QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 21 2007, 01:47 PM)
And you mean electromagnetics I assume.
Yes.
My PhD is in Engineering Science and Mathematics. If I were a few years younger it would have been in Computer Science and Mathematics, which what I spent my professional career, before retirement, doing.
I suppose I should add that regarding the collapse of the towers, knowing differential equations is a help. However, Greening's step-by-step method gives essentially the same answers using just concepts from Physics 101.
Yes.
My PhD is in Engineering Science and Mathematics. If I were a few years younger it would have been in Computer Science and Mathematics, which what I spent my professional career, before retirement, doing.
I suppose I should add that regarding the collapse of the towers, knowing differential equations is a help. However, Greening's step-by-step method gives essentially the same answers using just concepts from Physics 101.
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 21 2007, 04:30 PM)
Why do you think that ? Do you think that Steven E Jones, a republican and many other CDiots like Richard Gage etc dislike Bush that much that they imagine planted explosives ? I think that nobody who loves his country wants to believe that, but they have to believe that because it makes much more sense for them. Crockett Grabbe (Cal-Tech physicist and if I see his face probably in the 0.01% of the Bell-Curve top) another CDiot and the list is growing.
Crockett Grabbe has no relevant training in the subject.
From his home page:
The evidence from the observations of the collapse itself supports that conclusion, that explosive charges had been laid to collapse the towers. It is known that the steel structures making up buildings can perform badly in a fire without adequate fire retardents, and with hot fires can lose their strength to hold the huge stresses in a building like the World Trade Center. However, if that was the critical problem, the collapse would follow a definitely different path than was observed. Evidence for the structural degradation would likely appear before the final collapse, and the process would accelerate toward catastrophe.
Without explosives, the initial structural degradation upon collapse would not be accomapnied so quickly by the huge dust and massive debris clouds. These dust clouds appeared so quickly because they were created by explosions. For the south tower the plane had only hit the corner of the building and most of the fire quickly flared outside the building upon collision. There was more limited damage from the collision, but that building collapsed first when explosives were ignited. In the case of the north tower, the plane hit higher so that it took longer for the fire to reach the explosives, which upon detonation pulled apart the weakened steel structure above it that had been burning. The dust clouds and destruction covered a much larger area as a result.
Terrorists were likely bringing those explosives in over a period of time, sealing and hiding them at convenient locations that could not be spotted. These probably included sealing them inside concrete and metallic structures, where they would not be detected for a long time. The fact that many thousands members of the public went through the World Trade Center everyday probably made it easy for this to be done. Even though Security had been stepped up since the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, undoubtedly very few in that Security imagined the despicable scheme of hate that was being laid.
Having cells of terrorists working to hide these explosives over time is quite consistent with their methodical development of the plans of terror through meticulously studying plane flights and by learning to fly airplanes over time. Their failed effort to destroy the towers in 1993 showed them the importance of having the explosives strategically placed. Their intent all these years was the same as they described in the 1993 attack: to knock down and destroy the twin towers.
Through destructive preparation by laying explosives and planning the evil deeds leading up to September 11, the terrorists finally succeeded in destroying the World Trade Center, leaving us with the massive slaughter of thousands of fellow Americans, bodies tied up in millions of tons of burning rubble, and sad memories of what this country once had. It is incumbent upon all of us to never be fooled by anything like this again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crockett Grabbe
So, as they say, he's all talk and not ONE FACT to back up any of his assertions.
So Einsteen, it doesn't matter HOW MANY idiots join your ranks.
A confederation of dunces doesn't get any more right, just by picking up new members.
Consider the US has over 300 MILLION people.
Assume that 1/3 of them are too young or too old to care.
If one tenth of one percent agree with you, you would still have 200,000 supporters.
But I've seen NO EVIDENCE that you have anywhere NEAR even that paltry number.
Arthur
Crockett Grabbe has no relevant training in the subject.
From his home page:
The evidence from the observations of the collapse itself supports that conclusion, that explosive charges had been laid to collapse the towers. It is known that the steel structures making up buildings can perform badly in a fire without adequate fire retardents, and with hot fires can lose their strength to hold the huge stresses in a building like the World Trade Center. However, if that was the critical problem, the collapse would follow a definitely different path than was observed. Evidence for the structural degradation would likely appear before the final collapse, and the process would accelerate toward catastrophe.
Without explosives, the initial structural degradation upon collapse would not be accomapnied so quickly by the huge dust and massive debris clouds. These dust clouds appeared so quickly because they were created by explosions. For the south tower the plane had only hit the corner of the building and most of the fire quickly flared outside the building upon collision. There was more limited damage from the collision, but that building collapsed first when explosives were ignited. In the case of the north tower, the plane hit higher so that it took longer for the fire to reach the explosives, which upon detonation pulled apart the weakened steel structure above it that had been burning. The dust clouds and destruction covered a much larger area as a result.
Terrorists were likely bringing those explosives in over a period of time, sealing and hiding them at convenient locations that could not be spotted. These probably included sealing them inside concrete and metallic structures, where they would not be detected for a long time. The fact that many thousands members of the public went through the World Trade Center everyday probably made it easy for this to be done. Even though Security had been stepped up since the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, undoubtedly very few in that Security imagined the despicable scheme of hate that was being laid.
Having cells of terrorists working to hide these explosives over time is quite consistent with their methodical development of the plans of terror through meticulously studying plane flights and by learning to fly airplanes over time. Their failed effort to destroy the towers in 1993 showed them the importance of having the explosives strategically placed. Their intent all these years was the same as they described in the 1993 attack: to knock down and destroy the twin towers.
Through destructive preparation by laying explosives and planning the evil deeds leading up to September 11, the terrorists finally succeeded in destroying the World Trade Center, leaving us with the massive slaughter of thousands of fellow Americans, bodies tied up in millions of tons of burning rubble, and sad memories of what this country once had. It is incumbent upon all of us to never be fooled by anything like this again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crockett Grabbe
So, as they say, he's all talk and not ONE FACT to back up any of his assertions.
So Einsteen, it doesn't matter HOW MANY idiots join your ranks.
A confederation of dunces doesn't get any more right, just by picking up new members.
Consider the US has over 300 MILLION people.
Assume that 1/3 of them are too young or too old to care.
If one tenth of one percent agree with you, you would still have 200,000 supporters.
But I've seen NO EVIDENCE that you have anywhere NEAR even that paltry number.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 21 2007, 02:15 PM)
Evidence for the structural degradation would likely appear before the final collapse, and the process would accelerate toward catastrophe.
Crockett Grabbe
Since this is exactly what was observed, and fairly well explained in sections of of the NCSTAR1-5 parts of the report, and more briefly in NCSTAR1-6 and NCSTAR1-6D, I'll have to say he has shown much professionalism so far.
And Grumpy would point out that he clearly hasn't read about the efforts of the FBI and ATF to locate explosive residues.
Highly unprofessional.
Especially from my alma-mater...
Crockett Grabbe
Since this is exactly what was observed, and fairly well explained in sections of of the NCSTAR1-5 parts of the report, and more briefly in NCSTAR1-6 and NCSTAR1-6D, I'll have to say he has shown much professionalism so far.
And Grumpy would point out that he clearly hasn't read about the efforts of the FBI and ATF to locate explosive residues.
Highly unprofessional.
Especially from my alma-mater...
QUOTE (metamars+Sep 19 2007, 05:09 PM)
I have tentatively concluded that Bazant's original paper with Zhou was not merely premature, but wrong in ways that Bazant must have known at the time he wrote the paper.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
While the Bazant & Zhou paper might well be regarded as premature, they certainly could not have known in advance that NIST was going to do a thorough study.
What I object to is
As they used to say in the Wild West, "Put up or shut up!"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
While the Bazant & Zhou paper might well be regarded as premature, they certainly could not have known in advance that NIST was going to do a thorough study.
What I object to is
QUOTE
but wrong in ways that Bazant must have known at the time he wrote the paper.
As they used to say in the Wild West, "Put up or shut up!"
QUOTE
A confederation of dunces doesn't get any more right, just by picking up new members.
Or, as I sometimes put it, "IQs don't add."
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 20 2007, 04:53 PM)
Anyone seen the new Richard Gage video ?
Just another %$*)*$ making money on the blood of the 9/11 victims.
I went to his site and there was NOTHING of merit.
I couldn't find ONE THING that hasn't already been debunked here.
But for $15 you can buy one of his DVDs.
Makes me want to puke.
Arthur
Just another %$*)*$ making money on the blood of the 9/11 victims.
I went to his site and there was NOTHING of merit.
I couldn't find ONE THING that hasn't already been debunked here.
But for $15 you can buy one of his DVDs.
Makes me want to puke.
Arthur
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Sep 20 2007, 02:31 PM)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10025
Yes, this is the site that won't let me post.
Yes, this is the site that won't let me post.
QUOTE
Do you think that Steven E Jones, a republican and many other CDiots like Richard Gage etc dislike Bush that much that they imagine planted explosives ? I
Precisely.
That, plus their inadequate understanding of the relevant technical matters.
You can't claim that there is no small zeal in CDiots' Bush-bashing.
Going from "I'd have expected the towers to fall over like the cardboard miniatures do in Japanese Godzilla films" to "Bush is a child-molesting 9-foot tall lizard who plotted the murders of thousands of Americans for profit" is more than a small leap. Anti-Conservative sentiments go unchecked in academic enviroments, and proliferate among pseudointellectuals posers and socialist/Marxists. It's called "agitprop", the KGB specialized in it. There's plenty of it on American college campuses.
The problem with merely correcting errors in agitprop is that the biggest errors are errors of omission. While blaming the CIA for all evils in the world, people forget that the KGB wasn't sitting idly by. The Russians were stealing American nuclear weapons technology at the same time that Truman disbanded the OSS, wartime precursor to the CIA. There was a time after WWII where the US had no intelligence capability whatsoever, and the KGB was very active in that timeframe. The CIA was created from-scratch and had to play "catch-up", while the KGB traced its roots back to the Russian Revolution. Nobody bothers mentioning that on college campuses. People here are bashing the CIA for arranging jazz festivals in Europe while at the same time, Stalin was purging millions of his own people, executing thousands and sending the rest to freeze to death in Siberian gulags.
OK, I'll leave it be, but sometimes it helps to know a couple extra facts.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 21 2007, 08:41 PM)
No. I had two years in high school and two more years in college, but have never used the mechanics part of it, just the E-M part. I have, in the last two years, reviewed the mechanics and fluid dynamics part using a Physics 101 text. That's really all that is needed here (if one leaves out the chemistry).
can i quote you on that?
oh. i just did.
in other words, all that you need, is physics 101 to be an 'expert'.
let's see, a collapse of 6.6 seconds for a 47 storey building is, mmmm, carry the one, ummmm, FREEFALL.
now, let's work out the resistance of the lower part of the tower(whether the core has already collapsed, or not, the outer walls still have resistance.
so that resistance, is, ummmmm, carry the one, uhhhh, a hair's breadth over ZERO. pretty much ZERO.
so, if there was no force acting upwards on the walls, then, let's seeeee, ummmmm, carry the one, uhhhhh, then the force acting downwards was, ....ZERO.
pretty much a zero sum equation.
can i quote you on that?
oh. i just did.
in other words, all that you need, is physics 101 to be an 'expert'.
let's see, a collapse of 6.6 seconds for a 47 storey building is, mmmm, carry the one, ummmm, FREEFALL.
now, let's work out the resistance of the lower part of the tower(whether the core has already collapsed, or not, the outer walls still have resistance.
so that resistance, is, ummmmm, carry the one, uhhhh, a hair's breadth over ZERO. pretty much ZERO.
so, if there was no force acting upwards on the walls, then, let's seeeee, ummmmm, carry the one, uhhhhh, then the force acting downwards was, ....ZERO.
pretty much a zero sum equation.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 21 2007, 05:17 PM)
... their inadequate understanding of the relevant technical matters.
This suffices. You would think that a PhD physicist would actually read the NIST report before starting into the wild speculations. Stephen E. Jones didn't and that's why he is now retired. You would think an AIA architect would actually first read the NIST report before claiming that the aircraft impacts + fires did not suffice. (Anyway, architects are supposed to rely on structural engineers to be sure their designs will stand up. So I view Gage as behaving most unprofessionally.)
As for the history lessons, no matter how well meant, TAKE THEM ELSEWHERE!
This suffices. You would think that a PhD physicist would actually read the NIST report before starting into the wild speculations. Stephen E. Jones didn't and that's why he is now retired. You would think an AIA architect would actually first read the NIST report before claiming that the aircraft impacts + fires did not suffice. (Anyway, architects are supposed to rely on structural engineers to be sure their designs will stand up. So I view Gage as behaving most unprofessionally.)
As for the history lessons, no matter how well meant, TAKE THEM ELSEWHERE!
QUOTE (newton+Sep 21 2007, 05:20 PM)
in other words, all that you need, is physics 101 to be an 'expert'.
let's see, a collapse of 6.6 seconds for a 47 storey building is, mmmm, carry the one, ummmm, FREEFALL.
now, let's work out the resistance of the lower part of the tower(whether the core has already collapsed, or not, the outer walls still have resistance.
so that resistance, is, ummmmm, carry the one, uhhhh, a hair's breadth over ZERO. pretty much ZERO.
so, if there was no force acting upwards on the walls, then, let's seeeee, ummmmm, carry the one, uhhhhh, then the force acting downwards was, ....ZERO.
No, but it ought, my dear newton, enable you to comprehend that gravity is a potent force.
Well, yes, but you are extrapolating from a few seconds of video of the north wall to the entire collapse. I'd call that an additional assumption.
Nope. The bottom 7 stories or so have already collapsed. Gravity brings down the north wall, which was largely on its own by then.
Yup. Dropping a 40 story high, unsupported wall straight down will not meet much resistance.
No, my dear newton, I fear I fail to see how you received a good grade in your Physics 101 course. Do recall that gravity is omnipresent near the surface of the earth. My goodness gracious sake's alive!
let's see, a collapse of 6.6 seconds for a 47 storey building is, mmmm, carry the one, ummmm, FREEFALL.
now, let's work out the resistance of the lower part of the tower(whether the core has already collapsed, or not, the outer walls still have resistance.
so that resistance, is, ummmmm, carry the one, uhhhh, a hair's breadth over ZERO. pretty much ZERO.
so, if there was no force acting upwards on the walls, then, let's seeeee, ummmmm, carry the one, uhhhhh, then the force acting downwards was, ....ZERO.
No, but it ought, my dear newton, enable you to comprehend that gravity is a potent force.
Well, yes, but you are extrapolating from a few seconds of video of the north wall to the entire collapse. I'd call that an additional assumption.
Nope. The bottom 7 stories or so have already collapsed. Gravity brings down the north wall, which was largely on its own by then.
Yup. Dropping a 40 story high, unsupported wall straight down will not meet much resistance.
No, my dear newton, I fear I fail to see how you received a good grade in your Physics 101 course. Do recall that gravity is omnipresent near the surface of the earth. My goodness gracious sake's alive!
Highschool physics suggests that free fall is 6.5 seconds.
So the spurious value of 6.6 seconds is longer then it would take by freefall.
The majority of of figures I have seen suggested by non CTers have been in the 8-10 second range which is consistent from what I have seen of the seismic traces.
So the spurious value of 6.6 seconds is longer then it would take by freefall.
The majority of of figures I have seen suggested by non CTers have been in the 8-10 second range which is consistent from what I have seen of the seismic traces.
QUOTE
all that you need, is physics 101 to be an 'expert'
Not sufficient, but definitely necessary.
All you actually need to *understand* the collapse is a good working knowledge of the *first few chapters* of Physics 101.
You (newdumb) don't.
Buy a clue.
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 21 2007, 05:55 PM)
The majority of of figures I have seen suggested by non CTers have been in the 8-10 second range which is consistent from what I have seen of the seismic traces.
That would be for the collapse of the entire structure as parts hit the ground, not just the north wall which clearly fell last.
And portions of the south wall never made it all the way to the ground. Some members can be seen draped over the top of WTC 6. This might affect the length of the seismic traces, dunno...
That would be for the collapse of the entire structure as parts hit the ground, not just the north wall which clearly fell last.
And portions of the south wall never made it all the way to the ground. Some members can be seen draped over the top of WTC 6. This might affect the length of the seismic traces, dunno...
Hi all Newton, not so much.
I have been following along here, but have been playing here
Those who want to talk 911, physics to a real bunch of woo woos, feel free.
Not that this discussion should be diminished, but be allowed to be politics free. It's kind of free for all, let's beat ol' Grumpy up over there. You should at least read some of the woo woo they post, it's hilarious.
Grumpy
Carry on.
I have been following along here, but have been playing here
Those who want to talk 911, physics to a real bunch of woo woos, feel free.
Not that this discussion should be diminished, but be allowed to be politics free. It's kind of free for all, let's beat ol' Grumpy up over there. You should at least read some of the woo woo they post, it's hilarious.
Grumpy
Carry on.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 21 2007, 06:20 PM)
I have been following along here, but have been playing here
Those who want to talk 911, physics to a real bunch of woo woos, feel free.
I read some of it. Woo-woo indeed.
Carter Elliot, it looks to be a good place where you could definitely give Grumpy (nd a few others) a hand and nobody would complain about your history lessons...
Those who want to talk 911, physics to a real bunch of woo woos, feel free.
I read some of it. Woo-woo indeed.
Carter Elliot, it looks to be a good place where you could definitely give Grumpy (nd a few others) a hand and nobody would complain about your history lessons...
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 22 2007, 01:20 AM)
Hi all Newton, not so much.
I have been following along here, but have been playing here
Those who want to talk 911, physics to a real bunch of woo woos, feel free.
Not that this discussion should be diminished, but be allowed to be politics free. It's kind of free for all, let's beat ol' Grumpy up over there. You should at least read some of the woo woo they post, it's hilarious.
Grumpy
Carry on.
How you been Grumpy I feel for you going to that site made me spin sick, friction simple friction stops the rotating block.
I can not believe those people can use a key board and post on the INTERNET some times.
I have been following along here, but have been playing here
Those who want to talk 911, physics to a real bunch of woo woos, feel free.
Not that this discussion should be diminished, but be allowed to be politics free. It's kind of free for all, let's beat ol' Grumpy up over there. You should at least read some of the woo woo they post, it's hilarious.
Grumpy
Carry on.
How you been Grumpy I feel for you going to that site made me spin sick, friction simple friction stops the rotating block.
I can not believe those people can use a key board and post on the INTERNET some times.
Well, I only have a degree in chemistry, but anyway:
NCSTAR 1-5D estimates a value of 1.23 m/s^2 for the average acceleration, and 37.5 x 10^6 Newtons for the average force for WTC 2 during the aircraft impact.
Using Newton's 2nd Law we then have a participating mass of 30.5 x 10 ^6 kg for that part of the building experiencing a dynamic response to the impact.
NCSTAR 1-2 shows that the first translational mode, with a period of ~ 11.5 seconds, and the first torsional mode with a period of ~ 5.2 seconds, were excited.
NCSTAR 1-5A reports that the maximum deflection of the top of WTC 2 (as a result of the aircraft impact) was ~ 0.76 m, and the apparent window spacing varied from 40 inches to ~ 39.8 inches which allows the maximum torsional, (angular), displacement of WTC 2 to be calculated.
From these data it is possible to determine the absorbed elastic energy in a lumped mass model. It is useful to compare this to the maximum elastic strain energy capacity of the structural steel. It appears that the towers could absorb at least 0.5 GJ of elastic strain energy from the aircraft impacts and dissipate it slowly as heat through the visco-elastic dampers... by the way, the damping ratio of the towers was only about 2.5 %.
However this energy sink does not appear to have been included in NIST's floor truss and slab damage calculations, (as described in NCSTAR 1-2), since we discover in NCSTAR 1-6 that NIST could NOT determine acceleration-time histories on structural components from its aircraft impact analysis.
And one more point:
T. Wierzbicki, at MIT, (in his Aircraft Impact Damage paper), totally ignores the energy that was converted into elastic vibration of the entire building......... But try calculating the torsional energy of WTC 2 induced by the nice side swipe given to it by Flight 175!
Nevertheless, in the COUNTRY OF THE BLIND, NIST's Report (however wishey-washey) will always be king.
So why worry?
NCSTAR 1-5D estimates a value of 1.23 m/s^2 for the average acceleration, and 37.5 x 10^6 Newtons for the average force for WTC 2 during the aircraft impact.
Using Newton's 2nd Law we then have a participating mass of 30.5 x 10 ^6 kg for that part of the building experiencing a dynamic response to the impact.
NCSTAR 1-2 shows that the first translational mode, with a period of ~ 11.5 seconds, and the first torsional mode with a period of ~ 5.2 seconds, were excited.
NCSTAR 1-5A reports that the maximum deflection of the top of WTC 2 (as a result of the aircraft impact) was ~ 0.76 m, and the apparent window spacing varied from 40 inches to ~ 39.8 inches which allows the maximum torsional, (angular), displacement of WTC 2 to be calculated.
From these data it is possible to determine the absorbed elastic energy in a lumped mass model. It is useful to compare this to the maximum elastic strain energy capacity of the structural steel. It appears that the towers could absorb at least 0.5 GJ of elastic strain energy from the aircraft impacts and dissipate it slowly as heat through the visco-elastic dampers... by the way, the damping ratio of the towers was only about 2.5 %.
However this energy sink does not appear to have been included in NIST's floor truss and slab damage calculations, (as described in NCSTAR 1-2), since we discover in NCSTAR 1-6 that NIST could NOT determine acceleration-time histories on structural components from its aircraft impact analysis.
And one more point:
T. Wierzbicki, at MIT, (in his Aircraft Impact Damage paper), totally ignores the energy that was converted into elastic vibration of the entire building......... But try calculating the torsional energy of WTC 2 induced by the nice side swipe given to it by Flight 175!
Nevertheless, in the COUNTRY OF THE BLIND, NIST's Report (however wishey-washey) will always be king.
So why worry?
Please quit with your weasle worded posts and READ NIST NCSTAR 1-2 Chapter 7.
Arthur
Arthur
The official account of 9/11 is a theory, is it not? It states that ALL the observed devastation that occurred on 9/11 is directly attributable to the actions of 19 hijackers.
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Restating the last sentence:
If any specific component of the theory fails, the general theory fails. If you call me on the "repeatable", I will invoke the Pentagon, but only if.
This is not a new video. You've all seen it before. It illustrates the collapse of the "fourth leg" of the four legged-chair known as the "official theory".
This is not the crash site of a commercial airliner. It never was, and never could have been. Ironically, it was captured by Faux news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
Stop p!ssing on my leg, and telling me it's raining.
Hypothesizing, endlessly, how an aircraft MIGHT have demolished a tall vertical building does not, and will never substitute for a convincing explanation of what, in general, happened on 9/11.
According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model which contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations". He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation which disagrees with the predictions of the theory".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Restating the last sentence:
If any specific component of the theory fails, the general theory fails. If you call me on the "repeatable", I will invoke the Pentagon, but only if.
This is not a new video. You've all seen it before. It illustrates the collapse of the "fourth leg" of the four legged-chair known as the "official theory".
This is not the crash site of a commercial airliner. It never was, and never could have been. Ironically, it was captured by Faux news.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc
Stop p!ssing on my leg, and telling me it's raining.
Hypothesizing, endlessly, how an aircraft MIGHT have demolished a tall vertical building does not, and will never substitute for a convincing explanation of what, in general, happened on 9/11.
QUOTE
This is not the crash site of a commercial airliner. It never was, and never could have been.
Yes, it was. The plane hit the ground at a high speed going straight down.
It popped like a balloon, and the shreds plowed into the dirt, tossing the dirt straight up into the air and the dirt and debris fell back down, leaving an impact crater like what you'd see on the moon.
What's your explanation of the crater? If any aspect of this was some sort of covert op, don't you think they'd have scattered more aircraft parts around to make it look more like what the average guy would expect to see?
Or are you asserting that the hypercompetent agents who managed to sneak tons of explosives into the WTC when nobody was looking were too incompetent to fake a convincing plane crash site? Wouldn't YOU be able to make it look more convincing? Are YOU better at planning covert ops than people who do it for a living?
It was a crash site. Planes that hit the ground at high speed tend to bury themselves in the dirt that their impact kicks up. That's what they look like. That wasn't the first plane to "auger-in", they all just leave craters and a few scattered shards.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Sep 21 2007, 11:43 PM)
This is not the crash site of a commercial airliner. It never was, and never could have been. Ironically, it was captured by Faux news.
Horse Pucky, the only one pissing on your leg is YOU.
This is a story of an airliner crash into a field. How many parallels can you find?
The airliner's fuselage emerged from the black cloud minus its entire right wing and with only a large stub of the left wing still attached. ....
It struck a soybean field at 618 miles an hour. Mud, dirt, grass, shrubs and mottled snow were tossed two hundred and fifty feet in the air. The debris fell back around a muddy crater forty feet wide. From this gaping wound in the earth poured smouldering smoke. There were pieces of wreckage around the perfectly formed rim. Some other metal fragments were hurled 1500 ft away but the one-hundred-foot fuselage itself had disappeared.
In the crater, buried twelve feet under this smoking devil's caldron, was what was left of Northwest Airlines Flight 710 and the 33 men, 21 woman and 8 children and 1 infant aboard.
...
But the residue from Flight 710 was something even the most veteran investigtors had never come across before. There were no bodies.
Newsmen arriving on the scene quickly noticed that the shirts, towels, women's slips, and other items of clothng were hanging from nearby trees. Quite naturally they phoned in the gory news that the clothes had been stripped from the victims' bodies by the explosive impact. Their observation was accurate but their analysis faulty. The items draped on the tree branches were from a bale of old clothing that Northwest was shipping to its maintenance shop in Miami for grease rags. When impact burst open the baggage compartment, the assorted clothing was flung into the air and fluttered down among the trees.
Where were the victims? Masked workers wearing plastic gloves dug into the smoking crater. They dug down a full twelve feet before they found what they were seeking. The huge fuselage had telescoped and compressed into a mass of molten metal only one third its original length. Of the sixty-three occupants, there was not enough left to identify - eventually - more than seven bodies. The aluminum fuselage that was their coffin was so hot that five days later a steam shovel picked up pieces that still were burning.
From The Electra Story
Aviation's Greatest Mystery
By Robert Sterling - 1963
Horse Pucky, the only one pissing on your leg is YOU.
This is a story of an airliner crash into a field. How many parallels can you find?
The airliner's fuselage emerged from the black cloud minus its entire right wing and with only a large stub of the left wing still attached. ....
It struck a soybean field at 618 miles an hour. Mud, dirt, grass, shrubs and mottled snow were tossed two hundred and fifty feet in the air. The debris fell back around a muddy crater forty feet wide. From this gaping wound in the earth poured smouldering smoke. There were pieces of wreckage around the perfectly formed rim. Some other metal fragments were hurled 1500 ft away but the one-hundred-foot fuselage itself had disappeared.
In the crater, buried twelve feet under this smoking devil's caldron, was what was left of Northwest Airlines Flight 710 and the 33 men, 21 woman and 8 children and 1 infant aboard.
...
But the residue from Flight 710 was something even the most veteran investigtors had never come across before. There were no bodies.
Newsmen arriving on the scene quickly noticed that the shirts, towels, women's slips, and other items of clothng were hanging from nearby trees. Quite naturally they phoned in the gory news that the clothes had been stripped from the victims' bodies by the explosive impact. Their observation was accurate but their analysis faulty. The items draped on the tree branches were from a bale of old clothing that Northwest was shipping to its maintenance shop in Miami for grease rags. When impact burst open the baggage compartment, the assorted clothing was flung into the air and fluttered down among the trees.
Where were the victims? Masked workers wearing plastic gloves dug into the smoking crater. They dug down a full twelve feet before they found what they were seeking. The huge fuselage had telescoped and compressed into a mass of molten metal only one third its original length. Of the sixty-three occupants, there was not enough left to identify - eventually - more than seven bodies. The aluminum fuselage that was their coffin was so hot that five days later a steam shovel picked up pieces that still were burning.
From The Electra Story
Aviation's Greatest Mystery
By Robert Sterling - 1963
This is more data from the same video, also done by hand but with a different method than tracing a curve on an einsteen image. In this case, I placed dots on features (and a rectangle around the window washer) using an SVG editor and parsed the output into numbers for a six second interval starting at frame 800. The sampling rate increases as the interval progresses.
These pictures show the locations of the features:
Dark band on antenna and group of six dish antennae
http://i12.tinypic.com/2gvl991.jpg
Window washer and SW corner
http://i1.tinypic.com/6afscra.jpg
SE corner
http://i16.tinypic.com/52p1g0z.jpg
The pixel locations for the corners and the dark band were used directly while the six dishes were averaged and the center of the window washer rectangle was used. This produced the following table of data:
FrameNum,ElapsedTime,DarkBandX,DarkBandY,NECornerX,NECornerY,NWCornerX,NWCornerY,DishX,DishY,WasherX,WasherY
800,0.0,452.003,11.422,354.52,137.371,543.561,131.491,452.2,58.935,539.505,113.498
830,1.001001001001,452.003,11.501,354.319,137.537,543.641,131.497,452.083,58.876,539.505,113.498
860,2.002002002002,451.961,11.501,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.87,58.926,539.505,113.498
875,2.5025025025025,451.426,11.501,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.975,59.031,539.505,113.498
890,3.003003003003,451.426,11.54,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.839,59.168,539.505,113.498
900,3.33667000333667,451.27,11.852,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.858,59.318,539.505,113.498
905,3.5035035035035,451.192,12.126,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.858,59.402,539.505,113.498
910,3.67033700367034,450.723,12.204,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.617,59.507,539.505,113.498
915,3.83717050383717,450.645,12.516,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.559,59.656,539.505,113.498
920,4.004004004004,450.597,12.755,354.436,137.537,543.483,131.53,451.416,60.252,539.505,113.498
925,4.17083750417084,450.54,13.327,354.319,137.72,543.47,131.491,451.349,60.796,539.505,113.498
930,4.33767100433767,450.4,14.496,354.132,137.817,543.188,131.771,451.216,62.129,539.226,113.777
935,4.5045045045045,450.345,16.082,353.968,139.528,542.921,132.46,451.171,63.632,539.013,114.755
940,4.67133800467134,450.501,18.426,354.076,141.153,542.608,134.452,451.138,65.839,538.993,116.923
945,4.83817150483817,449.878,21.335,353.433,143.456,542.608,136.406,450.847,68.562,538.91,118.066
950,5.00500500500501,449.548,24.912,353.385,145.433,542.514,138.664,450.674,72.319,538.486,120.536
953,5.10510510510511,449.627,27.685,353.425,147.62,542.514,140.149,450.577,74.748,538.486,122.489
956,5.20520520520521,449.627,30.427,353.362,149.872,542.514,142.213,450.577,77.489,538.486,124.553
959,5.30530530530531,449.627,33.535,353.576,151.533,542.568,144.409,450.488,80.561,538.539,126.536
962,5.40540540540541,449.771,37.037,353.21,155.181,542.52,146.52,450.591,83.911,538.539,129.006
965,5.50550550550551,449.48,40.603,353.286,158.549,542.603,149.464,450.578,87.574,538.539,131.991
968,5.60560560560561,449.676,44.939,353.177,161.6,542.564,152.198,450.454,91.558,538.5,135.546
970,5.67233900567234,449.441,48.454,352.849,164.178,542.564,154.464,450.539,94.481,538.48,137.518
972,5.73907240573907,449.637,50.72,352.922,167.529,542.564,157.394,450.545,97.365,538.48,140.487
974,5.80580580580581,449.637,54.386,353.132,169.519,542.564,160.326,450.571,100.656,538.48,142.764
976,5.87253920587254,449.846,57.318,353.341,171.299,542.564,162.683,450.638,104.14,538.663,145.487
978,5.93927260593927,449.479,60.513,353.341,175.279,542.564,165.353,450.638,107.107,538.558,148.472
980,6.00600600600601,449.702,64.512,353.267,177.871,542.638,169.945,450.7,110.687,538.558,151.508
These pictures show the locations of the features:
Dark band on antenna and group of six dish antennae
http://i12.tinypic.com/2gvl991.jpg
Window washer and SW corner
http://i1.tinypic.com/6afscra.jpg
SE corner
http://i16.tinypic.com/52p1g0z.jpg
The pixel locations for the corners and the dark band were used directly while the six dishes were averaged and the center of the window washer rectangle was used. This produced the following table of data:
CODE
FrameNum,ElapsedTime,DarkBandX,DarkBandY,NECornerX,NECornerY,NWCornerX,NWCornerY,DishX,DishY,WasherX,WasherY
800,0.0,452.003,11.422,354.52,137.371,543.561,131.491,452.2,58.935,539.505,113.498
830,1.001001001001,452.003,11.501,354.319,137.537,543.641,131.497,452.083,58.876,539.505,113.498
860,2.002002002002,451.961,11.501,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.87,58.926,539.505,113.498
875,2.5025025025025,451.426,11.501,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.975,59.031,539.505,113.498
890,3.003003003003,451.426,11.54,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.839,59.168,539.505,113.498
900,3.33667000333667,451.27,11.852,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.858,59.318,539.505,113.498
905,3.5035035035035,451.192,12.126,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.858,59.402,539.505,113.498
910,3.67033700367034,450.723,12.204,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.617,59.507,539.505,113.498
915,3.83717050383717,450.645,12.516,354.319,137.537,543.561,131.491,451.559,59.656,539.505,113.498
920,4.004004004004,450.597,12.755,354.436,137.537,543.483,131.53,451.416,60.252,539.505,113.498
925,4.17083750417084,450.54,13.327,354.319,137.72,543.47,131.491,451.349,60.796,539.505,113.498
930,4.33767100433767,450.4,14.496,354.132,137.817,543.188,131.771,451.216,62.129,539.226,113.777
935,4.5045045045045,450.345,16.082,353.968,139.528,542.921,132.46,451.171,63.632,539.013,114.755
940,4.67133800467134,450.501,18.426,354.076,141.153,542.608,134.452,451.138,65.839,538.993,116.923
945,4.83817150483817,449.878,21.335,353.433,143.456,542.608,136.406,450.847,68.562,538.91,118.066
950,5.00500500500501,449.548,24.912,353.385,145.433,542.514,138.664,450.674,72.319,538.486,120.536
953,5.10510510510511,449.627,27.685,353.425,147.62,542.514,140.149,450.577,74.748,538.486,122.489
956,5.20520520520521,449.627,30.427,353.362,149.872,542.514,142.213,450.577,77.489,538.486,124.553
959,5.30530530530531,449.627,33.535,353.576,151.533,542.568,144.409,450.488,80.561,538.539,126.536
962,5.40540540540541,449.771,37.037,353.21,155.181,542.52,146.52,450.591,83.911,538.539,129.006
965,5.50550550550551,449.48,40.603,353.286,158.549,542.603,149.464,450.578,87.574,538.539,131.991
968,5.60560560560561,449.676,44.939,353.177,161.6,542.564,152.198,450.454,91.558,538.5,135.546
970,5.67233900567234,449.441,48.454,352.849,164.178,542.564,154.464,450.539,94.481,538.48,137.518
972,5.73907240573907,449.637,50.72,352.922,167.529,542.564,157.394,450.545,97.365,538.48,140.487
974,5.80580580580581,449.637,54.386,353.132,169.519,542.564,160.326,450.571,100.656,538.48,142.764
976,5.87253920587254,449.846,57.318,353.341,171.299,542.564,162.683,450.638,104.14,538.663,145.487
978,5.93927260593927,449.479,60.513,353.341,175.279,542.564,165.353,450.638,107.107,538.558,148.472
980,6.00600600600601,449.702,64.512,353.267,177.871,542.638,169.945,450.7,110.687,538.558,151.508
where the columns are (all floats except FrameNum):
QUOTE
FrameNum - Frame number referenced to source video
ElapsedTime - Time in seconds
DarkBandX, DarkBandY - Location of antenna dark band
NECornerX, NECornerY - Location of NE corner
NWCornerX, NWCornerY - Location of NW corner
DishX, DishY - Location of geometric mean of six dishes
WasherX, WasherY - Location of center of rectangle enclosing window washer rig
All locations are in pixels and the same pixel:floor ratio as stated previously. These numbers lead to graphs of vertical and horizontal displacement over time as shown below. In both graphs, the coloring of the lines indicates vertical location in the image plane. The darkest is highest and lightest lowest. In order going from dark to light there is dark band, dishes, washer, NW corner and NE corner. The horizontal displacement graph has had values offset to zero so that deflection is apparent when series are displayed together.
Vertical displacement
http://i1.tinypic.com/62gc8xj.jpg
Horizontal displacement
http://i9.tinypic.com/66uzd5y.jpg
I stopped where I did because the dishes and washer were beginning to disappear into the smoke. The dark band and corners could be carried out further and I will. Also, the antenna long axis angle can be done over quite a period. The video quality may not be good enough to map floor compression over time; I did try that but nearly lost my mind in short order. Another day.
It's amazing what one man can open a persons eyes to about a group of people. Then after doing so have that person do such a horrible thing as this. It's amazing really especially when it could have been stopped. But I'm looney....
The thing I don't understand about the "we blew 'em up" theory is that if the explosives were sufficient to level the buildings, why bother with the complication of hijacking some airplanes? Blaming an "explosive-only" (no-planes) scenario on terrorists would have been believable in itself in that it is exactly how they tried it the first time.
QUOTE (NoCleverName+Sep 22 2007, 11:59 AM)
The thing I don't understand about the "we blew 'em up" theory is that if the explosives were sufficient to level the buildings, why bother with the complication of hijacking some airplanes? Blaming an "explosive-only" (no-planes) scenario on terrorists would have been believable in itself in that it is exactly how they tried it the first time.
Does the word "psyop" mean anything to you?
Does the word "psyop" mean anything to you?
The link I had posted long ago which had a graphic of a thermobaric pressure wave vs. a high explosive pressure wave no longer works.
However, you can view the graphic at p. 2 of http://www.defence.gov.au/DPE/dhs/infocent...h_4_1_03-06.pdf
I've now measured the two peaks, at 3x magnification, and I can report that the HE peak is exactly twice that of the thermobaric. Recall that a thermobaric's impulse lasts longer. The exact identity and amounts of the HE and thermobaric are not stated.
Now, from
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm
we read "TNT generates well over 4,000 psi overpressure in close proximity to the source of the explosion"
So, we can reasonably assume that a thermobaric can achieve 2,000 psi over a wider range. As you can see from the graph, the 2,000 psi figure is achieved almost instantly from the time of detonation. Does this mean that 3,000 psi concrete cannot survive it?
I really don't know. Note, though, that from
http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/eis/eis0157/EIS0157_d4.html
we read that "5.8 - 8.7 psi" results in "Reinforced concrete structures severely damaged".
I don't really understand this as the same table states lethality to occur at 102 psi. How can humans be so much more robust than reinforced concrete? Impedance mismatch differences?
===============================================================
Another reference I came across was http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3899
Some interesting quotes:
Sewell also quoted the Marine Corps aviator who was the first to use the new Hellfire warhead in combat. '"That thing was awesome,’ the Marine said. ‘I thought it was a 2,000-pound JDAM going off.'"
Hellfire Missile Basic Specifications
The Hellfire missile was developed in the 1970s and is a fire-and-forget anti-armour missile mainly for use by helicopters. It is widely used by the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.
Diameter: 7 inches (18 cm)
Wingspan: 13 inches (33 cm)
Length: 64 – 71 inches (163 – 180 cm)
Weight: 100 – 108 lbs (45 – 49 kg)
Propulsion: Thiokol M120E1 solid-fuel rocket
Burn Time: variously reported from 1.5 to 3.0 seconds
Maximum Velocity: 950 mph = 1,400 fps (430 mps)
Thermobaric Warhead: 27.5 lbs (12.4 kg)*
Other Warhead Types: 1) Shaped-charge anti-armour, 2) Dual warhead for defeating reactive armour. The small precursor warhead is inserted between the laser seeker section and the main warhead, 3) Blast-fragmentation warhead for anti-ship use
Manufacturer: Boeing/Lockheed Martin (Rockwell/Martin Marietta)**
HELLFIRE = Helicopter Launched Fire and Forget Missile
(emphasis mine)
Many OCT's has ridiculed the notion that the "tons and tons" of explosives required could be surreptitiously brought into the the building. However, if all it takes is 27.5 pounds to take out each floor, I can't take such an argument seriously. Recall ex Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's remark:
A thermobaric Hellfire missile can take out the first floor of a building without damaging the floors above," the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, told a press briefing on 14 May 2003.
His remark seems to imply that Hellfire-magnitude thermobarics alone (one per floor) would not destroy the steel skeleton of the WTC buildings sufficiently. However, they also imply (to me) that they could provide quite a "show" of ejecta in a sequential fashion.
Finally, this interesting quote:
His remark seems to imply that Hellfire-magnitude thermobarics alone (one per floor) would not destroy the steel skeleton of the WTC buildings sufficiently. However, they also imply (to me) that they could provide quite a "show" of ejecta in a sequential fashion.
Finally, this interesting quote:
Inside the 27.5-pound warhead, a fluorinated aluminum powder is layered between the warhead casing and the PBXN-112 explosive fill. When the PBXN-112 detonates, the aluminum mixture is dispersed and rapidly burns. The resultant sustained high pressure is extremely effective against enemy personnel and structures.
(emphasis mine)
I agree completely that the "Conspiracy" part of the Conspiracy Theory makes no sense. Then again, expecting it to make sense to people who, in the first place believe that there had to be *some other explanation* as to why skyscrapers hit with fuel-laden jets would collapse just from that and burning out of control...
We aren't dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer, here. None of them bothered taking high school physics, now they're trying to claim they "grok physics" (excusing themselves for arguing points about a subject they never studied) enough to know that something about the towers' collapse "just doesn't look right". Not at all like those buildings that fall over in those Japanese Godzilla movies.
OR, FOR THAT MATTER, EXPLOSIVES.
"Gee, those clouds of dust and smoke look just like BOMBS going off." No, they look like what bombs in MOVIES look like, and those are just low-explosive fireballs packed with gasoline and shards of cork. Real bombs create shock waves. That's how real bombs work, they detonate faster than the air can carry away the explosives' energy, which concentrates the overpressure on one part of steel faster than the steel can redistribute it and also create a sudden increase in atmospheric pressure that radiates outward at just over the speed of sound. In real explosions, you see that shock wave as an expanding spherical shell radiating from where the explosive detonated. No such thing visible in the WTC footage, just a lot of smoke and dust that's being pushed out of the way by something much heavier "coming through."
There wouldn't be a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory movement if passing Physics was mandatory in high school.
Noted, but while there will always be that lunatic fringe that's educated yet still idiotic, my point is that the majority of the "movement" seems to be largely uneducated in physics.
Noted, but while there will always be that lunatic fringe that's educated yet still idiotic, my point is that the majority of the "movement" seems to be largely uneducated in physics.
Q: What does a persons academic qualifications have to do with the truthfulness of their statements?
A: Nothing
It has to do with the gullibility of the people who hear lies and misinformation. People who don't know enough physics depend on guesswork as to what's possible and what isn't. If someone says something that's wrong, but sounds plausible, someone who doesn't know enough about how the universe works is more likely to accept the plausible-sounding misconception as "truth".
"The sum of the squares is equal to the square of the sums."
Sounds plausible to someone who doesn't know enough math to figure out that it's wrong.
The vast majority of posts from the CDiots here fall into that category, sounds plausible to the uneducated, but to someone who knows how physics works, it's simply wrong.
And usually the people saying it actually *know* it's wrong, but they're more interested in recruiting people to their side than they are about searching for the truth.
Yeah, like my personal favorite ..
"Al Qaeda Says It Carried Out September 11th Attacks"
with the bombastic one liner....
Yeah, like my personal favorite ..
"Al Qaeda Says It Carried Out September 11th Attacks"
with the bombastic one liner....
Allegations doubting Al Qaeda involvement proven false
You know, it's that Stealth explosive that releases its energy over a matter of minutes.
It was developed in the same CIA lab as the slow-acting poison they used back in the '60's to kill Castro. It's just now starting to kick-in.
You know, it's that Stealth explosive that releases its energy over a matter of minutes.
On the other hand, they could have used some of the anti-matter they got from the Roswell saucer ...
"You seem to be assuming that OBL some how magically knew in advance that crashing two jetliners in to the twin towers would actually work."
"Magically"? The Bin Laden family own and operate one of the largest construction companies in the entire world. One could assume that Osama could get whatever information he needed to base that determination on.
"I seem to recall that they also thought that a van filled with Hydrogen parked in the carpark near the outer walls of one of the buildings would bring them both down."
Two birds with one stone? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it.
"And yet that didn't work."
This was the 'Blind Sheik's" handiwork, not OBL's.
Reference:
"On February 26, 1993, a 1,200-pound bomb in a van exploded in the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center. This was the most destructive terrorist attack carried out on U.S. soil up to that time, killing six people, injuring more than a thousand, and causing half a billion dollars in damage. If the van had been parked a few feet closer to one of the pillars, it could have collapsed an entire tower of the Trade Center, killing tens of thousands.
It was never clear to what extent Salem instigated the bombing, as opposed to simply reporting on the plot to his FBI controllers.
Before the bombing, he offered to do a switcheroo on the bombers, substituting a harmless powder for the deadly explosives and thereby preventing any potential catastrophe. The FBI spurned his offer."
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0408c.asp
"You're attributing the whole thing with levels of sophistication and knowledge that may well not have been there."
Indeed, but allow me to say: the degrees of separation between the elements of 9/11 are less incremental than you might think. Case in point:
"The World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family—and a leading practitioner of an architectural style that merged modernism with Islamic influences."
http://www.slate.com/?id=2060207
"Besides, all it really takes is for someone to suggest "Hey, they once said the Twin Towers would stand up to a collision with a jetliner - why don't we try that, except, why don't we try for one with lots of fuel on board, because fuel is explosive..."
They not only suggested it , they did it. The question I pose is whether or not, there was a back-up system in case of failure. You back up your hard drive don't you?
..."why don't we try for one with lots of fuel on board..."
Do you mean like this?
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070309b_pr.html
You may be forgetting that there are lots of ordinary people in NYC who know what explosives smell like. Former military and construction workers know the smell, and if it were used in the quantities that some of the CDiots claim (I wish they'd settle on ONE theory), then lots of people on the street would've smelled it.
Unless, of course, they were using the *scent-free* stealth explosives that are "Silent, but Deadly", to make the buildings collapse in slo-mo.
If your argument is that the explosives were there and unused, or there in minimal quantities, why would they have put them all over the buildings in places so far removed from the impact zone and detonated them at random intervals?
Or, do you feel that the CDiots who claim all the various loud noises were "bombs" going off are wrong, and that none of those "squibs" were really anything other than what we've said they were?
By all means, tell us which of the CDiots' theories are wrong. Then let's discuss whatever's left.
Yes, of course. Maintenance people know every nook and cranny in their assigned building. Not just WHAT those are, but where they terminate (come from and go to).
Yes, of course. Maintenance people know every nook and cranny in their assigned building. Not just WHAT those are, but where they terminate (come from and go to).
Once you have the wiring in place, you're almost home. Device installation, could have been done during the infamous "power down weekend" when everything was off-line.
You're kidding, right? First off, noone runs wires throughout a building without the maintenance man noticing it even if they could somehow hang around stealthily long enough to actually DO it. Second, just pulling some cables would be the EASIEST part. The device installation involves getting through walls, chipping concrete, etc.. to get to the vital stress points. That could take MONTHS. The 'devices' themselves would be what... laying around on a ton of pallets in the loading dock, waiting to be distributed to the floors (without power?... humping each one up the stairs??), and NOBODY noticed those pallets or the trucks that delivered them? That's just crazy. Dream on my man.
I'll say it again. EVERY piece of equipment in those towers is in a data base and gets a monthly PM (preventative maintenance going over) if not more often... some things get checked 3 times a day, some daily, some weekly... but most get a monthly, quarterly, and annual going over to keep it in tip-top running shape. The point being... those guys KNOW that building better'n some guys know their own garage. They not only know what each pump, air-handler, fan, etc... is, but even the idiosyncrasies of each (for example, this pump has to run longer than those others and needs the bearings greased more often). NOONE sneaks in and adds things in your mechanical room without being seen or noticed, no matter what your conspiracy video clips want to claim.
Still, my favorite rediculous part is the 'anything could be done with the power off'. Yeah right! An electrician's favorite joke saying is "we do our best work in the dark", but that's BEDROOM humor. Now, you ninja fairies start flying those devices up the stairs cause the elevators are out, and strap on these miner's flashlight hard hats too! And HURRY! LOL
Trippy, I'm glad you're here!
On an entirely different note, what I've been doing in my off-time, other than being here doing this, is trying to get people to consider using colloidal silver to treat otherwise untreatable diseases, including Ebola (current outbreak in the Congo), Job's Disease (only 250 known cases, but it's pretty awful), and in dogs, Parvo. I'm figuring that Parvo is the likeliest thing that the people here will ever encounter. Parvo has no known treatments, but according to one testimonial (yes, I wish I had a bigger database) regarding two successes, it seems to work quickly, like noticable improvements within three hours. From what I've already read about colloidal silver/nanosilver hydrosol (plus my own experiences), I feel that the advice is sound.
So I've been active promoting what I believe may be an effective treatment for a few otherwise incurable diseases today. If any of you have dogs, you may want to consider visiting the health food store and investing $10 or so on some colloidal silver. (It may also work on distemper, I'm still looking into that.)
You don't think that if TRUE aeronautical engineers thought that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the plane that hit the WTC to be a 767 that at least ONE of them would have mentioned it in the last 6 years.
"THE FINAL WORD is from 737
The original choice of (Boeing 737-100) powerplant was the Pratt & Whitney
JT8D-1, but before the first order had been finalized the JT8D-7 was used
for commonality with the 727.
The sole powerplant for all 737's after the -200 is the CFM-56."
--------------------------------------
There is no statute of limitations for murder, mass murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and treason.
Come on physics, think of your legacy. Speak up.
Not unknown, identified and fully explained, right here in this thread.
There was 22,000 pounds (IIRC) of air in each story of the WTC towers. Where did it go when the floors started collapsing?
You think maybe it became a solid layer of compressed air in the basement?
What happened to it?
We've already answered this question more than once, and the answer is pretty self-evident. I'll let you puzzle it out for yourself.
If you can't figure this problem out, then quit criticizing scientists who've spent their careers figuring out the answers to *tough* questions.
I would add that iron was there in the mix, too, especially the floor pans, and when you create HCl in close quarters with the steel floor pans, the floor pans get dissolved.
Maybe that's why nobody found much of them in the rubble.
(Either that, or the ninja fairies stole it while they were planting the stealth explosives.)
Let's not forget the salt and the water in the mix. The water would come from the ongoing combustion in the rubble pile, along with CO2.
Saltwater + steel = rust*
Maybe the floorpans just rusted away.
* I hope this satisfies those who criticize me for never posting equations.
However, you can view the graphic at p. 2 of http://www.defence.gov.au/DPE/dhs/infocent...h_4_1_03-06.pdf
I've now measured the two peaks, at 3x magnification, and I can report that the HE peak is exactly twice that of the thermobaric. Recall that a thermobaric's impulse lasts longer. The exact identity and amounts of the HE and thermobaric are not stated.
Now, from
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm
we read "TNT generates well over 4,000 psi overpressure in close proximity to the source of the explosion"
So, we can reasonably assume that a thermobaric can achieve 2,000 psi over a wider range. As you can see from the graph, the 2,000 psi figure is achieved almost instantly from the time of detonation. Does this mean that 3,000 psi concrete cannot survive it?
I really don't know. Note, though, that from
http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa/eis/eis0157/EIS0157_d4.html
we read that "5.8 - 8.7 psi" results in "Reinforced concrete structures severely damaged".
I don't really understand this as the same table states lethality to occur at 102 psi. How can humans be so much more robust than reinforced concrete? Impedance mismatch differences?
===============================================================
Another reference I came across was http://www.letsrollforums.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3899
Some interesting quotes:
QUOTE
Sewell also quoted the Marine Corps aviator who was the first to use the new Hellfire warhead in combat. '"That thing was awesome,’ the Marine said. ‘I thought it was a 2,000-pound JDAM going off.'"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Sewell also quoted the Marine Corps aviator who was the first to use the new Hellfire warhead in combat. '"That thing was awesome,’ the Marine said. ‘I thought it was a 2,000-pound JDAM going off.'" |
Hellfire Missile Basic Specifications
The Hellfire missile was developed in the 1970s and is a fire-and-forget anti-armour missile mainly for use by helicopters. It is widely used by the U.S. Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.
Diameter: 7 inches (18 cm)
Wingspan: 13 inches (33 cm)
Length: 64 – 71 inches (163 – 180 cm)
Weight: 100 – 108 lbs (45 – 49 kg)
Propulsion: Thiokol M120E1 solid-fuel rocket
Burn Time: variously reported from 1.5 to 3.0 seconds
Maximum Velocity: 950 mph = 1,400 fps (430 mps)
Thermobaric Warhead: 27.5 lbs (12.4 kg)*
Other Warhead Types: 1) Shaped-charge anti-armour, 2) Dual warhead for defeating reactive armour. The small precursor warhead is inserted between the laser seeker section and the main warhead, 3) Blast-fragmentation warhead for anti-ship use
Manufacturer: Boeing/Lockheed Martin (Rockwell/Martin Marietta)**
HELLFIRE = Helicopter Launched Fire and Forget Missile
(emphasis mine)
Many OCT's has ridiculed the notion that the "tons and tons" of explosives required could be surreptitiously brought into the the building. However, if all it takes is 27.5 pounds to take out each floor, I can't take such an argument seriously. Recall ex Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's remark:
QUOTE
A thermobaric Hellfire missile can take out the first floor of a building without damaging the floors above," the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, told a press briefing on 14 May 2003.
His remark seems to imply that Hellfire-magnitude thermobarics alone (one per floor) would not destroy the steel skeleton of the WTC buildings sufficiently. However, they also imply (to me) that they could provide quite a "show" of ejecta in a sequential fashion.
Finally, this interesting quote:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
A thermobaric Hellfire missile can take out the first floor of a building without damaging the floors above," the US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, told a press briefing on 14 May 2003. |
His remark seems to imply that Hellfire-magnitude thermobarics alone (one per floor) would not destroy the steel skeleton of the WTC buildings sufficiently. However, they also imply (to me) that they could provide quite a "show" of ejecta in a sequential fashion.
Finally, this interesting quote:
Inside the 27.5-pound warhead, a fluorinated aluminum powder is layered between the warhead casing and the PBXN-112 explosive fill. When the PBXN-112 detonates, the aluminum mixture is dispersed and rapidly burns. The resultant sustained high pressure is extremely effective against enemy personnel and structures.
(emphasis mine)
QUOTE (metamars+Sep 22 2007, 12:12 PM)
Does the word "psyop" mean anything to you?
Yes, and it would have made far more sense to simply blow up a building --- in a seemingly undetected manner --- than wiring up a building and then hoping you can get a plane over there to "cover up" the fact that you were blowing it up all along. If the plane never got there, now you've got a building all ready to dance with nobody to take it out. Pretty much of a waste, there. Conversely, if you are able to blow something up by seeding it with explosives and nobody was the wiser while you did it, now you've got people running around checking every building rather than just concentrating their efforts at the airports.
Sorry; the "conspiracy" just doesn't hold up under practical scrutiny. Have a nice, tinfoil hat day.
Yes, and it would have made far more sense to simply blow up a building --- in a seemingly undetected manner --- than wiring up a building and then hoping you can get a plane over there to "cover up" the fact that you were blowing it up all along. If the plane never got there, now you've got a building all ready to dance with nobody to take it out. Pretty much of a waste, there. Conversely, if you are able to blow something up by seeding it with explosives and nobody was the wiser while you did it, now you've got people running around checking every building rather than just concentrating their efforts at the airports.
Sorry; the "conspiracy" just doesn't hold up under practical scrutiny. Have a nice, tinfoil hat day.
Arthur:
Sorry to tell you but directing me to read NCSTAR 1-2 Chapter 7 is a joke. I HAVE READ IT and it confirms my point!
So Arthur, may I suggest that YOU go and read NCSTAR 1-5D and confirm that NIST's lumped mass model talks about a peak acceleration of 2.46 m/s^2 GIVEN TO THE TOWER! This set up lateral and torsional vibrations of the entire structure. And now tell me how much energy was used to do that.
No more BS please.
Thank you....
Sorry to tell you but directing me to read NCSTAR 1-2 Chapter 7 is a joke. I HAVE READ IT and it confirms my point!
So Arthur, may I suggest that YOU go and read NCSTAR 1-5D and confirm that NIST's lumped mass model talks about a peak acceleration of 2.46 m/s^2 GIVEN TO THE TOWER! This set up lateral and torsional vibrations of the entire structure. And now tell me how much energy was used to do that.
No more BS please.
Thank you....
You actually HAVE a point?
Try MAKING IT.
As to the tests in 5D,
These tests done using preliminary data to see the likely impact on the ceiling tiles above and below the impact floors, the results are spelled out in Chap 2 starting at pg 42.
They also explain the major limitation to this work in that it was done PRIOR to the impact modeling.
So they used various methods to estimate that 2/3rds of the KE was transfered to the towers, over a period of 0.6 seconds with a peak force of 75,000 kN.
Arthur
Try MAKING IT.
As to the tests in 5D,
These tests done using preliminary data to see the likely impact on the ceiling tiles above and below the impact floors, the results are spelled out in Chap 2 starting at pg 42.
They also explain the major limitation to this work in that it was done PRIOR to the impact modeling.
So they used various methods to estimate that 2/3rds of the KE was transfered to the towers, over a period of 0.6 seconds with a peak force of 75,000 kN.
Arthur
QUOTE
QUOTE (metamars @ Sep 22 2007, 12:12 PM)
Does the word "psyop" mean anything to you?
Yes, and it would have made far more sense to simply blow up a building --- in a seemingly undetected manner --- than wiring up a building and then hoping you can get a plane over there to "cover up" the fact that you were blowing it up all along. If the plane never got there, now you've got a building all ready to dance with nobody to take it out. Pretty much of a waste, there. Conversely, if you are able to blow something up by seeding it with explosives and nobody was the wiser while you did it, now you've got people running around checking every building rather than just concentrating their efforts at the airports.
Sorry; the "conspiracy" just doesn't hold up under practical scrutiny. Have a nice, tinfoil hat day.
Does the word "psyop" mean anything to you?
Yes, and it would have made far more sense to simply blow up a building --- in a seemingly undetected manner --- than wiring up a building and then hoping you can get a plane over there to "cover up" the fact that you were blowing it up all along. If the plane never got there, now you've got a building all ready to dance with nobody to take it out. Pretty much of a waste, there. Conversely, if you are able to blow something up by seeding it with explosives and nobody was the wiser while you did it, now you've got people running around checking every building rather than just concentrating their efforts at the airports.
Sorry; the "conspiracy" just doesn't hold up under practical scrutiny. Have a nice, tinfoil hat day.
I agree completely that the "Conspiracy" part of the Conspiracy Theory makes no sense. Then again, expecting it to make sense to people who, in the first place believe that there had to be *some other explanation* as to why skyscrapers hit with fuel-laden jets would collapse just from that and burning out of control...
We aren't dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer, here. None of them bothered taking high school physics, now they're trying to claim they "grok physics" (excusing themselves for arguing points about a subject they never studied) enough to know that something about the towers' collapse "just doesn't look right". Not at all like those buildings that fall over in those Japanese Godzilla movies.
OR, FOR THAT MATTER, EXPLOSIVES.
"Gee, those clouds of dust and smoke look just like BOMBS going off." No, they look like what bombs in MOVIES look like, and those are just low-explosive fireballs packed with gasoline and shards of cork. Real bombs create shock waves. That's how real bombs work, they detonate faster than the air can carry away the explosives' energy, which concentrates the overpressure on one part of steel faster than the steel can redistribute it and also create a sudden increase in atmospheric pressure that radiates outward at just over the speed of sound. In real explosions, you see that shock wave as an expanding spherical shell radiating from where the explosive detonated. No such thing visible in the WTC footage, just a lot of smoke and dust that's being pushed out of the way by something much heavier "coming through."
There wouldn't be a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory movement if passing Physics was mandatory in high school.
wow, i really got up yer skirt, eh elliot?
LOL!
LOL!
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 22 2007, 07:59 AM)
We aren't dealing with the sharpest knives in the drawer, here.
There wouldn't be a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory movement if passing Physics was mandatory in high school.
Alas, that, it seems, does not suffice:
poster newton claims to have received a good grade in college physics;
Stephen E. Jones, PhD in Physics;
Judy Wood, PhD in M.E.;
at least one licensed structural engineer (who doesn't post much and certainly not here);
Gordon Ross, M.E.;
etc.
There wouldn't be a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory movement if passing Physics was mandatory in high school.
Alas, that, it seems, does not suffice:
poster newton claims to have received a good grade in college physics;
Stephen E. Jones, PhD in Physics;
Judy Wood, PhD in M.E.;
at least one licensed structural engineer (who doesn't post much and certainly not here);
Gordon Ross, M.E.;
etc.
QUOTE
Alas, that, it seems, does not suffice:
poster newton claims to have received a good grade in college physics;
Stephen E. Jones, PhD in Physics;
Judy Wood, PhD in M.E.;
at least one licensed structural engineer (who doesn't post much and certainly not here);
Gordon Ross, M.E.;
etc.
poster newton claims to have received a good grade in college physics;
Stephen E. Jones, PhD in Physics;
Judy Wood, PhD in M.E.;
at least one licensed structural engineer (who doesn't post much and certainly not here);
Gordon Ross, M.E.;
etc.
Noted, but while there will always be that lunatic fringe that's educated yet still idiotic, my point is that the majority of the "movement" seems to be largely uneducated in physics.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 22 2007, 07:41 PM)
Noted, but while there will always be that lunatic fringe that's educated yet still idiotic, my point is that the majority of the "movement" seems to be largely uneducated in physics.
Q: What does a persons academic qualifications have to do with the truthfulness of their statements?
A: Nothing
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 22 2007, 12:41 PM)
... the majority of the "movement" seems to be largely uneducated in physics.
Yes, so it seems.
For those without formal course-work in physics,
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories
largely written and maintained by a man without formal training in physics, but a great deal of common sense, often ends up countering "Loose Change"-type blather...
Yes, so it seems.
For those without formal course-work in physics,
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories
largely written and maintained by a man without formal training in physics, but a great deal of common sense, often ends up countering "Loose Change"-type blather...
QUOTE (NoCleverName+Sep 22 2007, 12:48 PM)
Yes, and it would have made far more sense to simply blow up a building --- in a seemingly undetected manner --- than wiring up a building and then hoping you can get a plane over there to "cover up" the fact that you were blowing it up all along. If the plane never got there, now you've got a building all ready to dance with nobody to take it out. Pretty much of a waste, there. Conversely, if you are able to blow something up by seeding it with explosives and nobody was the wiser while you did it, now you've got people running around checking every building rather than just concentrating their efforts at the airports.
Sorry; the "conspiracy" just doesn't hold up under practical scrutiny. Have a nice, tinfoil hat day.
It's mostly a waste of time to get into "why didn't they do it this way if it was really a conspiracy?"
I suggest you take your stellar logic to another forum, e.g., the Randi Rhodes forum (911 subsection).
FWIW, anybody who, accepting the premise that it was a psyop (even for the sake of argument), and tries to argue that it was anything other than a roaring success, is not the sort of mind I wish to waste my time with.
However, you will probably find takers at the Randi Rhodes forum. There are others, of course.
Sorry; the "conspiracy" just doesn't hold up under practical scrutiny. Have a nice, tinfoil hat day.
It's mostly a waste of time to get into "why didn't they do it this way if it was really a conspiracy?"
I suggest you take your stellar logic to another forum, e.g., the Randi Rhodes forum (911 subsection).
FWIW, anybody who, accepting the premise that it was a psyop (even for the sake of argument), and tries to argue that it was anything other than a roaring success, is not the sort of mind I wish to waste my time with.
However, you will probably find takers at the Randi Rhodes forum. There are others, of course.
QUOTE (NoCleverName @ Sep 22 2007, 11:59 AM)
The thing I don't understand about the "we blew 'em up" theory is that if the explosives were sufficient to level the buildings, why bother with the complication of hijacking some airplanes? Blaming an "explosive-only" (no-planes) scenario on terrorists would have been believable in itself in that it is exactly how they tried it the first time.
Driving an explosives laden van into an underground parking facility, is the equivalent to hard-wiring the towers for demolition???
"They" knew what the terrorists were up to, in the late 90's. You just reminded us that they did it before. Wouldn't you assume these guys were now permanently ON the radar screen. "They" must have intercepted conversations discussing the "WTC's", and flight schools. Does it take a panel of MENSA alumni to connect the two. "They" could have facilitated their "pipe dream" into reality, unbeknownst to them, by removing impediments such as immigration issues, banking, housing, and flight school training application. Fat paper trails that you want found here, and no paper trails where you don't there. How come "they" didn't pick them up, prior to, and either render them indefinitely, or throw them out of a C-130 into the open ocean from 10,000 ft. Would somebody miss them? Would OBL make a stink, and come looking? Hey, people go missing, especially, when there planning a terrorist incident in a foreign country.
Then, an unprecedented structural analysis of the WTC, to determine plausibility, and to find the "Achilles heel", that could exploit the crash, would need to be undertaken.
Next problem, once "they" allowed these devout aviation debutantes to breach security, board, and commandeer, how could "they" assure precise impact. "They showed us, in both "Gulf Wars", via news video's just how good "they" are directing in-flight aircraft into specific suits in buildings thought to house high ranking officials, especially Saddam himself. His stock of body doubles must have really dwindled.
If the planes could have done the job alone, so much the better, but if the collapse arrested, either by some insufficiency, or by the actions of the fire department, what then? Poor Larry would have, still, had asbestos laden hulks on his hands. The curtailed apocalyptic imagery, and vastly reduced death toll would have taken some edge off of PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor" incident. Obviously, "they" would need a backup system, the opportunity for which is outlined here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8
The thing I don't understand about the "we blew 'em up" theory is that if the explosives were sufficient to level the buildings, why bother with the complication of hijacking some airplanes? Blaming an "explosive-only" (no-planes) scenario on terrorists would have been believable in itself in that it is exactly how they tried it the first time.
Driving an explosives laden van into an underground parking facility, is the equivalent to hard-wiring the towers for demolition???
"They" knew what the terrorists were up to, in the late 90's. You just reminded us that they did it before. Wouldn't you assume these guys were now permanently ON the radar screen. "They" must have intercepted conversations discussing the "WTC's", and flight schools. Does it take a panel of MENSA alumni to connect the two. "They" could have facilitated their "pipe dream" into reality, unbeknownst to them, by removing impediments such as immigration issues, banking, housing, and flight school training application. Fat paper trails that you want found here, and no paper trails where you don't there. How come "they" didn't pick them up, prior to, and either render them indefinitely, or throw them out of a C-130 into the open ocean from 10,000 ft. Would somebody miss them? Would OBL make a stink, and come looking? Hey, people go missing, especially, when there planning a terrorist incident in a foreign country.
Then, an unprecedented structural analysis of the WTC, to determine plausibility, and to find the "Achilles heel", that could exploit the crash, would need to be undertaken.
Next problem, once "they" allowed these devout aviation debutantes to breach security, board, and commandeer, how could "they" assure precise impact. "They showed us, in both "Gulf Wars", via news video's just how good "they" are directing in-flight aircraft into specific suits in buildings thought to house high ranking officials, especially Saddam himself. His stock of body doubles must have really dwindled.
If the planes could have done the job alone, so much the better, but if the collapse arrested, either by some insufficiency, or by the actions of the fire department, what then? Poor Larry would have, still, had asbestos laden hulks on his hands. The curtailed apocalyptic imagery, and vastly reduced death toll would have taken some edge off of PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor" incident. Obviously, "they" would need a backup system, the opportunity for which is outlined here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8
QUOTE
Q: What does a persons academic qualifications have to do with the truthfulness of their statements?
It has to do with the gullibility of the people who hear lies and misinformation. People who don't know enough physics depend on guesswork as to what's possible and what isn't. If someone says something that's wrong, but sounds plausible, someone who doesn't know enough about how the universe works is more likely to accept the plausible-sounding misconception as "truth".
"The sum of the squares is equal to the square of the sums."
Sounds plausible to someone who doesn't know enough math to figure out that it's wrong.
The vast majority of posts from the CDiots here fall into that category, sounds plausible to the uneducated, but to someone who knows how physics works, it's simply wrong.
And usually the people saying it actually *know* it's wrong, but they're more interested in recruiting people to their side than they are about searching for the truth.
QUOTE
If someone says something that's wrong, but sounds plausible, someone who doesn't know enough about how the universe works is more likely to accept the plausible-sounding misconception as "truth".
Yeah, like my personal favorite ..
"Al Qaeda Says It Carried Out September 11th Attacks"
with the bombastic one liner....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If someone says something that's wrong, but sounds plausible, someone who doesn't know enough about how the universe works is more likely to accept the plausible-sounding misconception as "truth". |
Yeah, like my personal favorite ..
"Al Qaeda Says It Carried Out September 11th Attacks"
with the bombastic one liner....
Allegations doubting Al Qaeda involvement proven false
I figured this would all boil down to a bad case of confirmation bias, self-delusion --- whatever it takes (aside from actual facts) to try to make the events of the world fit into a pattern that satisfies one's personal needs.
In the end, the conspiracy theories will fall like the buildings themselves: too much stress after too many problems. As each leg of the conspiracy theory gets kicked out, the remainder must attempt to balance on more and more outlandish claims, speculations, and intricacies.
Why is it a problem to deal with the facts the way they are?
In the end, the conspiracy theories will fall like the buildings themselves: too much stress after too many problems. As each leg of the conspiracy theory gets kicked out, the remainder must attempt to balance on more and more outlandish claims, speculations, and intricacies.
Why is it a problem to deal with the facts the way they are?
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Sep 22 2007, 12:57 PM)
[bloviation deleted]
(1) Alan, the ex-elevator man, now a maintenance man, pointed out much earlier the impossibility of introducing explosives into the towers.
(2) The FBI and BATF explosive residue sniffing dogs never found a thing, despite trying for two weeks.
Why is reality so hard for you to accept? Take Bill Moyers advice...
(1) Alan, the ex-elevator man, now a maintenance man, pointed out much earlier the impossibility of introducing explosives into the towers.
(2) The FBI and BATF explosive residue sniffing dogs never found a thing, despite trying for two weeks.
Why is reality so hard for you to accept? Take Bill Moyers advice...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 21 2007, 02:25 PM)
Especially from my alma-mater...
Oops. University of Iowa is not my alma mater.
What a relief.
And it still remains the case that Crockett Grabbe is behaving in a most unprofessional manner, posting about something for which he hasn't carefully studied.
Oops. University of Iowa is not my alma mater.
What a relief.
And it still remains the case that Crockett Grabbe is behaving in a most unprofessional manner, posting about something for which he hasn't carefully studied.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Sep 23 2007, 07:57 AM)
<Vacuous waffle removed>
Then, an unprecedented structural analysis of the WTC, to determine plausibility, and to find the "Achilles heel", that could exploit the crash, would need to be undertaken.
<More vacuous waffle removed>
You seem to be assuming that OBL some how magically knew in advance that crashing two jetliners in to the twin towers would actually work.
I seem to recall that they also thought that a van filled with Hydrogen parked in the carpark near the outer walls of one of the buildings would bring them both down.
And yet that didn't work.
You're attributing the whole thing with levels of sophistication and knowledge that may well not have been there.
Besides, all it really takes is for someone to suggest "Hey, they once said the Twin Towers would stand up to a collision with a jetliner - why don't we try that, except, why don't we try for one with lots of fuel on board, because fuel is explosive..."
Then, an unprecedented structural analysis of the WTC, to determine plausibility, and to find the "Achilles heel", that could exploit the crash, would need to be undertaken.
<More vacuous waffle removed>
You seem to be assuming that OBL some how magically knew in advance that crashing two jetliners in to the twin towers would actually work.
I seem to recall that they also thought that a van filled with Hydrogen parked in the carpark near the outer walls of one of the buildings would bring them both down.
And yet that didn't work.
You're attributing the whole thing with levels of sophistication and knowledge that may well not have been there.
Besides, all it really takes is for someone to suggest "Hey, they once said the Twin Towers would stand up to a collision with a jetliner - why don't we try that, except, why don't we try for one with lots of fuel on board, because fuel is explosive..."
"(1) Alan, the ex-elevator man, now a maintenance man, pointed out much earlier the impossibility of introducing explosives into the towers."
Nothing is impossible when the future of a world empire is on the line. Is Alan a commercial electrician? Could he distinguish between the multitude of power, tel/com and data buses winding through out the WTC's. Once you have the wiring in place, you're almost home. Device installation, could have been done during the infamous "power down weekend" when everything was off-line. Was Alan in the building during this time, or after ? Was Alan up to speed on Securacoms system installation. Did he lunch with Marvin, and receive a personal assurance that everything was on the up and up? Obviously you didn't watch the video, and therefore you are responding to a fraction of my posted material. Why bother?
"(2) The FBI and BATF explosive residue sniffing dogs never found a thing, despite trying for two weeks."
The video indicates, that dogs were pulled off duty, 5 days prior. Besides, different dogs are trained to detect different things. Drug sniffing dogs would have looked just as impressive, but would render no explosives.
"Why is reality so hard for you to accept? Take Bill Moyers advice..."
Reality, like history, is determined by those who prevail, even and especially, if it's by any means necessary.
Surely you meant Dan Rather's advice. "Don't rock the boat, Danny boy, or we'll stick ya' back in the mail-room.
Nothing is impossible when the future of a world empire is on the line. Is Alan a commercial electrician? Could he distinguish between the multitude of power, tel/com and data buses winding through out the WTC's. Once you have the wiring in place, you're almost home. Device installation, could have been done during the infamous "power down weekend" when everything was off-line. Was Alan in the building during this time, or after ? Was Alan up to speed on Securacoms system installation. Did he lunch with Marvin, and receive a personal assurance that everything was on the up and up? Obviously you didn't watch the video, and therefore you are responding to a fraction of my posted material. Why bother?
"(2) The FBI and BATF explosive residue sniffing dogs never found a thing, despite trying for two weeks."
The video indicates, that dogs were pulled off duty, 5 days prior. Besides, different dogs are trained to detect different things. Drug sniffing dogs would have looked just as impressive, but would render no explosives.
"Why is reality so hard for you to accept? Take Bill Moyers advice..."
Reality, like history, is determined by those who prevail, even and especially, if it's by any means necessary.
Surely you meant Dan Rather's advice. "Don't rock the boat, Danny boy, or we'll stick ya' back in the mail-room.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 22 2007, 12:46 AM)
Horizontal displacement
The horizontal displacement is towards the east?
This appears to be a most well-done collection of data! I'm impressed and don't lose you mind over it.
The horizontal displacement is towards the east?
This appears to be a most well-done collection of data! I'm impressed and don't lose you mind over it.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Sep 22 2007, 03:26 PM)
Nothing is impossible when the future of a world empire is on the line.
Reality, like history, is determined by those who prevail, even and especially, if it's by any means necessary.
The laws of physics state otherwise. These appear to be vastly better validated than your statement.
Reality is really real, and is not subject to any form of revision by anyone. Go study some physics.
And, for future reference, I have no means of watching videos on this computer and wouldn't bother even if I could. I can sorta sense when absolute trash is forthcoming...
Reality, like history, is determined by those who prevail, even and especially, if it's by any means necessary.
The laws of physics state otherwise. These appear to be vastly better validated than your statement.
Reality is really real, and is not subject to any form of revision by anyone. Go study some physics.
And, for future reference, I have no means of watching videos on this computer and wouldn't bother even if I could. I can sorta sense when absolute trash is forthcoming...
Arthur,
I disagree with the idea that if the towers came down by explosives that they were planted by terrorists, that would be ridiculous. If terrorists are able to do that they can demolish the building at an unexpected time when it is fully populated. But I understand why he is saying it, he chooses the politically correct way instead of the ugly face of the alternative. And Richard Gage's blood dollars dvd,
I also don't like the combination 911 and $ but nobody needs to buy it because it can be watched online .
W.C.,
101 physics, I guess it is a basic standard lecture in the US. How many physicist have studied the collapse in detail, a handful I think. There are not much papers about it and none of them by physicists and in spite of NIST's reputation this is still an open question, because we are talking about the after initiation situation,
I still think the observed collapse is much more complex than 101 physics or UPS delivering gravel. The latter btw is rejected by your beloved NIST because they reject the pancake initiation theory.
No I think the collapse is a very complex situation , the squibs are not debunked, air doesn't have a color, it is absolutely not only air, the peeling of the building, the parabolic fall of massive chunks of the building and its top block is absolutely not trivial, it even hasn't been modeled. And if you think it is the wedging block then show your calculations. This is still a open question. Everyone can calculate the potential energy of the building and post images of H-bombs next to it. Maybe it is simple for you it isn't simple for me.
David & N-F,
Has the Bazant's crush-up equation ever been applied for wtc7 ?
I disagree with the idea that if the towers came down by explosives that they were planted by terrorists, that would be ridiculous. If terrorists are able to do that they can demolish the building at an unexpected time when it is fully populated. But I understand why he is saying it, he chooses the politically correct way instead of the ugly face of the alternative. And Richard Gage's blood dollars dvd,
I also don't like the combination 911 and $ but nobody needs to buy it because it can be watched online .
W.C.,
101 physics, I guess it is a basic standard lecture in the US. How many physicist have studied the collapse in detail, a handful I think. There are not much papers about it and none of them by physicists and in spite of NIST's reputation this is still an open question, because we are talking about the after initiation situation,
I still think the observed collapse is much more complex than 101 physics or UPS delivering gravel. The latter btw is rejected by your beloved NIST because they reject the pancake initiation theory.
No I think the collapse is a very complex situation , the squibs are not debunked, air doesn't have a color, it is absolutely not only air, the peeling of the building, the parabolic fall of massive chunks of the building and its top block is absolutely not trivial, it even hasn't been modeled. And if you think it is the wedging block then show your calculations. This is still a open question. Everyone can calculate the potential energy of the building and post images of H-bombs next to it. Maybe it is simple for you it isn't simple for me.
David & N-F,
Has the Bazant's crush-up equation ever been applied for wtc7 ?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 22 2007, 10:27 PM)
The horizontal displacement is towards the east?
This appears to be a most well-done collection of data! I'm impressed and don't lose you mind over it.
Thanks. Yes, horizontal motion is to the east/left in the image (decreasing pixel coordinate).
I incorrectly labeled the pictures as SE and SW corner. Should be NE and NW.
This appears to be a most well-done collection of data! I'm impressed and don't lose you mind over it.
Thanks. Yes, horizontal motion is to the east/left in the image (decreasing pixel coordinate).
I incorrectly labeled the pictures as SE and SW corner. Should be NE and NW.
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 22 2007, 10:41 PM)
Maybe it is simple for you it isn't simple for me.
Not for me, either.
Not for me, either.
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 22 2007, 03:41 PM)
101 physics, I guess it is a basic standard lecture in the US.
How many physicist have studied the collapse in detail, a handful I think.
the squibs are not debunked
air doesn't have a color, it is absolutely not only air
the parabolic fall of massive chunks of the building and its top block is absolutely not trivial, it even hasn't been modeled.
And if you think it is the wedging block then show your calculations.
This is still a open question.
Has the Bazant's crush-up equation ever been applied for wtc7 ?
Physics 101 is a quarter or semester long course covering at least Newtonian mechanics and without calculus, usually.
AFAIK, no physicists. Not even Stephen E. Jones.
I did it already. Air being forced down the voids in the core and then out weak spots in the structure.
Of course it was dirty air from ground wallboard, ceiling tile, etc.
Has been modeled via computer simulations. Several times by several people.
See the graphs in the BLGB paper. More meaningful than calculations.
Every question in science is always open. Nonetheless, the B&V equations provide constitutive laws describing the collapse of WTC 1 quite well, in good agreement with the (limited) available data.
Yes poster shagster did so and obtained good agreement with the observed fall time data.
How many physicist have studied the collapse in detail, a handful I think.
the squibs are not debunked
air doesn't have a color, it is absolutely not only air
the parabolic fall of massive chunks of the building and its top block is absolutely not trivial, it even hasn't been modeled.
And if you think it is the wedging block then show your calculations.
This is still a open question.
Has the Bazant's crush-up equation ever been applied for wtc7 ?
Physics 101 is a quarter or semester long course covering at least Newtonian mechanics and without calculus, usually.
AFAIK, no physicists. Not even Stephen E. Jones.
I did it already. Air being forced down the voids in the core and then out weak spots in the structure.
Of course it was dirty air from ground wallboard, ceiling tile, etc.
Has been modeled via computer simulations. Several times by several people.
See the graphs in the BLGB paper. More meaningful than calculations.
Every question in science is always open. Nonetheless, the B&V equations provide constitutive laws describing the collapse of WTC 1 quite well, in good agreement with the (limited) available data.
Yes poster shagster did so and obtained good agreement with the observed fall time data.
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 22 2007, 06:41 PM)
the squibs are not debunked, air doesn't have a color, it is absolutely not only air, the peeling of the building, the parabolic fall of massive chunks of the building and its top block is absolutely not trivial, it even hasn't been modeled. And if you think it is the wedging block then show your calculations. This is still a open question. Everyone can calculate the potential energy of the building and post images of H-bombs next to it. Maybe it is simple for you it isn't simple for me.
Maybe its not simple, no one said it is, but to START with the assumption that BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, then it was likely caused by planted explosives is frankly silly.
To say that because there are things that are not easily explained, considering ALL THE FORCES (physical and chemical) unleashed in the collapse, is evidence of CD is just very simplistic thinking.
And, Yes, the SQUIBS have been debunked.
Because THIS is a SQUIB.
Squibs are designed to set off larger explosives.
A squib is too SMALL and neither it nor the HE they are designed to set off would create that SLOW expulsion of air that GROWS over several frames of the video.
A REAL High Explosive would have been HEARD as a sharp supersonic CRACK, but there are none of these on ANY of the videos.
Real High Explosives would have left a LOT of tell-tale evidence, both visual and physical.
But NONE has been found.
Face it, 6 years have gone by, and what is clear is the MORE we know, the even LESS credible the CD theories have become.
Arthur
Maybe its not simple, no one said it is, but to START with the assumption that BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, then it was likely caused by planted explosives is frankly silly.
To say that because there are things that are not easily explained, considering ALL THE FORCES (physical and chemical) unleashed in the collapse, is evidence of CD is just very simplistic thinking.
And, Yes, the SQUIBS have been debunked.
Because THIS is a SQUIB.
Squibs are designed to set off larger explosives.
A squib is too SMALL and neither it nor the HE they are designed to set off would create that SLOW expulsion of air that GROWS over several frames of the video.
A REAL High Explosive would have been HEARD as a sharp supersonic CRACK, but there are none of these on ANY of the videos.
Real High Explosives would have left a LOT of tell-tale evidence, both visual and physical.
But NONE has been found.
Face it, 6 years have gone by, and what is clear is the MORE we know, the even LESS credible the CD theories have become.
Arthur
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Sep 22 2007, 03:26 PM)
[quotes and nonsense deleted]
Go look at these beautiful graphs developed by poster OneWhiteEye. These have a characteristic shape, being highly similar to the one done earlier by poster einsteen.
i1.tinypic.com/62gc8xj.jpg
In particular, note the first 3 seconds. This clearly indicates that WTC 1 was quite slowly beginning to collapse, so slowly than just watching the video of the north face of WTC 1 at that time, I doubt you would be able to detect it.
Slowly. Got it?
Explosives, on the other hand, would take out structural support and the drop would begin quickly.
Quickly. Got it?
So the actual evidence does not support a hypothesis of the use of even silent, invisible explosives.
Try reality. If this is hard for you, take Bill Moyer's advice...
Go look at these beautiful graphs developed by poster OneWhiteEye. These have a characteristic shape, being highly similar to the one done earlier by poster einsteen.
i1.tinypic.com/62gc8xj.jpg
In particular, note the first 3 seconds. This clearly indicates that WTC 1 was quite slowly beginning to collapse, so slowly than just watching the video of the north face of WTC 1 at that time, I doubt you would be able to detect it.
Slowly. Got it?
Explosives, on the other hand, would take out structural support and the drop would begin quickly.
Quickly. Got it?
So the actual evidence does not support a hypothesis of the use of even silent, invisible explosives.
Try reality. If this is hard for you, take Bill Moyer's advice...
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Sep 22 2007, 03:26 PM)
"(2) The FBI and BATF explosive residue sniffing dogs never found a thing, despite trying for two weeks."
The video indicates, that dogs were pulled off duty, 5 days prior.
Besides, different dogs are trained to detect different things. Drug sniffing dogs would have looked just as impressive, but would render no explosives.
The FBI and BATF came along after the collapses.
Yes, the security forces for WTC decided to call of the bomb-sniffing dogs.
As you say, different dogs of different things. Some of the BATF dogs were on loan from Canada. Are you attempting to imply that the Canadians were in on it too?
Maybe you need to study about how conspiracies actually work? Or don't work.
The video indicates, that dogs were pulled off duty, 5 days prior.
Besides, different dogs are trained to detect different things. Drug sniffing dogs would have looked just as impressive, but would render no explosives.
The FBI and BATF came along after the collapses.
Yes, the security forces for WTC decided to call of the bomb-sniffing dogs.
As you say, different dogs of different things. Some of the BATF dogs were on loan from Canada. Are you attempting to imply that the Canadians were in on it too?
Maybe you need to study about how conspiracies actually work? Or don't work.
DBB:
One look at the toxic emissions from the WTC rubble pile tells me sniffer dogs could not possibly have detected anything resembling explosive residues because their mucous membranes would have been burnt by the ppm levels of HCl, Cl2, NO, NO2, SO2, etc in the fumes emanating from the rubble pile!
Actually it appears that no ASTM-FBI type analyses of WTC debris samples for explosive residues traceable to species such as AN, AP, HMX, RDX, PETN, TATP or TNT were in fact carried out.
One look at the toxic emissions from the WTC rubble pile tells me sniffer dogs could not possibly have detected anything resembling explosive residues because their mucous membranes would have been burnt by the ppm levels of HCl, Cl2, NO, NO2, SO2, etc in the fumes emanating from the rubble pile!
Actually it appears that no ASTM-FBI type analyses of WTC debris samples for explosive residues traceable to species such as AN, AP, HMX, RDX, PETN, TATP or TNT were in fact carried out.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 23 2007, 12:28 PM)
DBB:
One look at the toxic emissions from the WTC rubble pile tells me sniffer dogs could not possibly have detected anything resembling explosive residues because their mucous membranes would have been burnt by the ppm levels of HCl, Cl2, NO, NO2, SO2, etc in the fumes emanating from the rubble pile!
Actually it appears that no ASTM-FBI type analyses of WTC debris samples for explosive residues traceable to species such as AN, AP, HMX, RDX, PETN, TATP or TNT were in fact carried out.
None of which changes the lack of other credible physical evidence in the visual and audio record of the event.
Again, I point out a certain 911 call, and before anyone points out that they were above the crash site, so what?
What does that actually have to do anything?
One look at the toxic emissions from the WTC rubble pile tells me sniffer dogs could not possibly have detected anything resembling explosive residues because their mucous membranes would have been burnt by the ppm levels of HCl, Cl2, NO, NO2, SO2, etc in the fumes emanating from the rubble pile!
Actually it appears that no ASTM-FBI type analyses of WTC debris samples for explosive residues traceable to species such as AN, AP, HMX, RDX, PETN, TATP or TNT were in fact carried out.
None of which changes the lack of other credible physical evidence in the visual and audio record of the event.
Again, I point out a certain 911 call, and before anyone points out that they were above the crash site, so what?
What does that actually have to do anything?
I find it hard to understand why so many people have gone to great effort to create an elaborate "explosives" theory without examining the underlying premise for reasonableness. No one has bothered to examine the motivation let alone come up with a method that would successfully permit its execution. Arm-waving about shadowy three-letter agencies is not a plan.
I know it's so much fun to pretend you're uncovering the conspiracy of conspiracies. Basically, you've investigated "what" happened from the comfort of your armchair. Unfortunately, a conspiracy needs conspirators and no one has any evidence for "who", "when", "why" and "how". That is, aside from more fun armchair speculation.
I know it's so much fun to pretend you're uncovering the conspiracy of conspiracies. Basically, you've investigated "what" happened from the comfort of your armchair. Unfortunately, a conspiracy needs conspirators and no one has any evidence for "who", "when", "why" and "how". That is, aside from more fun armchair speculation.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 22 2007, 05:28 PM)
... sniffer dogs ...
... ASTM-FBI type analyses of WTC debris samples for explosive residues ...
All I know about sniffer dogs is what Grumpy posted.
What is this analysis which you state was not done?
... ASTM-FBI type analyses of WTC debris samples for explosive residues ...
All I know about sniffer dogs is what Grumpy posted.
What is this analysis which you state was not done?
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 22 2007, 05:36 PM)
... a certain 911 call ...
Your reporting means that I know of two such calls.
Must be very secret silent explosives that neither person felt. Wow!
Your reporting means that I know of two such calls.
Must be very secret silent explosives that neither person felt. Wow!
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 23 2007, 12:44 PM)
Your reporting means that I know of two such calls.
Must be very secret silent explosives that neither person felt. Wow!
I know, it's completely bizzare isn't it.
The towers were bought down by explosives that nobody saw planted, that left no visible or audio evidence when they were triggered, couldn't be heard in the background of 911 calls that terminate with the collapse of the towers, and left no chemical evidence...
Must be very secret silent explosives that neither person felt. Wow!
I know, it's completely bizzare isn't it.
The towers were bought down by explosives that nobody saw planted, that left no visible or audio evidence when they were triggered, couldn't be heard in the background of 911 calls that terminate with the collapse of the towers, and left no chemical evidence...
QUOTE
Must be very secret silent explosives that neither person felt. Wow!
You know, it's that Stealth explosive that releases its energy over a matter of minutes.
It was developed in the same CIA lab as the slow-acting poison they used back in the '60's to kill Castro. It's just now starting to kick-in.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 23 2007, 12:53 AM)
You know, it's that Stealth explosive that releases its energy over a matter of minutes.
On the other hand, they could have used some of the anti-matter they got from the Roswell saucer ...
The chemical tests that were never carried out would be:
Gas chromatography for TNT, RDX, etc
Liquid chromatography for HMX and C-4
Ion chromatography for AN and AP
See Journal of Forensic Science Volume 48, March 2003.
Not suggesting any skulduggery here, but let's keep the facts straight and stop claiming that things were done after 9/11 that were most assuredly NOT done.
Gas chromatography for TNT, RDX, etc
Liquid chromatography for HMX and C-4
Ion chromatography for AN and AP
See Journal of Forensic Science Volume 48, March 2003.
Not suggesting any skulduggery here, but let's keep the facts straight and stop claiming that things were done after 9/11 that were most assuredly NOT done.
"You seem to be assuming that OBL some how magically knew in advance that crashing two jetliners in to the twin towers would actually work."
"Magically"? The Bin Laden family own and operate one of the largest construction companies in the entire world. One could assume that Osama could get whatever information he needed to base that determination on.
"I seem to recall that they also thought that a van filled with Hydrogen parked in the carpark near the outer walls of one of the buildings would bring them both down."
Two birds with one stone? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it.
"And yet that didn't work."
This was the 'Blind Sheik's" handiwork, not OBL's.
Reference:
"On February 26, 1993, a 1,200-pound bomb in a van exploded in the parking garage beneath the World Trade Center. This was the most destructive terrorist attack carried out on U.S. soil up to that time, killing six people, injuring more than a thousand, and causing half a billion dollars in damage. If the van had been parked a few feet closer to one of the pillars, it could have collapsed an entire tower of the Trade Center, killing tens of thousands.
It was never clear to what extent Salem instigated the bombing, as opposed to simply reporting on the plot to his FBI controllers.
Before the bombing, he offered to do a switcheroo on the bombers, substituting a harmless powder for the deadly explosives and thereby preventing any potential catastrophe. The FBI spurned his offer."
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0408c.asp
"You're attributing the whole thing with levels of sophistication and knowledge that may well not have been there."
Indeed, but allow me to say: the degrees of separation between the elements of 9/11 are less incremental than you might think. Case in point:
"The World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family—and a leading practitioner of an architectural style that merged modernism with Islamic influences."
http://www.slate.com/?id=2060207
"Besides, all it really takes is for someone to suggest "Hey, they once said the Twin Towers would stand up to a collision with a jetliner - why don't we try that, except, why don't we try for one with lots of fuel on board, because fuel is explosive..."
They not only suggested it , they did it. The question I pose is whether or not, there was a back-up system in case of failure. You back up your hard drive don't you?
..."why don't we try for one with lots of fuel on board..."
Do you mean like this?
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2007/q1/070309b_pr.html
QUOTE
The chemical tests that were never carried out
You may be forgetting that there are lots of ordinary people in NYC who know what explosives smell like. Former military and construction workers know the smell, and if it were used in the quantities that some of the CDiots claim (I wish they'd settle on ONE theory), then lots of people on the street would've smelled it.
Unless, of course, they were using the *scent-free* stealth explosives that are "Silent, but Deadly", to make the buildings collapse in slo-mo.
If your argument is that the explosives were there and unused, or there in minimal quantities, why would they have put them all over the buildings in places so far removed from the impact zone and detonated them at random intervals?
Or, do you feel that the CDiots who claim all the various loud noises were "bombs" going off are wrong, and that none of those "squibs" were really anything other than what we've said they were?
By all means, tell us which of the CDiots' theories are wrong. Then let's discuss whatever's left.
I really know nothing about chemistry, my knowledge is limited to H O N F Br I Cl and I remember a reaction was counting out the electrons of the outer shell.. but if we are speaking about a massive collapse where a couple of times 10^8 kg mass is involved, fire is involved, jet fuel is involved, astbestos, office equipment rapidly compressed to dust, getting humans out of the rubble which has a higher priority etc, then how sure are we that everything will be noticed ? Further what kind of stuff would one place in a building, even a m0ron wouldn't place something that leaves huge fingerprints.
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Sep 23 2007, 02:04 PM)
"Magically"? The Bin Laden family own and operate one of the largest construction companies in the entire world. One could assume that Osama could get whatever information he needed to base that determination on.
Two birds with one stone? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it.
Indeed, but allow me to say: the degrees of separation between the elements of 9/11 are less incremental than you might think. Case in point:
"The World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family—and a leading practitioner of an architectural style that merged modernism with Islamic influences."
http://www.slate.com/?id=2060207
And yet, as I understand it, that was the original plan, to cause one tower to crash into the other, and bring them both down.
And, as far as the degrees of seperation argument goes?
Your anus is connected to your mouth, so does that mean that we should consider everything you have to say about the physics of the situation to be fecal excrement?
Because that is certainly the same level of logic you're using.
Two birds with one stone? That's a bit of a stretch isn't it.
Indeed, but allow me to say: the degrees of separation between the elements of 9/11 are less incremental than you might think. Case in point:
"The World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family—and a leading practitioner of an architectural style that merged modernism with Islamic influences."
http://www.slate.com/?id=2060207
And yet, as I understand it, that was the original plan, to cause one tower to crash into the other, and bring them both down.
And, as far as the degrees of seperation argument goes?
Your anus is connected to your mouth, so does that mean that we should consider everything you have to say about the physics of the situation to be fecal excrement?
Because that is certainly the same level of logic you're using.
Did you Know that it is impossible for a Boeing 767 to fly anywhere near 500 mph at 700ft altitude
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 22 2007, 10:32 PM)
I really know nothing about chemistry, my knowledge is limited to H O N F Br I Cl and I remember a reaction was counting out the electrons of the outer shell.. but if we are speaking about a massive collapse where a couple of times 10^8 kg mass is involved, fire is involved, jet fuel is involved, astbestos, office equipment rapidly compressed to dust, getting humans out of the rubble which has a higher priority etc, then how sure are we that everything will be noticed ? Further what kind of stuff would one place in a building, even a m0ron wouldn't place something that leaves huge fingerprints.
Simply read about the work that the engineers did to get the 260 or so samples that NIST ended up with.
In order to do so they examined MANY more times that many pieces of structural steel.
But, you don't find it ODD that if explosives were set off throughout the building that they didn't enounter ONE piece of steel that made them go: "Now THAT'S odd".
But they DIDN'T as NOT ONE PIECE of steel that shows evidence of HIGH SPEED fragmentation has turned up.
NOT ONE.
So I have to ask you.
Why do you PERSIST in sticking to this CONCLUSION in the absense of ANY EVIDENCE to support it?
Arthur
Simply read about the work that the engineers did to get the 260 or so samples that NIST ended up with.
In order to do so they examined MANY more times that many pieces of structural steel.
But, you don't find it ODD that if explosives were set off throughout the building that they didn't enounter ONE piece of steel that made them go: "Now THAT'S odd".
But they DIDN'T as NOT ONE PIECE of steel that shows evidence of HIGH SPEED fragmentation has turned up.
NOT ONE.
So I have to ask you.
Why do you PERSIST in sticking to this CONCLUSION in the absense of ANY EVIDENCE to support it?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 23 2007, 03:44 PM)
Simply read about the work that the engineers did to get the 260 or so samples that NIST ended up with.
In order to do so they examined MANY more times that many pieces of structural steel.
But, you don't find it ODD that if explosives were set off throughout the building that they didn't enounter ONE piece of steel that made them go: "Now THAT'S odd".
But they DIDN'T as NOT ONE PIECE of steel that shows evidence of HIGH SPEED fragmentation has turned up.
NOT ONE.
So I have to ask you.
Why do you PERSIST in sticking to this CONCLUSION in the absense of ANY EVIDENCE to support it?
Arthur
And this is precisely what I was referring to when I was talking about physical evidence earlier.
In order to do so they examined MANY more times that many pieces of structural steel.
But, you don't find it ODD that if explosives were set off throughout the building that they didn't enounter ONE piece of steel that made them go: "Now THAT'S odd".
But they DIDN'T as NOT ONE PIECE of steel that shows evidence of HIGH SPEED fragmentation has turned up.
NOT ONE.
So I have to ask you.
Why do you PERSIST in sticking to this CONCLUSION in the absense of ANY EVIDENCE to support it?
Arthur
And this is precisely what I was referring to when I was talking about physical evidence earlier.
QUOTE (Daru+Sep 22 2007, 11:32 PM)
Did you Know that it is impossible for a Boeing 767 to fly anywhere near 500 mph at 700ft altitude
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY
ROTFLMAO
The VNE speed is a speed you are not supposed to exceed because turbulence could cause structural damage, but VNE is not a limit to how fast the plane can go.
On that calm air day there was no problem with turbulence.
The guy who says the plane would start to break apart at a little over 200 mph has NO IDEA about the structural strength of that plane.
The plane could and DID go that fast.
Arthur
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2upl977dsY
ROTFLMAO
The VNE speed is a speed you are not supposed to exceed because turbulence could cause structural damage, but VNE is not a limit to how fast the plane can go.
On that calm air day there was no problem with turbulence.
The guy who says the plane would start to break apart at a little over 200 mph has NO IDEA about the structural strength of that plane.
The plane could and DID go that fast.
Arthur
QUOTE (zoktoberfest+Sep 22 2007, 04:26 PM)
QUOTE
Is Alan a commercial electrician? Could he distinguish between the multitude of power, tel/com and data buses winding through out the WTC's.
Yes, of course. Maintenance people know every nook and cranny in their assigned building. Not just WHAT those are, but where they terminate (come from and go to).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is Alan a commercial electrician? Could he distinguish between the multitude of power, tel/com and data buses winding through out the WTC's. |
Yes, of course. Maintenance people know every nook and cranny in their assigned building. Not just WHAT those are, but where they terminate (come from and go to).
Once you have the wiring in place, you're almost home. Device installation, could have been done during the infamous "power down weekend" when everything was off-line.
You're kidding, right? First off, noone runs wires throughout a building without the maintenance man noticing it even if they could somehow hang around stealthily long enough to actually DO it. Second, just pulling some cables would be the EASIEST part. The device installation involves getting through walls, chipping concrete, etc.. to get to the vital stress points. That could take MONTHS. The 'devices' themselves would be what... laying around on a ton of pallets in the loading dock, waiting to be distributed to the floors (without power?... humping each one up the stairs??), and NOBODY noticed those pallets or the trucks that delivered them? That's just crazy. Dream on my man.
I'll say it again. EVERY piece of equipment in those towers is in a data base and gets a monthly PM (preventative maintenance going over) if not more often... some things get checked 3 times a day, some daily, some weekly... but most get a monthly, quarterly, and annual going over to keep it in tip-top running shape. The point being... those guys KNOW that building better'n some guys know their own garage. They not only know what each pump, air-handler, fan, etc... is, but even the idiosyncrasies of each (for example, this pump has to run longer than those others and needs the bearings greased more often). NOONE sneaks in and adds things in your mechanical room without being seen or noticed, no matter what your conspiracy video clips want to claim.
Still, my favorite rediculous part is the 'anything could be done with the power off'. Yeah right! An electrician's favorite joke saying is "we do our best work in the dark", but that's BEDROOM humor. Now, you ninja fairies start flying those devices up the stairs cause the elevators are out, and strap on these miner's flashlight hard hats too! And HURRY! LOL
QUOTE
Because that is certainly the same level of logic you're using.
Trippy, I'm glad you're here!
On an entirely different note, what I've been doing in my off-time, other than being here doing this, is trying to get people to consider using colloidal silver to treat otherwise untreatable diseases, including Ebola (current outbreak in the Congo), Job's Disease (only 250 known cases, but it's pretty awful), and in dogs, Parvo. I'm figuring that Parvo is the likeliest thing that the people here will ever encounter. Parvo has no known treatments, but according to one testimonial (yes, I wish I had a bigger database) regarding two successes, it seems to work quickly, like noticable improvements within three hours. From what I've already read about colloidal silver/nanosilver hydrosol (plus my own experiences), I feel that the advice is sound.
So I've been active promoting what I believe may be an effective treatment for a few otherwise incurable diseases today. If any of you have dogs, you may want to consider visiting the health food store and investing $10 or so on some colloidal silver. (It may also work on distemper, I'm still looking into that.)
"You know, it's that Stealth explosive that releases its energy over a matter of minutes."
Yes, that would be AP.......
Yes, that would be AP.......
[removed]
Ok, a squib is a device, I didn't know that, I thought the English word for those ejections was squibs.
And what I mean with the ejection of massive chunks of material, of course if you take into account mass loss in your model you will find a corrected value in your velocity or collapse time, but describing what you see is something different than explaining why that mass is ejected. As far as I know is that still an unknown
mechanism.
And what I mean with the ejection of massive chunks of material, of course if you take into account mass loss in your model you will find a corrected value in your velocity or collapse time, but describing what you see is something different than explaining why that mass is ejected. As far as I know is that still an unknown
mechanism.
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 23 2007, 08:24 AM)
Ok, a squib is a device, I didn't know that, I thought the English word for those ejections was squibs.
And what I mean with the ejection of massive chunks of material, of course if you take into account mass loss in your model you will find a corrected value in your velocity or collapse time, but describing what you see is something different than explaining why that mass is ejected. As far as I know is that still an unknown
mechanism.
No, the CT movement has TRIED to use this term to mean a "small explosion", but the ONLY purpose of a squib is to set off a larger and more stable HIGH EXPLOSIVE.
But NONE of the visual/audio evidence suggests any High Explosives were going off.
I suggest you simply listen to one of the many videos of various actual CDs so you understand what the DISTINCTIVE CRACK sounds like from a hypersonic explosive. Then listen to the many videos available of the WTC towers demise and notice that these distinctive sounds are absent.
Its one of the main reasons (I believe) that people like Jones dropped high explosives and went to a Thermate based CD explanation.
As far as what you observe, do you not realize that there will ALWAYS be some unexplainable aspects of something as MASSIVE and CHAOTIC as the collapse of the towers?
Again, because you can't explain something does NOT make it sinister.
Again, considering the TOTAL lack of ANY corroborating evidence to support a CD why do you PERSIST in STARTING from that presumption.
Arthur
And what I mean with the ejection of massive chunks of material, of course if you take into account mass loss in your model you will find a corrected value in your velocity or collapse time, but describing what you see is something different than explaining why that mass is ejected. As far as I know is that still an unknown
mechanism.
No, the CT movement has TRIED to use this term to mean a "small explosion", but the ONLY purpose of a squib is to set off a larger and more stable HIGH EXPLOSIVE.
But NONE of the visual/audio evidence suggests any High Explosives were going off.
I suggest you simply listen to one of the many videos of various actual CDs so you understand what the DISTINCTIVE CRACK sounds like from a hypersonic explosive. Then listen to the many videos available of the WTC towers demise and notice that these distinctive sounds are absent.
Its one of the main reasons (I believe) that people like Jones dropped high explosives and went to a Thermate based CD explanation.
As far as what you observe, do you not realize that there will ALWAYS be some unexplainable aspects of something as MASSIVE and CHAOTIC as the collapse of the towers?
Again, because you can't explain something does NOT make it sinister.
Again, considering the TOTAL lack of ANY corroborating evidence to support a CD why do you PERSIST in STARTING from that presumption.
Arthur
Arthur, I understand my position, especially here. I just don't see a collapsing tower, I see an exploding tower, I just cannot believe that towers fall in that way
Does this help?
Now consider the scientists who have studied this in DETAIL at FEMA and NIST, MIT, Purdue etc.
Certainly you can't believe they are all "IN ON IT"
But NONE of them think that CD was involved.
And they are TRAINED in the science and UNDERSTAND building construction.
You are not.
Arthur
Now consider the scientists who have studied this in DETAIL at FEMA and NIST, MIT, Purdue etc.
Certainly you can't believe they are all "IN ON IT"
But NONE of them think that CD was involved.
And they are TRAINED in the science and UNDERSTAND building construction.
You are not.
Arthur
Einsteen:
When you say that the ejection of debris during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 has not been explained, perhaps reading this will help:
The energetic ejection of fragments from brittle materials such as ice, glass, rock, and concrete has been extensively reported for laboratory scale experiments on the disruption or complete breakup of targets, generally in the mass range from a few grams to a few kilograms, undergoing hard impacts. Much of the research on this subject has been carried out by astronomers and physicists as an aid to understanding the formation and evolution of asteroids and comets. Nevertheless, the results of these studies are equally applicable to the pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Key papers on the ejection of debris from hard impacts on brittle materials are:
· A. Fujiwara et al. “Experimental Study on the Velocity of Fragments in Collisional Breakup.” Icarus 44, 142 (1980).
· T. Waza et al. in “Laboratory Simulation of Planetesimal Collision 2. Ejecta Velocity Distribution” Journal of Geophysical Research 90(B2), 1995 (1985).
· D. R. Davis et al. “On Collisional Disruption: Experimental Results and Scaling Laws.” Icarus 83, 156 (1990).
· A. Nakamura el al. “Velocity Distribution of Fragments Formed in a Simulated Collisional Disruption.” Icarus 92, 132 (1991).
· A. Nakamura, et al. “Velocity and Spin of Fragments from Impact Disruptions.” Icarus 100, 127 (1992).
· T. Kadono et al. “Fragment Velocity Distribution in the Impact Disruption of Thin Glass Plates.” Physical Review E 72 045106®, (2005).
When you say that the ejection of debris during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 has not been explained, perhaps reading this will help:
The energetic ejection of fragments from brittle materials such as ice, glass, rock, and concrete has been extensively reported for laboratory scale experiments on the disruption or complete breakup of targets, generally in the mass range from a few grams to a few kilograms, undergoing hard impacts. Much of the research on this subject has been carried out by astronomers and physicists as an aid to understanding the formation and evolution of asteroids and comets. Nevertheless, the results of these studies are equally applicable to the pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
Key papers on the ejection of debris from hard impacts on brittle materials are:
· A. Fujiwara et al. “Experimental Study on the Velocity of Fragments in Collisional Breakup.” Icarus 44, 142 (1980).
· T. Waza et al. in “Laboratory Simulation of Planetesimal Collision 2. Ejecta Velocity Distribution” Journal of Geophysical Research 90(B2), 1995 (1985).
· D. R. Davis et al. “On Collisional Disruption: Experimental Results and Scaling Laws.” Icarus 83, 156 (1990).
· A. Nakamura el al. “Velocity Distribution of Fragments Formed in a Simulated Collisional Disruption.” Icarus 92, 132 (1991).
· A. Nakamura, et al. “Velocity and Spin of Fragments from Impact Disruptions.” Icarus 100, 127 (1992).
· T. Kadono et al. “Fragment Velocity Distribution in the Impact Disruption of Thin Glass Plates.” Physical Review E 72 045106®, (2005).
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 23 2007, 03:50 AM)
The plane could and DID go that fast.
Arthur
Then it was not B767. That is more than obvious. Boeing spokeswoman: "Ha ha ha! Not a chance.!!"
But btw... have you see this top down CD: top down demolition... wtc... anyone ??
Arthur
Then it was not B767. That is more than obvious. Boeing spokeswoman: "Ha ha ha! Not a chance.!!"
But btw... have you see this top down CD: top down demolition... wtc... anyone ??
QUOTE (Daru+Sep 23 2007, 10:06 AM)
Then it was not B767. That is more than obvious. Boeing spokeswoman: "Ha ha ha! Not a chance.!!"
Friggin amazing Daru.
You think virtually EVERYBODY in the FRIGGIN world is WRONG.
But YOU.
As far as the answer to the question, it was not posed to a PROPER expert in the PROPER context.
You don't think that if TRUE aeronautical engineers thought that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the plane that hit the WTC to be a 767 that at least ONE of them would have mentioned it in the last 6 years.
You should lay off the ganja, apparently its rotting your brain.
Arthur
Friggin amazing Daru.
You think virtually EVERYBODY in the FRIGGIN world is WRONG.
But YOU.
As far as the answer to the question, it was not posed to a PROPER expert in the PROPER context.
You don't think that if TRUE aeronautical engineers thought that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the plane that hit the WTC to be a 767 that at least ONE of them would have mentioned it in the last 6 years.
You should lay off the ganja, apparently its rotting your brain.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 23 2007, 04:26 PM)
You don't think that if TRUE aeronautical engineers thought that it was IMPOSSIBLE for the plane that hit the WTC to be a 767 that at least ONE of them would have mentioned it in the last 6 years.
"THE FINAL WORD is from 737
The original choice of (Boeing 737-100) powerplant was the Pratt & Whitney
JT8D-1, but before the first order had been finalized the JT8D-7 was used
for commonality with the 727.
The sole powerplant for all 737's after the -200 is the CFM-56."
--------------------------------------
There is no statute of limitations for murder, mass murder, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and treason.
Come on physics, think of your legacy. Speak up.
You think that's proof the engine is from a 737?
Apparently there is no statute of limitations for stupidity either.
Arthur
Apparently there is no statute of limitations for stupidity either.
Arthur
Arthur, of course the NIST has great experts and are not "in on it", but I always thought that they only studied the bahaviour after the plane impact until the first movement of OneWhiteEye's curve.
N-F, thanks for the list, collisions of comets etc, too bad they are not online. Would it also apply to fully populated buildings ?
N-F, thanks for the list, collisions of comets etc, too bad they are not online. Would it also apply to fully populated buildings ?
QUOTE
describing what you see is something different than explaining why that mass is ejected. As far as I know is that still an unknown
mechanism.
mechanism.
Not unknown, identified and fully explained, right here in this thread.
There was 22,000 pounds (IIRC) of air in each story of the WTC towers. Where did it go when the floors started collapsing?
You think maybe it became a solid layer of compressed air in the basement?
What happened to it?
We've already answered this question more than once, and the answer is pretty self-evident. I'll let you puzzle it out for yourself.
If you can't figure this problem out, then quit criticizing scientists who've spent their careers figuring out the answers to *tough* questions.
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 23 2007, 01:50 PM)
Arthur, of course the NIST has great experts and are not "in on it", but I always thought that they only studied the bahaviour after the plane impact until the first movement of OneWhiteEye's curve.
See NIST NCSTAR 1 pg xxxviii
NIST studied the ENTIRE EVENT, they only MODELED up until collapse initiation.
They reviewed ALL the video and picture evidence.
They interviewed over 1,000 people.
They understood how the structure was built.
They understood the damage the plane and fires created.
They reviewed other's work, like the scientists at MIT and even Bazant's paper.
In the end, after all that work and review they stated:
NIST found NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE for alternate hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition....
What MORE will it take for you to accept this?
Arthur
See NIST NCSTAR 1 pg xxxviii
NIST studied the ENTIRE EVENT, they only MODELED up until collapse initiation.
They reviewed ALL the video and picture evidence.
They interviewed over 1,000 people.
They understood how the structure was built.
They understood the damage the plane and fires created.
They reviewed other's work, like the scientists at MIT and even Bazant's paper.
In the end, after all that work and review they stated:
NIST found NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE for alternate hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition....
What MORE will it take for you to accept this?
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 23 2007, 06:24 PM)
If you can't figure this problem out, then quit criticizing scientists who've spent their careers figuring out the answers to *tough* questions.
I don't see evidence of einsteen doing this.
I don't see evidence of einsteen doing this.
For the chemists posting here:
You have a supply of sodium, chloride and oxygen, nothing else except as much energy as you need. What exotic chemical compounds or ions can you make?
Well, I can see
Na+
Cl-
NaCl
O ions, O2, O3
NaO-
but then I give out, not being a chemist, and none of the above seem very exotic...
You have a supply of sodium, chloride and oxygen, nothing else except as much energy as you need. What exotic chemical compounds or ions can you make?
Well, I can see
Na+
Cl-
NaCl
O ions, O2, O3
NaO-
but then I give out, not being a chemist, and none of the above seem very exotic...
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 23 2007, 11:55 AM)
I don't see evidence of einsteen doing this.
I don't either.
Back to the data collection effort, when you are satisfied with the video source (DVD?) and have though through an automated method (so you don't lose you mind), I would prefer to have all the data from just past the end of the of the camera bobble until invisibility sets in. The data need not a adjusted, by eye or any other method. I'll be happy to deal with the thermal sub-pixel effects myself.
I want a long stream of all the data so that I can look, via a computer program, for the very slow subsidence that Frank Greening and Carter Elliot (and now I) suspect was occurring well before anything sensible to the eye occurred. Thanks.
I don't either.
Back to the data collection effort, when you are satisfied with the video source (DVD?) and have though through an automated method (so you don't lose you mind), I would prefer to have all the data from just past the end of the of the camera bobble until invisibility sets in. The data need not a adjusted, by eye or any other method. I'll be happy to deal with the thermal sub-pixel effects myself.
I want a long stream of all the data so that I can look, via a computer program, for the very slow subsidence that Frank Greening and Carter Elliot (and now I) suspect was occurring well before anything sensible to the eye occurred. Thanks.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 24 2007, 07:05 AM)
For the chemists posting here:
You have a supply of sodium, chloride and oxygen, nothing else except as much energy as you need. What exotic chemical compounds or ions can you make?
Well, I can see
Na+
Cl-
NaCl
O ions, O2, O3
NaO-
but then I give out, not being a chemist, and none of the above seem very exotic...
Hmmmm..
Good question.
Couple of things occured to me in the shower this morning.
Wasn't there mention of Dioxins in the WTC dust?
And something that I haven't seen discussed.
Why Gypsum gets used as a fire retardant.
It isn't because of any degree of chemical inertness (i've already questioned that under the conditions present during the fire) but, it get's used because the process of dehydration is endothermic.
Gypsum has some water molecules (2 for every one of Calcium Sulfate), this water can be removed, but it absorbs heat energy as it does so.
Also I should point out that Gypsum is soluble in warm, dilute HCl.
You have a supply of sodium, chloride and oxygen, nothing else except as much energy as you need. What exotic chemical compounds or ions can you make?
Well, I can see
Na+
Cl-
NaCl
O ions, O2, O3
NaO-
but then I give out, not being a chemist, and none of the above seem very exotic...
Hmmmm..
Good question.
Couple of things occured to me in the shower this morning.
Wasn't there mention of Dioxins in the WTC dust?
And something that I haven't seen discussed.
Why Gypsum gets used as a fire retardant.
It isn't because of any degree of chemical inertness (i've already questioned that under the conditions present during the fire) but, it get's used because the process of dehydration is endothermic.
Gypsum has some water molecules (2 for every one of Calcium Sulfate), this water can be removed, but it absorbs heat energy as it does so.
Also I should point out that Gypsum is soluble in warm, dilute HCl.
QUOTE
Also I should point out that Gypsum is soluble in warm, dilute HCl.
I would add that iron was there in the mix, too, especially the floor pans, and when you create HCl in close quarters with the steel floor pans, the floor pans get dissolved.
Maybe that's why nobody found much of them in the rubble.
(Either that, or the ninja fairies stole it while they were planting the stealth explosives.)
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 23 2007, 07:17 PM)
I don't either.
Back to the data collection effort, when you are satisfied with the video source (DVD?) and have though through an automated method (so you don't lose you mind), I would prefer to have all the data from just past the end of the of the camera bobble until invisibility sets in. The data need not a adjusted, by eye or any other method. I'll be happy to deal with the thermal sub-pixel effects myself.
I want a long stream of all the data so that I can look, via a computer program, for the very slow subsidence that Frank Greening and Carter Elliot (and now I) suspect was occurring well before anything sensible to the eye occurred. Thanks.
Sure.
Just to clarify, I'm a firm believer in raw data. I'm not sure I believe in much else. With that in mind, I've been pulling out code from the scripts which perform reduction on the fly and consolidating the routines into a single module for analysis operations. This leaves behind the code that generates reams of csv data, unprocessed.
An concrete example is the averaging of the six antenna locations before writing output. Now that I'm into frames where some of the dishes are disappearing, I can either throw them all out or accept discontinuities. Or dump coordinates of all six and perform aggregation later using whichever set is appropriate for the time frame. I assume the raw data is preferable for you.
Back to the data collection effort, when you are satisfied with the video source (DVD?) and have though through an automated method (so you don't lose you mind), I would prefer to have all the data from just past the end of the of the camera bobble until invisibility sets in. The data need not a adjusted, by eye or any other method. I'll be happy to deal with the thermal sub-pixel effects myself.
I want a long stream of all the data so that I can look, via a computer program, for the very slow subsidence that Frank Greening and Carter Elliot (and now I) suspect was occurring well before anything sensible to the eye occurred. Thanks.
Sure.
Just to clarify, I'm a firm believer in raw data. I'm not sure I believe in much else. With that in mind, I've been pulling out code from the scripts which perform reduction on the fly and consolidating the routines into a single module for analysis operations. This leaves behind the code that generates reams of csv data, unprocessed.
An concrete example is the averaging of the six antenna locations before writing output. Now that I'm into frames where some of the dishes are disappearing, I can either throw them all out or accept discontinuities. Or dump coordinates of all six and perform aggregation later using whichever set is appropriate for the time frame. I assume the raw data is preferable for you.
Honestly, I never thought I could wander this far into the "officialdom" without, seriously, tripping the defense network. I was expecting it to be administrative. Instead, a ringer and a vigilante were brought forth, from within.
The (ex) elevator man cometh, (again) and then the lower basement button was pushed in order to meet the other, who dwells down by the sewer lines.
Alan was formidable, setting me straight about the responsibilities, capabilities, schedules, routines, and observational awareness required in the work environment of an elevator maintenance man. It was most impressive, and I had no idea how comprehensive. I apologize for my underestimation.
When it was finally said, he failed to mention that he worked at the WTC during the (Pre 9/11) time frame, or ever. I would never question his general credibility, but IF he wasn't there, what observational platform did he have, from which, to automatically discount the documented anomalous activities (on the video), whether they occurred as described or not?
I remember Alan from the BP thread. He contributed, greatly, to our understanding of how tall buildings work. It would be a gross understatement to say, however, that he had zero tolerance for alternate 9/11 accounts. Not surprisingly, he still does.
The (ex) elevator man cometh, (again) and then the lower basement button was pushed in order to meet the other, who dwells down by the sewer lines.
Alan was formidable, setting me straight about the responsibilities, capabilities, schedules, routines, and observational awareness required in the work environment of an elevator maintenance man. It was most impressive, and I had no idea how comprehensive. I apologize for my underestimation.
When it was finally said, he failed to mention that he worked at the WTC during the (Pre 9/11) time frame, or ever. I would never question his general credibility, but IF he wasn't there, what observational platform did he have, from which, to automatically discount the documented anomalous activities (on the video), whether they occurred as described or not?
I remember Alan from the BP thread. He contributed, greatly, to our understanding of how tall buildings work. It would be a gross understatement to say, however, that he had zero tolerance for alternate 9/11 accounts. Not surprisingly, he still does.
DBB:
Sodium, chlorine and oxygen is a pretty limited chemical mix... not sure why these chemicals are the only ones of interest to you David, but let's not forget ClO2, chlorine dioxide. This is pretty nasty stuff. It is explosive at concentrations in excess of 10%. It is a very powerful oxidizing agent and reacts violently with organic chemicals. Then there is also chlorine monoxide, ClO.... and chlorine heptoxide, Cl2O7. These are also quite unstable and prone to explosive reactions!
Sodium, chlorine and oxygen is a pretty limited chemical mix... not sure why these chemicals are the only ones of interest to you David, but let's not forget ClO2, chlorine dioxide. This is pretty nasty stuff. It is explosive at concentrations in excess of 10%. It is a very powerful oxidizing agent and reacts violently with organic chemicals. Then there is also chlorine monoxide, ClO.... and chlorine heptoxide, Cl2O7. These are also quite unstable and prone to explosive reactions!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 23 2007, 01:02 PM)
... but let's not forget ClO2, chlorine dioxide. This is pretty nasty stuff. It is explosive at concentrations in excess of 10%. It is a very powerful oxidizing agent and reacts violently with organic chemicals. Then there is also chlorine monoxide, ClO.... and chlorine heptoxide, Cl2O7. These are also quite unstable and prone to explosive reactions!
Wow!
Are these soluble?
What about these with iron?
Wow!
Are these soluble?
What about these with iron?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 23 2007, 07:17 PM)
Back to the data collection effort, when you are satisfied with the video source (DVD?) and have though through an automated method (so you don't lose you mind), I would prefer to have all the data from just past the end of the of the camera bobble until invisibility sets in. The data need not a adjusted, by eye or any other method. I'll be happy to deal with the thermal sub-pixel effects myself.
1) Video source. The clip is from WTC: the First 24 Hours, generally receiving poor review from the masses because it's composed solely of raw footage (yay!) without action soundtrack and droning imbecilic narrative. Available for $19.99; I guess it's not the same thing as selling T-shirts.
2) On automated methods, I simply need to satisfy myself that numbers so easily generated have meaning. I'd made some statement that 'garbage may result' and then I posted a graph of garbage, disclaimed but nontheless not worthy of post. Two major considerations apply: the perceived signal must be distinguishable in principle from the error, and the values produced should be grossly verifiable by other means. With regards to the latter, I can judge movement of as little as one pixel by eye (depending on the context) but I can't quantify it beyond that accuracy. An image->number algorithm that shows a deflection of one pixel over the same frames is at least trustworthy in that regard.
3) All error will be left in the data. I just think it needs a reasonable accounting. Depending on justification, I can see the error exceeding the magnitude of the signal. In order to have this confidence, the sources of error, the characteristics in this context, the estimated magnitude, all should be known as well as possible so as to be able to recognize the signal that is most surely there. If I can see it with my eye, I can quantify it - provided I choose the right method. Then I can say that the numbers are data; noisy, yes, but data all the same.
1) Video source. The clip is from WTC: the First 24 Hours, generally receiving poor review from the masses because it's composed solely of raw footage (yay!) without action soundtrack and droning imbecilic narrative. Available for $19.99; I guess it's not the same thing as selling T-shirts.
2) On automated methods, I simply need to satisfy myself that numbers so easily generated have meaning. I'd made some statement that 'garbage may result' and then I posted a graph of garbage, disclaimed but nontheless not worthy of post. Two major considerations apply: the perceived signal must be distinguishable in principle from the error, and the values produced should be grossly verifiable by other means. With regards to the latter, I can judge movement of as little as one pixel by eye (depending on the context) but I can't quantify it beyond that accuracy. An image->number algorithm that shows a deflection of one pixel over the same frames is at least trustworthy in that regard.
3) All error will be left in the data. I just think it needs a reasonable accounting. Depending on justification, I can see the error exceeding the magnitude of the signal. In order to have this confidence, the sources of error, the characteristics in this context, the estimated magnitude, all should be known as well as possible so as to be able to recognize the signal that is most surely there. If I can see it with my eye, I can quantify it - provided I choose the right method. Then I can say that the numbers are data; noisy, yes, but data all the same.
WC, I'm not talking about air being pressed out, but the big chunks of material, the air will escape that's simple but it cannot lead to ejected chunks of concrete following a parabolic track in air.
QUOTE
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE @ Sep 23 2007, 01:02 PM)
... but let's not forget ClO2, chlorine dioxide. This is pretty nasty stuff. It is explosive at concentrations in excess of 10%. It is a very powerful oxidizing agent and reacts violently with organic chemicals. Then there is also chlorine monoxide, ClO.... and chlorine heptoxide, Cl2O7. These are also quite unstable and prone to explosive reactions!
Wow!
Are these soluble?
What about these with iron?
... but let's not forget ClO2, chlorine dioxide. This is pretty nasty stuff. It is explosive at concentrations in excess of 10%. It is a very powerful oxidizing agent and reacts violently with organic chemicals. Then there is also chlorine monoxide, ClO.... and chlorine heptoxide, Cl2O7. These are also quite unstable and prone to explosive reactions!
Wow!
Are these soluble?
What about these with iron?
Let's not forget the salt and the water in the mix. The water would come from the ongoing combustion in the rubble pile, along with CO2.
Saltwater + steel = rust*
Maybe the floorpans just rusted away.
* I hope this satisfies those who criticize me for never posting equations.
Chunks of concrete following a parabolic track??????
Arthur
Arthur
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.