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

wcelliott
The strength of steel is a function of TEMPERATURE, not HEAT.

Higher temperature fires will make steel weaker than lower temperature fires that burn longer.

Buy a clue.
newton
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 26 2007, 05:59 AM)
The strength of steel is a function of TEMPERATURE, not HEAT.

Higher temperature fires will make steel weaker than lower temperature fires that burn longer.

Buy a clue.

and air doesn't conduct heat to steel very well.

it takes time for air to heat steel.

and check the heat of temperature of the core on NIST's computer generated spectral distribution graphs.

most of it is around 250C.

hang down your head, tom dooley.
wcelliott
One of the very first posts I made on this topic was my stating that I believed the NIST fire model underestimated the temperatures of the fire, as fire is chaotic, and most computer models assume everything is linear.

I also pointed out some 200 pages back that with structural steel, it isn't the average value of temperature that matters as much as the peak temperature, as steel's strength rapidly decreases as temperatures increase, and truss structures are like chains, only as strong as the weakest part.

This research only supports everything I've already said on the topic.

BTW, newton, I can't recall, when was the last time that *you* were right about anything?
frater plecticus
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 26 2007, 08:16 AM)
One of the very first posts I made on this topic was my stating that I believed the NIST fire model underestimated the temperatures of the fire, as fire is chaotic, and most computer models assume everything is linear.

I also pointed out some 200 pages back that with structural steel, it isn't the average value of temperature that matters as much as the peak temperature, as steel's strength rapidly decreases as temperatures increase, and truss structures are like chains, only as strong as the weakest part.

This research only supports everything I've already said on the topic.

BTW, newton, I can't recall, when was the last time that *you* were right about anything?

Of course the "weakest link" analogy would only be true for an unconnected single length of steel, not a framework of interconnected pieces.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Sep 26 2007, 09:33 AM)
Of course the "weakest link" analogy would only be true for an unconnected single length of steel, not a framework of interconnected pieces.

Wow! ohmy.gif Something actually sorta sensible from frater plecticus!

Yes, but consider carefully the structure of trusses, which was the point.

By the way, given NIST's long history of building fire safety, I disagree with wcelliot's assumption that NIST's fire modeling was inadequate.
Alan (ex elevator man)
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Sep 26 2007, 10:33 AM)
Of course the "weakest link" analogy would only be true for an unconnected single length of steel, not a framework of interconnected pieces.

Say wha?? An "unconnected single length of steel" would be analogous to a single link of a chain, PERIOD. That's not a chain at all, it's what the words connote, a single link all by itself. Man, you guys twist yourself around all crazy trying to make something fit into a conspiracy.

*edited to change the bolded "link" from "piece".
Daru
The steel in the wtc (in trusses column, beams, etc) could easily...I repeat, easily handle the fire on 9/11. Very easily.

People who are still talking about fire 2007... are just not in touch with the reality.

The fire conspiracy theory is just a one huge joke.

Most likely what Kevin Ryan said is absolutly right, that Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours.

Trippy
QUOTE (Daru+Sep 27 2007, 06:47 AM)
The steel in the wtc (in trusses column, beams, etc) could easily...I repeat, easily handle the fire on 9/11. Very easily.

People who are still talking about fire 2007... are just not in touch with the reality.

The fire conspiracy theory is just a one huge joke.

Most likely what Kevin Ryan said is absolutly right, that Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours.

And yet, once again we come back to the fact that the steel truss/floor pan system used in the WTC has a notorious reputation amongst fire fighters.

Notorious as being unstable and prone to collapse in ORDINARY OFFICE FIRES.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Daru+Sep 26 2007, 11:47 AM)
The steel in the wtc (in trusses column, beams, etc) could easily...I repeat, easily handle the fire on 9/11. Very easily.

The fire conspiracy theory is just a one huge joke.

Read NCSTAR1--5 and all the supporting sub-reports. Explain what NIST did wrong.

I don't know what a 'fire conspiracy theory' is, but I agree it is a joke. Invisible ninja fairies going around with cigarette lighters, maybe?
Trippy
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 27 2007, 06:57 AM)
Read NCSTAR1--5 and all the supporting sub-reports. Explain what NIST did wrong.

I don't know what a 'fire conspiracy theory' is, but I agree it is a joke. Invisible ninja fairies going around with cigarette lighters, maybe?

I think he's referring to what he, and other conspiracy theorists refer to as "The official conspiracy theory" - in other words, the explanation being promulgated by NIST/FEMA/the US government.
Alan (ex elevator man)
QUOTE (Daru+Sep 26 2007, 12:47 PM)
Most likely what Kevin Ryan said is absolutly right, that Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours.

That would be Kevin Ryan the water tester, pouring forth (haha, a water tester pouring) about something he knows nothing about. For the hundreth time or so, UL didn't certify the steel in WTC.
Daru
People have to keep in mind that when they designed wtc, they ofcource thought about a fire. And what did the do ? They ofcource used the best steel availible. High srength and/or Low-Alloy. Key word steel related: High srength and/or Low-Alloy.

Ofcource they dont admit what Ryan said. Of cource not...but based on my research he was most likely absolutly right !

People are talking back and forth about a fire for many years ! No one which do his own research belives the fire theory. It is the such a lame theory. Eh...it should be very easy to prove the fire theory. put a fire insteel structure add some kerosene and see what happen ! (well everybody knows what will not happen)

The fire theory is dead! Get it ? (doubt it)

David B. Benson
QUOTE (Daru+Sep 26 2007, 03:34 PM)
... Eh...it should be very easy to prove the fire theory.  put a fire insteel[sic] structure ...

The following link was very easy to find:

Fire Inside

Edited to add: Ad this wasn't that hard, either:

Fire engineering of steel and composite buildings

(I can read the whole article, but I fear that many of you will only be access the abstract. Let me know.)
The most interesting point is that the steel reached a temperature of just over 1100 degrees Celsius, at which point the beams should have failed, but the composite post-n-beam designed had enough redundancy not to. The second most interesting point is that in a test in which 25% of the wood fuel was replaced by polystyrene, this temperature was reached in only 5 minutes.
Daru
This is exactly what I was saying; People talk back and fourth, fire blah blah blah steel blah blah blah etc

But I am talking about the REALITY! Real world ! It should be very easy to proove the fire "did it" theory. It is planty of steel structures all over the world... for example Deutche Bank building ! Put it on fire... "and whatch the building collapse! NOT.

End of story.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Daru+Sep 26 2007, 04:53 PM)
... for example Deutche Bank building ...

Was not a trussed design, but rather a traditional post-n-beam. It makes a big difference as the two links in my previous post demonstrate.

You really ought to do some research before you post. Do you know why?
Daru
What some people, who is defending the fire fairytail, seems not understand is, that in the future people will laugh at them...similar that people laugh now at the "Earth is flat" theory!

It is all documented here what the so called "experts" are saying. It will be kept here on record. A fire can destroy a steelstructure CD style!

Think about it.
adoucette
These are not "so called" experts.

They are REAL experts.

In FIRE and BUILDINGS.

Read the Link provided http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070825/bob9.asp


Andy Buchanan
Dept. of Civil Engineering
University of Canterbury

Doug Foutch
National Science Foundation

Jean-Marc Franssen
National Fund for Scientific Research Belgium
Univ. de Liège,

William Grosshandler
Building and Fire Research Laboratory

Allen S. Hay
Fire Department New York

Nestor Iwankiw
Hughes Associates, Inc.

Venkatesh Kodur
Civil and Environmental Engineering

Susan Lamont
Arup Fire

James Milke
Rm. 3104F
J.M. Patterson Building
Department of Fire Protection Engineering

Amit H. Varma
School of Civil Engineering
Purdue University

Shyam Sunder
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology


In comparison, what are YOUR credentials Daru?

So far all you have done is a lot of HAND WAVING

Sorry, but that isn't the least bit compelling.

Arthu
newton
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Sep 26 2007, 06:09 PM)
Say wha?? An "unconnected single length of steel" would be analogous to a single link of a chain, PERIOD. That's not a chain at all, it's what the words connote, a single link all by itself. Man, you guys twist yourself around all crazy trying to make something fit into a conspiracy.

*edited to change the bolded "link" from "piece".

the trusses were more like chain mail than chain link. there were trusses running perpendicular to the main trusses.
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
QUOTE
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...


In fact, most video recordings include the sound of explosions during and prior to the collapse of all three buildings.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wtc%2...ions%2C+youtube

Confirmation bias in the Trippy mind will surely turn a pathological deaf ear to such physical evidence.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wtc%2...ions%2C+youtube


Argumentum ad verecundiam is not physics, Arturio.
wcelliott
QUOTE
the sound of explosions during and prior to the collapse of all three buildings


Explosions, because it was really loud, when the buildings fell. Every sensible person would've expected them to collapse in dead silence.

blink.gif
Trippy
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 27 2007, 04:47 PM)

In fact, most video recordings include the sound of explosions during and prior to the collapse of all three buildings.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wtc%2...ions%2C+youtube

Confirmation bias in the Trippy mind will surely turn a pathological deaf ear to such physical evidence.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=wtc%2...ions%2C+youtube


Argumentum ad verecundiam is not physics, Arturio.

first of all, I don't care for your insinuations and implications.

Second of all...

After having listened to the first two videos in both videos, with industrial Deejay high performance headphones, rather then ear buds.

I can honestly say I have no idea what you're talking about, in fact, I found it somewhat annoying that in the second video the people who made it, who are claiming it backs up the cd misconception, faded the sound out at the times when they are claiming explosions occured, so that you can't actually hear anything.

If you were trying to prove explosions, I would have thought the logical thing to try and do would be to try and isolate the sounds in question, but no, they just faded them to silence.

But then again, logic and conspirancy theorists generally aren't well acquainted.

The fact of the matter is, that to joe public, the sound of structural steel undergoing catastrophic brittle failure probably would sound like a gun shot going off, or an explosion, because there is a significant amount of energy stored in those structural components. And as far as pressure waves goes, hmm, let me see, we're compressing how many cubic meters of air in what fraction of a second... Gee, I wonder how pressure waves, or shockwaves could possibly form... Then there's the undeniable fact that we have photographic evidence of the fact that large bodies of steel and concrete were coliding at significant speeds... That couldn't possibly be a source for noises that sound like explosions... Could it? No... It's too obvious (note the sarcasm).

And as far as the onset of the pressure waves goes... Let me see... Maybe it's called progressive collapse for a reason...

Maybe it occurs because it starts with a severly damaged and heated floor collapsing onto the floor below it... Nawww, that couldn't possibly be it could it. That'd be too obvious (again, note the sarcasm).

And yes, I have seen/heard the video that was taken from much closer to ground zero where you can actually hear what (I assume) is the actual process of the pancaking, but once again, nowhere is there anything that sounds like an explosion (and I at least can say that I have heard many explosions).

But I suppose that, no doubt, you will have some form of objection, or wave your arms about how i've been brainwashed by the american government, or blither about real time editing and filtering.
Trippy
Actually, on second thoughts.

After listening to this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAKfBA8lBYg...related&search=
Another couple of times, I can hear what they're talking about, and I must say...
They're slow rumbles, not explosions.

And if you look carefully each one is associated with an expulsion of smoke at the same level which is analgous with the 'squibs' that people talk about during the later part of the collapse.

If the timing they give it is correct, then the first floor fell 17 seconds before the fall became visible externally. If I'm interpreting what I'm seeing and hearing correctly, and this video footage is accurate, then it seems like three floors fell onto the floor below the one that appears to be the most fire damaged on the facade which looks like a black 'ring' that extends around the visible faces of the building.
Trippy
Another question for the conspiracy theorists.

How is it that footage from inside the tower, shot during the collapse records no explosions, even though there's enough of a direct passage through the elevator shafts for burning jet fuel to make from the 78th floor (or which ever) all the way down to the lobby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-RlKF1B9Hk...related&search=
adoucette
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 27 2007, 12:47 AM)

Argumentum ad verecundiam is not physics, Arturio.

Actually that definition of a logical fallacy applies to Authorities OUTSIDE their field.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

None of those Authorities are OUTSIDE their field though.

ALL are TRAINED in the field and all have STUDIED the subject in great detail.

So, NO, Al, it's not an invalid argument to appeal to this list of EXPERTS and their REASONED analysis of the event to refute Daru's use of the term "so called experts".

Arthur
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 26 2007, 11:24 PM)
If the timing they give it is correct, then the first floor fell 17 seconds before the fall became visible externally. If I'm interpreting what I'm seeing and hearing correctly, and this video footage is accurate, then it seems like three floors fell onto the floor below the one that appears to be the most fire damaged on the facade which looks like a black 'ring' that extends around the visible faces of the building.

This is of interest. (Remember, I am video challenged.)

Which tower?
Trippy
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 06:41 AM)
This is of interest. (Remember, I am video challenged.)

Which tower?

And I'm geographically challenged. Heh.

I can never remember which is which, but the video I was referring to is the second one to go down, the one with the mast...

Isn't that the same one that... Err... Einsteen was doing his analysis of?
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 27 2007, 11:48 AM)
And I'm geographically challenged. Heh.

I can never remember which is which, but the video I was referring to is the second one to go down, the one with the mast...

Isn't that the same one that... Err... Einsteen was doing his analysis of?

The second to fall was the North Tower, WTC 1. Yes, einsteen has considered it. So have I and several others.

So now I am very interested in as much timing and visual detail as you can obtain.
First, from what direction is the video taken? (If you are not sure, I'll do what I can to help out, because this is quite important. Recall that WTC 1 tilted almost directly due south. That should be enough to determine the approximate azimuth of the camera.)

Do you have a way to stop frame the video and check the timing yourself? I ask because 17 seconds is considerably longer than NIST's estimate. However, that does not mean it is wrong.

Three floors partially collapsing? Are you sure? NCSTAR 1--6 or NCSTAR1--D implies that that floors 98 and 97 partially collapsed, I suppose onto floor 96, but I'd have to reread it to be sure.

Anyway, as much detail as you can provide will be appreciated! smile.gif
David B. Benson
QUOTE (newton+Sep 26 2007, 07:51 PM)
the trusses were more like chain mail than chain link.  there were trusses running perpendicular to the main trusses.

Only in the two-way areas, that is, the corners.

These were ordinary, one-way trusses to which additional support was added at the construction site. I don't yet fully understand the details. sad.gif
Trippy
User posted image

I think the audio that they're analysing is from a reporter that's closer to ground zero then the images they're showing.

If you watch the video, although it's hard to isolate to emphasize, but the puff of smoke does seem to fade between the first two events.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAKfBA8lBYg

I wish I had access to better quality video, and to the original audio track, it's mildly frustrating.

But, judging by the lighting, my best guess is that the footage is shot from the south, looking north. It's one of those bits of amateur footage that seems to have found it's way around the net.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 27 2007, 02:01 PM)
But, judging by the lighting, my best guess is that the footage is shot from the south, looking north. It's one of those bits of amateur footage that seems to have found it's way around the net.

Thank you again! Quite interesting clips.

NCSTAR1--6, page 156 (238 ordinal) states that there were no useful south views. Are you sure this is not from the north?

Anyway, NCSTAR1--6 mentions expulsions about 2 minutes prior to collapse and at the collapse, but does not seem to bother describing these 17 seconds. There is also no attempt to closely match events to the seismograph trace, which is quite a good idea, IMO.
newton
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 27 2007, 09:01 PM)
User posted image

I think the audio that they're analysing is from a reporter that's closer to ground zero then the images they're showing.

If you watch the video, although it's hard to isolate to emphasize, but the puff of smoke does seem to fade between the first two events.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAKfBA8lBYg

I wish I had access to better quality video, and to the original audio track, it's mildly frustrating.

But, judging by the lighting, my best guess is that the footage is shot from the south, looking north. It's one of those bits of amateur footage that seems to have found it's way around the net.

those pics are from "911 eyewitness", and the sound was recorded two miles away in hoboken.
Trippy
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 09:46 AM)
Thank you again! Quite interesting clips.

NCSTAR1--6, page 156 (238 ordinal) states that there were no useful south views. Are you sure this is not from the north?

Anyway, NCSTAR1--6 mentions expulsions about 2 minutes prior to collapse and at the collapse, but does not seem to bother describing these 17 seconds. There is also no attempt to closely match events to the seismograph trace, which is quite a good idea, IMO.

IN all honesty?
I'm not an american citizen, and I've never been to New York.

I have no idea what direction the camera is pointing.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 27 2007, 03:14 PM)
I have no idea what direction the camera is pointing.

Not only am I video challenged, but I am rather poor at photo-interpretation.

That said, it appears to me that your video clips seem a fairly good match to the clips from the Tim Main/Mike Ballou video in Figure 6--7 of NCSTAR1--6, page 162 (244 ordinal). If so, then this was shot from the ENE, approximately.
atmosphere
Hello , I just ran in to this topic, and wanted to comment on wtc 7 (I'm Dutch so forgive me for my bad English)

I thought this could be interesting (some of you probably already watched(heard) this video)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4] A guy from Canada calls Jowenko in that video

A few days ago a guy here in Holland also called him , and Jowenko's is still convinced that wtc 7 was a controlled demolition and the towers were not CD's

This is his conclusion after studying the damage reports and construction drawings and more . He had the time to check other experts ( American demolition experts) opinions and talk things through. He doesn't see the big conspiracy ,he sees the possibility that the job is done on 9/11 for safety reasons. He is also willing to back up his claims with more technical information .

Is there any American demolition expert that did his story about WTC 7 on TV? I wonder .
NEU-FONZE
Ah yes,

Building 7!

That's the WTC building that all the EXPERTS already KNOW was most certainly NOT a CD!

So who needs NIST,

or Jowenko,

when all these wise-guys with IQs > 160 already know.........
David B. Benson
QUOTE (atmosphere+Sep 27 2007, 04:37 PM)
... I wonder .

I recommend going to

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories

to obtain the correct story about WTC 7, which is that damage plus fire eventually caused the building to collapse.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 27 2007, 04:52 PM)
when all these wise-guys with IQs > 160 already know.........

And those of us, like me, who don't have IQs so high. tongue.gif

I'll take the Chief of the New York City Fire Department (Retired) at his word.

So ought you.
metamars
I just posted this at a JREF thread re thermobarics:

QUOTE (R.Mackey;3002771+)


As before, I don't think it's going to work.  Even much higher pressure explosives will need to be drilled and placed to get you real pulverization.





The longer duration of a thermobaric explosion is non-linearly related to the damage it can inflict, just as the prior quote:
QUOTE

Thermobarics use an explosion to ignite fuel, often metallic fuel such as aluminum. The burning fuel creates a slower and more sustained shock wave than a conventional explosion, which makes it better at breaking down walls and destroying people and equipment, Burky said.

indicated. What the details are - and again, whether they are enough to pulverize 3,000 psi concrete - is still unknown to me. From http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2003/march/Blast.pdf
, FEMA at one time offered a free computer program to model the effects of explosives, but the link mentioned in the article is dead and searching for 'Nonlin' didn't get me anything. (There is also an 'AT Blast' program mentioned , supposedly available at http://www.oca.gsa.gov/, but I haven't looked at it.)

From
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/prevent/rms/427/fema427_ch6.pdf (actually the .txt version)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Thermobarics use an explosion to ignite fuel, often metallic fuel such as aluminum. The burning fuel creates a slower and more sustained shock wave than a conventional explosion, which makes it better at breaking down walls and destroying people and equipment, Burky said.

indicated. What the details are - and again, whether they are enough to pulverize 3,000 psi concrete - is still unknown to me. From http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2003/march/Blast.pdf
, FEMA at one time offered a free computer program to model the effects of explosives, but the link mentioned in the article is dead and searching for 'Nonlin' didn't get me anything. (There is also an 'AT Blast' program mentioned , supposedly available at http://www.oca.gsa.gov/, but I haven't looked at it.)

From
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/plan/prevent/rms/427/fema427_ch6.pdf (actually the .txt version)


6.3.4 Direct Design Methods
The direct design approach (Figure 6-5) to be used for the structural protective
measures is to first design the building for conventional loads, then evaluate the
structureÕs response to explosive loads and augment the design, if needed. Finally,
the designer must make sure that all conventional load requirements are still met.
This approach ensures that the design meets all the requirements for gravity and
natural hazards in addition to air-blast effects. Take note that measures taken to
mitigate explosive loads may reduce the structureÕs performance under other types of
loads, and therefore an iterative approach may be needed. As an example, increased
mass generally increases the design forces for seismic loads, whereas increased mass
generally improves performance under explosive loads. Careful consideration
between the protective design consultant and the structural engineer is needed to
provide an optimized design.
Nonlinear dynamic analysis techniques are similar to those currently used in
advanced seismic analysis. Analytical models range from handbook methods to
equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) models to finite element (FE)
representation. For SDOF and FE methods, numerical computation requires
adequate resolution in space and time to account for the high-intensity, short-
duration loading and nonlinear response (Figure 6-6). Difficulties involve the
selection of the model and appropriate failure modes, and finally, the interpretation
of the results for structural design details. Whenever possible, results are checked
against data from tests and experiments for similar structures and loadings.
Charts are available that provide damage estimates for various types of construction,
as a function of peak pressure and peak impulse, based on analysis or empirical data.
Military design handbooks typically provide this type of design information.
Components such as beams, slabs, or walls can often be modeled by a SDOF system
and the governing equation of motion solved by using numerical methods. There are
also charts available in text books and military handbooks for linearly decaying loads,
which provide the peak response and circumvent the need to solve differential
equations. These charts require only knowledge of the fundamental period of the ele-
ment, its ultimate resistance force, the peak pressure applied to the element, and the
equivalent linear decay time to evaluate the peak displacement response of the
system. The design of the anchorage and supporting structural system can be
evaluated by using the ultimate flexural capacity obtained from the dynamic analysis.
For SDOF systems, material behavior can be modeled using idealized elastic,
perfectly-plastic stress-deformation functions, based on actual structural support
conditions and strain-rate-enhanced material properties. The model properties
selected provide the same peak displace-ment and fundamental period as the actual
structural system in flexure. Furthermore, the mass and the resistance functions are
multiplied by mass and load factors, which estimate the actual portion of the mass or
load participating in the deflection of the member along its span.
For more complex elements, the engineer must resort to finite-element numerical
time integration techniques and/or explosive testing. The time and cost of the
analysis cannot be ignored when choosing design procedures. Because the design
process is a sequence of iterations, the cost of analysis must be justified in terms of
benefits to the project and increased confidence in the reliability of the results. In
some cases, an SDOF approach will be used for the preliminary design, and a more
sophisticated approach using finite elements, and/or explosive testing may be used
for the final verification of the design.
A dynamic nonlinear approach is more likely than a static approach to provide a
section that meets the design constraints of the project. Elastic static calculations are
likely to give overly conservative design solutions if the peak pressure is considered
without the effect of load duration. By using dynamic calculations instead of static, we
are able to account for the very short duration of the loading. Because the peak
pressure levels are so high, it is important to account for the short duration to
properly model the structural response. In addition, the inertial effect included in
dynamic computations greatly improves response. This is because by the time the
mass is mobilized, the loading is greatly diminished, enhancing response.
Furthermore, by accepting that damage occurs it is possible to account for the energy
absorbed by ductile systems through plastic deformation. Finally, because the loading
is so rapid, it is possible to enhance the material strength to account for strain-rate
effects.
In dynamic nonlinear analysis, response is evaluated by comparing the ductility (i.e.,
the peak displacement divided by the elastic limit displacement) and/or support
rotation (the angle between the support and the point of peak deflection) to
empirically established maximum values that have been established by the military
through explosive testing. Note that these values are typically based on limited testing
and are not well defined within the industry at this time. Maximum permissible
values vary, depending on the material and the acceptable damage level.
Levels of damage computed by means of analysis may be described by the terms
minor, moderate, or major, depending on the peak ductility, support rotation and
collateral effects.
A brief description of each damage level is given below.
Minor: Nonstructural failure of building elements such as windows,
doors, cladding, and false ceilings. Injuries may be expected, and
fatalities are possible but unlikely.
Moderate: Structural damage is confined to a localized area and is usually
repairable. Structural failure is limited to secondary structural members such as
beams, slabs, and non-load-bearing walls. However, if the building has been
designed for loss of primary members, localized loss of columns may be
accommodated. Injuries and possible fatalities are expected.
Major: Loss of primary structural components such as columns or transfer girders
precipitates loss of additional adjacent members that are adjacent to or above the
lost member. In this case, extensive fatalities are expected. Building is usually not
repairable.
Generally, moderate damage at the design threat level is a reasonable design goal
for new construction.


6.3.5 Structural Elements
Because direct explosion effects decay rapidly with distance, the local response of
structural components is the dominant concern. General principles governing the
design of critical components are discussed below.


(emphasis mine)
NEU-FONZE
David:

I certainly take any expert at his word...

It's NIST I wonder about!

My prediction is that NIST will never issue a final report on WTC 7.

It's better that way!
David B. Benson
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Sep 27 2007, 05:06 PM)
My prediction is that NIST will never issue a final report on WTC 7.

They are certainly taking their time about it.

My current understanding is that an interim report is due this December. Then there will be a period for Public Comment. Then they will write either the next interim report or the final report.

So your prediction could possible come true: They might go on writing interim reports until doomsday.

In the meanwhile, the interviews with the firemen and fire chiefs at various levels (and now a quotation from the head of the whole department at the time) make it abundantly clear what occurred: damage plus a long fire led to the collapse.

NIST is putting in a lot of effort to fill in the details. I suppose it is worth it.
metamars
Some interesting stuff re thermobarics at alt.engr.explosives, e.g.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.engr.ex...2cd0b4c0278bf1f
quicknthedead
Here is completely new information on explosions at WTC7 before the towers fell, just released eyewitness testimony on the Achilles Heel of 9/11.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11678#comment

9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB AND IT IS LONG PAST TIME FOR A REAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION
adoucette
Back for ANOTHER spanking?

laugh.gif

As the guy says:

QUOTE
this guy said it was "pulsed speech" that led him to assume it was a countdown, then in his latest video he says it WAS a countdown.


And then the guy who claims that Building 7 blew up BEFORE WTC 1 fell.

What the heck is THAT about?

So there were NO 911 calls?

There were NO people KILLED in WTC 7 but now you are saying that they were blown up inside prior to people being evacuated.

Are you guys really THIS desperate?

Arthur


Trippy
One of the things that mystifies me is that conspiracy theorists seize on survivors of WTC 1 & WTC 2 saying things like "It was LIKE a bomb went off" as if that some how validates their claims.

And yet.

I was watching that Doco about Rick what's his name, the guy who saved 2700 people in one of the towers, predicted both the 1993 attacks, and the september 11 attacks (that they were inevitable, rather then the days). I even recognized one of the clips as being included in a Youtube video's that's supposed to prove that it was an inside job.

But you know what?

Not one single conspiracy theorist has ever acknowledged the fact that there were survivors that made comments like "As soon as the plan hit we knew the building was coming down".
quicknthedead
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 27 2007, 06:58 PM)

And then the guy who claims that Building 7 blew up BEFORE WTC 1 fell.

What the heck is THAT about?

So there were NO 911 calls?

There were NO people KILLED in WTC 7 but now you are saying that they were blown up inside prior to people being evacuated.

Are you guys really THIS desperate?

Arthur

You are the one who is desperate.

Are these eyewitnesses lying?

That is what you seem to infer, and to claim they are "confused" doesn't wash with the data either.

They were there, you were not, some of them were first responders, so perhaps you should cut them some slack. In addition, this testimony is 180 degrees from "the official conspiracy theory".

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11678#comment

So, what exactly are you really trying to say?



adoucette
Because that was a 47 story building that had many THOUSANDS of tennents.

If what he said was true, that the damage was done BEFORE either tower collapsed, then you would have THOUSANDS of people IN THE TOWER who could/would backing up his statement, not to mention 9/11 call logs etc etc etc.

But you DON'T have any of that.

Which is why it takes 6 years for this "180" degree news to come out.

Only at THIS time and distance from the event could such a lie last for even a short time.

But it WON'T last.

Why?

Because there is ABSOLUTELY no physical/forensic evidence to back this up.

But STILL you believe it?

I mean think of it Craig,

HOW is all this damage going to happen in an OCCUPIED building and YET there not be ONE fatality.

There is ONLY one reason that there were no Fatalities in Building 7 and that's because it was virtually empty by the time WTC 1 fell and caused all that damage.

Arthur
Grumpy
quicknthedead

QUOTE
Are these eyewitnesses lying?


No, we are saying YOU and the rest of the woo woos are lying, AGAIN. What is it with you ALWAYS having to be so wrong about so many things so much of the time??? Use your brains as something other than a spacer so that the vacuum in your head doesn't pull your ears together!!!

Face it Craig, your credibility is NIL, it is automatically assumed that if you say it, it MUST be a lie, or did you think we would forget the firetruck in the back window of a BMW???(Actually, a third brake light, but why bother with a little thing called FACTS, huh Craig???) Even Jesus can't restore your scientific reputation, so don't bother quoting him. Lying-for-Jesus is still a sin, last I checked.

The eyewitnesses heard loud sounds, but since not one valid shred of evidence for the presence of any explosives anywhere in the WTC complex was ever found, those loud sounds could not have been explosives.

People often say tornadoes sounded "just like a freight train" yet we do not expect to find train tracks wherever one goes, do we??? (so, OK, firetruck...you probably do go looking for tracks!!!)

Hadn't seen much mention of your paper lately, Ross won't talk about it at all. But I haven't seen a retraction yet either, how 'bout it??? Confession is good for the soul, time to come to Jesus, admit your mistakes and move on.

Or not.

Grumpy laugh.gif biggrin.gif laugh.gif
Grumpy
adoucette

I'm sorry, I didn't even bother to read what notsoquick posted, I did not realize just how woo woo his crap had become!!! Bombs going off in 7 prior to either tower collapsing??? This is not error, this is insanity!!! Do his friends and family know he is out running around unsupervised??? Is there such a thing as active stupidity??? Is there some kind of internet contest to see who can post the most ignorant crap??? Have they held a convention of woo woos lately???

I give up on the human race, we are doomed!!!

Grumpy cool.gif
quicknthedead
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 27 2007, 08:09 PM)
Because that was a 47 story building that had many THOUSANDS of tennents.

If what he said was true, that the damage was done BEFORE either tower collapsed, then you would have THOUSANDS of people IN THE TOWER who could/would backing up his statement, not to mention 9/11 call logs etc etc etc.

But you DON'T have any of that.

Which is why it takes 6 years for this "180" degree news to come out.

Only at THIS time and distance from the event could such a lie last for even a short time.

But it WON'T last.

Why?

Because there is ABSOLUTELY no physical/forensic evidence to back this up.

But STILL you believe it?

I mean think of it Craig,

HOW is all this damage going to happen in an OCCUPIED building and YET there not be ONE fatality.

There is ONLY one reason that there were no Fatalities in Building 7 and that's because it was virtually empty by the time WTC 1 fell and caused all that damage.

Arthur

Read and listen closely.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11678#comment

They experienced the explosions when the building was practically deserted, so how can you write of "Thousands of tennents[sic]" who should have backed up their statements...when these people were not even in the building?

Maybe these new testimonies are true, for why would they lie?

Look at who has been running from an investigation from the beginning. The Bush-neocons breathe lies as second nature (to get their own way)...but enough of political. We are talking evidence here.

Why didn't the government listen to these people who experienced these things and make their testimonies public record? They speak of dead people in WTC7's lobby and explosions happening there before the towers fell?

Why were the numerous testimonies that point to something other than the OCT not brought into the public view for discourse and disclosure? What makes the OCT so special (especially when it comes from habitual liars)?

9/11 needs an investigation that leads to JUSTICE. There has not been one like that yet. This thing is rotten through and through, and more and more people are learning this everyday. The Commission did not even mention WTC7 in its report. Can you expect people to believe those who mislead?

Enough with questions. There are those whose testimonies should have become a matter of public record, and there is now more than enough evidence for a criminal investigation into 9/11, one that will lead, God willing, to prosecution and justice.

BTW, you did not give your opinion as a definitive answer as to whether or not these new testimonies are lies from the people who gave them. You only gave intimations.
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 12:17 AM)
In the meanwhile, the interviews with the firemen and fire chiefs at various levels (and now a quotation from the head of the whole department at the time) make it abundantly clear what occurred: damage plus a long fire led to the collapse.

In the firefighter stories at Firehouse.com, a transit is mention by Deputy Chief Peter Hayden. His is the only account of the 22 there which mentions the transit. I easily find hundreds of places where this account is mentioned, but only the one firsthand account of use of a transit.

QUOTE

Hayden: ... but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.


I was wondering if anyone knew answers to any of the following questions:

Who ordered the transit be placed?

When was the order given?

Where was the transit placed?

Who was responsible for checking the transit?

How frequently was it checked?

What were the results?

From where was the transit procured? Is this standard firefighter equipment?


I realize that answers to some of these questions may never be available without access to the individual(s) involved that day.
555Joshua
It seems the mad 9/11 flat earth conspirators have been run off for the most part. Now we just need to run the rest of the trolls out... ph34r.gif
555Joshua
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Sep 28 2007, 12:17 AM)
Read and listen closely.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11678#comment

And I did just that. What I noticed is that the witness with the "edited" interview is inconsistent with the "uncovered" "portion". For one thing, the recording is slower paced than the tape, the guy talking stutters more, he's calmer than in the tape and there's a slight difference in his voice. It's a made up tape recording designed to create "evidence" you cannot uncover. If you can't find evidence for your belief that usually means it doesn't exist and you are WRONG.
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
wcelliott:
QUOTE
Explosions, because it was really loud, when the buildings fell. Every sensible person would've expected them to collapse in dead silence.

Appeal to ridicule is not a rational argument.
Try again.

Trippy:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Explosions, because it was really loud, when the buildings fell. Every sensible person would've expected them to collapse in dead silence.

Appeal to ridicule is not a rational argument.
Try again.

Trippy:...the sound of structural steel undergoing catastrophic brittle failure probably would sound like a gun shot going off, or an explosion.

I am a qualified audio engineer, and I don't use headphones.
I use Active Servo processed speakers with a flat frequency response from 20Hz - 20 kHz.

What you are asserting, irrrationaly, is this:

Any evidence of explosions that can be found---audio recordings and/or concordant witness reports---can be safely categorized by defenders of the official dogma as "catastrophic brittle failure."

Trippy logic begins with the premise that
(1) no explosives were used,
therefore,
(2) explosive sounds are "catastrophic brittle failure" accompanied by widespread misinterpretation and misreporting by those who were actually present.

Here is "Grumpy" asserting exactly the same PNAC "logic":
QUOTE
The eyewitnesses heard loud sounds, but since not one valid shred of evidence for the presence of any explosives anywhere in the WTC complex was ever found, those loud sounds could not have been explosives.


"THERE"S A BOMB IN THE BUILDING, clear the area!"
"Excuse me - did you say 'There's a BOMB in the building?'"
"Yes, THERE'S A BOMB IN THE BUILDING, clear the area!"

Arturio:
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The eyewitnesses heard loud sounds, but since not one valid shred of evidence for the presence of any explosives anywhere in the WTC complex was ever found, those loud sounds could not have been explosives.


"THERE"S A BOMB IN THE BUILDING, clear the area!"
"Excuse me - did you say 'There's a BOMB in the building?'"
"Yes, THERE'S A BOMB IN THE BUILDING, clear the area!"

Arturio:Actually that definition of a logical fallacy applies to Authorities OUTSIDE their field.


The "outside field" version of argumentum ad verecundiam is only 21st century.
In previous times the argument from authority was a fallacy in which awe was substituted for evidence and reason.

Here is an example from your favorite kind of authority:

QUOTE
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
What's that?
You say you don't like argument from authority?

Joshua, you wasted an entire post--the first on this page--spraying an appeal to ridicule at us all.
This anti-scientific character-assassins political strategy is extremely unethical, but, sadly, represents the majority of the content posted here by Official Conspiracy Dogmatists like yourself.

Shame on you.
Grumpy
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step

QUOTE
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.


Does he claim it was because of explosives???

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.


Does he claim it was because of explosives???

Trippy logic begins with the premise that
(1) no explosives were used,
therefore,
(2) explosive sounds are "catastrophic brittle failure" accompanied by widespread misinterpretation and misreporting by those who were actually present.


1) Excellent logic, since absolutely no valid, physical evidence of their use was found, we MUST discard them as a possibility and move on.

2) A good possibility for the source of those explosives sounds. There were probably others as well.

QUOTE
"THERE"S A BOMB IN THE BUILDING, clear the area!"
"Excuse me - did you say 'There's a BOMB in the building?'"
"Yes, THERE'S A BOMB IN THE BUILDING, clear the area!"


Did this person see a bomb, or did he misinterpret something someone else said??? When told that the building was going to collapse, did he ASSUME it was because of a bomb???

He was wrong, there were no bombs in any of the buildings. Someone SAYING it was so, does not make it so, especially in the confusion of that day.

Grumpy cool.gif
frater plecticus
Arthurian Legend
QUOTE
There were NO people KILLED in WTC 7 but now you are saying that they were blown up inside prior to people being evacuated.


I thought we had already discussed this Arthur?



The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center, which, along with Towers 1 and 2, collapsed following the terrorist attacks. One employee, Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts. Miller was temporarily assigned to New York in preparation for the United Nations General Assembly. Following the attacks, Secret Service employees were some of the first to respond with first aid trauma kits. Special agents assisted local fire and police rescue in establishing triage areas and helping evacuate people from the Towers.

http://www.secretservice.gov/press/pub1202.pdf

The resolution honoring the Secret Service notes the “extraordinary performance and commitment to service during and immediately following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001" of the men and women of that agency. It notes that “the United States Secret Service New York field office located in 7 World Trade Center was destroyed on September 11, 2001, as a result of terrorist attacks”; agents “throughout the day of the attacks and subsequent days...continually and knowingly placed themselves in exceptional danger in their efforts to save life”; and “in selfless dedication to others, Master Special Officer Craig Miller was lost in the collapse of the World Trade Center.”

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ok05_...oms_honors.html

The Secret Service maintained a large field office inside the World Trade Centre, and initially many agents were thought to have been killed.



Image: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/craig-miller-photo-01.jpg

Arlington Cemetary Website: Craig Miller
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/craig-miller.htm
adoucette
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 28 2007, 04:16 AM)
Here is an example from your favorite kind of authority:

[quote]James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST's investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11. [quote]

What's that?
You say you don't like argument from authority?

Quintere asks for an independent REVIEW of the NIST report because in his writings Quintere makes it clear that his issue is with the fire temps that NIST models. Quintere believes the fires were HOTTER than NIST's analysis showed (mainly because he assumes a much larger fire load).

Quintere also believes they should build a FULL SCALE replica of a WTC floor and set it on fire instead of using the extrapolated results from the NIST workstation models.

But THAT is not likely to happen.

Of course his views dovetail with the Skyscraper Safety Committee that he advises, that the buildings were unsafe because of the use of trusses with SFRM.

Arthur
adoucette
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Sep 28 2007, 09:38 AM)
I thought we had already discussed this Arthur?



All reports I have seen is that Miller was killed while attempting to rescue the victims trapped in the World Trade Center.

He WASN'T killed in WTC 7.

http://www.odmp.org/officer.php?oid=15843

The best description I could find of his death was:

QUOTE
Officer Miller was on a temporary assignment in New York for the United Nations General Assembly and was nearby at the Marriott Hotel when the first plane hit the World Trade Center. Although the hotel was evacuated, it appears that Officer Miller stayed behind to help.

Because of his military background and extensive emergency medical training, those who knew Officer Miller believe his life was taken while trying to assist the wounded. In fact, some of the medical equipment was later found in the lobby of the Marriott Hotel that that particular officer had in his possession.


Arthur
adoucette
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Sep 28 2007, 01:17 AM)
Read and listen closely.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/11678#comment

They experienced the explosions when the building was practically deserted, so how can you write of "Thousands of tennents[sic]" who should have backed up their statements...when these people were not even in the building?

Maybe these new testimonies are true, for why would they lie?


Because after the first buildings were hit, there were thousands of people (and first responders and news crews) IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.

There would be PLENTY of corroborating reports of EXPLOSIONS in WTC 7 prior to either tower collapsing.

Particularly ones that "DESTROYED THE LOBBY" so as to make it unrecognizable.

But there are not.

Nor do I necessarily think they are lying.

But in situations like this, people DO get confused.

Which is why you look for CORROBORATING evidence.

In this case there should be PLENTY.

Arthur
wcelliott
Guys - Here's a thought.

We should be able to estimate the volume of the smoke/dust cloud being emitted from the WTC towers from the video footage.

My assertion is that the volume of the smoke/dust cloud should be approximately equal to the air that was displaced as the tower(s) fell.

We shouldn't expect there to be much clear air coming from the towers, as the collapse mechanisms would be generating lots of gypsum dust from the drywall and concrete dust from the floors warping as they collapsed, so I think it'd be safe to assume that the air would be visible, and the volume should be something that'd succumb to reasonable analysis.

The nifty thing about this data is that it would end forever any notion that the CDiots have about that smoke/dust cloud being generated by explosives. If they want to assert that it resulted from explosives, they'll have to show how the plumes have greater volume than the air inside the structure prior to collapse.

Anybody feel up to doing the video analysis?

I'd do it, but I'm too lazy.

Oh, and Al Zawarhi, when those expensive speakers you use reproduce the sound of an explosion, how do they do that? Do you have to load them up with C-4 before-hand, or do they just move a diaphragm suddenly in one direction, kinda like what would happen if, say, a floor got struck by something heavy falling from above?

My apologies if I sound sarcastic, sometimes it's hard not to sound sarcastic when I'm explaining a simple concept to someone who should already know better.
atmosphere
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 27 2007, 11:53 PM)
I recommend going to

Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories

to obtain the correct story about WTC 7, which is that damage plus fire eventually caused the building to collapse.

I'm familiar with that information .

Jowenko is probably the only independent experienced demolition expert that commented on WTC 7 . I believe opinions of independent demolition experts are the most relevant when we want to find out if the WTC 7 collapse was a controlled demolition, agree?

"when FEMA reports says something you can not start claiming something else as a Demolition company in the US, because then your out of business pretty soon. "

Jowenko says. He also works with American Demolition company's ,so he can know what he is talking about .

For those who didn't see to complete video of Jowenkos comments :
He explains how the job could be done the same day, and more. He's still convinced today WTC 7 was a CD ,after analyzing all the available facts .

Just type Jowenko in you tube's search engine and you will find the videos. I'm interested in your comments on that video's
adoucette
But Jowenko is ONLY offering an OPINION based on distant videos of the collapse.

Its NOT based on ANY ACTUAL EVIDENCE of CD.

In essence he is asserting that it LOOKS like a CD.

BIG DEAL.

Has he offered ANY EXPLANATION as to how the WIRING and EXPLOSIVES survived for HOURS ON END inside that building?

How they were secretly installed in a public building?

What about the relativley SILENT way it went when it ultimately collapsed?

Nope.

Then his claim:

QUOTE
when FEMA reports says something you can not start claiming something else as a Demolition company in the US, because then your out of business pretty soon. "


Is total horse pucky.

Getting a permit for a demolition is a STATE/LOCAL affair which FEMA, the FEDERAL Emergancy Managment Authority has NOTHING TO DO WITH.

Which makes me wonder, do you actually understand the BS you post?

Arthur
David B. Benson
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Sep 27 2007, 10:17 PM)
... dead people in WTC7's lobby ...

Brought there by first responders as a morgue collection point before the collapse of WTC 1.

You ought to read the interviews on Firehouse.com... dry.gif
David B. Benson
QUOTE (atmosphere+Sep 28 2007, 09:45 AM)
... I'm interested in your comments on that video's[sic]

Once again, I have no way to view videos (nor the inclination of doing so).

If demolition experts are of interest to you, you ought to read the Blanchard Report, available from the Demolition World site...
GeneSplicer
It appears that the Loose Change truthers have given up on some of their claims. My apologies if this has been mentioned before.

No longer will they be talking about or claiming that the cell phone calls were faked and that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. Gee, no more “squib” claims.

So after being thoroughly proven wrong on their claims, they plan on retreating to the topic of Building Seven, until, hopefully, they admit to be proven wrong on that as well.

Here is a link to a video about their back peddle and a few comments about it from the HotAir Blog.

HotAir Link

YouTube Video


QUOTE
By way of Daimnation, here’s now ex-Truther Mike Metzger explaining why he has left the 9-11 Truther brigades.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
By way of Daimnation, here’s now ex-Truther Mike Metzger explaining why he has left the 9-11 Truther brigades.

I was a true believer of all this controlled demolition nonsense for a time. I never cared about the physics or the claims of pseudo-”experts.” What always did it for me was the fact that there was never a decent response to any of these questions by the government. Even the hit pieces you’d see on 9/11 were always personal attacks. The mainstream never contested the actual “facts” movies like Loose Change presented.

Or so it seemed. After watching Screw Loose Change, I delved into the world of 9/11 Truth debunking. Among my favorites are the Screw Loose Change Blog and9/11 Myths Finally, someone was answered all these pertinent questions with something that was a bit foreign to me… facts agreed upon by the experts.

There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to “hey, we’re just asking questions” if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone’s supposed to take their word over an expert’s?

Read the whole, destructive, brilliant thing. He slams the Truther notion that FDNY firefighters could be involved and pretty much makes hash of the whole movement. Facts can reach even the most ardent Truthers, if those Truthers have any honesty about them at all (so no, there’s really no hope for Rosie O or Alex Jones). It’s clear that Mike Metzger in an honest man who has realized he made an error and wants to correct it.

Now, I happen to think that there are signs here and there that others within the core of the Truth movement are having second thoughts. Or, at the very least, that they realize that they’re losing ground on the factual arguments.
I’ve been saving this clip for a while now. It’s from the History Channel’s 9-11 Conspiracy Theories: Fact or Fiction documentary that aired a while back. In this clip, pay attention to what the Loose Change producers are really saying about two of their core Truther theories.

The Loose Change boys have given up on the faked cell phone calls theory and the controlled demolition of the WTC 1 & 2 theory. Those are two rather significant theories to just quietly give up on. They’re tacitly acknowledging that they have lost the debate on those two points and that the experts have won, so they are now switching to theories that haven’t been debunked as thoroughly. How long before division over interpretation or how much to emphasize one theory over another splits these boys up like the Palestinian factions in The Life of Brian?

adoucette
What's REALLY funny are those videos.

I got news for the Albany Truth "movement".

Four people on a street corner with a sign and a bull horn is NOT a MOVEMENT.

ROTFLMAO

Arthur
newton
the loose change guys haven't admitted they were wrong. they merely shifted the focus to things that you don't have to be an expert to realise.


OCTs are so anxious to get out of protecting the lie. it must be hard to live with yourselves(the ones that know the building were demolished, not the ones who are fooled by the man behind the curtain).
i'm sure it's nothing a bottle of whiskey a day can't erase temporarily, though.
sleep well, doc oct.

and your, 'truther' who reneged? just another rovian shill.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 27 2007, 10:46 PM)
... Deputy Chief Peter Hayden. ...

I was wondering if anyone knew answers to any of the following questions:

Who ordered the transit be placed?

When was the order given?

Where was the transit placed?

Who was responsible for checking the transit?

How frequently was it checked?

What were the results?

From where was the transit procured? Is this standard firefighter equipment?

I can only surmise:

Deputy Chief Hayden ordered the use of the transit.

At about 11 am, based on other interviews.

? So that the movement of the west side could be checked.

Running a transit is not that difficult. One of the firemen.

Once would suffice to note the movement of the building top.

The results were that the building top was slowly moving.

From a fire truck. In NYC, with many tall buildings, running a transit before entering a building on fire is a very good idea.
Trippy
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 28 2007, 08:16 PM)
Trippy:
I am a qualified audio engineer, and I don't use headphones.
I use Active Servo processed speakers with a flat frequency response from 20Hz - 20 kHz.

What you are asserting, irrrationaly, is this:

Any evidence of explosions that can be found---audio recordings and/or concordant witness reports---can be safely categorized by defenders of the official dogma as "catastrophic brittle failure."

Trippy logic begins with the premise that
(1) no explosives were used,
therefore,
(2) explosive sounds are "catastrophic brittle failure" accompanied by widespread misinterpretation and misreporting by those who were actually present.

First off. the headphones I use for things such as this have a flat frequency response over a similar range. No, I don't care to go into details.

Your assumptions about my thought proceesses are precisely that, assumptions.

Anyone that has heard steel undergo catastrophic brittle failure will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.

I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so, but events where you have a sudden release of energy tend to sound like an explosion.

As Grumpy rightly pointed out, by your logic (or lack there of) we should expect to find railway tracks where ever we find tornadoes.

Describing the catastrophic brittle failure of steel as a gunshot, or an explosion is not a misinterpitation, nore is it misreporting, it's a valid description of the sound. People use things that are easy to remember as adjectives, and explosions and gunshots, thanks to hollywood and the news, are an easy way that most people are familiar with to describe the sound made by any event which creates a sudden, sharp, pressure wave traveling through the air.

Trippy logic says that:
People describing noises that were LIKE an explosion is insufficent evidence for the presence of explosives, because within the mechanism being proposed by the officials, there are (multiple) mechanisms for generating such noises. The fact that there are two ways of generating sounds LIKE explosions, one within each theory, means that eye witness accounts talking about noises like bombs going off is insufficient evidence for the presence of bombs.

Claiming that an observation which supports two explanations is evidence of one over the other is bad logic.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 28 2007, 01:41 PM)
Claiming that an observation which supports two explanations is evidence of one over the other is bad logic.

That's putting it mildly. rolleyes.gif

AK: experto crede.
Trippy
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 29 2007, 08:33 AM)
I can only surmise:

Deputy Chief Hayden ordered the use of the transit.

At about 11 am, based on other interviews.

? So that the movement of the west side could be checked.

Running a transit is not that difficult. One of the firemen.

Once would suffice to note the movement of the building top.

The results were that the building top was slowly moving.

From a fire truck. In NYC, with many tall buildings, running a transit before entering a building on fire is a very good idea.

What, precisely is a transit in this context?

Is it something to help hold the building up?

If it is, then right there we have a simple explanation for the oct'ers about silverstein and his comments about pulling, and why the fire fighters were telling people to get away from the building because it was coming down moments before it came down.

They recognized it was going to come down because they recognized the damage was terminal.
They recognized it was coming down, because they new they were pulling away the transit.
adoucette
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 28 2007, 05:07 PM)
What, precisely is a transit in this context?


They are referring to a surveyor's tool like this:

User posted image


But for a building it could tell you if its leaning.

Arthur
David B. Benson
AK: improbus concludo
Trippy
http://911debates.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=7

also, thought this may have been of interest.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...wtc/WTC_ch7.htm
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 08:33 PM)
I can only surmise:

Deputy Chief Hayden ordered the use of the transit.

At about 11 am, based on other interviews.

? So that the movement of the west side could be checked.

Running a transit is not that difficult. One of the firemen.

Once would suffice to note the movement of the building top.

The results were that the building top was slowly moving.

From a fire truck. In NYC, with many tall buildings, running a transit before entering a building on fire is a very good idea.

Thank you.

I get the implication from Hayden's remarks that the bulge was visible to the naked eye and that's why the transit was used - to determine if the condition was degenerating. As stated, I've found many references to the Hayden account, often elaborating on the details somewhat but only citing the link I did. One of the elaborations I ran across was that the transit readings demonstrated a degradation over time, resulting in clearing of the area by 3PM.

A transit can't be placed indiscriminately; the debris would have restricted placement to certain areas. It's possible photographs were taken from street level from a similar perspective, though perhaps further back (due to cordoning or plain common sense). The photos I've seen don't show floors 10-13 that I'm aware, but street level photos might contain the same region as was sighted.

If the transit was set up at 11AM with an already visible bulge, especially if there was further degradation for many hours after, it is reasonable to expect the bulge to be glaringly obvious in any suitably-framed high quality still picture from that time forward to collapse. Knowing the location of the transit would assist judging the applicability of a given photograph's perspective. Hey, maybe the transit itself would show up in a photo!
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 08:33 PM)
Running a transit is not that difficult. One of the firemen.

A name might lead to more specific testimony available online than Hayden's.
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 28 2007, 09:44 PM)
David B. Benson
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 03:35 PM)
Thank you.

I get the implication from Hayden's remarks that the bulge was visible to the naked eye and that's why the transit was used - to determine if the condition was degenerating. ...

One of the elaborations I ran across was that the transit readings demonstrated a degradation over time, resulting in clearing of the area by 3PM.

A transit can't be placed indiscriminately; the debris would have restricted placement to certain areas.

It's possible photographs were taken from street level from a similar perspective, though perhaps further back (due to cordoning or plain common sense).

The photos I've seen don't show floors 10-13 that I'm aware, but street level photos might contain the same region as was sighted.

You are welcome, but do recall this is simply my reconstruction of events, based on the interviews I have read.

Yes.

The area was cleared (mostly) by 3:30 pm. It took about 1.5--2 hours to get (most of) the first responders out of the area. However to NYPD responders didn't get the word and had to run for it when collapse commenced. The ran around the corner of another building and survived.

Less so than you might think. Anywhere along the street to the west of WTC 7 would suffice, and possibly some locations further to the north.

I know of no photos taken low down along the west side of the building, only the right side. The reason is clear: the east and north sides had flames pouring out windows at the 7th floor. The amateur photographers thought that more important than the bulge in the southwest corner, the existence of which they may have been unaware.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 03:43 PM)
A name might lead to more specific testimony available online than Hayden's.

I have never seen any of the interviews on Firehouse.com in which this specific task was mentioned. There would be little reason to do so as it is simply too routine a detail.
OneWhiteEye
A picture from another page at the second Trippy link shows why I wouldn't try to do 'lean' from a photo:

User posted image

http://i21.tinypic.com/27zgk7s.jpg

Note the corners of the buildings. Those are supposed to be straight, vertical lines. At least on Bldg 7.

A bulge would be obvious despite the curvilinear distortion of imaging. A view like this from the other side, looking up a little higher, and of larger size and quality could suffice for detecting the bulge.
newton
new testimony on youtube

courtesy of ALEX JONES

yes, the much besmeared OCT nemesis.

the man continues to prove that not only can one person make a difference, but that it's the only thing that ever has.
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 10:52 PM)
Anywhere along the street to the west of WTC 7 would suffice, and possibly some locations further to the north.

It's a bulge on the SW corner of a trapezoidal building, isn't it? If you look at the layout below (from the same page Trippy linked) you see that the arrangement, including debris, makes viewing of the SW corner floors 10-13 only possible from certain places, unless you want to climb a pile.

User posted image

http://i22.tinypic.com/104lyra.gif

That's if I'm putting all of this together right.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 28 2007, 04:03 PM)
These may be of interest:

Thanks. These recollections suggest that the transit might not have been used under the early afternoon...
David B. Benson
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 04:08 PM)
... unless you want to climb a pile.

Barclay Street. No pile to climb.
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 11:18 PM)
Barclay Street. No pile to climb.

Yes. But only at the intersection of Barclay and the side street bordering WTC7 on the west is there line of sight. That is, if the transit is on the bulge, and I'm gathering that's the case. In fact, as best as I can tell from my armchair, that's the only place I would set up a transit to look at a bulge on SW 10-13. You could go closer on the side street but then you start angling up pretty hard, I'd think. Also would be unecessarily dangerous for such a mundane task.

I suppose it could have been up in a building.
Trippy
I thought this was interesting:

QUOTE

The highest level reached by a firefighter in the North Tower is believed to have been the 65th floor. The firefighter, believed to be a member of Ladder Company 3, radioed, at an unspecified time, that a partial collapse had occurred on one of the floors in the 60s. Eyewitness accounts place multiple firefighters between the 40th and 50th floors, but the bulk of the firefighting contingent never made it past the 35th floor. About 45 minutes into the operation, several firefighters on the 20th floor, carrying standpipe packs up the stairs, reported chest pains.


Emphasis mine.
From here:
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/ar....html?id=158382

edit

From the same article:

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

The highest level reached by a firefighter in the North Tower is believed to have been the 65th floor. The firefighter, believed to be a member of Ladder Company 3, radioed, at an unspecified time, that a partial collapse had occurred on one of the floors in the 60s. Eyewitness accounts place multiple firefighters between the 40th and 50th floors, but the bulk of the firefighting contingent never made it past the 35th floor. About 45 minutes into the operation, several firefighters on the 20th floor, carrying standpipe packs up the stairs, reported chest pains.


Emphasis mine.
From here:
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/ar....html?id=158382

edit

From the same article:


Early on, the city's Office of Emergency Management, housed in 7 World Trade Center (which collapsed later in the day), was evacuated, crippling the city's interagency system. There was no backup location for OEM. Although OEM representatives at the North Tower lobby command post were in direct contact with FDNY commanders, OEM could not relay critical information from other agencies. That information included reports from police helicopters predicting the imminent collapse of the South Tower 10 minutes before it occurred and the imminent collapse of the North Tower 21 minutes before it occurred. Police heard the transmission; the fire department did not. There were no police representatives at the FDNY command post


Again, emphasis mine.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 04:31 PM)
I suppose it could have been up in a building.

Not likely.

Nor, from what I have read, was the west side street particularly dangerous, at least at the north end.

And angling up just means the surveyor has to crouch down in a somewhat uncomfortable position for a short time. No big deal.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 28 2007, 04:40 PM)
I thought this was interesting:

Yes!

I suspect this was the ceiling system that partially collapsed, not the trusses.
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 28 2007, 11:43 PM)
Not likely.

Nor, from what I have read, was the west side street particularly dangerous, at least at the north end.

And angling up just means the surveyor has to crouch down in a somewhat uncomfortable position for a short time. No big deal.

I wouldn't think it likely to be in a building, either, but I like to be open-minded.

Not particularly dangerous? I thought we'd established unequivocally that they suspected the building was in danger of collapse prior to that point. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there, as proven by what happened when it did go down.

Yes, I agree, angling is no problem. This is one of those rare cases, however, where I think it is appropriate to invoke Occam's Razor in this thread, curiously in relation to psychology rather than physical models. Why work any harder than you need to?

Thus, if the bulge was visible from the intersection, that's where I'd set up. Any suitable pictures from that intersection, therefore, have a good chance of showing the bulge, as well as the transit.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Sep 28 2007, 04:51 PM)
Not particularly dangerous?

I thought we'd established unequivocally that they suspected the building was in danger of collapse prior to that point.

I wouldn't want to be anywhere near there, as proven by what happened when it did go down.

Why work any harder than you need to?

Any suitable pictures from that intersection, therefore, have a good chance of showing the bulge, as well as the transit.

Actually no, but don't hang around too long.

Yes, they were attempting to assess the state of the structure from the standpoint of going inside to attempt to fight the fires. In reading the interviews I have any sense that anybody thought it was going to collapse immediately.

You are not a fireman.

I agree.

Unfortunately, there do not seem to be any. None of the amateur photographers in the vicinity did not seem to go that far west down Barclay Street. Possibly the NYPD in the area told them not to, but I doubt that, as everything was a bit confused. The policemen were probably trying to ascertain that the building had indeed been entirely evacuated.
newton
i will tell you what was in the video.

a security guy was in the WTC7. he arrived to find the lobby full of policemen. he told them he needed to get to the 23rd floor, and so they let him go. it was all locked up, and so he came back down, and they took him up on the freight elevator.

he was coming back down the stairs, before EITHER building collapsed, when he heard an explosion.
the stairwell was gone from the sixth floor down, BEFORE ANY BUILDINGS COLLAPSED.
he took a different stairwell( i guess), and, the lobby was gone. the floor of the ex-lobby was littered with bodies, and firemen guided him out, saying, "don't look down"(at the carnage). they had to take him out of a hole in the wall that they made, because the lobby was destroyed so completely.

i wouldn't be surprised if there was a "bulge" after such a destructive blast.

once again, ALL of this happened BEFORE either of the big twins collapsed.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (newton+Sep 28 2007, 05:22 PM)
once again, ALL of this happened BEFORE either of the big twins collapsed.

Amazing, is it not, that not a single interviewee at Firehouse.com mentions the slightest word about this.

Those so-called firemen must have been 9-foot tall space lizards in disguise? ohmy.gif
Trippy
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ign...gecomposite.jpg

no idea if it's useful...

Alrhough it was on a page talking about beam weapons, so...
NEU-FONZE
According to my calculations:

If a transit could read down to 1 minute of arc, and was set up ~ 1000 meters from a WTC tower, it could detect a 30 cm tilt of the top of the tower. That means if it was set up at the time of the aircraft impact on WTC 2 it could have detected the impact-induced oscillations of the tower.
OneWhiteEye
This purports to be a picture at the intersection in question; I think it is. That is 7 still standing on the left, correct? Looks like the side street to the west of 7 is filled with debris. Now it seems like the only possible place for that transit to be is the intersection, most of which is shown in this photo.

User posted image

Intersection of Barclay and whatever, after collapse of WTC1, prior to collapse of WTC7

If this were a large picture and pointing upward more, we might be able to see the bulge. One thing we don't see in this picture is a transit. Of course, maybe it wasn't set up yet, had already been removed, or is just out of the frame of this picture. But that's about where I'd expect it to be.

Since someone was over there taking pictures, it now seems much more likely that a picture of SW corner floors 10-13, with the bulge, has been captured in a photograph.
newton
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 29 2007, 12:36 AM)
Amazing, is it not, that not a single interviewee at Firehouse.com mentions the slightest word about this.

Those so-called firemen must have been 9-foot tall space lizards in disguise?  ohmy.gif

you believe in space lizards?
colour me shocked.

more and more testimony is starting to eke out. i've heard no eyewitness accounts of reptillians.
but, if you believe in them, maybe i should reconsider the possibility.

anyway, space lizards aside, there are other things in the video, like one guy says, "keep your eye on that building, it's going to blow". and another guy saying, "it's going to blow up".

"blow" is not a word for something about to collapse. it is a word for something rigged with explosives.
adoucette
So what you are saying is these guys were "IN ON IT" as well.

laugh.gif

Now you know what newton considers as EVIDENCE.

Arthur
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
Trippy:
QUOTE
Anyone that has heard steel undergo catastrophic brittle failure will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so


I too can deploy ad-hoc assertions and confabulated bombast, e.g.:

"Anyone that has heard me farting on a cold day will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so.....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I understand that David "Sodium D-Shell Emission" Benson either can or can't view the following clips, apparently contingent upon the argument the evidence was posted to support.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Anyone that has heard steel undergo catastrophic brittle failure will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so


I too can deploy ad-hoc assertions and confabulated bombast, e.g.:

"Anyone that has heard me farting on a cold day will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so.....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I understand that David "Sodium D-Shell Emission" Benson either can or can't view the following clips, apparently contingent upon the argument the evidence was posted to support.David B. Benson:
==============
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...
==============

.... just a few days later....

==============
Thank you again! Quite interesting clips.
- David B. Benson
==============
!!!

Explosive Phenomenology - (hear no evil):

QUOTE
September 12, 2001 [People]
New York City 
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers.
On the last trip up a bomb went off.
We think there was bombs set in the building.

-------------------------

"The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street.
There were explosions going off everywhere.
I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place
and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons.

I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it.
I ended up on Vesey Street.
There was another explosion.
And another.

I didn't know where to run."
[Teresa Veliz, who escaped from the 47th floor of the North Tower, September 11: An Oral History, Dean E. Murphy, 2002, pp. 9-15]
-------------------------

"We just heard another explosion. There handing out gloves and masks.
The consensus is, it's too unsafe to go in there"
- CNN video, 911 live. (Mark Heath, Beth Israel Ambulance)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9....mark.heath.wmv
-------------------------

At 10.30 I tried to leave the building, but as soon as I got outside,
I heard a 2nd explosion, and another rumble, and more smoke, and more dust. I ran inside the buildings, the chandeliers shook, and again, black smoke filled the air. Within another 5 minutes we were covered again with more silt and more dust. And then a fire Marshall came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a 3rd explosion, this building might not last.
MSNBC reporter (Ann Thompson?) live, 911
-------------------------

"It's now the base of the World Trade Center, there seems to be now a second area there of smoke, so perhaps indicating that some sort of fire or explosion there..."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...c.explosion.wmv
-------------------------

"They won't let me go any closer. No-one can go in and get the people out.
There's small explosions still going on."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._explosions.wmv
-------------------------

"We started walking down to the eighth floor.
Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9....explosion..wmv
Will the sound of a "catastrophic brittle failure" blow you away?
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
September 12, 2001 [People]
New York City 
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers.
On the last trip up a bomb went off.
We think there was bombs set in the building.

-------------------------

"The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street.
There were explosions going off everywhere.
I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place
and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons.

I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it.
I ended up on Vesey Street.
There was another explosion.
And another.

I didn't know where to run."
[Teresa Veliz, who escaped from the 47th floor of the North Tower, September 11: An Oral History, Dean E. Murphy, 2002, pp. 9-15]
-------------------------

"We just heard another explosion. There handing out gloves and masks.
The consensus is, it's too unsafe to go in there"
- CNN video, 911 live. (Mark Heath, Beth Israel Ambulance)
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9....mark.heath.wmv
-------------------------

At 10.30 I tried to leave the building, but as soon as I got outside,
I heard a 2nd explosion, and another rumble, and more smoke, and more dust. I ran inside the buildings, the chandeliers shook, and again, black smoke filled the air. Within another 5 minutes we were covered again with more silt and more dust. And then a fire Marshall came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a 3rd explosion, this building might not last.
MSNBC reporter (Ann Thompson?) live, 911
-------------------------

"It's now the base of the World Trade Center, there seems to be now a second area there of smoke, so perhaps indicating that some sort of fire or explosion there..."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...c.explosion.wmv
-------------------------

"They won't let me go any closer. No-one can go in and get the people out.
There's small explosions still going on."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._explosions.wmv
-------------------------

"We started walking down to the eighth floor.
Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9....explosion..wmv
Will the sound of a "catastrophic brittle failure" blow you away?"...but in the third blast I couldn't even breathe, so I had to get out..."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_third_blast.wmv
-------------------------

"We made it all the way down the stairs [of WTC 1], and then when we were just about to come out of the building there was another blast ... I don't know what happened to the people behind me when the blast occurred."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/witness_blast.wmv
-------------------------

"It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off, and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs, and then when we finally got to the bottom we were coming out ... and another explosion came...sent everyone flying..."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...r.explosion.wmv
-------------------------

"We're stuck on the stairs for a while. We finally got down to the lobby, and then when we get to the lobby there was this big explosion."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...g.explosion.wmv
-------------------------

"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, and then all of a sudden three big explosions."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...c.witness.2.wmv
-------------------------

"...the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time and brought both of them down."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...ck.kelley_2.ram
-------------------------

"The streets of the financial district covered with debris, in some cases ankle deep. Cars on fire, cars just turned by the force of the explosions."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9...ompson.cars.wmv
One incendiary solution at center.
Trippy
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 29 2007, 08:49 PM)
Trippy:

I too can deploy ad-hoc assertions and confabulated bombast, e.g.:

"Anyone that has heard me farting on a cold day will tell you that it sounds like gun shots, or an explosion.
I don't care to go into detail of the physics as to why this should be so.....

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I understand that David "Sodium D-Shell Emission" Benson either can or can't view the following clips, apparently contingent upon the argument the evidence was posted to support. !!!

Explosive Phenomenology - (hear no evil):

Will the sound of a "catastrophic brittle failure" blow you away?One incendiary solution at center.

I'm not going to address the BS in the first part of your post, because it's pointless, inflamatory, and to be honest I have half a mind to report it as baiting.

The point is that any time you have a sudden release of energy it is associated with a shockwave of some kind, and shockwaves that pass through the air tend to sound like explosions, which are also characterized by the productions of a shockwave.

Second point is that if you had actually bothered to read any of the eyewitnesses reports, or for that matter any of the links that I had posted, you're know that eyewitnesses inside the tower that collapsed second talked about feeling a concussion when the first tower collapsed, in fact I'm pretty sure fire fighters dealing with WTC7 talk about something similar.

Wow, fancy that, something heavy hitting the ground at a reasonable velocity setting up a shockwave that propogated through the ground. Who would have anticipated that. It's not like the buildings were connected or anything.

Oh wait.

That's right, they were.

Let me see, you've got something that has a surface area of an acre falling what, 12 feet in abour a second, or less. Hmmm... So... That couldn't possibly be a source of pressure waves knocking people down stairs could it?

Oh wait... It could.
adoucette
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Sep 29 2007, 04:49 AM)
Explosive Phenomenology - (hear no evil):


Well Al, so now we know you are a Desperate Truther since you have resorted to the old standby of Quote mining. It might have had a SLIGHT impact several years ago, you know, before we had time to find the WHOLE QUOTE and read it in context.

laugh.gif

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.