like him now please, NO he doesnt talk any BS and no you cant find a lie he has made, but you can find that everything he talks about it true, facts. like he says dont believe me, look it up. And MAYBE if the illuminati mafia is gone we will have peace?

QUOTE (Malmoe+)
Whats wrong with his alien theory? i dont see anything wrong with it. David ickes illuminati research is 100% correct and respected by people like Alex jones, its just the alien part that some people like alex dont like. Why dont talk bad about somebody that believes in god then? take everybody from NIST that believes in god and say that their work is BS because they believe in god, same thing. So are you going to watch the movie and LEARN the facts about illuminati and the symbols?, He talks about history in his new movie, only facts. In some of his old movies he talks about his alien theory.


Welcome back Malmoe,

How long do you think it will take before you get booted off this time?

I see you are still shilling for Alex Jones.

Seen any alien lizards recently?

laugh.gif

Arthur

NIST
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 4 2007, 11:25 AM)
QUOTE (Malmoe+)
Whats wrong with his alien theory? i dont see anything wrong with it. David ickes illuminati research is 100% correct and respected by people like Alex jones, its just the alien part that some people like alex dont like. Why dont talk bad about somebody that believes in god then? take everybody from NIST that believes in god and say that their work is BS because they believe in god, same thing. So are you going to watch the movie and LEARN the facts about illuminati and the symbols?, He talks about history in his new movie, only facts. In some of his old movies he talks about his alien theory.


Welcome back Malmoe,

How long do you think it will take before you get booted off this time?

I see you are still shilling for Alex Jones.

Seen any alien lizards recently?

laugh.gif

Arthur

And what are you talking about?. im not malmoe and i cant se that he said the alien theory was correct but that "David ickes illuminati research is 100% correct"

So are you going to show the world a lie that alex jones has made? or maybe you cant? wink.gif

Well you can comment on that there was bombs going of in wtc7 before the collapse of the twin towers and admit that it was an inside job now. Have you looked up the other facts that your government founded al-qaida and that bush stooped the investigation into bin laden two months before 9-11?. You are spreading disinformation you arent interested in the truth.
adoucette
QUOTE (NIST+Jul 4 2007, 07:02 AM)
Well you can comment on that there was bombs going of in wtc7 before the collapse of the twin towers and admit that it was an inside job now. Have you looked up the other facts that your government founded al-qaida and that bush stooped the investigation into bin laden two months before 9-11?. You are spreading disinformation you arent interested in the truth.

I prefer to let you make a fool of yourself all on your own.

Keep up the good work.

Arthur
NIST
[removed: no sci-tech]
frater plecticus
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 4 2007, 10:53 AM)

Especially considering the fact that there's no *physical* evidence that it was caused by anything other than planes crashing into the towers.

None whatsoever.

350 pages of paranoid delusions, all disproved by people who understand physics and engineering.

And yet the paranoid CDiots keep trying to force that square peg into that round hole.

Pathetic.

Not as pathetic as someone who claims "war is inevitable".



..and you are once again assuming that people that believe that Bush is lying about the 9-11 attacks automatically believe that the twin towers were felled as the result of a controlled demolition.





I suppose next you'll be telling me there is a difference between war and terrorism...
adoucette
QUOTE (NIST+Jul 4 2007, 08:47 AM)
Im still waiting for you to show me a lie that Alex jones has made.

You mean BESIDES the stuff about the multidimensional lizard aliens?

laugh.gif

Arthur

Oh, and I've concluded that you aren't Malmoe, (sorry about that) your message is the same but your spelling and grammar are MUCH worse than his.
wcelliott
QUOTE
I suppose next you'll be telling me there is a difference between war and terrorism...


There are several differences.

One of which is that terrorists are constantly looking for ways to kill *more* innocent people, while the US government has been spending billions of dollars looking for ways to *minimize* collateral damage.

Those "smart weapons" aren't cheap, and they actually aren't much more effective (in terms of destroying the target) than conventional "dumb" bombs. Their entire motivation for being developed was to minimize civilian casualties when terrorists set up military targets in the middle of noncombatants, hiding behind women and children. We could easily have decided to drop big dumb bombs on those targets and have a high degree of confidence that the terrorists would be killed, and after all, it was *their* decision to hide behind the women and children, so their deaths are really *their* responsibility, maybe in the future they'll keep their noncombatants out of harm's way.

But instead, the US spent many billions of dollars developing more accurate weapons so that they could use smaller warheads and keep the collateral damage to a minimum.

Whenever terrorists design weapons, they're looking for the opposite effect - they're looking to maximize the death toll on noncombatants.

That's one significant difference, right there. There are others.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I suppose next you'll be telling me there is a difference between war and terrorism...


There are several differences.

One of which is that terrorists are constantly looking for ways to kill *more* innocent people, while the US government has been spending billions of dollars looking for ways to *minimize* collateral damage.

Those "smart weapons" aren't cheap, and they actually aren't much more effective (in terms of destroying the target) than conventional "dumb" bombs. Their entire motivation for being developed was to minimize civilian casualties when terrorists set up military targets in the middle of noncombatants, hiding behind women and children. We could easily have decided to drop big dumb bombs on those targets and have a high degree of confidence that the terrorists would be killed, and after all, it was *their* decision to hide behind the women and children, so their deaths are really *their* responsibility, maybe in the future they'll keep their noncombatants out of harm's way.

But instead, the US spent many billions of dollars developing more accurate weapons so that they could use smaller warheads and keep the collateral damage to a minimum.

Whenever terrorists design weapons, they're looking for the opposite effect - they're looking to maximize the death toll on noncombatants.

That's one significant difference, right there. There are others.

Not as pathetic as someone who claims "war is inevitable".


And how exactly were you planning to overthrow the US government/NWO? Peacefully?

And what happens next, assuming the impossible, that you actually succeed? What happens when a country decides it doesn't feel like going along with your New-NWO? Others have already threatened my life, directly and indirectly, both in retribution for using my freedom of speech against them (while they claim to hold the Constitution dear to their hearts) and pursuant to their goals of achieving the New_NWO, with them in charge. Are you going to declare peace on those countries that decide they liked things better before a bunch of paranoid racists took over, or are you going to declare war on those "infidels" next?

Your approach doesn't sound like it's going to make wars any less likely.

Read up on "Chaos Theory" and suggest some way of taking the chaos out of international politics before you assert that all wars can be prevented. If you actually look into the matter, instead of spouting more naive CT drivel, you'll find a couple things that are very surprising: 1) I'm right about Chaos Theory and the inevitability of wars, and 2) The best way to avoid geopolitics from being a chaotic system is to establish the kind of NWO that the NWO is trying to establish.

You want a world where wars stop happening? That's what the "NWO" is attempting to create. You're on the wrong side.
zoktoberfest
[removed: no sci-tech]
RealityCheck
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jul 4 2007, 09:03 AM)
I think you're  missing the point.


Politics is inseparable from 9-11.



Like I said before... this is the "OFF TOPIC" thread.



Hi frater!

No, I think it is you who missed the point, mate.

This forum section is 'off topic' as you say; and there is a thread in it (this one) that deals with the science/physics of 9/11 events.

There is nothing to stop YOU starting another thread in this 'off topic' section, called perhaps "The Politics Inseparable from 9/11".

See?

That way people have a choice:

- those who want to discuss the SUBJECTIVE politics/religion as well as science/physics and any and all other aspects of 9/11 can then go to YOUR thread and 'mix them up' to their hearts' content.

- those that wish to explore only the OBJECTIVE science/physics of 9/11 can do so in this thread and so not have to step over 'droppings' from the next 'troofer' direct from 'troofer central' sites (like yours? hehehe).

That way EVERYBODY is happy. Win-win all round, heh!

You DO believe in people having a democratic CHOICE, don't you, mate?

Cheers all!

RC.
.
wcelliott
QUOTE
my assertions stand.


You assertions stand unsupported by anything more substantial than what you've seen in conspiracy websites, which are full of disinformation.

My assertion is that you don't understand Chaos Theory, which is independent of politics, it's a branch of mathematics, not quantum mechanics, so your mention of the Uncertainty Principle just further shows you don't get my point (and probably never will, as it requires a little bit of actual *study*, not just reading political rants).

I'm saying that geopolitics is a chaotic system.

In a chaotic system, tiny variations in input conditions can yield drastically different results. The "Butterfly Effect" is what they call this principle, slight "butterfly-sized" differences in temperature and pressure, now, can result in hurricanes, later. That isn't a characteristic of a random system, that's a characteristic of a *chaotic* system.

Which geopolitics is.

So long as politics is chaotic, wars will happen, just like there will always be hurricanes, same reason.

If you want to eliminate wars, you'll have to remove the chaos from geopolitics.

Multinational corporations (who you consider the "Bad Guys") have holdings in various countries, many of which have governments that don't like each other. If your sole interest is in maximizing your corporation's profits, you'll want those countries to maintain peaceful relations. Otherwise your manufacturing plants and markets are subject to getting destroyed in the war.

Multinational corporations, therefore, have a vested interest in preventing wars, especially in the countries where they do business (and every multinational corporation wants to do business in every country in the world).

So multinational corporations have a vested interest in influencing the local governments of the countries that they do business in. To prevent wars that would otherwise upset their profits.

If you own a company that makes chocolate candy bars, and the country where you buy cocoa from is thinking of starting a war with the country you get sugar from, it only makes sense that you'd try to stop that war, right? No matter who wins that war, your company's out of the chocolate candy bar business until it's over.

So there's your NWO's primary motivation. They're trying to keep the naturally chaotic geopolitical process from resulting in wars that would damage their corporate holdings and markets and, ultimately, profits. And that's what you're asserting is evil: Corporations trying to keep countries from going to war.

You're on the wrong side.
frater plecticus
[removed]
wcelliott
[removed]
FactCheck
QUOTE (NIST+Jul 4 2007, 01:47 PM)
exactly you cant admit that you are wrong and that the facts are right . Funny how people like you that arent interested in the truth calls people that are interested in the truth for nutjobs. and people like you NEVER can talk about the facts. You act like a 10 year old girl. Grow up.

The truth is out, bombs was going of in wtc7 before the twin towers collapsed.

How can a person be surprised if 9-11 was an inside job??. some people really have no clue what reality is. Educated yourself on the illuminati yet??

Im still waiting for you to show me a lie that Alex jones has made. you are a joke man.

How about "Pull" means blow a building up. Or no one knew WTC 7 was going to collapse.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

I generally assume everything that professional conspiracy theorist says is a lie.

I don't know who lies more, Alex Jones or Bush...
David B. Benson
Frank Greening e-mailed to me some data from a video for which the tilt to the south of the top of WTC 1 can easily be measured. Before the walls buckle the tilt is already about one degree. At about 1.6 seconds into the collapse, the tilt is 10.6 degrees, more than NIST states.

Now at one degree tilt, the south end of floor 98 is already 1.1 meters below the north end.

Assuming the hinge on the north wall breaks at 1.0 seconds, which seems consistent with the video evidence, at 1.6 seconds and a tilt of 10.6 degrees, not only are three floors crushed together, from floor 98 down, but also the south one-fifth or so of floor 99 has joined the crushed mass.

I had not expected this minor crush-up during crush-down. I don't see that it significantly effect the B & V crush-down equation approximation...
zoktoberfest
[removed: no sci-tech]
Chainsaw,
QUOTE (NIST+Jul 4 2007, 11:16 AM)
Molten iron. Molted steel and metal. high temperatures in the rubbles weeks after. thermate coming out from the tower, the reason NIST said it was wood/computers is because they couldnt come up with a better lie because there was nothing that could make that glowing color, Steven jones debunked theme hard on that one, NIST said it as facts but didnt back it up with experiments, Steven jones did and debunked theme. So just admit that NIST lied. And off course all the fire tests on steel and trusses that dont supports the official story is evidence to. I wonder why the trusses didnt fail in the 700C WTC fire in 75. And they destroyed all the steel evidence. And they haven't released the (TWEAKED) computer model that shows the collapse of the towers.

Nothing can make that color huh, are you nuts Judy woods debunked that.

User posted image

The color is simply caused by heat, Iron embedded or other compounds embedded by impacts below the oxide layer can cause similar conditions it just takes heat and forceful impacts. Also I might add, lead acid batteries were on that floor lots of lead acid batteries and lead will flow and glow like that.
Dr. Jones only tried melting the compounds together he did not try forceful impacts of complicated reactions, He is right that aluminum will not simply melt with the components but forced impact and inclusion below the oxide layer is something he did not test.
The oxide layer on Aluminum his a very strong Chrystal about 9 on the hardness scale do the the Crystalline bonding, but you can in some instances get past it and the aluminum is then quite soft.
I am sincerely sorry if you do not understand the difference between melting something in a pan and doing accurate research on the environment and the conditions that occurred and understanding why the occurred.
wcelliott
QUOTE
PolyAnna view ... souless depravity


Which is it?

It's kinda hard to figure out what I'm being accused of, other than of being someone who disagrees with your perspective.

And you still fail to grasp the nature of Chaos Theory, and you seem to be arguing that it doesn't exist or doesn't apply.

It'd be easier to discuss this if you actually made an attempt to learn some Chaos Theory, so you could come to discussion with something to say, other than political polemic and tortuous rhetoric.

My position is simple, once you understand Chaos Theory.

Normal geopolitics is a fundamentally chaotic process. Chaotic processes are notoriously difficult to control. Weather is chaotic, and hurricanes are inevitable (and unpredictable). Likewise, geopolitics is chaotic and wars are inevitable (and likewise unpredictable).

Please note that at no point have I said that this is the way I *want* things to be, it's just an observation of how things *are*.

Now, if you'd rather live in a world where wars *can* be prevented, then you have to change the world's geopolitics to something other than a chaotic process.

The roots of the chaotic aspect of the geopolitical process are regional/ethnic ("Us vs. Them"), and often driven by historical grievances.

What would change the situation? The very thing that everyone *else* is arguing is The Root of All Evil, the off-hours association of world leaders and businessmen dubbed "the New World Order". Businessmen and politicians talking things out before problems turn into declarations of war.

As for your naive assertions that military contractors want wars to boost profits, you've actually got it backwards. During wars, the military budget gets funneled away from big-ticket purchases, most of the money is spent on operations, and that money gets taken from defense contracts. Defense contractors make more money in peacetime than they do in war. During wars it's hard to get the brass at the Pentagon to take time away from supporting the war effort to release RFPs for future programs (weapons ten years away from the field). The stuff they want is stuff they need right now, and that's stuff that's already in-production, where profits are already negotiated in accordance with Gov't. Procurement Regulations. Defense contractors are precluded, by law, from charging excess profits. The government doesn't like companies price-gouging during wars, and since they make the rules, there are laws against it.

I'm trying to keep this discussion technical enough to avoid the wrath of the moderators, so please reply to the "Chaos Theory" aspect, and spare us the naive political rhetoric.
zoktoberfest
[removed, no sci-tech]
wcelliott
[removed, no sci-tech]
NIST
[removed, no sci-tech]
NIST
[no sci-tech]
NIST
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 5 2007, 12:27 AM)
Nothing can make that color huh, are you nuts Judy woods debunked that.

User posted image

The color is simply caused by heat, Iron embedded or other compounds embedded by impacts below the oxide layer can cause similar conditions it just takes heat and forceful impacts. Also I might add, lead acid batteries were on that floor lots of lead acid batteries and lead will flow and glow like that.
Dr. Jones only tried melting the compounds together he did not try forceful impacts of complicated reactions, He is right that aluminum will not simply melt with the components but forced impact and inclusion below the oxide layer is something he did not test.
The oxide layer on Aluminum his a very strong Chrystal about 9 on the hardness scale do the the Crystalline bonding, but you can in some instances get past it and the aluminum is then quite soft.
I am sincerely sorry if you do not understand the difference between melting something in a pan and doing accurate research on the environment and the conditions that occurred and understanding why the occurred.

And what does that prove? nothing. Judy woods posted pictures of glowing iron and said it was aluminum. like i say aluminum cant glow orange. And aluminum melts at about 600C, why are you talking about the melting point of it?. It doesn't glow at 1500C. If you want aluminum to glow you need to have it in a furnace, but when the aluminum is flowing out from the furnace it has its silvery color. And Steven jones put all the material NIST SAID would make it glow TOGETHER with aluminum and it didnt glow, he just did what nist said as fact would make it glow, and it didnt glow. There was 1 hour before that "molten metal" started to pour out of the South Tower. If you notice, it is a substantial amount. There is no explanation for there to be anything molten accept aluminum, anything else would not melt in the temperatures of the "jet fuel" fires.
adoucette
Actually there was mainly the remains of the plane burning in that corner.

There apparently was also a LARGE UPS battery system in that corner

So there are a NUMBER of possibilities of what that material was.

NIST SUGGESTED that it was a MIXTURE of aluminum and material from the building but did not CLAIM that they knew EXACTLY what it was.

No one has shown it was THERMATE however.

The fact that it did NOT melt the ALUMINIUM exterior panels where it hit it on the way down though is PRETTY CONVINCING EVIDENCE it was NOT molten IRON.

Arthur
wcelliott
[removed]
Chainsaw,
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 5 2007, 02:18 PM)
Actually there was mainly the remains of the plane burning in that corner.

There apparently was also a LARGE UPS battery system in that corner

So there are a NUMBER of possibilities of what that material was.

NIST SUGGESTED that it was a MIXTURE of aluminum and material from the building but did not CLAIM that they knew EXACTLY what it was.

No one has shown it was THERMATE however.

The fact that it did NOT melt the ALUMINIUM exterior panels where it hit it on the way down though is PRETTY CONVINCING EVIDENCE it was NOT molten IRON.

Arthur

NO one has proved that controlled demolition is possible or that explosives or even thermites would have survived the Impacts and fires, that must be shown before Controlled Demolition has a leg or steel column to stand on.
What I have found is just the opposite RDX degrades when heated, trinitrotoluenes are shock sensitive, and thermites are venerable to heat, shock, and Chlorides all of which were present in the twin towers.
Answer me this what type of Known explosive would be possible in the condition of the twin towers, or building 7, there are only a few known explosive materials that could have been in the buildings and those from natural cause.
So Natural explosions were likely, and unnatural explosives are practically ruled out.

Can at least one member of the truth movement please present a plausible theory or are we to conclude that Arthur argument stands.

PS, Arthur it might have been molten iron but a reaction between Ferric chloride and Aluminum resulting in Fe304 and Aluminum Chloride, There are no samples though to test. It could also be an Aluminum Chloride and water reaction. Such would produce similar heat, just because an unknown substance was present does not mean it had any connection to thermites or explosives.
Grumpy
NIST

QUOTE
Well pull it means to blow up a building. everyone knows that, are you telling me that is doesnt mean that?


Everyone but the CTer crowd knows that "pull it" means removing the rescue workers(trying to find survivors) out from around the building and ceasing any attempts to fight the fires(a crew was headed into that building when the order came down). Every time Alex says otherwise is a lie.

Every time Alex says that building 7 fell in 6 seconds is a lie, the seismic record records at least 18 seconds of which only the last six seconds arevisible on the north side.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Well pull it means to blow up a building. everyone knows that, are you telling me that is doesnt mean that?


Everyone but the CTer crowd knows that "pull it" means removing the rescue workers(trying to find survivors) out from around the building and ceasing any attempts to fight the fires(a crew was headed into that building when the order came down). Every time Alex says otherwise is a lie.

Every time Alex says that building 7 fell in 6 seconds is a lie, the seismic record records at least 18 seconds of which only the last six seconds arevisible on the north side.

Jones: ...and they just said to Giuliani, hey, you told Peter Jennings that afternoon and we have the videoclip up on the website, that you guys got word that Tower 1 and Tower 2 were going to come down right after they'd been hit and to get out of Building 7. And so you did that. And the quote is 'We were operating out of there when we were told the World Trade Center is going to collapse. So we got out.' There's the quote, and then they walk up to Giuliani....


The facts...

QUOTE
Jones clearly misrepresents two major facts in the course of a brief clip. First the context makes it clear that Giuliani did not get warning when the planes hit; he was told to evacuate and before he could respond the South Tower collapsed. This times the warning at around 9:59 or so, which fits with other testimony. And the claim that they were in Building 7 is ludicrous; Giuliani clearly states he was in 75 Barclay. It's just an absurd mistake, a ridiculous and easy mistake to recognize.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Jones clearly misrepresents two major facts in the course of a brief clip. First the context makes it clear that Giuliani did not get warning when the planes hit; he was told to evacuate and before he could respond the South Tower collapsed. This times the warning at around 9:59 or so, which fits with other testimony. And the claim that they were in Building 7 is ludicrous; Giuliani clearly states he was in 75 Barclay. It's just an absurd mistake, a ridiculous and easy mistake to recognize.


Jones:...In February of 2002, two Special Forces trainees were killed by a sheriff’s deputy. You ask why? They were trying to disarm him (Asheville Tribune, February 25, 2002, “Soldier killing ‘tragic’ error”). They were trying to take over local law enforcement. This is the new type of training our military are [sic] being given- to overthrow the civilian government, the elected government right here in the United States.


The facts...

QUOTE
ROBBINS, North Carolina (CNN) -- A sheriff's deputy mistakenly shot and killed a U.S. soldier and seriously wounded another taking part in a role-playing field training exercise, the Moore County Sheriff's Department said Sunday.


The names of the soldiers, both stationed at Fort Bragg, were being withheld until they families could be notified.


The exercise, dubbed "Robin Sage," was the final stage of the qualification course for the U.S. Special Forces, also known as the Green Berets. The drill is conducted four times a year and stretches over nine North Carolina counties.


The soldiers were on what U.S. Army officials described as a reconnaissance mission Saturday afternoon when Deputy Randall Butler pulled them over in a traffic stop near Robbins. The soldiers were driving in an unmarked vehicle and dressed in civilian clothing, the sheriff's department said.


Butler was unaware the exercise was underway, while the soldiers believed the deputy was part of the training exercise, according to the sheriff's department statement.


"One of the soldiers attempted to disarm the officer, as the other was attempting to get to a military weapon that the soldiers had in their possession," the statement said. "At the time of the incident, the deputy believed that the two individuals intended on killing him, resulting in the deputy shooting both of the suspects."


The Army, which is conducting its own investigation, concurred that Butler likely did not know the exercise was taking place.


Alex Jones has no interest and little familiarity with the truth. Though not as bad as Rush Limbaugh(94% wrong vs 83% for Jones) he is in it for the same purpose, fleecing the sheep(that would be you). How much money have you spent on his video/T-shirts???

Grumpy cool.gif
David B. Benson
QUOTE (NIST+Jul 5 2007, 12:02 PM)
Well pull it means to blow up a building.

Nope. In the demolition industry pull it means to wrap a chain around one or more supporting columns and attach a large construction machine. Then, literally, pull to collapse the structure.

This was the method used to bring down (the remains of) WTC 6 as it was considered to be too dangerous to go inside to rig explosives...
Chainsaw,
QUOTE (NIST+Jul 5 2007, 12:17 PM)
And what does that prove? nothing. Judy woods posted pictures of glowing iron and said it was aluminum. like i say aluminum cant glow orange. And aluminum melts at about 600C, why are you talking about the melting point of it?. It doesn't glow at 1500C. If you want aluminum to glow you need to have it in a furnace, but when the aluminum is flowing out from the furnace it has its silvery color. And Steven jones put all the material NIST SAID would make it glow TOGETHER with aluminum and it didnt glow, he just did what nist said as fact would make it glow, and it didnt glow. There was 1 hour before that "molten metal" started to pour out of the South Tower. If you notice, it is a substantial amount. There is no explanation for there to be anything molten accept aluminum, anything else would not melt in the temperatures of the "jet fuel" fires.

[COLOR=orange]LOL

You might want to do some research into it yourself and then you would not be so wrong.

Oh look aluminum burning and glowing orange in air.
user posted image

Aluminum burning in air.
user posted image

Aluminum glowing orance in air.
user posted image

It has to do more with conduction and the ability of aluminum to conduct the heat away than with black body radiation.

Please pedal your snake oil science to someone else, It is clear you do not understand the concepts of simple chemistry or physics.
I know of Dr. Jones's experiment quite well I have tested his Ideas myself and I know that he never did impact studies as I have that is why he could never create flowing glowing aluminum he has never gotten past the oxide.
You have to get past the oxide layer and into the pure unoxidized metal under the oxide to change the metals properties enough to change its characteristic.
Dr. Jones never preformed the required experiments melting aluminum with the contaminates in a pan is not the same as inducing high speed impacts, from a plane into a building. Only impact studies would recreate the environment in which the compound formed and Dr. Jones did not do them I did.
So why did Dr. Jones not do impact studies?
newton
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jul 6 2007, 02:21 AM)
[COLOR=orange]LOL

You might want to do some research into it yourself and then you would not be so wrong.

Oh look aluminum burning and glowing orange in air.
user posted image

Aluminum burning in air.
user posted image

Aluminum glowing orance in air.
user posted image

It has to do more with conduction and the ability of aluminum to conduct the heat away than with black body radiation.

Please pedal your snake oil science to someone else, It is clear you do not understand the concepts of simple chemistry or physics.
I know of Dr. Jones's experiment quite well I have tested his Ideas myself and I know that he never did impact studies as I have that is why he could never create flowing glowing aluminum he has never gotten past the oxide.
You have to get past the oxide layer and into the pure unoxidized metal under the oxide to change the metals properties enough to change its characteristic.
Dr. Jones never preformed the required experiments melting aluminum with the contaminates in a pan is not the same as inducing high speed impacts, from a plane into a building. Only impact studies would recreate the environment in which the compound formed and Dr. Jones did not do them I did.
So why did Dr. Jones not do impact studies?

are you saying prof jones' melted aluminum was like a liquid filled balloon with an oxidized 'skin'?

the oxide layer never gets breached when the aluminum has turned into liquid?


just checking.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (newton+Jul 6 2007, 03:29 AM)
the oxide layer never gets breached when the aluminum has turned into liquid?

Molten (pure) aluminum immediately forms an oxide layer which keeps the aluminum from further oxidation, etc.

Some reading about aluminum foundries will prove to be enlightening...
David B. Benson
What was the wind speed towards the top of the towers?
NEU-FONZE
Meet the New Thread

Same as the Old Thread

Minus "the problem"...... hopefully!

I think 5 m/s is a good average wind speed for calculation purposes.

I believe it was from the NNW on September 11....
David B. Benson
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 7 2007, 01:10 AM)
I think 5 m/s is a good average wind speed for calculation purposes.

Beaufort number 3, gentle breeze.

Thanks. smile.gif
newton
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 2 2007, 11:19 PM)
QUOTE (punk+)
The militia movement has millions of members. And when the civil war will go down we will also be backed by the crips and the bloods and many other gangs


ROTFLMAO

But I did like your recruitment slogan, "Join or Die"

laugh.gif

Arthur

not removed, no sci-tech.
newton
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 4 2007, 11:25 AM)
QUOTE (Malmoe+)
Whats wrong with his alien theory? i dont see anything wrong with it. David ickes illuminati research is 100% correct and respected by people like Alex jones, its just the alien part that some people like alex dont like. Why dont talk bad about somebody that believes in god then? take everybody from NIST that believes in god and say that their work is BS because they believe in god, same thing. So are you going to watch the movie and LEARN the facts about illuminati and the symbols?, He talks about history in his new movie, only facts. In some of his old movies he talks about his alien theory.


Welcome back Malmoe,

How long do you think it will take before you get booted off this time?

I see you are still shilling for Alex Jones.

Seen any alien lizards recently?

laugh.gif

Arthur

not removed, no sci-tech.
newton
there are more.

bias is showing.

what's a stack of eleven things constructed such
that the top one can crush the bottom ten? or, even the top three can crush the bottom eight?

give up?


me, too.


maybe an OCT math formula will help...

let's try, C(crusher), and C(crushed) and T(time).

therefore, C = C (T).

T = 1.

wow. that was simple.
Chainsaw,
QUOTE (newton+Jul 6 2007, 03:29 AM)
are you saying prof jones' melted aluminum was like a liquid filled balloon with an oxidized 'skin'?

the oxide layer never gets breached when the aluminum has turned into liquid?


just checking.

You can never see pure aluminum in an oxygen atmosphere it reacts instantly with oxygen, and forms solid Aluminum oxide that melts at over 2000c.
The only way to see pure aluminum in an oxygen atmosphere it to get past the Aluminum Oxides Crystalline structure, it takes an energy form to do that, in thermite the energy is heat expanding the particles of aluminum until the oxide cracks. In sonochemical reactions the energy is sound or ultra sound.
Friction and impacts can also get past the oxide layer in interesting ways.
If a particle of steel or other material strikes aluminum hard enough and fast enough it can literally crack the oxide and melt the Aluminum under it, the resulting ripples seal the hole behind the particle and prevent the oxide from excluding the particle.
Aluminum oxide does not melt until it gets to 2054 °C so steel melts before aluminum oxide.

You have to remember that aluminum oxide is 9 on the hardness scale almost nothing gets past it.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (newton+Jul 7 2007, 01:45 AM)
wow. that was simple.

I posted about how to build a horizontal model of the crush-down.

That;s simple, too, and you can readily construct the apparatus and try it.
adoucette
QUOTE (newton+Jul 6 2007, 08:45 PM)
what's a stack of eleven things constructed such
that the top one can crush the bottom ten? or, even the top three can crush the bottom eight?



Probably most ANY structure built such that the top piece puts a LOAD on the bottom piece ~ equal to the SAME DCRs that the towers had and THEN the top piece is dropped ~ 9 ft onto the bottom piece.

Arthur

RealityCheck
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 7 2007, 02:10 AM)
You can never see pure aluminum in an oxygen atmosphere it reacts instantly with oxygen, and forms solid Aluminum oxide that melts at over 2000c.
  The only way to see pure aluminum in an oxygen atmosphere it to get past the Aluminum Oxides Crystalline structure, it takes an energy form to do that, in thermite the energy is heat expanding the particles of aluminum until the oxide cracks.   In sonochemical reactions the energy is sound or ultra sound.
  Friction and impacts can also get past the oxide layer in interesting ways.  
  If a particle of steel or other material strikes aluminum hard enough and fast enough it can literally crack the oxide and melt the Aluminum under it, the resulting ripples seal the hole behind the particle and prevent the oxide from excluding the particle.
  Aluminum oxide does not melt until it gets to 2054 °C  so steel melts before aluminum oxide.

  You have to remember that aluminum oxide is 9 on the hardness scale almost nothing gets past it.



Hi Chainsaw!

And in the flows out the windows case, the stuff had been 'pooling' and 'including all sorts of materials/ashes/chars/carbon etc BEFORE it spilled out.

In which case, whenever the 'streams' and 'globules' of 'dirty' melt was 'stirred' (by hit the facia or by air-turbulence) during the fall, IT WAS OPENED TO THE AIR, and the interior stuff that was not yet oxidised then oxidised AND GAVE OUT GREAT HEAT....which obviously would have the 'carbon/iron' inclusions glowing 'red', and copper/tin glowing orange, and SILICON/Calcium OXIDE window GLASS glowing 'red/yellow/orange' and calcium/alum/mag oxides glowing 'white'....and mixing those wavelenghts would produce a range of red-orange-yellow-white AS SEEN FROM A DISTANCE.

Like I said many posts ago, all the stuff and processes were DIRTY and RANDOM/CHAOTIC....and nothing can be said about them unless we knew EXACTLY WHAT WAS CONTAINED/HAPPENING at various locations and various processes at various times.

I for one completely understand what it is you have been proving, mate!

A pity some want to 'control' everything AFTER THE EVENT in attempts to 'prove' their conspiracies, hehehe. Good work with those experiments of yours, mate!

Oh, and before we forget, PLANES and other 'structural' aluminium/magnesium etc are ALLOYS TO START WITH....and hence can have ALL SORTS of 'inclusions to start with....and hence may NOT 'glow' as 'pure' aluminium.

AND ALSO, in aluminium ALLOYS, INCLUDING the COPPER ALLOYED "DURALUMIN" types, the copper makes it EASIER to BREACH the oxide layer than would be the case for 'pure' aluminium!

Cheers all!

RC.
.
wcelliott
QUOTE
bias is showing.


Your ignorance is all that's showing, Newt.

A high-rise building is a marginal design, by necessity. You can't build one with too much strength, because strength takes weight and you can't afford to make any part of it too heavy, for the same reason you don't put marble floor tiles in airplanes.

One of those floors was designed to carry about twice its normal expected load.

So what do you suppose happens to that floor when it gets 3x its normal load?

It drops.

Where?

Up?

Sideways?

Or *down*?

Three floors-worth of load, plus the weight of the failed floor, land on the floor below.

The floor below gets hit by four floors' worth of weight, so it fails, too.

Falling on the floor below, which fails even sooner under 5x its expected load.

And that process continues until there are no more floors left to collapse.

How hard is that to understand, Newt? What don't you get?

Do you think that a floor in a high-rise should be capable of holding 100x its expected load? Or maybe 1000x?

We've explained this all already. How dense are you, really?
newton
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 7 2007, 10:39 AM)
We've explained this all already. How dense are you, really?

pretty dense, seeing as when i jump from 9 feet in the air, my head doesn't collapse my body.
adoucette
No it means your neck isn't loaded to nearly the DCR the towers were.

Your head weighs about 10 lbs.

If your neck was loaded to the same DCR as the towers than putting 10 more lbs on your head would crush your neck.

But you could EASILY put TEN times that weight on your head and still not crush your neck.

BUT

If you put just 50lbs on your head and jumped off a 9 ft ladder you will probably end up in the morgue.

Arthur
newton
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 7 2007, 04:11 PM)
No it means your neck isn't loaded to nearly the DCR the towers were.

Your head weighs about 10 lbs.

If your neck was loaded to the same DCR as the towers than putting 10 more lbs on your head would crush your neck.

But you could EASILY put TEN times that weight on your head and still not crush your neck.

BUT

If you put just 50lbs on your head and jumped off a 9 ft ladder you will probably end up in the morgue.

Arthur

can i just call myself the man of stronger than steel, then?


"An adult human cadaver head cut off around vertebra C3, with no hair, weighs somewhere between 4.5 and 5 kg, constituting around 8% of the whole body mass."

8% of my mass should easily pancake my tiny neck bones. i mean, a skull vs. a neck? c'mon, who can believe neck bones are even capable of holding up a head in the first place?

50 lbs.!!! that's one quarter of my mass. hardly fair.
as you keep pointing gravity doesn't scale, so i don't need to add any weight for the analogy to hold SOME point of real world reference. an actual FEELING, even.
dropping nine ft., with the top 10% trying to crush the other 90%.

maybe i should get a hat truss, for extra safety.
metamars
Gordon Ross presentation at:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=48...292753615&hl=en
wcelliott
QUOTE
pretty dense, seeing as when i jump from 9 feet in the air, my head doesn't collapse my body.


Before, when I accused you of acting stupid, I was under the impression that you were just *acting* stupid.

Now, I'm starting to think it isn't an act.

Are you really trying to understand the problem, or are you looking to change the subject from something where you're obviously wrong to one where it isn't as clear?

A floor is only designed to carry so much load. When that load is exceeded significantly, the floor collapses.

That's the #1 concept that you need to grasp in order to understand progressive collapse.

The #2 concept you need to grasp is that when a floor collapses, the load that collapsed the floor drops to the floor below it, along with the weight of the floor that just collapsed. The floor below therefore collapses too, even quicker, because now it has more load (the original excess load plus the weight of the floor that just collapsed.)

I can't make it any more obvious than that. If you're still failing to grasp these two simple concepts, you need to acknowledge that you are truly dense.
newton
and the thing OCTs continue to obfuscate is the distinction between 'floors' and 'massive steel cage and massive steel lattice core'.

don't call me stupid, please. it makes me shoot milk out my nose.
Grumpy
newton

QUOTE
and the thing OCTs continue to obfuscate is the distinction between 'floors' and 'massive steel cage and massive steel lattice core'.


Actually it is us who are EMPHASIZING that distinction. The floors are what were vulnerable to the pancaking(after initiation) and the massive frame members were BYPASSED and unable to contribute to resisting the collapse until after the stabilizing force of the floors had been removed. It is the CTers who continue to insist that the frames and core could resist the collapse. Without the stabilization of the floors the frame and core members ultimate yeild strength was but a small fraction of their strength WITH that stabilization. Since the rubble's pressure pushed the outside frame outward(thus nulifying any possible resistence from those outer walls) the only resistence was the core which was nowhere near strong enough to hold up the falling top sections and had no mechanism to transfer their resistive strength to the rubble.

It is understanding of the distinct resistive mechanisms of the different parts of the structure that is vital to the understanding of the collapses.

Grumpy cool.gif
adoucette
You can lead newton to the truth, but you can't make him accept it.

Truth eludes him.

Always has.

Apparently it always will.

Arthur
David B. Benson
QUOTE (newton+Jul 7 2007, 07:36 PM)
... the distinction between 'floors' and 'massive steel cage and massive steel lattice core'.

Actually, about 4/5ths of the mass was the floors and contents. So you should say 'massive floors' versus 'steel cage and steel lattice core'.

At least in the upper portion of the towers, that is...
wcelliott
Newton -

By "floor", I meant *the flat surface that they put carpet on.*

Let me know if you have trouble understanding any of the other words.
David B. Benson
I have a copy of

A. Astaneh (sometimes Astenah-Asl),
Field Investigation and Analyses of the Collapse of the World Trade Center,
Final Report to the National Science Foundation for a grant entitled
"World Trade Center Post-Disaster Reconniasance[sic] and Perishable Structural Engineering Data Collection",
ASTANEH-WTC-0139542finalrpt.pdf

but I can't locate the site from whence it came.

Anybody know where this document is to be found?

Edited to add:

Final Report

appears to be identical, but I'd still prefer the original site as likely to be more stable than this one.
TBX
I think this is what you are looking for.

www.ce.berkeley.edu/%7Eastaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC%20Paper%202003.pdf
David B. Benson
QUOTE (TBX+Jul 8 2007, 12:05 AM)
I think this is what you are looking for.

Thanks, but that is a slightly different version which doesn't have the paragraph I want to reference regarding the construction splices on core columns.
einsteen
Metamars,

Thanks for the Gordon Ross links you posted around. I think the toppling is indeed important to take into acount because the video doesn't show this, it is exactly the opposite side. I once made a picture where I connected the lines to analyze this but I deleted it when I heard about the toppling. As a lay-man I would say that the core failed first... what else could it be
NIST
Chainsaw. "PS, Arthur it might have been molten iron" laugh.gif

There is no explanation for there to be anything molten accept aluminum, anything else would NOT melt in the temperatures of the "jet fuel" fires.

And we already know that it wasnt aluminum.

[removed]
adoucette
laugh.gif

I know you want us to watch Alex.

Not going to happen.

I know you want us to 'shut up'

Not going to happen.

What IS going to happen is we will continually debunk your baseless claims:

Such as your claim that there was Thermate in the building.

Which you have not proven.
Nor have you proven it wasn't an Aluminum mixture.
Nor have you proven it wasn't a Lead mixture.

There was mainly the remains of the plane burning in that corner.

There apparently was also a LARGE UPS battery system in that corner that contained large quantities of LEAD.

So there are a NUMBER of possibilities of what that material was.

NIST SUGGESTED that it was a MIXTURE of aluminum and material from the building but did not CLAIM that they knew EXACTLY what it was.

The fact that the material did NOT melt the ALUMINIUM exterior panels where it hit them on the way down is PRETTY CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the material was NOT molten IRON.

Arthur
metamars
QUOTE (einsteen+Jul 8 2007, 10:22 AM)
Metamars,

Thanks for the Gordon Ross links you posted around. I think the toppling is indeed important to take into acount because the video doesn't show this, it is exactly the opposite side. I once made a picture where I connected the lines to analyze this but I deleted it when I heard about the toppling. As a lay-man I would say that the core failed first... what else could it be

It'd be nice if somebody would make graphs of height vs. time, for various spots from various sides of the perimeter, near the top of the tower, as well as the antenna.

Another graph could then attempt to correct those height measurements for perspecitive considerations.

BTW, I have been disputing criticisms by 'Newton's Bit' re the Gordon Ross paper at :


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86422
Grumpy
metamars

QUOTE
In the Ross scenario, the storeys are not disconnected, but rather connected through their columns,


Unfortunately that assumption makes all of his calculations moot.

The fact is that the floor's connections could only transfer a limited amount of energy(33MJ~44MJ in most estimates). Above that energy level they fail and the excess energy then is applied to the next floor, totally bypassing any strength(resistence) of the columns. The outer frame simply peeled aside, requiring(and absorbing) minimal amounts of the available energy, leaving the core columns trying to hold more than their designed load. The fact that most of the outer frame columns were NOT deformed, but simply detached supports my contention.

The same limits apply to concrete commutation as well. Most CTers grossly over estimate the amount of "dustification" that occured during the collapse and then start using that estimate to try to prove that most of the energy went into the commutation and therefore the collapse should stop. This is far from the truth, most of the concrete was found in the basements, compressed into layers representing each floor. This supports the pancaking of the floors PRIOR to the collapse of the frames and core.

Gordon Ross has been shown to be incorrect so many times I no longer waste my time on him. From his disasterous paper with Craig T. Furlong claiming explosions prior to impact(which Ross no longer mentions but has not disowned or corrected) to his last paper based on erronious assumtions he has consistently shown he is not interested in the truth, but only in his preconcieved ideas.

NIST

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
In the Ross scenario, the storeys are not disconnected, but rather connected through their columns,


Unfortunately that assumption makes all of his calculations moot.

The fact is that the floor's connections could only transfer a limited amount of energy(33MJ~44MJ in most estimates). Above that energy level they fail and the excess energy then is applied to the next floor, totally bypassing any strength(resistence) of the columns. The outer frame simply peeled aside, requiring(and absorbing) minimal amounts of the available energy, leaving the core columns trying to hold more than their designed load. The fact that most of the outer frame columns were NOT deformed, but simply detached supports my contention.

The same limits apply to concrete commutation as well. Most CTers grossly over estimate the amount of "dustification" that occured during the collapse and then start using that estimate to try to prove that most of the energy went into the commutation and therefore the collapse should stop. This is far from the truth, most of the concrete was found in the basements, compressed into layers representing each floor. This supports the pancaking of the floors PRIOR to the collapse of the frames and core.

Gordon Ross has been shown to be incorrect so many times I no longer waste my time on him. From his disasterous paper with Craig T. Furlong claiming explosions prior to impact(which Ross no longer mentions but has not disowned or corrected) to his last paper based on erronious assumtions he has consistently shown he is not interested in the truth, but only in his preconcieved ideas.

NIST

Grumpy. im not even going to debunk your bs.


That doesn't surprise me, you would be entirely unable to refute the truth anyway.

QUOTE
look up the facts and shut up. and start watching Alex jones and learn something.


I have looked up the facts and, NO, I won't stop posting those facts.

I have also seen more than enough of Alex's dog and pony show to know he is just a publicity seeking clown no more interested in the truth than Rush Limbaugh is. But he will sell you a T-shirt or a copy of his latest tape. How much money have you sent him??? Can you say "Baaaa"?

Grumpy cool.gif
NEU-FONZE
Metamars:

You say: "It'd be nice if somebody would make graphs of height vs. time, for various spots from various sides of the perimeter, near the top of the tower, as well as the antenna..... Another graph could then attempt to correct those height measurements for perspecitive considerations."

Well, yes, I have done all that....

What do you want to know?
wcelliott
QUOTE
Well, yes, I have done all that....

What do you want to know?


I'd love to see a log-linear plot of the displacement vs. time, starting as early after the impact(s) as possible. How early did you start the data?

My position is that the collapse(s) started immediately after impact, it was just descending too slowly to easily see on the videos, like on the order of mm/minute.

It'd be great if there was actual data available on this.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 8 2007, 07:10 PM)
My position is that the collapse(s) started immediately after impact, it was just descending too slowly to easily see on the videos, like on the order of mm/minute.

For WTC 1, NCSTAR1-6D clearly states that the top of the tower was leaning to the north shortly after aircraft impact. No surprise. That was where the hole in the wall was and most of the destroyed or damaged core columns were in the north half.

However, as the fire progressed through the building to the south, eventually the top was leaning to the south. NEU-FONZE has measurements suggesting the top was at a tilt of one degree of arc just before the walls buckled.

NIST further claims that, without the fires, the towers would have stood 'indefinitely' (whatever that means). Also, they state that without the damage, the fires alone would not collapse either tower.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 8 2007, 03:16 PM)
The fact is that the floor's connections could only transfer a limited amount of energy(33MJ~44MJ in most estimates).

Gordon Ross has been shown to be incorrect so many times I no longer waste my time on him. From his disasterous[sic] paper with Craig T. Furlong claiming explosions prior to impact(which Ross no longer mentions but has not disowned or corrected) to his last paper based on erronious[sic] assumtions[sic] he has consistently shown he is not interested in the truth, but only in his preconcieved[sic] ideas.

(1) Properly applying less than 20 megajoules would suffice to destroy all the truss seats, both external and internal, vertically. Somewhat more, about twice as much, to destroy horizontally.

(2) Gordon Ross may well be in violation of the Institution of Mechanical Engineer's requirement that members are held to the highest ethical standards, exhibit professionalism, etc.
wcelliott
QUOTE
NIST further claims that, without the fires, the towers would have stood 'indefinitely' (whatever that means). Also, they state that without the damage, the fires alone would not collapse either tower.


I understand their position, and I agree that it was a combination of the impact damage and the fire that led to the buildings' collapse, but I think that a plot of the actual data, whether it was degrees/hour or mm/hour, plotted log-linear, would provide additional insights into the actual sequence of events, if the data were collected carefully and analyzed correctly.

For example, a discontinuity in the descent rate would represent a failure of a structural member. We might be able to see where columns broke or floors started tearing away from their supports.
RealityCheck
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 8 2007, 08:27 PM)

I understand their position, and I agree that it was a combination of the impact damage and the fire that led to the buildings' collapse, but I think that a plot of the actual data, whether it was degrees/hour or mm/hour, plotted log-linear, would provide additional insights into the actual sequence of events, if the data were collected carefully and analyzed correctly. 

For example, a discontinuity in the descent rate would represent a failure of a structural member.  We might be able to see where columns broke or floors started tearing away from their supports.



Good idea, wcelliot!

Foxx and others in the old threads presented video evidence of where some floors were 'hanging' (their edges seen disconnected and running horizontally across the windowlines at various levels) soon after the impacts/fires.

That demonstrated that there WAS 'immediate' INTERNAL PARTIAL collapse processes under way practically from the start....and that they could only be putting more and more LOAD-SHIFTING and WEIGHT-INCREASING strain on various parts at various locations throughout the DAMAGED tower fabric.

Are there any LONG DURATION videos capable of being analysed to the degree necessary for the mm movements to be discernable?

RC.
.
NEU-FONZE
wcelliott:

Well, that's the whole point/problem, if the tilt angles are too small to measure... or the rate of change thereof,.... you have to back-extrapolate and you are not using experimental data at that point.

Mathematically, it's the "tipping pencil" problem in which a pencil remains "balanced" for 100 years.... in theory at least....

We are more used to forward extrapolation where things grow very rapidly and "blow up".

But going the other way, things get slower, and s-l-o-w-e-r.... and S.....L....O....W....E....R....
David B. Benson
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 8 2007, 08:26 PM)
(1) Properly applying less than 20 megajoules would suffice to destroy all the truss seats, both external and internal, vertically. Somewhat more, about twice as much, to destroy horizontally.

Wrong!

I just went back to NCSTAR1-6, Tables 4--2 and 4--3, Figure 4--15, pages 74--77 (156--159 ordinal) to recompute the energy required to destroy all the truss seats, internal and external, vertically, under the following two assumptions:

(1) Two truss seats at each truss as given in Figure 4--15. (This is probably wrong for the type #226A interior connection, so the estimate is a bit high.)
(2) A force action distance of 0.15 meters (which is probably too high, 0.1 meters might be more reasonable, but I am being conservative today.)

38,304,589.32 Joules.

Let's just say less than 40 megajoules.

Even if we use a force action distance of 0.1 meters, we still have about 25.5 megajoules. This is more than the horizontal destruction energy of about 22 megajoules.

However, just saying less than 40 megajoules leaves plenty of energy to destroy the internal rebar connections and the anchor strap connections.
wcelliott
QUOTE
We are more used to forward extrapolation where things grow very rapidly and "blow up".

But going the other way, things get slower, and s-l-o-w-e-r.... and S.....L....O....W....E....R....


Understood.

Could angle measurements be taken on a minute-by-minute basis? That, I think, would suffice for the purposes of a first-approximation, IMO.

If minute-by-minute measurements aren't practical, the other obvious approach would be to measure the times associated with incremental measures at the highest resolution. For instance, if the best you could do in measuring an angle would be 1degree, then take the time-stamps (best-guess) for each degree of tilt and plot those at their associated times. For example, if it looks like it's tilted an exact degree at 9minutes, 45seconds, then plot one degree at that time, and if the next degree tilt happens in another 8minutes, 20 seconds, plot the next degree then, etc.

So long as when you plot the points, you plot the data points (maybe with ranges of uncertainty), it'd provide useful information for further analysis.

The point of this is that if we had a plot showing continuous movement following the impact all the way up to the collapse event itself, we could show that the towers weren't there, stable, one second and collapsing the next, as would be the case in a CD. We could point to the plots and ask where on the timeline did the "explosives" go off? If the rate were X at that time Tx and X+1% a second afterwards and X-1% a second before, it'd be fairly obvious to everyone (but Newton) that nothing more significant happened at Tx than before or after.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 9 2007, 12:34 AM)
... it'd be fairly obvious to everyone (but Newton) ...

I'm sure Sir Issac would have understood. I think your meant poster newton. biggrin.gif

Your general point is well taken. In principle the several videos of WTC 1 could be scanned in and analyzed pixel by pixel at about 30 frames per second. What one would get, after the tower quit rocking from the aircraft impact, is a small tilt to the north which, eventually, slowly becomes less and then, slowly, a tilt to the south of about one degree of arc.

However, when the three walls buckle, the tilt rapidly, but smoothly, increases to about 10.6 degrees of arc at the time when no further observations can be made, about 1.6 seconds later.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 8 2007, 01:58 PM)
It'd be nice if somebody would make graphs of height vs. time, for various spots from various sides of the perimeter, near the top of the tower, as well as the antenna. Another graph could then attempt to correct those height measurements for perspecitive[sic] considerations.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86422

(1) Yes, it would.

(2) Too bad that bunch doesn't come here, instead. Lots of minor matters could be corrected, by several who post only here and not there.
Chainsaw,
QUOTE (NIST+Jul 8 2007, 11:32 AM)
Chainsaw. "PS, Arthur it might have been molten iron" laugh.gif

There is no explanation for there to be anything molten accept aluminum, anything else would NOT melt in the temperatures of the "jet fuel" fires.

And we already know that it wasnt aluminum.


Grumpy. im not even going to debunk your bs. look up the facts and shut up. and start watching Alex jones and learn something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron(III)_chloride

Chemistry isn't it lovely, so your saying that complex chemical reactions could not have occurred in an environment that favored complex Chemical reactions?
RealityCheck
.
Hi all!

Someone told me that metamars was speculating on the energy behaviour if the concrete on those floors was replaced by steel.

At a glance, I can see that the 'impact' pulses would have been transmitted to the floor-wall CONNECTIONS even quicker and MORE DEVASTATINGLY....because A LOT of the energy would be re-transmitted along the truss structure BEFORE much deformation of the steel occurred....since THAT is what the TRUSS structure was designed to do 'statically', and if there is no IMMEDIATE 'comminution' of something like concrete to 'buffer' the pathways and 'delay/reduce' the energy along those pathways TO the floor-wall connections, the floor/wall 'systems' would be isolated from each other during INTERNAL collapse process even faster and MORE completely than they DID do...evidently.

I hope this helps, met!

That's my two cents for today, guys!

RC.
.
metamars
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 8 2007, 07:04 PM)
Metamars:

You say: "It'd be nice if somebody would make graphs of height vs. time, for various spots from various sides of the perimeter, near the top of the tower, as well as the antenna..... Another graph could then attempt to correct those height measurements for perspecitive considerations."

Well, yes, I have done all that....

What do you want to know?

Where are they?
wcelliott
QUOTE
In principle the several videos of WTC 1 could be scanned in and analyzed pixel by pixel at about 30 frames per second.


I'd think that the principle limiting factor in the collection of data would be the resolution per-pixel, as the 30frames/second should be more than we'd need.

Regarding the pixel-by-pixel aspect, actually you should be able to get subpixel resolution, as you're doing a best-fit match to a straight line crossing (in general) many rasters. The resolution of the measurement would be the pixel width divided by the number of pixels in the visible line segment (or something close to that). The pixellation error would tend to average out.

Still, I wouldn't expect anyone to do a frame-by-frame measurement, certainly not by hand, from impact to collapse. But if good video sources were available, there is image processing software that could analyze the video and provide angles/displacements versus time. But a hand-crank of the video with maybe once-per-minute resolution might be sufficient.
memeticverb
User posted image

User posted image
NEU-FONZE
Metamars/Wcelliott:

I have made a lot of tilt angle vs. drop distance measurements from WTC 1 & 2, mostly unpublished, although some results are available in my papers on 911Myths.com.

I have included perspective corrections using aspect ratios of known features such as the width of the tower to the distance from a selected floor (say the 80th or 95th) to the top of the tower.

The observed tilt angle Q follows the exponential function:

Q = Qo exp (bt), where Qo is the initial tilt and b is a constant ~ Sqrt{3g/2h}

Capracus
User posted image
User posted image
wcelliott
QUOTE
Q = Qo exp (bt), where Qo is the initial tilt and b is a constant ~ Sqrt{3g/2h}


OK, but when is Tzero, and what units are we talking about for time and angles?
NEU-FONZE
Theta (or Q) should be in radians if you wish to calculate rotational kinetic energy, but in the formula I have given it can be in degrees or radians since we are really looking at Q/Qo. The time, t, should be in seconds because we have the constant b in m/s^2 divided by m gives units of per seconds squared. After taking the square root we then have exp to a dimensionless quantity as it should be.....

Qo defines time zero (or vice versa). For WTC 1 I believe Qo is about 1 degree and for WTC 2, Qo is about 3 degrees.

You can shift time zero and go to smaller and smaller rates of tilt if you want to.... the bottom line is that when the tilt angle was say 10 degrees the tipping RATE was about 10 degrees per second... when the tilt angle was 1 degree the tipping rate was about 1 degree per second... when the tilt angle was 0.1 degrees the tipping rate was 0.1 degrees per second and so on. That's what you expect for an exponential function: its rate of change at a given moment in time is proportional to its size at that moment.
wcelliott
QUOTE
You can shift time zero and go to smaller and smaller rates of tilt if you want to....


When did you start taking measurements? Right after the impact, or do these equations only apply to the few seconds prior to ultimate collapse?
David B. Benson
Sorry, but nothing that NIST calculated shows an signs of exponential behavior.

See NCSTAR1-6D.
For WTC 1, Table 4--10, page 225 (289 ordinal) gives the wall and core loadings over time.
For WTC 2, Table 4--35, page 302 (366 ordinal), does the same.

In both cases the loadings go up and down as the hat trusses transfered loads onto the most capable portions of the structure. No hints of exponentials there.

For WTC 1, Figure 4--71, page 233 (297 ordinal) gives DCRs for core columns at 100 minutes. The previous several diagrams gives DCRs at earlier times. Note that the DCRs quickly stabilize at new values and then do not change much.

Similarly for strains. See Figure 4--81, page 238 (302 ordinal) for the strains at 100 minutes and a few figures previous give the strains at earlier times.

Not even the bowing-in of the south wall is exponential. See Figure 4--42, page 210 (274 ordinal) for the S-curve shape.
NEU-FONZE
I started my data set as soon as I could discern a measureable downward motion of any part of the tower (facade, antenna, corner, floor...). This perceived motion occurred in a time interval of one or two seconds. My measurements are relatively crude so there is an uncertainty of about 0.5 seconds in defining time zero. It is quite possible that a tower was tilting/dropping BEFORE my t-zero but the amount would be less than about 0.5 degrees or 0.2 meters.
NEU-FONZE
David:

The exponential nature of the tilting function is not always obvious, especially over time intervals of a few seconds. Over such short times the tipping is well represented by a 3rd-order polynomial or something similar.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 10 2007, 12:21 AM)
The exponential nature of the tilting function is not always obvious, ...

My point was there is no supporting calculations, over 100 minutes for WTC 1, and over 43 minutes for WTC 2, that even hint at an exponential process.

Instead, at least for WTC 1, it seems that the antenna tower ought waggle back and forth (albeit slowly) a couple of times in those 100 minutes. That's what the loading, etc., data indicates to me.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jul 8 2007, 11:41 PM)
Wrong!

I just went back to NCSTAR1-6, Tables 4--2 and 4--3, Figure 4--15, pages 74--77 (156--159 ordinal) to recompute the energy required to destroy all the truss seats, internal and external, vertically, under the following two assumptions:

(1) Two truss seats at each truss as given in Figure 4--15. (This is probably wrong for the type #226A interior connection, so the estimate is a bit high.)
(2) A force action distance of 0.15 meters (which is probably too high, 0.1 meters might be more reasonable, but I am being conservative today.)

38,304,589.32 Joules.

Let's just say less than 40 megajoules.

Even if we use a force action distance of 0.1 meters, we still have about 25.5 megajoules. This is more than the horizontal destruction energy of about 22 megajoules.

However, just saying less than 40 megajoules leaves plenty of energy to destroy the internal rebar connections and the anchor strap connections.

Aha! Once the exterior truss seats fail vertically, which requires only 0.4477 of the calculated energy, then the floors are carried just by the internal truss seats, which can then fail horizontally. That only requires 4.06 megajoules.

So we have a range from 15.26 to 21.16 megajoules.

Hence, less than 4% of the total energy consumption per story.
wcelliott
QUOTE
I started my data set as soon as I could discern a measureable downward motion of any part of the tower (facade, antenna, corner, floor...). This perceived motion occurred in a time interval of one or two seconds.


NeuFonz -

Thanks, but I think you're missing my point entirely.

Tzero, from my perspective, is the time of impact of the aircraft.

You're looking for motion in video, so you're starting the measurements when the descent rates are obvious. This would put your Tzero at some few seconds prior to the collapse. I'm looking for absolute data starting a half-hour (or more) earlier.

I'm not as interested in whether a curve-fit equation is exponential or quadratic, but I am interested in seeing discontinuities in the actual plotted data. Those discontinuities would correlate with structural failures. An equation that mostly fits the measured data would leave those discontinuities out. It's those discontinuities that have the most information about the collapse.
newton
nice navel gazing, boys.

how many witnesses DON'T say, 'EXPLOSION', or 'BLOWING UP'?

duh. you can, (and are) theoretically hand wave it with perfectly good math, but the truth will not go away.

AE911truth.org

wcelliott
QUOTE
how many witnesses DON'T say, 'EXPLOSION', or 'BLOWING UP'?


People routinely say "I heard an EXPLOSION!!!" when what they heard was a loud BANG!!!.

Kick a garbage can, people will duck. It doesn't mean the garbage can had C-4 in it.

[removed]
metamars
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 9 2007, 11:59 PM)
I started my data set as soon as I could discern a measureable downward motion of any part of the tower (facade, antenna, corner, floor...). This perceived motion occurred in a time interval of one or two seconds. My measurements are relatively crude so there is an uncertainty of about 0.5 seconds in defining time zero. It is quite possible that a tower was tilting/dropping BEFORE my t-zero but the amount would be less than about 0.5 degrees or 0.2 meters.

I took a quick look at a couple of your papers yesterday, but didn't see what I was looking for. I want to see a graph of displacement vs. time, which contains overlaid graphs for various spots on the towers. The point is to get some idea of the motion of the antenna vs. motion of, primarily, the topmost floors.

So, e.g., I'd like to see a chart containing 3 graphs: antenna top, northwest corner, southwest corner.

Did I just miss this?
Grumpy
newton

The real reason for the existence of a troother site...

http://www.911truthstore.com/911truth/catalog/

VISA and MASTERCARD accepted...

Can you say "Baaa"??? I thought you could.

Grumpy cool.gif
David B. Benson
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 10 2007, 06:24 AM)
I want to see a graph of displacement vs. time, which contains overlaid graphs for various spots on the towers. The point is to get some idea of the motion of the antenna vs. motion of, primarily, the topmost floors.

So, e.g., I'd like to see a chart containing 3 graphs: antenna top, northwest corner, southwest corner.

You might care to do this yourself...
NEU-FONZE
Thanks David!

That's exactly what I was thinking...........
lozenge124
Kevin Ryan has some interesting comments about the Purdue Simulation, discussed here a few weeks ago, in the form of an open letter to Purdue President France Córdova:

QUOTE
Last month, a few Purdue professors, along with some students, presented a short animation ostensibly related to the 9/11 tragedy at the World Trade Center (WTC). Surprisingly the University then announced this animation in a news release, as if it represented a scientifically accurate simulation of the impact of a Boeing 767 into the WTC's north tower.[1] Unfortunately, this short video clip is far from a scientifically-based production, as it actually contradicts several of the government's own, much more intensive studies, and shamefully fails to capture some of the most basic aspects of the related events. To make things worse, Purdue University paradoxically implies that this brief animation provides support for the overworked fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
(...)

In one important way this new animation does reflect reality, although in doing so it negates the official stance taken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In their September 2005 report, NIST presented their "collapse initiation sequence", and explained how they felt the loss of fireproofing was the key to the destruction of the towers. NIST suggested that the fireproofing loss occurred as a result of aircraft debris, in the form of shotgun-like blasts, scraping the fireproofing off of thousands of square meters of surface area.[2] But from Purdue's new animation, we can clearly see that the aircraft that impacted the WTC tower could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. For this reason we must thank Purdue for this visualization that negates NIST's primary explanation.
(...)

There are many more significant differences between the latest official story for "collapse" of the WTC towers, as given by NIST, and this poor animation put out by a misdirected and unsupervised group at Purdue. Here are a few more examples.

· NIST reported that 9 core columns were severed or heavily damaged by aircraft impact, and this was in their "more severe" case. Purdue now says that 52 core columns were "destroyed or heavily damaged" over a height six floors (see Irfanoglu and Hoffman, table 1). First note that there was a total of 47 core columns in the building. Even if several of these were "destroyed" at multiple levels, Purdue is now asking us to accept a level of damage that is far greater than years of government research could support.

· NIST reported that the damage done to the south face of WTC 1 was limited to one dislodged panel, encompassing three exterior columns (329,330 and 331), caused by whatever small amount of debris passed through and exited the far side of the building. Purdue's team now wants us to believe that 12 exterior columns were severed on the south face of WTC 1.[5]

· NIST told us that the center fuel tank of the aircraft was completely empty when it struck WTC 1. But this new animation shows the center tank to be completely full. Additional comments from the animation’s creators indicate they have no idea how much jet fuel was available inside the building, or how this fuel played a part in the destruction.

Full text here:
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20070706155755469
wcelliott
It sounds like you're focussing on trivia and missing the big picture.

Big plane hits building, building gets damaged from impact, fire weakens what's left of structure, building collapses.

Times two.

Then, what happened was that the terrorists who planned it in the first place realized that they bit off more than they could chew, and started lying their [removed]'s off trying to duck the responsibility for their own actions, hoping to stop the war that they're losing.

And lots of imbeciles believed the lies.

And here we are.
memeticverb
Is there a reasonable explanation for the severe damage occurring in the basements prior to collapse that does not include demolitions cutting the foundational support columns?

Heres the video and picture evidence of this damage.

Proof of Basement Explosions
wcelliott
QUOTE
Is there a reasonable explanation for the severe damage occurring in the basements prior to collapse


Yes.

There were structural failures on the impact-damaged floors as the fires progressed. When a structural member fails, it sends a shock wave through the remaining steel structure. This propagates at the speed of sound in steel, about 20,000feet/second, as a shock wave. Whereever that structure's bulk acoustic impedance changed, like at floors that were more solidly built (i.e., mechanical floors and basement), the shock wave would be reflected by the discontinuity. That reflection doubles the intensity of the shock wave. It's like "Crack-the-Whip", the kid in the middle doesn't feel anything, the kid on the end always wipes out.

This happens in high-energy laser mirrors, too, it's the limiting factor that determines how much energy that a laser mirror can take before it's damaged.

And just how reasonable is the explanation that involves explosives, anyway? Where are those explosions? When do they go off? And how does that fit either the conspiracy theory or the observed collapse starting at the impact-damaged floor?
einsteen
I just found the most ideal way to measure the acceleration of the early collapse.

You need to have a good hi-res video with real time framerate and fixed camera, then you will need VirtualDub or an other tool to extract bitmaps, I selected an 1xN area at the place where the antenna dropped down in the movie and extracted a couple of bitmaps. They had to be combined in a single bitmap, I couldn't find a tool that did this, but suddenly I realized that the html image tag is easy to combine them in a webpage and wrote a simple script that generated that html page. This is the result

user posted image

I will later estimate the acceleration. Of course the toppling is ignored and should be corrected but this seems to be a nice method.
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.