UAL Flight 175 and AA 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated in Boston, while UAL 93, which supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport.
<br>That, it would seem, requires a few more people at the FAA and ATC to be included in the list.
fastu
20th April 2006 - 09:20 PM
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 20 2006, 08:35 PM) QUOTE
It is interesting to observe that, most (if not all) the people who believe the Moon landing’s were faked believe 9/11 was an “inside job”, most (if not all) the people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax believe 9/11 was an “inside job” and most (if not all) the people who believe in the Illuminati believe 9/11 was an “inside job”. Not particularly. Whether you think moon-men killed JFK or not, it stands to reason that: 1) someone who would believe something highly unlikely, like a secret, omnipotent cult rules us, would also believe something a bit more likely, like a group who benefitted greatly from tragedy might've been at least partially responsible for that tragedy (or at least didn't work to hard to stop it.) 2) someone who absolutely refuses to believe that powerful groups conspire, would also refuse to believe that aliens capable of intergalactic travel would give a rat's *** about the anal cavities of bayou-folk. So yes, the transitive property works but no, it doesn't conclude what you're implying. All it says is at one extreme folks believe, at another folks are skeptical, and in the middle people are reasonable.
reasonwhy
20th April 2006 - 09:31 PM
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 20 2006, 10:03 AM) More occult silliness from newton I see.
reasonwhy is correct in that the beam-framed model was perhaps not used. However, NIST does give its reasoning for the use of the truss-framed model.
| QUOTE | 3.3 Typical Truss-Framed Floor Model - Floor 96A
In order to select the typical truss-framed floor within the expanded impact and fire zones of both towers, the drawings for floors 80 to 100 were reviewed to identify structural similarities. The summary of this review is provided in Appendix G, which shows a summary of the construction type and space usage for each floor, along with a categorization and description of floor types for both towers. It was found that floor 96 of WTC 1 (96A) represented the typical truss-framed floor in the extended impact and fire region for WTC 1(floors 89A to 103A). The only exception in this region of WTC 1 was floor 92, which had an increased dead load capacity required for support of secondary water lines.
Floor 96A was also representative of the typical truss-framed floor in the expanded region for WTC 2(floors 74B-88B). Specifically, floor 96A was similar to the truss framing at floor 74B and floors 84B through 88B. Floors 78B and 79B were sky lobby and upper escalator floors, respectivly. Both contained long span trusses, which were similar to to floor 96A, but also contained beam framed floor construction in the entire short span area (where the escalators were located). Floors 80B through 83B had beam framimg in place of a single truss panel in the short span area, while the remaining area contained trusses which were similar to floor 96A.
Based on the above analysis, floor 96A was selected as the overall representative truss-framed floor for the majority of the expanded imapct and fire zone in both towers and is described in the following sections...........
<br>For the most part the only beams involved were in single truss panels in WTC 2. On those floors with more beams the impact and fires were lessor in the first place but had they included the beams they would also have to remove all flooring (concrete and rebar for instance)where the escalators came through the floors.
Aircraft parts may have been slowed more by beams rather than trusses but would have been slowed not a bit by areas where there was no floor.
6 of one, half dozen of the other?
Thanks for admitting I was correct without adding remarks such as:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | 3.3 Typical Truss-Framed Floor Model - Floor 96A
In order to select the typical truss-framed floor within the expanded impact and fire zones of both towers, the drawings for floors 80 to 100 were reviewed to identify structural similarities. The summary of this review is provided in Appendix G, which shows a summary of the construction type and space usage for each floor, along with a categorization and description of floor types for both towers. It was found that floor 96 of WTC 1 (96A) represented the typical truss-framed floor in the extended impact and fire region for WTC 1(floors 89A to 103A). The only exception in this region of WTC 1 was floor 92, which had an increased dead load capacity required for support of secondary water lines.
Floor 96A was also representative of the typical truss-framed floor in the expanded region for WTC 2(floors 74B-88B). Specifically, floor 96A was similar to the truss framing at floor 74B and floors 84B through 88B. Floors 78B and 79B were sky lobby and upper escalator floors, respectivly. Both contained long span trusses, which were similar to to floor 96A, but also contained beam framed floor construction in the entire short span area (where the escalators were located). Floors 80B through 83B had beam framimg in place of a single truss panel in the short span area, while the remaining area contained trusses which were similar to floor 96A.
Based on the above analysis, floor 96A was selected as the overall representative truss-framed floor for the majority of the expanded imapct and fire zone in both towers and is described in the following sections...........
<br>For the most part the only beams involved were in single truss panels in WTC 2. On those floors with more beams the impact and fires were lessor in the first place but had they included the beams they would also have to remove all flooring (concrete and rebar for instance)where the escalators came through the floors.
Aircraft parts may have been slowed more by beams rather than trusses but would have been slowed not a bit by areas where there was no floor.
6 of one, half dozen of the other?
Thanks for admitting I was correct without adding remarks such as:
Well WHO THE FU<K ARE YOU?
Find it yourself, A$$hole
Arthur
<br>
If I was supporting the NIST report, I would want a model as accurate as possible. NIST makes sure they have the correct amount of fan blades on the jet engine then doesn’t bother to make the floor models accurate.
Guest_yesitdid
20th April 2006 - 09:42 PM
Well, whereas chunks of the building +/- a bit would not be a great percentage change, eliminating or adding a fan blade would be a greater percentage change to the amount of dense material in an engine.
I don't know if that is the reasoning for that but it is my best guess.
NEU-FONZE
20th April 2006 - 09:52 PM
I am not skirting the question - I really do NOT have an answer. Sorry, I'm not all-seeing and all-knowing.
Your question on a physics/science site is about as silly as:
HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN?
I have NEVER said I thought explosives were used during 9-11.
Whose "side" do you think I'm on?
Why do people have to be on ANY "side", except the side of TRUTH?
So here's a question for Arthur:
Do you believe explosives could/should be rulled out in any of the following cases and if so why?:
The collapse of WTC 1
The collapse of WTC 2
The collapse of WTC 7
NF
webster
20th April 2006 - 10:45 PM
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 20 2006, 08:35 PM) QUOTE (newton+Apr 20 2006, 06:13 PM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 20 2006, 06:03 PM) More occult silliness from newton I see. 'occult' simply means, 'hidden'. 'apocalypse' simply means, '(the) revealing'. arthur, i see right through you. Wrong again genius. See the words as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary below | QUOTE | occult
ADJECTIVE:
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena.
2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable.
3. Available only to the initiate; secret: occult lore. See Synonyms at mysterious.
4. Hidden from view; concealed.
5. a. Medicine Detectable only by microscopic examination or chemical analysis, as a minute blood sample.
b. Not accompanied by readily detectable signs or symptoms: occult carcinoma.
NOUN:
Occult practices or techniques: a student of the occult.
VERB:
oc•cult•ed , oc•cult•ing , oc•cults ( -k lt )
VERB: tr.
1. To conceal or cause to disappear from view.
2. Astronomy To conceal by occultation: The moon occulted Mars.
VERB: intr.
To become concealed or extinguished at regular intervals: a lighthouse beacon that occults every 45 seconds.
________________________________________
ETYMOLOGY:
Latin occultus, secret, past participle of occulere, to cover over; see kel- 1 in Indo-European roots
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/occult
a•poc•a•lypse ( -p k -l ps ) KEY
NOUN:
1.
a. Apocalypse Abbr. Apoc. Bible The Book of Revelation.
b. Any of a number of anonymous Jewish or Christian texts from around the second century B.C. to the second century A.D. containing prophetic or symbolic visions, especially of the imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous.
2. Great or total devastation; doom: the apocalypse of nuclear war.
3. A prophetic disclosure; a revelation.
________________________________________
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English Apocalipse, from Late Latin Apocalypsis, from Greek apokalupsis, revelation, Apocalypse, from apokaluptein, to uncover : apo-, apo- + kaluptein, to cover; see kel- 1 in Indo-European roots
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...ntry/apocalypse
<br>The definitions in Webster’s are basically the same. http://m-w.com/
Go ahead Newt and keep posting this nonsense I’m sure it will help fence sitting lurkers to see what a lunatic you are.
Once again are any of you other CTists willing to back Newt’s belief in the Illuminati?
It is interesting to observe that, most (if not all) the people who believe the Moon landing’s were faked believe 9/11 was an “inside job”, most (if not all) the people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax believe 9/11 was an “inside job” and most (if not all) the people who believe in the Illuminati believe 9/11 was an “inside job”. you said i was wrong, and then posted the dictionary definition that proves me right.
thanks. proving also, that shills will do anything to discredit(assassinate) the character of an online adversary.
meaning 4. for occult, and 3. 'revelation' or 'prophetic disclosure' is damn similiar to 'reveal', no?
you might want to check the greek dictionary for apocalypse, and not the english one.
tag, you're it.
Christophera
20th April 2006 - 11:04 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 20 2006, 09:31 PM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 20 2006, 10:03 AM) More occult silliness from newton I see.
reasonwhy is correct in that the beam-framed model was perhaps not used. However, NIST does give its reasoning for the use of the truss-framed model.
| QUOTE | 3.3 Typical Truss-Framed Floor Model - Floor 96A
In order to select the typical truss-framed floor within the expanded impact and fire zones of both towers, the drawings for floors 80 to 100 were reviewed to identify structural similarities. The summary of this review is provided in Appendix G, which shows a summary of the construction type and space usage for each floor, along with a categorization and description of floor types for both towers. It was found that floor 96 of WTC 1 (96A) represented the typical truss-framed floor in the extended impact and fire region for WTC 1(floors 89A to 103A). The only exception in this region of WTC 1 was floor 92, which had an increased dead load capacity required for support of secondary water lines.
Floor 96A was also representative of the typical truss-framed floor in the expanded region for WTC 2(floors 74B-88B). Specifically, floor 96A was similar to the truss framing at floor 74B and floors 84B through 88B. Floors 78B and 79B were sky lobby and upper escalator floors, respectivly. Both contained long span trusses, which were similar to to floor 96A, but also contained beam framed floor construction in the entire short span area (where the escalators were located). Floors 80B through 83B had beam framimg in place of a single truss panel in the short span area, while the remaining area contained trusses which were similar to floor 96A.
Based on the above analysis, floor 96A was selected as the overall representative truss-framed floor for the majority of the expanded imapct and fire zone in both towers and is described in the following sections...........
<br>For the most part the only beams involved were in single truss panels in WTC 2. On those floors with more beams the impact and fires were lessor in the first place but had they included the beams they would also have to remove all flooring (concrete and rebar for instance)where the escalators came through the floors.
Aircraft parts may have been slowed more by beams rather than trusses but would have been slowed not a bit by areas where there was no floor.
6 of one, half dozen of the other?
Thanks for admitting I was correct without adding remarks such as:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | 3.3 Typical Truss-Framed Floor Model - Floor 96A
In order to select the typical truss-framed floor within the expanded impact and fire zones of both towers, the drawings for floors 80 to 100 were reviewed to identify structural similarities. The summary of this review is provided in Appendix G, which shows a summary of the construction type and space usage for each floor, along with a categorization and description of floor types for both towers. It was found that floor 96 of WTC 1 (96A) represented the typical truss-framed floor in the extended impact and fire region for WTC 1(floors 89A to 103A). The only exception in this region of WTC 1 was floor 92, which had an increased dead load capacity required for support of secondary water lines.
Floor 96A was also representative of the typical truss-framed floor in the expanded region for WTC 2(floors 74B-88B). Specifically, floor 96A was similar to the truss framing at floor 74B and floors 84B through 88B. Floors 78B and 79B were sky lobby and upper escalator floors, respectivly. Both contained long span trusses, which were similar to to floor 96A, but also contained beam framed floor construction in the entire short span area (where the escalators were located). Floors 80B through 83B had beam framimg in place of a single truss panel in the short span area, while the remaining area contained trusses which were similar to floor 96A.
Based on the above analysis, floor 96A was selected as the overall representative truss-framed floor for the majority of the expanded imapct and fire zone in both towers and is described in the following sections...........
<br>For the most part the only beams involved were in single truss panels in WTC 2. On those floors with more beams the impact and fires were lessor in the first place but had they included the beams they would also have to remove all flooring (concrete and rebar for instance)where the escalators came through the floors.
Aircraft parts may have been slowed more by beams rather than trusses but would have been slowed not a bit by areas where there was no floor.
6 of one, half dozen of the other?
Thanks for admitting I was correct without adding remarks such as:
Well WHO THE FU<K ARE YOU?
Find it yourself, A$$hole
Arthur
<br>
If I was supporting the NIST report, I would want a model as accurate as possible. NIST makes sure they have the correct amount of fan blades on the jet engine then doesn’t bother to make the floor models accurate. rewhine,
Keep making comments like that and you'll ruin your rep as a disinfo.
Foxx
20th April 2006 - 11:30 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 20 2006, 03:48 PM) Tired of reading the NIST BS?
You gotta be kidding me.
You don't seem to be able to get ONE THING STRAIGHT.
Then you take things out of context.
then you confuse Core Columns with Exterior Columns.
You DISTORT what is said in the report OVER AND OVER and now YOU refer to it a BS?
Well WHO THE FU<K ARE YOU?
Find it yourself, A$$hole
Arthur I'd conclude that was a dead giveaway by the arthurs committee. Ad Hominum attacks... instead of just being, 'a fellow' interested in showing evidence (which he himself alleges supports his position) ???... ...starting to sound a lot like another known disinformationist around here. If a person is only looking for the truth, BUT (as yet) is unconvinced that the demolitions of the 3 WTC buildings were 'explosive' events; ... and makes claims that "X" is a quote from an official government document... The polite (unbiased) response would be to be happy to offer evidence which 'supports' his position by providing The link to the document and the specific page # of the document (as well as the adobe document page #). This will appear quite obvious to intelligent and objective silent readers ("lurkers"), of this thread; and always weighs against the objectivity of the 'disinformationist' to any honest person, when disinfos resort to 'excuses' for not simply providing the link and page #'s. Added curses and insults are always picked up, and noted by searching lurkers. "Hmmmm.... How much 'weight' should I invest in 'arthurs' response... when ... (like NIST) 'he' attempts to avoid providing support for 'his' own 'position' ???I guess this little bit of extra work (to support 'your position'), is really not worth your time to post that information - (although you seem to have no end of time to post obfuscating addressment of any and all posts (regardless of whether they are worthy of comment or not). The committee of arthurs, (by their own admission), have not read ALL the reports, supplementals, appendixes, etc... (They are just now reading parts of the documents which are "NEWS" to them)... yet... they continually, scold, insult, and mock ANY who makes the claim ... "I have not read the full NIST documentation" ... they seem to equate the reading of the NIST reports, to the reading of the BIBLE (or the Koran) ! and that the language, authors, and scenarios presented by the NIST myth are uncontestable... "{"They" are proven "fact" simply because the pope NIST has proclaimed them}"Of course metamars, has aptly described the 'pope psychology' and applied it directly to 'arthurs' for hundreds of pages. Arthurs own posts clearly show that metamars pegged "him" correctly from the get-go of this thread. One only needs to read the professional disinformationists handbook to see that "the arthurs" utilize all of these tactics in their posts... (as did the Schneibsters). Check yourself and see how many of these characteristics and tactics are utilized by the OCT's... | QUOTE | Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed
with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.
<br>http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
The "Eight Traits of a Disinformationist" is also a good addendum...
http://www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html
newtonnjd
20th April 2006 - 11:41 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 20 2006, 05:41 PM) QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 20 2006, 12:39 PM) And who exactly could possibly discover explosives? Were explosives experts sent to GZ on 9/12 to start investigating? At what point were explosive experts allowed to examine the steel?
You weren't looking to discover explosives, but only the EVIDENCE THAT EXPLOSIVES were used. High Explosives cause UNIQUE damage to steel. Damage that WOULDN'T be explainable by a gravity driven collapse. See any of the NTSB reports on bombs in planes for details. Or see the Lockerbie 747 bombing. Arthur Okay, so lets start naming names. In the first few weeks, which person/people can you confirm examined the steel who would be 100% certain to notice explosive evidence without looking for it?
Common Sense
21st April 2006 - 12:05 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 20 2006, 04:52 PM) I am not skirting the question - I really do NOT have an answer. Sorry, I'm not all-seeing and all-knowing.
Your question on a physics/science site is about as silly as:
HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN?
I have NEVER said I thought explosives were used during 9-11.
Whose "side" do you think I'm on?
Why do people have to be on ANY "side", except the side of TRUTH?
So here's a question for Arthur:
Do you believe explosives could/should be rulled out in any of the following cases and if so why?:
The collapse of WTC 1
The collapse of WTC 2
The collapse of WTC 7
NF I know this is for Arthur but you raise a good point. The answer is clear to me. Nothing should be ruled in or out which isn't supported by evidence. If evidence doesn't [rule in] explosives we shouldn't waste time with it. Otherwise we should be seriously considering whether cloaked aliens hovered over the buildings like in "Independence day" and destroyed the towers from the top down. Explosives should carry the same wieght because there is just as much evidence for it. Both Towers - No evidence of explosives and a plausible/probable explanation exist for collapse. Occam's razor applies. Building 7 - No evidence SO FAR of explosives and a working possible collapse hypothesis exist. The fact that every detail isn't given to us on the internet doesn't automatically mean explosives should be given any wieght at all. It just tells me these scientist in the NIST are doing the work for saftey and not to make conspiracy theorist happy. That would be impossible anyway. Not that you said it should, I'm just saying... The moment evidence for explosives turns up for the towers it should be reviewed. I'm not a scientist but everything I know of them says they let the evidence take them to a conclusion. Jumping to a conclusion that explosives must have done it without evidence of one; even if noone can calculate the collapse using physics seems like the easy way out. "I can't figure out how the towers fell. I'll just say it's explosives and be done with it". I don't think many scholars outside the politically motivated would jump to conclusions like that. At least that's what I hope science is about.
NEU-FONZE
21st April 2006 - 12:18 AM
CS: I SECOND THAT EMOTION
NF
Foxx
21st April 2006 - 12:44 AM
| QUOTE | by CS
I know this is for Arthur but you raise a good point. The answer is clear to me. Nothing should be ruled in or out which isn't supported by evidence. If evidence doesn't [rule in] explosives we shouldn't waste time with it. Otherwise we should be seriously considering whether cloaked aliens hovered over the buildings like in "Independence day" and destroyed the towers from the top down. Explosives should carry the same wieght because there is just as much evidence for it.
<br>There is absolutely NO forensic evidence to support gravity-driven "collapse". All 'evidence' of gravity-driven collapse hitherto presented in this thread has either been debunked or shown that such could well also have been the result of explosive demolitions.
The circumstantial evidence ALL points to explosive demolition actions, as opposed to unsupported theories of gravity-driven collapse. There are over 600 pages in this thread which has adequately shown this to be 'more likely' than the highly suspect, truncated, and obfuscatory 'evidence' presented to support gravity-driven collapse... the Official Conspiracy Theory.
NIST is OBLIGED to present an alternative scenario for the destruction of # 7.
While we wait... NIST is desperately seeking 'help' (or other patsies) to attempt to explain #7 within the 'official guidelines'.
So far... I haven't seen any patsies step forward (like martyrs to 'the cause').
If EVERYONE is IN AGREEMENT with NIST, WHY is there not a great rush from the civil / structural engineering community, to participate or assist NIST with the 'final report' ?
Wouldn't that look 'excellent' on your curriculum vitae ? ...
"...Also helped NIST explain the collapse of # 7" - read the report, right HERE... Oh, Yeah... we are structural engineers of the HIGHEST order !!!
Where are ALL these structural engineers who are supporting NIST's call for 'HELP' ?
Perhaps they are just... too 'busy' to waste time with something everyone agrees upon?
Perhaps they disagree with the basic tenets that NIST has 'floated' for 'public input' ?
Perhaps they do not want to stake their professional names on supporting a scenario that every kid can clearly see makes no engineering sense whatsoever?
Can you irrefutably 'answer' the above possible questions, CS ??? YID ??? arthurs ???
What's the delay?
WHY are they seeking 'professional help' and that help is NOT flooding their 'subcontract request appeals box'?...(as they seek to quiver, delay, put-off their publishing the 'final report' on 7?
They can say ANYTHING, and you OCT's would 'believe', and attempt to support them in any wacky scenario they eventually 'publish' for peer review.
Unfortunately (for NIST & you), the independant structural-engineering firms ( and MANY of us 'common folk' ) are NOT lining up at the door to support NIST on THIS fairy tale.
Please explain?
NEU-FONZE
21st April 2006 - 01:18 AM
FOXX: GOOD POINT!
I think the answer is that NIST are relying on Arthur and other such stalwart men to save the day. Suppress all doubt in the official story. Ridicule the skeptics.
Cut to mission control:
"Agent Art we have a job for you... Your mission, if you choose to accept... is to see that the NIST/FEMA version of the truth prevails worldwide...."
NF
Foxx
21st April 2006 - 01:50 AM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by NF
I think the answer is that NIST are relying on Arthur and other such stalwart men to save the day. Suppress all doubt in the official story. Ridicule the skeptics.
<br>I think that would be obvious from any objective reading of this thread... which is just 'another' book on the evidence available to be submitted to court , (should we ever be able to get an independant investigation under way).
A Truly-Independant investigation...
(comparable to Archibald Cox's independant investigation of the "watergate questions")...
is clearly in order.
Anyone disagreeing that a truly independant commission and inquiry into the unanswered questions of 9/11 is akin to those who impeded the Watergate, Iran-Contra, Kennedy, etc. etc, etc... investigations.
I do not blame the 'dupes'.
I blame their masters.
Cheers
DogsHead
21st April 2006 - 02:38 AM
QUOTE (NF+) I think the answer is that NIST are relying on Arthur and other such stalwart men to save the day. Suppress all doubt in the official story. Ridicule the skeptics.
Hey no fair! Arthur gets promoted to Uber-schill/Super-Agent-of-the-evil-Bush-Gummint and I'm left as a miserable sock puppet? You guys sure can be harsh! Foxx, your hubris is showing, dude! QUOTE (Foxx+) I think that would be obvious from any objective reading of this thread... which is just 'another' book on the evidence available to be submitted to court , (should we ever be able to get an independant investigation under way).
|
adoucette
21st April 2006 - 03:26 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 20 2006, 05:31 PM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 20 2006, 10:03 AM) More occult silliness from newton I see.
reasonwhy is correct in that the beam-framed model was perhaps not used. However, NIST does give its reasoning for the use of the truss-framed model.
| QUOTE | 3.3 Typical Truss-Framed Floor Model - Floor 96A
In order to select the typical truss-framed floor within the expanded impact and fire zones of both towers, the drawings for floors 80 to 100 were reviewed to identify structural similarities. The summary of this review is provided in Appendix G, which shows a summary of the construction type and space usage for each floor, along with a categorization and description of floor types for both towers. It was found that floor 96 of WTC 1 (96A) represented the typical truss-framed floor in the extended impact and fire region for WTC 1(floors 89A to 103A). The only exception in this region of WTC 1 was floor 92, which had an increased dead load capacity required for support of secondary water lines.
Floor 96A was also representative of the typical truss-framed floor in the expanded region for WTC 2(floors 74B-88B). Specifically, floor 96A was similar to the truss framing at floor 74B and floors 84B through 88B. Floors 78B and 79B were sky lobby and upper escalator floors, respectivly. Both contained long span trusses, which were similar to to floor 96A, but also contained beam framed floor construction in the entire short span area (where the escalators were located). Floors 80B through 83B had beam framimg in place of a single truss panel in the short span area, while the remaining area contained trusses which were similar to floor 96A.
Based on the above analysis, floor 96A was selected as the overall representative truss-framed floor for the majority of the expanded imapct and fire zone in both towers and is described in the following sections...........
<br>For the most part the only beams involved were in single truss panels in WTC 2. On those floors with more beams the impact and fires were lessor in the first place but had they included the beams they would also have to remove all flooring (concrete and rebar for instance)where the escalators came through the floors.
Aircraft parts may have been slowed more by beams rather than trusses but would have been slowed not a bit by areas where there was no floor.
6 of one, half dozen of the other?
Thanks for admitting I was correct without adding remarks such as:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | 3.3 Typical Truss-Framed Floor Model - Floor 96A
In order to select the typical truss-framed floor within the expanded impact and fire zones of both towers, the drawings for floors 80 to 100 were reviewed to identify structural similarities. The summary of this review is provided in Appendix G, which shows a summary of the construction type and space usage for each floor, along with a categorization and description of floor types for both towers. It was found that floor 96 of WTC 1 (96A) represented the typical truss-framed floor in the extended impact and fire region for WTC 1(floors 89A to 103A). The only exception in this region of WTC 1 was floor 92, which had an increased dead load capacity required for support of secondary water lines.
Floor 96A was also representative of the typical truss-framed floor in the expanded region for WTC 2(floors 74B-88B). Specifically, floor 96A was similar to the truss framing at floor 74B and floors 84B through 88B. Floors 78B and 79B were sky lobby and upper escalator floors, respectivly. Both contained long span trusses, which were similar to to floor 96A, but also contained beam framed floor construction in the entire short span area (where the escalators were located). Floors 80B through 83B had beam framimg in place of a single truss panel in the short span area, while the remaining area contained trusses which were similar to floor 96A.
Based on the above analysis, floor 96A was selected as the overall representative truss-framed floor for the majority of the expanded imapct and fire zone in both towers and is described in the following sections...........
<br>For the most part the only beams involved were in single truss panels in WTC 2. On those floors with more beams the impact and fires were lessor in the first place but had they included the beams they would also have to remove all flooring (concrete and rebar for instance)where the escalators came through the floors.
Aircraft parts may have been slowed more by beams rather than trusses but would have been slowed not a bit by areas where there was no floor.
6 of one, half dozen of the other?
Thanks for admitting I was correct without adding remarks such as:
Well WHO THE FU<K ARE YOU?
Find it yourself, A$$hole
Arthur
<br>
If I was supporting the NIST report, I would want a model as accurate as possible. NIST makes sure they have the correct amount of fan blades on the jet engine then doesn’t bother to make the floor models accurate. Yesitdid should have read past chapter 3.3 to 3.4 which describes the BEAM FRAMED FLOOR and which floors IT was used for in the GLOBAL MODEL.
And yes, it was used in the models.
Arthur (aka Uber-schill/Super-Agent-of-the-evil-Bush-Gummint)
newtonnjd
21st April 2006 - 03:39 AM
NEU-FONZE, a question. If you had to assign a % probability to CDs for WTC1/2 and WTC7, what would they be?
adoucette
21st April 2006 - 03:52 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 20 2006, 05:52 PM) Do you believe explosives could/should be rulled out in any of the following cases and if so why?:
The collapse of WTC 1
The collapse of WTC 2
The collapse of WTC 7
NF Yes, All three Because no evidence of explosives was found. Arthur
yesitdid
21st April 2006 - 03:58 AM
QUOTE (webster+Apr 20 2006, 10:45 PM) you said i was wrong, and then posted the dictionary definition that proves me right.
thanks. proving also, that shills will do anything to discredit(assassinate) the character of an online adversary.
meaning 4. for occult, and 3. 'revelation' or 'prophetic disclosure' is damn similiar to 'reveal', no?
you might want to check the greek dictionary for apocalypse, and not the english one.
tag, you're it. Now just which definition do believe I had in mind when I used it? The etymology of the word is hardly relevant to my obvious contextual usage. Proving that CT's will go through any contortion, twist any word, to fit their own agenda.
yesitdid
21st April 2006 - 04:10 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 20 2006, 09:52 PM) I am not skirting the question - I really do NOT have an answer. Sorry, I'm not all-seeing and all-knowing.
Your question on a physics/science site is about as silly as:
HOW MANY ANGELS CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN?
I have NEVER said I thought explosives were used during 9-11.
Whose "side" do you think I'm on?
Why do people have to be on ANY "side", except the side of TRUTH?
So here's a question for Arthur:
Do you believe explosives could/should be rulled out in any of the following cases and if so why?:
The collapse of WTC 1
The collapse of WTC 2
The collapse of WTC 7
NF Well I tried demanding that this be a thread about the physics for quite some time and was railed at by the 'other side'. I was told point blank that it was all physics. I gave up. Bully for you if you think you can bring it back, I'll support you on it. Sorry I included you in the last question then. Explosives may not be ruled out in any event of 9/11 but neither has there been a good or even fair (that's fair as in 'fair, good, excellent' , not as in , 'fair play') for explosives. So far the arguement for explosives centers on , 'it looked like or sounded like ' explosives.
yesitdid
21st April 2006 - 04:24 AM
QUOTE (DogsHead+Apr 21 2006, 02:38 AM) QUOTE (NF+) I think the answer is that NIST are relying on Arthur and other such stalwart men to save the day. Suppress all doubt in the official story. Ridicule the skeptics.
Hey no fair! Arthur gets promoted to Uber-schill/Super-Agent-of-the-evil-Bush-Gummint and I'm left as a miserable sock puppet? You guys sure can be harsh! Foxx, your hubris is showing, dude! QUOTE (Foxx+) I think that would be obvious from any objective reading of this thread... which is just 'another' book on the evidence available to be submitted to court , (should we ever be able to get an independant investigation under way).
|
You get your cheque each month, just like me. You want higher office then work for it just like Arthur. 
I see that Foxx's paranoia is showing again and N-F is lapping it up. It must be hard to curb the desire to coat the inside of every room with foil.
Gee, Foxx the independant engineering firms have had years to line up at the(figurative) doors of the CD believers and have not bothered to do so. Now NIST requests submissions from that community and there is no press about this and you claim victory!!!!!!!!! You will twist anything to your worldview won't you.(no question mark, it is rhetorical)
Foxx
21st April 2006 - 04:37 AM
| QUOTE | by YID
Explosives may not be ruled out in any event of 9/11 but neither has there been a good or even fair (that's fair as in 'fair, good, excellent' , not as in , 'fair play') for explosives. So far the arguement for explosives centers on , 'it looked like or sounded like ' explosives.
<br>Of course the alternative presented is that...
"Although 'IT' Looks like... and Sounds like... and Walks like ...
a duck...
it probably ISN'T a 'duck'...
it's probably just a dog - impersonating a duck"
Quack !!!
yesitdid
21st April 2006 - 04:46 AM
Back to truss and beam framed floor models.
From NIST NCSTAR 1-2BChap 1-8(Draft)
| QUOTE | The multiple floor global model for the impact zone of WTC 2 is shown in Figure 3–26. The model
included the complete floor inside and outside the core for floors 77 through 85. The exterior wall panels
at the bottom end of the model extended downward below floor 75. The boundary conditions for the ends
of the exterior and core columns at the top and bottom of the model were the same as those for the WTC 1
model. The higher resolution exterior wall panels in the impact zone, shown previously in Figure 3–11,
can be seen on the impact face of the WTC 2 tower model (Side 400).
The WTC 2 global impact model with the exterior wall removed is shown in Figure 3–27. This figure
shows how the WTC 2 model was optimized to reduce the mesh size and eliminate computational
requirements outside of the immediate impact and damage zone. The nonstructural building contents
were again modeled only in the path of the aircraft impact and debris cloud. These components are
shown separately in Figure 3–28. Similarly, the truss floor structures near the impact zone were modeled
in greater detail as seen in Figure 3–27. These detailed sections of the truss floor were positioned
adjacent to Side 400 (south face) for floors 78 through 81 and Side 300 (east face) for floors 81 and 82.
The surrounding truss floor structures were again modeled with the far-field truss model shown
previously in Figure 3–25.
To summarize, the approach adapted for the development of the global impact models for towers WTC 1
and WTC 2 was similar. The structures were modeled primarily with shell elements with some beam
elements in the detailed truss floor sections and bolted connections between the column ends in the
impact zone of the exterior wall. Some brick elements were used at the exterior column butt plates in the
detailed impact zone. A summary of the model size and element types for the global tower models is
presented in Table 3–2.
3-D view from bottom
<br>So the only floors in the impact modelling that were beam-framed were in the far field, at one extremity, of the impact zone. Although it does not state, specifically that the two floors involved that were beam framed used the beam framed model, it can be expected that they did. However, these floors were modeled only as far field models anyway since damage there due to impact was minimal.
EDITED to add: I still have to get to Chap 9 and beyond in the aircraft impact report.
yesitdid
21st April 2006 - 04:48 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Apr 21 2006, 04:37 AM) | QUOTE | by YID
Explosives may not be ruled out in any event of 9/11 but neither has there been a good or even fair (that's fair as in 'fair, good, excellent' , not as in , 'fair play') for explosives. So far the arguement for explosives centers on , 'it looked like or sounded like ' explosives.
<br>Of course the alternative presented is that...
"Although 'IT' Looks like... and Sounds like... and Walks like ...
a duck...
it probably ISN'T a 'duck'...
it's probably just a dog - impersonating a duck"
Quack You must be related to Cheney, Foxx. You have the same hunting skills.
Foxx
21st April 2006 - 04:51 AM
| QUOTE |
You must be related to Cheney, Foxx. You have the same hunting skills.
<br>Yeah... we never miss.
yesitdid
21st April 2006 - 05:00 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Apr 21 2006, 04:51 AM) | QUOTE |
You must be related to Cheney, Foxx. You have the same hunting skills.
<br>Yeah... we never miss. Its not your aim Foxx, its your identification of the target that sucks. Do farmers have to spray paint the word "COW" on their livestock when you are hunting nearby?
reasonwhy
21st April 2006 - 05:38 AM
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 20 2006, 08:46 PM) Back to truss and beam framed floor models.
From NIST NCSTAR 1-2BChap 1-8(Draft)
| QUOTE | The multiple floor global model for the impact zone of WTC 2 is shown in Figure 3–26. The model
included the complete floor inside and outside the core for floors 77 through 85. The exterior wall panels
at the bottom end of the model extended downward below floor 75. The boundary conditions for the ends
of the exterior and core columns at the top and bottom of the model were the same as those for the WTC 1
model. The higher resolution exterior wall panels in the impact zone, shown previously in Figure 3–11,
can be seen on the impact face of the WTC 2 tower model (Side 400).
The WTC 2 global impact model with the exterior wall removed is shown in Figure 3–27. This figure
shows how the WTC 2 model was optimized to reduce the mesh size and eliminate computational
requirements outside of the immediate impact and damage zone. The nonstructural building contents
were again modeled only in the path of the aircraft impact and debris cloud. These components are
shown separately in Figure 3–28. Similarly, the truss floor structures near the impact zone were modeled
in greater detail as seen in Figure 3–27. These detailed sections of the truss floor were positioned
adjacent to Side 400 (south face) for floors 78 through 81 and Side 300 (east face) for floors 81 and 82.
The surrounding truss floor structures were again modeled with the far-field truss model shown
previously in Figure 3–25.
To summarize, the approach adapted for the development of the global impact models for towers WTC 1
and WTC 2 was similar. The structures were modeled primarily with shell elements with some beam
elements in the detailed truss floor sections and bolted connections between the column ends in the
impact zone of the exterior wall. Some brick elements were used at the exterior column butt plates in the
detailed impact zone. A summary of the model size and element types for the global tower models is
presented in Table 3–2.
3-D view from bottom
<br>So the only floors in the impact modelling that were beam-framed were in the far field, at one extremity, of the impact zone. Although it does not state, specifically that the two floors involved that were beam framed used the beam framed model, it can be expected that they did. However, these floors were modeled only as far field models anyway since damage there due to impact was minimal.
EDITED to add: I still have to get to Chap 9 and beyond in the aircraft impact report.
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Chaps 1-8 Nist page 59 (Adobe page 155) figure 3-27
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf
It shows floor 77 and it appears to be an exact copy of 78-85. They use shell and beam elements for the trusses to more closely match the structure (figure 3-25) .
Christophera
21st April 2006 - 08:09 AM
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 21 2006, 12:05 AM) I know this is for Arthur but you raise a good point. The answer is clear to me. Nothing should be ruled in or out which isn't supported by evidence. If evidence doesn't [rule in] explosives we shouldn't waste time with it. Raw evidence rules out steel core columns and supports a concrete core. There is so little evidence for the steel core columns that not even a good explanation for why they are not seen is forthcoming. CSpam has a double standard and excludes the concrete core when evidence supports it to support the official core when evidence is against it. WTC 2 concrete core.  Rebar from the cast concrete shear wall seconds after the bottom showing 14 inch thick columns.  THe spire is an interior box column, one of 47 that ran in a ring around the outside of the steel reinforced concrete tube forming the core of the towers.  Leslie Robertson, Architect Of The World Trade Center Towers
Still, Robertson, whose firm is responsible for three of the six tallest buildings in the world, feels a sense of pride that the massive towers, supported by a steel-tube exoskeleton and a reinforced concrete core, held up as well as they did—managing to stand for over an hour despite direct hits from two massive commercial jetliners.
Says engineer Robertson, “If they had fallen down immediately, the death counts would have been unimaginable,” he says. “The World Trade Center has performed admirably, and everyone involved in the project should be proud.” The buildings were designed specifically to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest plane flying in 1966, the year they broke ground on the project.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069641/
NEU-FONZE
21st April 2006 - 12:20 PM
AA:
You say "No evidence for explosives" was found. Well, that's hardly surprising when 98 % of the evidence was carted off to China!
Can you explain the sulfiding of some of the scraps of steel that were kept for analysis?
It's all very reminiscent of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The BATF claimed it analysed the explosion using an "an engineering program" from which it concluded that "a fuel oil sensitized ammonium nitrate bomb" did all the damage. Why has NIST not used a similar explosive engineering analysis program - one based on boundary element methods - to model blast scenarios for the WTC? This is quite simple to do using off-the-shelf software!
And why is everyone so quick to rule out explosives at the WTC? The WTC was attacked twice in its 30 + year history. The first attack, in Feb 1993, involved 1200 pounds of urea nitrate HIDDEN IN THE BASEMENT!
I believe explosives remain a possibility for WTC 7 - after all it was the home of Giuliani's "bunker" and other security agencies. It's standard practice to "scuttle" a ship so it does'nt fall into enemy hands. The paranoids in control believed 9-11 was an attempted coup d'etat - why not "pull" a strategic asset such as WTC 7 if you believe THE ENEMY IS AT THE GATE?
NF
adoucette
21st April 2006 - 12:35 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 21 2006, 01:38 AM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 20 2006, 08:46 PM) Back to truss and beam framed floor models.
From NIST NCSTAR 1-2BChap 1-8(Draft)
| QUOTE | The multiple floor global model for the impact zone of WTC 2 is shown in Figure 3–26. The model
included the complete floor inside and outside the core for floors 77 through 85. The exterior wall panels
at the bottom end of the model extended downward below floor 75. The boundary conditions for the ends
of the exterior and core columns at the top and bottom of the model were the same as those for the WTC 1
model. The higher resolution exterior wall panels in the impact zone, shown previously in Figure 3–11,
can be seen on the impact face of the WTC 2 tower model (Side 400).
The WTC 2 global impact model with the exterior wall removed is shown in Figure 3–27. This figure
shows how the WTC 2 model was optimized to reduce the mesh size and eliminate computational
requirements outside of the immediate impact and damage zone. The nonstructural building contents
were again modeled only in the path of the aircraft impact and debris cloud. These components are
shown separately in Figure 3–28. Similarly, the truss floor structures near the impact zone were modeled
in greater detail as seen in Figure 3–27. These detailed sections of the truss floor were positioned
adjacent to Side 400 (south face) for floors 78 through 81 and Side 300 (east face) for floors 81 and 82.
The surrounding truss floor structures were again modeled with the far-field truss model shown
previously in Figure 3–25.
To summarize, the approach adapted for the development of the global impact models for towers WTC 1
and WTC 2 was similar. The structures were modeled primarily with shell elements with some beam
elements in the detailed truss floor sections and bolted connections between the column ends in the
impact zone of the exterior wall. Some brick elements were used at the exterior column butt plates in the
detailed impact zone. A summary of the model size and element types for the global tower models is
presented in Table 3–2.
3-D view from bottom
<br>So the only floors in the impact modelling that were beam-framed were in the far field, at one extremity, of the impact zone. Although it does not state, specifically that the two floors involved that were beam framed used the beam framed model, it can be expected that they did. However, these floors were modeled only as far field models anyway since damage there due to impact was minimal.
EDITED to add: I still have to get to Chap 9 and beyond in the aircraft impact report.
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Chaps 1-8 Nist page 59 (Adobe page 155) figure 3-27
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf
It shows floor 77 and it appears to be an exact copy of 78-85. They use shell and beam elements for the trusses to more closely match the structure (figure 3-25) . NCSTAR 1-6D is where you want to be looking.
As I said earlier, floor 77 was in the EXPANDED section of the Global Model so you WON'T find it used as part of the IMPACT model.
By definition.
Arthur
Common Sense
21st April 2006 - 01:10 PM
Again, You're on a public board and I hope you don't mind me putting my two cents in...
| QUOTE | You say "No evidence for explosives" was found. Well, that's hardly surprising when 98 % of the evidence was carted off to China!
<br>I'm sure you know by now there is no evidence the federal government had nothing to do with that so why the implication?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | You say "No evidence for explosives" was found. Well, that's hardly surprising when 98 % of the evidence was carted off to China!
<br>I'm sure you know by now there is no evidence the federal government had nothing to do with that so why the implication?
Can you explain the sulfiding of some of the scraps of steel that were kept for analysis?
It's all very reminiscent of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The BATF claimed it analysed the explosion using an "an engineering program" from which it concluded that "a fuel oil sensitized ammonium nitrate bomb" did all the damage. Why has NIST not used a similar explosive engineering analysis program - one based on boundary element methods - to model blast scenarios for the WTC? This is quite simple to do using off-the-shelf software!
<br>Why would they keep something for analysis if it point to their gult?
http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
| QUOTE | And why is everyone so quick to rule out explosives at the WTC? The WTC was attacked twice in its 30 + year history. The first attack, in Feb 1993, involved 1200 pounds of urea nitrate HIDDEN IN THE BASEMENT!
<br>I don't see anyone ruling it out. I just don't see people rushing to consider something which no evidence puts it in play.
We saw the planes hit. We had airliner parts all over the place. In the OK bombing they found truck parts with a clear indication of being the point of explosion. I could ask the same question, why didn't NIST consider the possibility that an airplane hit the federal building? They didn't, does that mean the investigation wasn't thorough? Of course not. There was EVIDENCE leading to the actions they took. Why spend NIST valuable time creating the possibility for an explosive because chemicals which can be explained otherwise are found?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | And why is everyone so quick to rule out explosives at the WTC? The WTC was attacked twice in its 30 + year history. The first attack, in Feb 1993, involved 1200 pounds of urea nitrate HIDDEN IN THE BASEMENT!
<br>I don't see anyone ruling it out. I just don't see people rushing to consider something which no evidence puts it in play.
We saw the planes hit. We had airliner parts all over the place. In the OK bombing they found truck parts with a clear indication of being the point of explosion. I could ask the same question, why didn't NIST consider the possibility that an airplane hit the federal building? They didn't, does that mean the investigation wasn't thorough? Of course not. There was EVIDENCE leading to the actions they took. Why spend NIST valuable time creating the possibility for an explosive because chemicals which can be explained otherwise are found?
I believe explosives remain a possibility for WTC 7 - after all it was the home of Giuliani's "bunker" and other security agencies. It's standard practice to "scuttle" a ship so it doesnt fall into enemy hands. The paranoids in control believed 9-11 was an attempted coup d'etat - why not "pull" a strategic asset such as WTC 7 if you believe THE ENEMY IS AT THE GATE?
<br>Do you realize you implicate the fire department in this? Your only evidence is Giuliani's "bunker" was in the building and an old sailor euphemism.
If after reading this page you think "Pull" COULD mean demolition, please explan how...
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
adoucette
21st April 2006 - 01:37 PM
QUOTE (NF+) I believe explosives remain a possibility for WTC 7 - after all it was the home of Giuliani's "bunker" and other security agencies. It's standard practice to "scuttle" a ship so it does'nt fall into enemy hands. The paranoids in control believed 9-11 was an attempted coup d'etat - why not "pull" a strategic asset such as WTC 7 if you believe THE ENEMY IS AT THE GATE?
NF <br>NO ONE believed that the planes flying into the WTC and the Pentagon was a Coup d'etat. "scuttle a strategic asset" What a load of horse pucky. Arthur
adoucette
21st April 2006 - 01:38 PM
| QUOTE | And why is everyone so quick to rule out explosives at the WTC? The WTC was attacked twice in its 30 + year history. The first attack, in Feb 1993, involved 1200 pounds of urea nitrate HIDDEN IN THE BASEMENT!
<br>Hidden, as in INSIDE A TRUCK parked in the parking garage.
Arthur
reasonwhy
21st April 2006 - 02:27 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 21 2006, 04:35 AM) QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 21 2006, 01:38 AM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 20 2006, 08:46 PM) Back to truss and beam framed floor models.
From NIST NCSTAR 1-2BChap 1-8(Draft)
| QUOTE | The multiple floor global model for the impact zone of WTC 2 is shown in Figure 3–26. The model
included the complete floor inside and outside the core for floors 77 through 85. The exterior wall panels
at the bottom end of the model extended downward below floor 75. The boundary conditions for the ends
of the exterior and core columns at the top and bottom of the model were the same as those for the WTC 1
model. The higher resolution exterior wall panels in the impact zone, shown previously in Figure 3–11,
can be seen on the impact face of the WTC 2 tower model (Side 400).
The WTC 2 global impact model with the exterior wall removed is shown in Figure 3–27. This figure
shows how the WTC 2 model was optimized to reduce the mesh size and eliminate computational
requirements outside of the immediate impact and damage zone. The nonstructural building contents
were again modeled only in the path of the aircraft impact and debris cloud. These components are
shown separately in Figure 3–28. Similarly, the truss floor structures near the impact zone were modeled
in greater detail as seen in Figure 3–27. These detailed sections of the truss floor were positioned
adjacent to Side 400 (south face) for floors 78 through 81 and Side 300 (east face) for floors 81 and 82.
The surrounding truss floor structures were again modeled with the far-field truss model shown
previously in Figure 3–25.
To summarize, the approach adapted for the development of the global impact models for towers WTC 1
and WTC 2 was similar. The structures were modeled primarily with shell elements with some beam
elements in the detailed truss floor sections and bolted connections between the column ends in the
impact zone of the exterior wall. Some brick elements were used at the exterior column butt plates in the
detailed impact zone. A summary of the model size and element types for the global tower models is
presented in Table 3–2.
3-D view from bottom
<br>So the only floors in the impact modelling that were beam-framed were in the far field, at one extremity, of the impact zone. Although it does not state, specifically that the two floors involved that were beam framed used the beam framed model, it can be expected that they did. However, these floors were modeled only as far field models anyway since damage there due to impact was minimal.
EDITED to add: I still have to get to Chap 9 and beyond in the aircraft impact report.
NIST NCSTAR 1-2B Chaps 1-8 Nist page 59 (Adobe page 155) figure 3-27
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-2B_Chaps1-8.pdf
It shows floor 77 and it appears to be an exact copy of 78-85. They use shell and beam elements for the trusses to more closely match the structure (figure 3-25) .
NCSTAR 1-6D is where you want to be looking.
As I said earlier, floor 77 was in the EXPANDED section of the Global Model so you WON'T find it used as part of the IMPACT model.
By definition.
Arthur
Yesitdid can check if NIST used the correct model in the 480 page NISTNCSTAR1-6D fire report were it would not make a difference.
I no longer think the NIST report is BS.
Now I Think the NIST report is a JOKE! Not using the correct model for floor 77 on the impact simulation when it is part of the database is unbelievable (It’s much more difficult to model it wrong). You can speculate all day about why they did not use the correct floor structure for 78-83 however, 77 was part of the database and already modeled.
Common Sense
21st April 2006 - 02:47 PM
It's pathetic to see otherwise intelligent people tug on the smallest string in the hopes of unraveling some outlandish conspiracy. As if the NIST report hangs on one small part of the 77th floor computer model alone.. Heh! Absurd!
newton
21st April 2006 - 03:31 PM
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 21 2006, 04:10 AM)
Well I tried demanding that this be a thread about the physics for quite some time and was railed at by the 'other side'. I was told point blank that it was all physics.
I gave up. Bully for you if you think you can bring it back, I'll support you on it.
Sorry I included you in the last question then.
Explosives may not be ruled out in any event of 9/11 but neither has there been a good or even fair (that's fair as in 'fair, good, excellent' , not as in , 'fair play') for explosives. So far the arguement for explosives centers on , 'it looked like or sounded like ' explosives. perhaps you missed post number one. fall time is the problem. sounds and visuals indicate that bombs were used, but fall times PROVE IT. FEMA reported 8 seconds and 10 seconds as fall times for wtc1 and wtc2. why? are they MORONS?? it is clear that the towers took more like twelve seconds to fall. so? what's it going to be, uber-shill puppets? how did FEMA fuhcup so badly? is it because they felt that the fall times MUST match the siesmic readings? what exactly is the correlation between fall times and siesmic durations? i've heard shills go on about them being practically unrelated. why was there such a HUGE discrepency in the seismic energy imparted on the ground by two nearly identical towers? there is no 'working model' for tower seven, i'm sorry. pointing to the structure and saying, 'look, there's the beams and whatnot. uh, ...some fire, ....er, .....the collapse occurred at 5:20, ....um, ....diesel fuel, ....uh, and a big hole from, .....uh, ....the debris, yeah, yeah, that's it, the debris, ....um, ....and so , YEAH, THEN IT FELL, see?' is not a 'working model'. "we see no evidence of demolition." (eyes wide shut)
NEU-FONZE
21st April 2006 - 03:31 PM
AA:
So the US government already knew on Sept -11 that the on-going attacks in New York City and Washington were NOT a coup d'etat. Here we go again with that all-seeing and all-knowing malarkey!
So why did BUSH run for the hills? (of Nebraska, no less)
AA, your slip is showing.............
NF
brian
21st April 2006 - 03:39 PM
No evidence of explosives - tell that to those who had their skin flayed from the explosion.
Or the fireman who says his helmet almost blew off in the explosion that took place below him.
Walks talks and tastes like a duck but I only eat dog - therefore its a dog.
Temp
21st April 2006 - 04:17 PM
Does this sound plausible to anyone --- except arthur? http://members.surfeu.fi/11syyskuu/military.htm
shagster
21st April 2006 - 05:06 PM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 17 2006, 08:37 PM)
arthur, it is not a case of 'came to rest', that sounds much too serene, it is a case of 'transferred one hundred percent of it's momentum'. <br>That graph is absurd in the context of trying to explain the collapse front. It assumes that every ten floors, the debris pile came to a stop and started again from a standstill. Obviously, that's wrong. If you don't believe the debris pile was halted, then the pile would have to pass by the tenth floor below it and reach the ground before that floor does. Either way, it's an absurd argument. The graph would represent a case where ten people dropped a golf ball at the time when a ball dropped from someone ten floors above him just reached him. That's all that graph says. Read Greening's paper. He does a proper treatment of the effect of momentum transfer. The results show that the collapse duration takes about 3 more seconds compared with that of freefall, consistent with the observed durations.
newtonnjd
21st April 2006 - 05:26 PM
QUOTE (shagster+Apr 21 2006, 05:06 PM) Read Greening's paper. He does a proper treatment of the effect of momentum transfer. The results show that the collapse duration takes about 3 more seconds compared with that of freefall, consistent with the observed durations. Which in fact supports CD, because CD would effectively create a momentum-transfer only collapse. Greening himself would admit that his collapse times are too short due to the energy sinks he doesn't take into account.
yesitdid
21st April 2006 - 06:07 PM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 21 2006, 03:31 PM)
perhaps you missed post number one.
fall time is the problem.
sounds and visuals indicate that bombs were used, but fall times PROVE IT.
FEMA reported 8 seconds and 10 seconds as fall times for wtc1 and wtc2.
I would be interested in you providing a reference to the FEMA report that states this please. I just looked through them again and can't locate those times being listed. Given that 8.1 seconds is the free fall time from a height 300 feet short of the top of WTC2 I doubt that FEMA actually stated this anywhere.
Common Sense
21st April 2006 - 07:28 PM
QUOTE (shagster+Apr 21 2006, 12:06 PM) QUOTE (newton+Apr 17 2006, 08:37 PM)
arthur, it is not a case of 'came to rest', that sounds much too serene, it is a case of 'transferred one hundred percent of it's momentum'. <br>That graph is absurd in the context of trying to explain the collapse front. It assumes that every ten floors, the debris pile came to a stop and started again from a standstill. Obviously, that's wrong. If you don't believe the debris pile was halted, then the pile would have to pass by the tenth floor below it and reach the ground before that floor does. Either way, it's an absurd argument. The graph would represent a case where ten people dropped a golf ball at the time when a ball dropped from someone ten floors above him just reached him. That's all that graph says. Read Greening's paper. He does a proper treatment of the effect of momentum transfer. The results show that the collapse duration takes about 3 more seconds compared with that of freefall, consistent with the observed durations. Would this be closer to reality?  http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/gcollapse.jpg
newton
21st April 2006 - 07:31 PM
anyone have the 911 commission's fall times?
NIST's?
FEMA's?
do they all MATCH!? if they cannot get that ONE simple, and very important thing right, then their 'science' is higly incompetent. lt'd be TYPICAL of all things 911. rampant 'incompetence', 'coincidence', and 'violation of physical laws'.
| QUOTE | The NIST report, in reference to the collapse of both WTC 1 and WTC 2...
"...the building section above came down essentially in free fall.."
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf - page 402
FEMA's report cites a time of 10 seconds for WTC 2 and 8 seconds for WTC 1, based on the seismic records...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf - page 10
<br>that was cut and paste. i can't verify it right now. arthur and i are watching jerry springer.
yesitdid
21st April 2006 - 07:51 PM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 21 2006, 07:31 PM) anyone have the 911 commission's fall times?
NIST's?
FEMA's?
do they all MATCH!? if they cannot get that ONE simple, and very important thing right, then their 'science' is higly incompetent. lt'd be TYPICAL of all things 911. rampant 'incompetence', 'coincidence', and 'violation of physical laws'.
| QUOTE | The NIST report, in reference to the collapse of both WTC 1 and WTC 2...
"...the building section above came down essentially in free fall.."
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf - page 402
FEMA's report cites a time of 10 seconds for WTC 2 and 8 seconds for WTC 1, based on the seismic records...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf - page 10
<br>that was cut and paste. i can't verify it right now. arthur and i are watching jerry springer.
That NIST link did not work and there is no reference to fall times in the FEMA pdf file linked.
edit: NIST link works again.see below.
Christophera
21st April 2006 - 07:56 PM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 21 2006, 03:31 PM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 21 2006, 04:10 AM)
Well I tried demanding that this be a thread about the physics for quite some time and was railed at by the 'other side'. I was told point blank that it was all physics.
I gave up. Bully for you if you think you can bring it back, I'll support you on it.
Sorry I included you in the last question then.
Explosives may not be ruled out in any event of 9/11 but neither has there been a good or even fair (that's fair as in 'fair, good, excellent' , not as in , 'fair play') for explosives. So far the arguement for explosives centers on , 'it looked like or sounded like ' explosives. <br> perhaps you missed post number one. fall time is the problem. sounds and visuals indicate that bombs were used, but fall times PROVE IT. <br> Yes, fall times prove it, but within this event,  the word bomb only relates in that it also uses explosives. That, ............. is not a bomb. That is a structure engineered to explode in a very efficient fashion, uniformly. It is impossible to get a structure to do that (steel cored never) within that appearance other than to place and distribute explosives in absolutely optimum positions uniformly. That is why not one person has ever seriously tried to design a method to make an event that appears as we see, ( I've asked many times). I only realize for a number of distinct, unique reasons, how it must have been done1. I viewed a 1990 documentary on the north tower design & construction. It was called "The Construction Of The Twin Towers" and produced by PBS. On 9-11 I assumed it was already unavailable. 2. I have experience with high explosives and have studied demoltion. 3. I have experience with concrete structures ( I work with concrete contractors and material testing laboratories) and viewed the documentary in complete understanding of it. 4 I have experience with steel structures (welding) and the methods used to construct them which was applied to my understanding of the entire tower. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are used in analysing images of the demolitions to identify the true structures that stood and how their configurations had a double design aspect which included demolition to an planned reduction of material at a size, on the ground. Given the structure that stood, that is the only way to get the continuous explosion and the density of high speed delays descrbed here, http://www.letsroll911.org/discussion_in_firehouse.mpgthe explosive must be built in.
Common Sense
21st April 2006 - 07:58 PM
I don't care if god revealed him/herself just to tell me the buildings fell in 8 seconds. That just didn't happen. Which leads me to believe they are talking about the perimeter columns and/or the time someone can see the collapse above the debris field. Even in the lying loose change video stops the clock when the the perimiter columns hit the ground and not the building. That alone took 10 seconds. The building was still about 40 stories high! So if the NIST final says the buildings took 8 seconds to completely collapse to the ground they are full of shiit. I doubt that's the case. As for FEMA who cares what they say. http://www.911myths.com/WTC2Collapse.mpegThis video stops at 10 seconds and the collapse is still in high gear.
Christophera
21st April 2006 - 08:07 PM
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 21 2006, 07:28 PM) The red stream of urine, the winner, (CSpam) indicates the horizontal distance p*ssed from an elevation of 1368 feet proving free fall is possible. Competitors yessie and arther fall short and therefore get less applause after sharing.
Common Sense
21st April 2006 - 09:04 PM
QUOTE (Christophera+Apr 21 2006, 03:07 PM) QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 21 2006, 07:28 PM) The red stream of urine, the winner, (CSpam) indicates the horizontal distance p*ssed from an elevation of 1368 feet proving free fall is possible. Competitors yessie and arther fall short and therefore get less applause after sharing. Humor isn't your strong suit. Your username word smith skills can be surpassed by the average first grader. I'd stick to regurgitating mindlessly your concrete core delusion if I were you. At least that evokes the emotion of sympathy. Heh!
adoucette
21st April 2006 - 11:13 PM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 21 2006, 03:31 PM) anyone have the 911 commission's fall times?
NIST's?
FEMA's?
do they all MATCH!? if they cannot get that ONE simple, and very important thing right, then their 'science' is higly incompetent. lt'd be TYPICAL of all things 911. rampant 'incompetence', 'coincidence', and 'violation of physical laws'.
| QUOTE | The NIST report, in reference to the collapse of both WTC 1 and WTC 2...
"...the building section above came down essentially in free fall.."
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf - page 402
FEMA's report cites a time of 10 seconds for WTC 2 and 8 seconds for WTC 1, based on the seismic records...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf - page 10
<br>that was cut and paste. i can't verify it right now. arthur and i are watching jerry springer. newton,
The FEMA report does NOT say the collapse took 8 secs and 10 secs any more than it says the WTC 7 collapse took 18 seconds and the AA plane impact took 12 seconds. These are the length of the MAJOR Seismic Signals, and thus it is only useful as an approximation of the time.
Arthur
NEU-FONZE
22nd April 2006 - 01:04 AM
AA=ADofATL:
That's right you tell everyone to go back to sleep, now.
Uncle SAM-ART is on VIGILANT lookout for enemy aircraft, just like he was on that beautiful September morning....
A La Recherche du Temps Perdu....
But folks, don't worry, (be happy), we have NIST, FEMA, NORAD, NRO, BATF, CIA, FBI and the NRA working on this full time and they will be issuing their 7th collapse report any time soon once they are sure of the global collapse initiation sequence which we are sure will be as brilliantly conceived as it was in their last FINAL REPORT performance.
NF
P.S. I forgot the FAA and the NTSB, sorry!
Foxx
22nd April 2006 - 01:41 AM
QUOTE by newton
Posted April 21, 2006 ...
perhaps you missed post number one.
fall time is the problem.
sounds and visuals indicate that bombs were used, but fall times PROVE IT.
FEMA reported 8 seconds and 10 seconds as fall times for wtc1 and wtc2. <br> Reply... by YID... QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | by newton
Posted April 21, 2006 ...
perhaps you missed post number one.
fall time is the problem.
sounds and visuals indicate that bombs were used, but fall times PROVE IT.
FEMA reported 8 seconds and 10 seconds as fall times for wtc1 and wtc2.
<br>Reply... by YID...
I would be interested in you providing a reference to the FEMA report that states this please.
I just looked through them again and can't locate] those times being listed.
Perhaps, YID is not too familiar with the'Early' official conspiracy theory ?
Given that 8.1 seconds is the free fall time from a height 300 feet short of the top of WTC2 I doubt that FEMA actually stated this anywhere.
<br>
That is one of the 'odd things' I notice about the OCT's...
What is it that they are missing ???? ...
Could it be...?
Chapter 1 : Introduction
This is where it all started - when FEMA attempted to address the 'fall times' in a rational scientific manner (with the back-up of numerous structural engineering (professionals) ...
'objectively'.
Personally, I thought they did a nice job with their computer-friendly graphics...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BizzaroZooFallTimes.html
Source : http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf {page 10}
| QUOTE | by newton
"anyone have the 911 commission's fall times?
NIST's?
FEMA's?
do they all MATCH!? if they cannot get that ONE simple, and very important thing right, then their 'science' is higly incompetent. lt'd be TYPICAL of all things 911. rampant 'incompetence', 'coincidence', and 'violation of physical laws'.
The NIST report, in reference to the collapse of both WTC 1 and WTC 2...
"...the building section above came down essentially in free fall.."
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf - page 402
FEMA's report cites a time of 10 seconds for WTC 2 and 8 seconds for WTC 1, based on the seismic records...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf - page 10
that was cut and paste. i can't verify it right now. arthur and i are watching jerry springer. "
<br>Excellent ...
very nice, newton !!! i didn't realize that you and arthur were living together, so i 'missed' the significance of our-thorns earlier complaints that he couldn't see the TV because your tin hat was in the way...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | by newton
"anyone have the 911 commission's fall times?
NIST's?
FEMA's?
do they all MATCH!? if they cannot get that ONE simple, and very important thing right, then their 'science' is higly incompetent. lt'd be TYPICAL of all things 911. rampant 'incompetence', 'coincidence', and 'violation of physical laws'.
The NIST report, in reference to the collapse of both WTC 1 and WTC 2...
"...the building section above came down essentially in free fall.."
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf - page 402
FEMA's report cites a time of 10 seconds for WTC 2 and 8 seconds for WTC 1, based on the seismic records...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf - page 10
that was cut and paste. i can't verify it right now. arthur and i are watching jerry springer. "
<br>Excellent ...
very nice, newton !!! i didn't realize that you and arthur were living together, so i 'missed' the significance of our-thorns earlier complaints that he couldn't see the TV because your tin hat was in the way...
by some tin-hat
The Tin Foil Hat Man
The tin foil hat is a tried and tested device which in a simple way blocks out the signals from the CIA's and other government agencies' mind control devices.
However, it has one serious drawback: In order to be effective, it must be worn at all times, and as soon as you start wearing it in public, the government agents will notice you and understand that you are a person not easily fooled. (Btw, government agents are actually very easy to spot: They can be recognised because they tend to look at you in a rather strange way when you wear your tin foil hat in public). They will then do their best to harm your reputation and discredit you, for example by spreading rumors that you're paranoid, delusional or otherwise not a very stable person.
So, is there a way around this problem? Can you block the mind control rays without letting the CIA know that you know?
Yes, there is a way.
All you need is a pair of scissors, an ordinary baseball cap, and your old tinfoil hat
You start by slowly and carefully deconstructing your old hat. You should now have one big, flat piece of tin foil. You will now cut a circle from this foil, and the size of the circle is calculated as follows: You measure the diameter of the baseball cap. We call this d. Then you enter the value of d into the following formula:
S = (d*3.1415926) / 2
The next step is to take your scissors (be careful with those things!) and cut a circular piece from the tin foil, with a diameter of S (centimeters, inches or whatever).
Now take your circular piece of foil and put it inside the baseball cap. If you've done your math correctly it should be a near perfect fit. If not, use the scissors to give it a little trim at the edges.
And voila! You now have a tin foil hat that not even the government's finest equipment (i.e. the tin foil detectors taken from the UFO that crashed in Roswell. President Kennedy knew, so they faked his death and took away his hat!) will be able to detect, and you may walk the streets of the city like any law-abiding citizen.
...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=64616
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 02:05 AM
Except that FEMA NEVER states that the Seismic Signal is equal to the fall times. They CERTAINLY don't imply its the TIME for the aircraft collision either. I notice you LEAVE OUT of your SNIPPET that fact that the seismic signal for WTC 7 was 18 seconds. Arthur
Foxx
22nd April 2006 - 02:34 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 02:05 AM) Except that FEMA NEVER states that the Seismic Signal is equal to the fall times. They CERTAINLY don't imply its the TIME for the aircraft collision either. I notice you LEAVE OUT of your SNIPPET that fact that the seismic signal for WTC 7 was 18 seconds. Arthur Isn't it 'odd' that arthurs committee is always the 'first respondent' ??? Like "the Schneib"... he is ALWAYS 'available'... 24/7... Great work... arth-obfuscator ... !!!
newton
22nd April 2006 - 02:41 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 02:05 AM) Except that FEMA NEVER states that the Seismic Signal is equal to the fall times. They CERTAINLY don't imply its the TIME for the aircraft collision either. I notice you LEAVE OUT of your SNIPPET that fact that the seismic signal for WTC 7 was 18 seconds. Arthur it's true. those are 'just' the seismic sigs. as we ALL KNOW, energy is only converted from one form to another, and the energy available in any system is a function of the MECHANISMS available to release it. ONE MOLECULE of water can blah blah a blah blah across the blah blah..... IF you have a mechanism for conversion. so, what's shaking the ground? how does a tower that takes 12-ish seconds to fall impart a big siesmic event for only eight or ten seconds? according to the official crock, the towers went BOOM right away, and then fell, which SHOULD look like a RAMP UP of energy release into the ground, with the PEAK happening at around the twelve second mark. what we HAVE is a spike, and then a RAMP DOWN of energy release. it simply does not jive. how does a tower that takes 6.6 seconds to fall, have a siesmic sig that lasts MUCH longer? why did one tower impart FAR more enrgy into the ground than the other nearly identical tower? so, what about the 911 ommission? did they publish fall times? did NIST? are the fall times important, in your mind, arthur? does it even matter? i mean, 'we' have to kick some arab arse, and get big prices for OIL before zero-point obsoletes it. we can't have rich people SUFFERING, now can we!?!?!!! how are we going to keep the rich rich in a peacetime 'frictionless' society? damn. what a pickle. arthur, gerry's not coming in so well, today. you think you can (shoe)phone the boys at HAARP and get them to bubble out the ionosphere over a different city until the show's over? today it's, 'i impregnated my grandmother, and then she left me for a gay crack whore'. the grandmother just cold-cocked her grandson! oooo. he kicked her in the belly! what a morally degraded society full of horrible people we must live in. foxx, tinfoil hats are disinfo. it HAS to be a faraday cage. that's why MY hat is so FOOKING HUGE!
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 03:32 AM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 21 2006, 10:41 PM) how does a tower that takes 12-ish seconds to fall impart a big siesmic event for only eight or ten seconds? according to the official crock, the towers went BOOM right away, and then fell, which SHOULD look like a RAMP UP of energy release into the ground, with the PEAK happening at around the twelve second mark.
what we HAVE is a spike, and then a RAMP DOWN of energy release. it simply does not jive.
how does a tower that takes 6.6 seconds to fall, have a siesmic sig that lasts MUCH longer?
why did one tower impart FAR more enrgy into the ground than the other nearly identical tower?
so, what about the 911 ommission? did they publish fall times?
did NIST?
are the fall times important, in your mind, arthur?
does it even matter? You would have to ask a seismologist. And trust me, if you AREN'T a seismologist, those squiggles mean NOTHING. A seismologist might be able to tell you why the TIMES are all over the board, I can't. FEMA used the times but didn't explain the times. I haven't read the 9/11 commission report. As far as I know NIST does not publish a collapse time. Is it important? Not to me, I can see ABOUT what it is, and I can see that free falling external pieces are exceeding the collapse front by a few seconds, but other than that you can't tell the EXACT time because all the pictures are obscured at the end. So does it matter, yes, in that the lack of ability to pin it down allows MORONs like you to say it fell FASTER than free fall because it got SUCKED down by the explosives. Arthur
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 03:52 AM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 21 2006, 10:41 PM) we can't have rich people SUFFERING, now can we!?!?!!!
Do you think I'm UPSET that the price of oil is high? Trust me, I'm not. In fact while I might pay more at the pump (no biggy, got an energy efficient house and I WORK FROM HOME) I own quite a bit of XOM, started buying it in the late 70s all the way till 1995. Since then I only buy if it drops 5% or more. My average basis is ~ $7.50 a share. It hit $65 today. So newt, here's a NO BRAINER tip. Invest a decent amount of money in Oil Company stocks. Then when the price of oil goes up, YOU'RE HAPPY. Arthur
shagster
22nd April 2006 - 03:58 AM
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 21 2006, 05:26 PM)
Which in fact supports CD, because CD would effectively create a momentum-transfer only collapse. Greening himself would admit that his collapse times are too short due to the energy sinks he doesn't take into account. CD doesn't ceate a momentum-transfer only collapse, as typically only a couple of adjacent floors are blown out to start the collapse. The rest of the floors are collapsed by gravity, which involves drawing some energy from the KE to collapse the remaining floors. The fall rate would be the same whether the adjacent floors were made unstable by aircraft damage or by explosives. To create a momentum-transfer only collapse would require that every single column on all floors be blown out with explosives. The burden is on explosive enthusiasts to explain how that would be done for hundreds of columns a quarter mile high. For those who contend that Greening's energy sinks should be much higher, that would make the collapse duration longer. It would be longer whether the collapse was started by aircraft damage or by explosives taking out a couple adjacent floors. The burden would then be on explosive enthusiasts to explain the shorter observed collapse durations which could only then occur by completely blowing out a large number of floors with explosives (not one or two, but most or all of them). Greening already took the energy sinks into account properly. The energy to collapse a floors adds about another half second to the fall duration. Momentum transfer adds about 3 seconds. Those figures give collapse rates that are consistent with those observed.
yesitdid
22nd April 2006 - 04:19 AM
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 21 2006, 07:51 PM) QUOTE (newton+Apr 21 2006, 07:31 PM) anyone have the 911 commission's fall times?
NIST's?
FEMA's?
do they all MATCH!? if they cannot get that ONE simple, and very important thing right, then their 'science' is higly incompetent. lt'd be TYPICAL of all things 911. rampant 'incompetence', 'coincidence', and 'violation of physical laws'.
| QUOTE | The NIST report, in reference to the collapse of both WTC 1 and WTC 2...
"...the building section above came down essentially in free fall.."
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf - page 402
FEMA's report cites a time of 10 seconds for WTC 2 and 8 seconds for WTC 1, based on the seismic records...
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf - page 10
<br>that was cut and paste. i can't verify it right now. arthur and i are watching jerry springer.
That NIST link did not work and there is no reference to fall times in the FEMA pdf file linked.
edit: NIST link works again.see below. One really should read the entire few paragraphs in which that little snip from the NIST report originates.
It starts on page 319 and continues on page 320.
No where does NIST claim that it was at free fall rate or faster (which 8.1 seconds clearly would be).
No where does FEMA make a claim of 8.1 and 10 seconds for the collapse times despite newton and Foxx's gae attempts to insinuate that FEMA did.
yesitdid
22nd April 2006 - 04:22 AM
I have to admit that the 'sucked down by explosives' claim would truly be miraculous.
newton
22nd April 2006 - 04:54 AM
 the building in this picture was not 'sucked to the earth'. the EXPLOSIVES were timed to run just ahead of the collapse front. this is only one pic. i have looked for this on other videos on other walls, and it's the same. floors are blasted out AHEAD of the freefalling debris, which then impacts floors which ARE 'hovering' in space. the seismic data would indicate that these BOMBS('explosives', if you prefer) that levelled the towers were timed to slightly outpace the freefalling top part, which was seemingly blown bottom up from the horizontal centre of the collapse front in both cases. why hasn't a seismologist or TEAM of them explained these things? tower seven, however, fell with virtually no resistance from ANYTHING.
yesitdid
22nd April 2006 - 05:15 AM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 22 2006, 04:54 AM)
tower seven, however, fell with virtually no resistance from ANYTHING. Well, the seismic trace for the towers are both shorter than what the videos show as collapse times and indeed 8 seconds simply cannot be the collapse time for either tower. The trace shown is from only one of three orthogonal detectors that all seismic vaults record. This is the east-west component, there will also be a north-south component and a vertical component. The nature of the seismic wave depends on many things including the geometry of the originating source of the vibration. The two buildings fell somewhat differently, they were oriented differently and both of those would result in somewhat different seismic recordings, not to mention that when WTC 1 fell there was already a lot of ground impact damping, rubble nearby. The seismic trace shown for WTC 7, it is stated above, shows 18 seconds. That certainly suggests that a lot was going on inside the building well before the exterior walls began to collapse. Given also that WTC 7 fell in a much diferent fashion and was a very diferent geometry and orientation than the towers it may well have simply shown up better of the east-west trace than the towers did. Indeed since 8 seconds is obviously too short a time for anything to fall 1300 feet. One other major parameter that affects how much energy gets transmitted into seismic vibrations is the physical coupling to the bedrock. WTC 7 may well have had better contact whereas the towers were surrounded by a wall that kept the loose , wet ground away from their sub levels.
yesitdid
22nd April 2006 - 05:35 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 22 2006, 01:04 AM) AA=ADofATL:
That's right you tell everyone to go back to sleep, now.
Uncle SAM-ART is on VIGILANT lookout for enemy aircraft, just like he was on that beautiful September morning....
A La Recherche du Temps Perdu....
But folks, don't worry, (be happy), we have NIST, FEMA, NORAD, NRO, BATF, CIA, FBI and the NRA working on this full time and they will be issuing their 7th collapse report any time soon once they are sure of the global collapse initiation sequence which we are sure will be as brilliantly conceived as it was in their last FINAL REPORT performance.
NF
P.S. I forgot the FAA and the NTSB, sorry! ,,,,,and the Secret Service.
reasonwhy
22nd April 2006 - 06:21 AM
I read the section of the NIST report yesitdid referred to and it stated:
| QUOTE | NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.
<br>I wonder if NIST and OCT supporters plan to blame Al Qaeda as a fall back plan?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.
<br>I wonder if NIST and OCT supporters plan to blame Al Qaeda as a fall back plan?
WHY?
NIST IS THE GOVERNMENT STORY.
The 9/11 planes were flown by people who had been living in the US.
Why would the MERE presence of bombs in the WTC implicate a DIFFERENT group than those who flew the planes?
Why would BOTH not be blamed on Al Qaeda?
Its not like Al Qaeda is not already associated with BOMBS.
In fact, the PLANES were unique, BOMBS on the otherhand are their STANDARD form of terror weapon.
So maybe it wouldn't happen in YOUR reality, but in the real world, Al Qaeda and Bombs is really not that hard to believe.
Arthur
<br>| QUOTE | Canadian defense scientists are leading an international effort to devise protection against new and more powerful terrorist explosives designed to flatten buildings...
For instance, in 2002 a tanker truck was used in a suicide attack on a synagogue in Tunisia, thought to be the work of Al-Qaeda. Some experts believe the way the fuel tanks were rigged with explosives shows a knowledge of fuel-air explosive techniques.
<br>http://www.defense-update.com/commentary/24-1-06.htm
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Canadian defense scientists are leading an international effort to devise protection against new and more powerful terrorist explosives designed to flatten buildings...
For instance, in 2002 a tanker truck was used in a suicide attack on a synagogue in Tunisia, thought to be the work of Al-Qaeda. Some experts believe the way the fuel tanks were rigged with explosives shows a knowledge of fuel-air explosive techniques.
<br>http://www.defense-update.com/commentary/24-1-06.htm
At the same time, some terrorist bombs, such as the one detonated last year by al-Qaeda operatives on the Indonesian island of Bali, use the same principles that are behind thermobaric explosives, say scientists with Defence Research and Development Canada
<br>http://secondsightresearch.tripod.com/zine/id77.html ]
If someone on the NIST team becomes suspicious of explosives just shut them up stating nation security concerns. Let the suspicious engineer think terrorist planted classified explosive’s the same day and the government doesn’t want to panic the nation. Remember, Al-Qaeda sleeper cells are in every US neighborhood and that is why 300,000 people are on the no-fly list.
Rove's shill
22nd April 2006 - 08:44 AM
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 22 2006, 04:22 AM) I have to admit that the 'sucked down by explosives' claim would truly be miraculous. <img width='450' src='http://one.fsphost.com/ttunac/frame_southt_01.jpg' border='0' alt='User posted image' />      Yeah YID, miraculous like symmetrical 6.6 second collapse due to fire and global collapse ensued.
Rove's shill
22nd April 2006 - 09:24 AM
  Yup, 'Global collapse ensued' covers just about everything.
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 12:56 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 22 2006, 02:21 AM) I read the section of the NIST report yesitdid referred to and it stated:
| QUOTE | NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001.
<br>I wonder if NIST and OCT supporters plan to blame Al Qaeda as a fall back plan?
NO
NO NEED
Why?
NO CORROBORATING EVIDENCE FOR EXPLOSIVES WAS FOUND.
Arthur
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 01:09 PM
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 22 2006, 12:22 AM) I have to admit that the 'sucked down by explosives' claim would truly be miraculous. Not for newt QUOTE (newton Jan 11 2006+ 11:11 PM) tower seven, on the other hand, fell at the speed of freefall in a vacuum, which is only possible if you blow the air out of it while simultaneously removing all support, which is only possible with explosives. <br> Arthur
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 01:15 PM
QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 22 2006, 01:35 AM) QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 22 2006, 01:04 AM) AA=ADofATL:
That's right you tell everyone to go back to sleep, now.
Uncle SAM-ART is on VIGILANT lookout for enemy aircraft, just like he was on that beautiful September morning....
A La Recherche du Temps Perdu....
But folks, don't worry, (be happy), we have NIST, FEMA, NORAD, NRO, BATF, CIA, FBI and the NRA working on this full time and they will be issuing their 7th collapse report any time soon once they are sure of the global collapse initiation sequence which we are sure will be as brilliantly conceived as it was in their last FINAL REPORT performance.
NF
P.S. I forgot the FAA and the NTSB, sorry! ,,,,,and the Secret Service. And the Pathologists And the security folks at the WTC 1 & 2 and WTC 7 who allowed the explosives to be planted and wired into all three towers. And Silverstein And the Mayor of NYC And the Governor of NY And the FDNY And the NYPD And the Core of Engineers Arthur
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 01:21 PM
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 22 2006, 04:44 AM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 22 2006, 04:22 AM) I have to admit that the 'sucked down by explosives' claim would truly be miraculous. <img width='450' src='http://one.fsphost.com/ttunac/frame_southt_01.jpg' border='0' alt='User posted image' /> Nice pics RS, Of course they DON'T support a CD explanation at all. In the FIRST Picture the collapse is WELL UNDERWAY. Hold a straightedge to the tower and see that it is already beginning its tilt. This was preceeded by the failure of a wall, which would have also resulted in falling floors which would have resulted in a LOT of air being displaced. The FACT that you can see the AIR EXPULSIONS GROW over several Frames is PROOF that they are not HE, which START BIG and then taper off. NICE WORK SHILL. Look, you can post these pics of the collapse till the cows come home, but UNLESS you can provide an EXPLANATION for the BOWED IN COLUMNS as SEEN and as MODELED by NIST, you got NOTHING. Why? Because the bowed in columns EXPLAIN the collapse initiation and their cause is easily understood based on the structural and fire model that NIST built. Arthur
lenbrazil
22nd April 2006 - 02:18 PM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 22 2006, 04:54 AM) the building in this picture was not 'sucked to the earth'. the EXPLOSIVES were timed to run just ahead of the collapse front. this is only one pic. i have looked for this on other videos on other walls, and it's the same. floors are blasted out AHEAD of the freefalling debris, which then impacts floors which ARE 'hovering' in space. the seismic data would indicate that these BOMBS('explosives', if you prefer) that levelled the towers were timed to slightly outpace the freefalling top part, which was seemingly blown bottom up from the horizontal centre of the collapse front in both cases. why hasn't a seismologist or TEAM of them explained these things? tower seven, however, fell with virtually no resistance from ANYTHING. Newt - You truly are a genius you should change your username to Einstein or better yet Eintrottel. 1) The collapses of the towers were among the most photographed events in history. I don't know what you think you see in those blurry frames but what ever they recorded if it really happened would be visible in clearer photos and video clips as well. If you can see something in those frames that you can't see elsewhere it is either: a) a figment of your imagination;  distortion created by the low quality of the image or c) a hoax, a forgery that some one made on their computer. 9-11 was a beautiful blue skied day, why is this video gray. In an earlier post you provided this link for the video http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...03rd%20clip.mpg which shows it as coming from ABC. I find it very hard to believe a major TV network would shoot video that looks like it was shot with a cheap cellphone. You said you've seen the same phenomena in other video clips. You're not just making that up, are you? IF it's true why do you keep posting the same blobby frames? I'm calling your bluff, lay your cards on the table. You say you got a royal flush I think all you've got is a pair of deuces. 2) In any case in the 1st frame the indistinct gray blob which you identified as part of the collapse wave (it looks more like dust falling from above to me) and being "faster than freefall" is ABOVE the bit of debris that you identified as "freefall". Thus it should have been labeled "SLOWER than freefall" it is also quite possible that there are chunks of debris that aren't visible due to the extremely low resolution of the images. In the second frame the circle (in which I don't see a thing) which you labeled "faster than freefall" is at the SAME height as the debris you labeled "freefall" and thus both should have been labeled “freefall”. Once again it's quite possible that debris not visible is lower than the chunk you circled. Par of deuces? I was too generous you got no pairs with a 7 as your high card. Len PS Why would the evil geniuses at PNAC/the PTB/MIC etc time the explosives to outpace free fall? Wouldn't that have been incredibly stupid?
lenbrazil
22nd April 2006 - 02:45 PM
QUOTE (webster+Apr 20 2006, 10:45 PM) QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 20 2006, 08:35 PM) QUOTE (newton+Apr 20 2006, 06:13 PM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 20 2006, 06:03 PM) More occult silliness from newton I see. 'occult' simply means, 'hidden'. 'apocalypse' simply means, '(the) revealing'. arthur, i see right through you. Wrong again genius. See the words as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary below | QUOTE | occult
ADJECTIVE:
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with supernatural influences, agencies, or phenomena.
2. Beyond the realm of human comprehension; inscrutable.
3. Available only to the initiate; secret: occult lore. See Synonyms at mysterious.
4. Hidden from view; concealed.
5. a. Medicine Detectable only by microscopic examination or chemical analysis, as a minute blood sample.
b. Not accompanied by readily detectable signs or symptoms: occult carcinoma.
NOUN:
Occult practices or techniques: a student of the occult.
VERB:
oc•cult•ed , oc•cult•ing , oc•cults ( -k lt )
VERB: tr.
1. To conceal or cause to disappear from view.
2. Astronomy To conceal by occultation: The moon occulted Mars.
VERB: intr.
To become concealed or extinguished at regular intervals: a lighthouse beacon that occults every 45 seconds.
________________________________________
ETYMOLOGY:
Latin occultus, secret, past participle of occulere, to cover over; see kel- 1 in Indo-European roots
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/occult
a•poc•a•lypse ( -p k -l ps ) KEY
NOUN:
1.
a. Apocalypse Abbr. Apoc. Bible The Book of Revelation.
b. Any of a number of anonymous Jewish or Christian texts from around the second century B.C. to the second century A.D. containing prophetic or symbolic visions, especially of the imminent destruction of the world and the salvation of the righteous.
2. Great or total devastation; doom: the apocalypse of nuclear war.
3. A prophetic disclosure; a revelation.
________________________________________
ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English Apocalipse, from Late Latin Apocalypsis, from Greek apokalupsis, revelation, Apocalypse, from apokaluptein, to uncover : apo-, apo- + kaluptein, to cover; see kel- 1 in Indo-European roots
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dicti...ntry/apocalypse
<br>The definitions in Webster’s are basically the same. http://m-w.com/
Go ahead Newt and keep posting this nonsense I’m sure it will help fence sitting lurkers to see what a lunatic you are.
Once again are any of you other CTists willing to back Newt’s belief in the Illuminati?
It is interesting to observe that, most (if not all) the people who believe the Moon landing’s were faked believe 9/11 was an “inside job”, most (if not all) the people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax believe 9/11 was an “inside job” and most (if not all) the people who believe in the Illuminati believe 9/11 was an “inside job”.
you said i was wrong, and then posted the dictionary definition that proves me right.
thanks. proving also, that shills will do anything to discredit(assassinate) the character of an online adversary.
meaning 4. for occult, and 3. 'revelation' or 'prophetic disclosure' is damn similiar to 'reveal', no?
you might want to check the greek dictionary for apocalypse, and not the english one.
tag, you're it. Not only aren't you a Newton you ain't a Webster (Noah or Daniel) either. Look up the word "simply" if you say a word simply means something, that means it means nothing else. The definitions you cited were obscure uses. How many examples of 'apocalypse' can you find where it's means "a revelation"? Also note the subtle difference between "(the) reveling" and "a revelation". How many examples of "occult" meaning "hidden"?
As for what the word meant in ancient Greek that is totally irrelevant we are debating in Modern English. Using your logic I could argue that "tell" simply means "count" because a few centuries back in some parts of England it did (hence the word teller).
reasonwhy
22nd April 2006 - 02:51 PM
Homeland security wants to take over the clown car: Homeland Security Grants
Spent On Clowns And Gyms By Audrey Hudson The Washington Times 4-22-6 Fire departments are using Homeland Security grants to buy gym equipment, sponsor puppet and clown shows, and turn first responders into fitness trainers. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420-110852-8296r.htm
lenbrazil
22nd April 2006 - 03:05 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 01:15 PM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 22 2006, 01:35 AM) QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 22 2006, 01:04 AM) AA=ADofATL:
That's right you tell everyone to go back to sleep, now.
Uncle SAM-ART is on VIGILANT lookout for enemy aircraft, just like he was on that beautiful September morning....
A La Recherche du Temps Perdu....
But folks, don't worry, (be happy), we have NIST, FEMA, NORAD, NRO, BATF, CIA, FBI and the NRA working on this full time and they will be issuing their 7th collapse report any time soon once they are sure of the global collapse initiation sequence which we are sure will be as brilliantly conceived as it was in their last FINAL REPORT performance.
NF
P.S. I forgot the FAA and the NTSB, sorry! ,,,,,and the Secret Service. And the Pathologists And the security folks at the WTC 1 & 2 and WTC 7 who allowed the explosives to be planted and wired into all three towers. And Silverstein And the Mayor of NYC And the Governor of NY And the FDNY And the NYPD And the Core of Engineers Arthur Funny none of the clown car occupants are willing to take up my challenge and say how many people minimum were required in each the various companies, organizations and government agencies involved to pull off 9/11 and cover it up. Len PS: NF - I'm no fan of the National Rifle Association but what exaclty do think their role in the 9/11 cover up was? And what do any of the agencies you cited other than FEMA and NIST have to do with coillapse reports?
brian
22nd April 2006 - 03:31 PM
Saturday, April 22, 2006 Open Letter to Thomas Eagar on Molten Metal at WTC First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Where's the part about them running away and hiding from you??? To: Thomas W. Eagar tweagar@MIT.EDU Department of Materials Science and Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Re: Professor Steven E. Jones Paper on Molten Metal at World Trade Center http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.htmlDear Professor Eagar, I was quite shocked when you refused to read the scientific paper by Professor Steven E. Jones of BYU dealing with the unanswered questions about the large amounts of molten metal that were seen cascading from the 81st floor of South Tower of the World Trade Center immediately before it began to collapse. I was equally amazed when you said that there was no evidence of molten metal flowing from the 81st floor of the South Tower prior to the collapse and that this is some sort of hearsay. And I was most disappointed when you suddenly hung up the phone on me. Why are you unwilling to discuss the evidence of molten metal at the World Trade Center - before and after the "collapses?" It certainly appears that you were unable to answer my questions and decided to run away. ... Professor Jones' webpage is here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/His paper on the molten metal is here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html... What kind of scientist are you anyway? Rather than running from the research of Professor Jones, you should welcome and embrace such efforts to answer the questions of 9-11. As Jones says, "The data stands on its own." What is this seriously-flawed "official version" of 9-11, which you seem to support, a religious myth that cannot be challenged? Signed, Christopher Bollyn American Free Press
metamars
22nd April 2006 - 03:38 PM
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 22 2006, 03:05 PM) QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 01:15 PM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 22 2006, 01:35 AM) QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Apr 22 2006, 01:04 AM) AA=ADofATL:
That's right you tell everyone to go back to sleep, now.
Uncle SAM-ART is on VIGILANT lookout for enemy aircraft, just like he was on that beautiful September morning....
A La Recherche du Temps Perdu....
But folks, don't worry, (be happy), we have NIST, FEMA, NORAD, NRO, BATF, CIA, FBI and the NRA working on this full time and they will be issuing their 7th collapse report any time soon once they are sure of the global collapse initiation sequence which we are sure will be as brilliantly conceived as it was in their last FINAL REPORT performance.
NF
P.S. I forgot the FAA and the NTSB, sorry! ,,,,,and the Secret Service. And the Pathologists And the security folks at the WTC 1 & 2 and WTC 7 who allowed the explosives to be planted and wired into all three towers. And Silverstein And the Mayor of NYC And the Governor of NY And the FDNY And the NYPD And the Core of Engineers Arthur Funny none of the clown car occupants are willing to take up my challenge and say how many people minimum were required in each the various companies, organizations and government agencies involved to pull off 9/11 and cover it up. Len PS: NF - I'm no fan of the National Rifle Association but what exaclty do think their role in the 9/11 cover up was? And what do any of the agencies you cited other than FEMA and NIST have to do with coillapse reports? What on earth do such questions have to do with physics? The answer, of course, is "absolutely nothing". While the question is an interesting one to explore (more interesting than, say, the relation of folded up dollars bills to 911), it will only dilute this thread even further. Which, I suppose, is exactly your purpose.
brian
22nd April 2006 - 03:56 PM
Evidence of explosion - Transcript of Professor Abolhassan AstanenAs - What you see here is first of all a dent that is -inaudible - explosion, but more importantly this area is a signature of explosion here. This has happened due to explosive material hitting this column and making that bulge. So this is a floor where explosion happened, and the windows are blown away, everything is burnt, even fireproofing on this floor is burnt and glazed to the steel. Video http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=69This is the first time I have seen this so others may know if there is more on this, for example was there any markings which may place the beam? Is his report available? The Professor speculates that it was the plane exploding as the source but it is evidence of explosion nonetheless.
Christophera
22nd April 2006 - 04:02 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 02:05 AM) Except that FEMA NEVER states that the Seismic Signal is equal to the fall times.
Arthur And efforts to get the raw data from the USGS are futile. WHY? Fast Fourier transform can absolutely identify the frequency of high explosives.
newton
22nd April 2006 - 04:05 PM
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Apr 22 2006, 02:45 PM) QUOTE (newton+Apr 20 2006, 06:13 PM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 20 2006, 06:03 PM) More occult silliness from newton I see. 'occult' simply means, 'hidden'. 'apocalypse' simply means, '(the) revealing'. <br>As for what the word meant in ancient Greek that is totally irrelevant we are debating in Modern English. Using your logic I could argue that "tell" simply means "count" because a few centuries back in some parts of England it did (hence the word teller). that's a bit full circle, as the thing we were originally discussing as 'occult', which came up as a result of counting the (HEXa)numeric values, which i was insinuating was part of an ancient (pre-phoenician)SPELL. TELL means 'count', eh? cool. ('cool' SIMPLY means 'neato keeno', but that is not the BASE meaning of the word, and the MORE common usage is no longer the ACTUAL meaning.) and 'COUNT' was an oligarch, eh? how about that. and PENN(mute, the written word) and TELLER(oral tradition) are 'master DEBUNKERS', LOL! BULLSH1T. you're right, though, i shouldn't have said 'simply'. i guess i assume others who would 'dare' post on a science forum are a cut above. i think in pattern/centuries, as opposed to pattern/lastweek. in this light, it is the origin of the words that have evolved into the common usage. sorry for the confusion, mere HUme.
newton
22nd April 2006 - 04:19 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 22 2006, 02:51 PM) Homeland security wants to take over the clown car: Homeland Security Grants
Spent On Clowns And Gyms By Audrey Hudson The Washington Times 4-22-6 Fire departments are using Homeland Security grants to buy gym equipment, sponsor puppet and clown shows, and turn first responders into fitness trainers. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060420-110852-8296r.htm looks like they realise only the clowns know what can and can't happen in a fire. if the OCTopus is to be believed, nobody will ever start a fire anywhere for anything for shear terror. propane BBQs will be ejecting the food into the neighbor's yard, as they suffer inevitable global collapse. internal combustion engines will be taking out city blocks! pretty classic. nice one.
Rove's shill
22nd April 2006 - 04:26 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 01:21 PM) QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 22 2006, 04:44 AM) QUOTE (yesitdid+Apr 22 2006, 04:22 AM) I have to admit that the 'sucked down by explosives' claim would truly be miraculous. <img width='450' src='http://one.fsphost.com/ttunac/frame_southt_01.jpg' border='0' alt='User posted image' /> Nice pics RS, Of course they DON'T support a CD explanation at all. In the FIRST Picture the collapse is WELL UNDERWAY. Hold a straightedge to the tower and see that it is already beginning its tilt. This was preceeded by the failure of a wall, which would have also resulted in falling floors which would have resulted in a LOT of air being displaced. The FACT that you can see the AIR EXPULSIONS GROW over several Frames is PROOF that they are not HE, which START BIG and then taper off. NICE WORK SHILL. Look, you can post these pics of the collapse till the cows come home, but UNLESS you can provide an EXPLANATION for the BOWED IN COLUMNS as SEEN and as MODELED by NIST, you got NOTHING. Why? Because the bowed in columns EXPLAIN the collapse initiation and their cause is easily understood based on the structural and fire model that NIST built. Arthur Arthur(s), your so full of sh8t, you have no doubt convinced yourself(s). Keep saying it over and over and it will become true, right? Please tell me more about the wings of a 757 folding back to enter the small hole at the Pentagon, flygirl(s). It's all here Arthur(s). Video evidence and fall times. Dismiss, divert and deny all you like. It's here. More are waking up. The climate is changing. I don't expect you to stop selling us out though. Some people are just born cowards.
Rove's shill
22nd April 2006 - 04:33 PM
| QUOTE | Why? Because the bowed in columns EXPLAIN the collapse initiation and their cause is easily understood based on the structural and fire model that NIST built.
Arthur
<br>No way sagging floor trusses pulled in perimeter columns. The connection was too weak remember? you are chasing your tail Arthur(s). All your BS keeps running into each other(s).
newton
22nd April 2006 - 04:41 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 22 2006, 03:38 PM)
What on earth do such questions have to do with physics? The answer, of course, is "absolutely nothing".
While the question is an interesting one to explore (more interesting than, say, the relation of folded up dollars bills to 911), it will only dilute this thread even further.
Which, I suppose, is exactly your purpose. let's fight, metamars. (mars IS the god of WAR) i find the probability of those patterns showing up RANDOMLY on money folded like airplanes to be virtually zero. please note that i am not spamming the thread with that info, but rather the murderers are TRYING to use a TRUTH to disCREDIT me because i pointed out a pattern i feel is related to the bigger picture. i find that more interesting than the baseless speculation about how the towers WERE loaded, and HOW MANY people are involved. the fact is, that what is verified(if you're smart enough to be in the clown car when the apocalypse hits, lol) and relevent is that the towers WERE BLOWN with EXPLOSIVES. when we see a suicide bomber blow up a bus and it's occupants, we don't have to PROVE that he had accomplices to prove that the bus blew up, as lenbrazil's "logic" would dictate. if 19 hijackers can ALLEGEDLY do it, why can't 19 HIGH-POWERED MILITARY DICTATORS do it? if the buildings can fall in 12 seconds without explosives, why does assisting gravity with explosives require TONS and TONS of explosives to bring the towers down? murderers are all INSANE!
newton
22nd April 2006 - 04:50 PM
QUOTE (Christophera+Apr 22 2006, 04:02 PM) QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 02:05 AM) Except that FEMA NEVER states that the Seismic Signal is equal to the fall times.
Arthur And efforts to get the raw data from the USGS are futile. WHY? Fast Fourier transform can absolutely identify the frequency of high explosives. CHRI on your FM dial. right on , brother.
Rove's shill
22nd April 2006 - 04:57 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 03:52 AM) QUOTE (newton+Apr 21 2006, 10:41 PM) we can't have rich people SUFFERING, now can we!?!?!!!
Do you think I'm UPSET that the price of oil is high? Trust me, I'm not. In fact while I might pay more at the pump (no biggy, got an energy efficient house and I WORK FROM HOME) I own quite a bit of XOM, started buying it in the late 70s all the way till 1995. Since then I only buy if it drops 5% or more. My average basis is ~ $7.50 a share. It hit $65 today. So newt, here's a NO BRAINER tip. Invest a decent amount of money in Oil Company stocks. Then when the price of oil goes up, YOU'RE HAPPY. Arthur Oil hit $75 today. Expect a torrent of incoming BS from Arthurs. Incentive is at an all time high.
Rove's shill
22nd April 2006 - 05:12 PM
Hey Newt! I got no beach, but I'm getting a little sun now, so I'm headin out! Check this out tell me what you think. Economist
Arthurs financial advisor
22nd April 2006 - 05:12 PM
Arthur tell them about the your investments in The Carlyle Group and Halliburton. When we nuke Iran and kill all those civilians a fortune will be made!!!
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 05:40 PM
QUOTE (Arthurs financial advisor+Apr 22 2006, 01:12 PM) Arthur tell them about the your investments in The Carlyle Group and Halliburton. When we nuke Iran and kill all those civilians a fortune will be made!!! I've got no money in either. I'm mostly into energy and tech stocks. Things I KNOW SOMETHING about. Arthur
newton
22nd April 2006 - 06:00 PM
QUOTE (Arthurs financial advisor+Apr 22 2006, 05:12 PM) Arthur tell them about the your investments in The Carlyle Group and Halliburton. When we nuke Iran and kill all those civilians a fortune will be made!!! stock=goyim i call it a NO HEARTER.
newtonnjd
22nd April 2006 - 06:10 PM
QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 22 2006, 09:24 AM) That is a great image. Notice the kink near the top of the upper section? Now what could have caused weakening all the way up there!
metamars
22nd April 2006 - 06:12 PM
QUOTE (Christophera+Apr 22 2006, 04:02 PM) QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 02:05 AM) Except that FEMA NEVER states that the Seismic Signal is equal to the fall times.
Arthur And efforts to get the raw data from the USGS are futile. WHY? Fast Fourier transform can absolutely identify the frequency of high explosives. Can you provide a link, for this? I've frankly just skipped over most of the stuff re sounds of explosions. I guess you might say that I tend to agree with the popes in that even first person accounts of heard explosions should not be taken as definitive, since floors collapsing in a sequential fashion might sound the same. However, unless I'm mistaken, the key line of evidence that resulted in the House Select Committe on Assassinations indicated that there was likely a second shooter during the JFK assassination was acoustical. Getting into the science of acoustics might well settle the matter. ( I think I did see some info posted on this thread re acoustics, but didn't' have time to get into it. ) Also on this subject, a good friend of mine with an excellent memory told me that he heard accounts from the BBC on 911 describing explosions, but after 911, those accounts were never repeated. This guy can remember scores of basketball games from 20 years ago, and so I don't doubt his recollection on this, at all. Also, how do you know that the USGS will not provide the evidence, as you indicate? Finally, Professor Jones' paper points to souped up thermite, which solves problems such as no known chemical tags found, and modest overpressures. But what kind of sound should this make? Presumably, very different from "regular" explosives. And, ito seismic waves, I would guess there'd be no signature, at all. Hence, this would constitute another argument for a CD agent which burns through steel, moreso than blows it up.
Rove's shill
22nd April 2006 - 07:35 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 05:40 PM) QUOTE (Arthurs financial advisor+Apr 22 2006, 01:12 PM) Arthur tell them about the your investments in The Carlyle Group and Halliburton. When we nuke Iran and kill all those civilians a fortune will be made!!! I've got no money in either. I'm mostly into energy and tech stocks. Things I KNOW SOMETHING about. Arthur That and selling your countrymen out.
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 10:20 PM
QUOTE (newton+Apr 22 2006, 12:41 PM) if the buildings can fall in 12 seconds without explosives, why does assisting gravity with explosives require TONS and TONS of explosives to bring the towers down?
SINCE, the towers could fall just from the plane crash and the effects of the fire, WHAT's the POINT of ANY explosives? Arthur
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 10:25 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Apr 22 2006, 02:12 PM) QUOTE (Christophera+Apr 22 2006, 04:02 PM) QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 02:05 AM) Except that FEMA NEVER states that the Seismic Signal is equal to the fall times.
Arthur And efforts to get the raw data from the USGS are futile. Can you provide a link, for this? Might be tricky, since the seismic signals came from the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia Univ. Not the US Coast and Geodetic Survey group. Metamars, you should realize by now that Christophera JUST MAKES BS UP. Well, more than MOST CT'ers, at least. Arthur
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 10:31 PM
QUOTE (Arthurs financial advisor+Apr 22 2006, 01:12 PM) Arthur tell them about the your investments in The Carlyle Group and Halliburton. When we nuke Iran and kill all those civilians a fortune will be made!!!
Its not likely to be us taking out Iran, look for another surgical strike similar to what Israel did when Saddam tried to build a French Nuclear reactor site. No one is going to nuke that oil, then we couldn't burn it. Arthur
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 11:02 PM
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 22 2006, 02:10 PM) QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 22 2006, 09:24 AM) That is a great image. Notice the kink near the top of the upper section? Now what could have caused weakening all the way up there! I guess nothing in THAT picture would make any sane person wonder what NATURAL FORCE could cause that kink. Arthur
adoucette
22nd April 2006 - 11:51 PM
QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 21 2006, 10:47 AM) It's pathetic to see otherwise intelligent people tug on the smallest string in the hopes of unraveling some outlandish conspiracy. As if the NIST report hangs on one small part of the 77th floor computer model alone.. Heh! Absurd! What is REALLY pathetic is Reasonwhy's portrayal of the modeling work NIST did. The way he describes it you would think there was just ONE model. Which is why its obvious that either he has not really read the NIST reports concerning the Fire, Impact and Global models (and is parrotting BS from people like Jones) or he has real problems with reading comprehension. Arthur.
Rove's shill
23rd April 2006 - 12:24 AM
Metamars
| QUOTE | Also on this subject, a good friend of mine with an excellent memory told me that he heard accounts from the BBC on 911 describing explosions, but after 911, those accounts were never repeated. This guy can remember scores of basketball games from 20 years ago, and so I don't doubt his recollection on this, at all.
<br>Some here.
newtonnjd
23rd April 2006 - 12:45 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 11:02 PM) QUOTE (newtonnjd+Apr 22 2006, 02:10 PM) QUOTE (Rove's shill+Apr 22 2006, 09:24 AM) That is a great image. Notice the kink near the top of the upper section? Now what could have caused weakening all the way up there! I guess nothing in THAT picture would make any sane person wonder what NATURAL FORCE could cause that kink. Arthur Great, so we have yet another energy sink - breaking up the structure in non-pancaking regions of the collapse too.
reasonwhy
23rd April 2006 - 02:01 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 22 2006, 03:51 PM) QUOTE (Common Sense+Apr 21 2006, 10:47 AM) It's pathetic to see otherwise intelligent people tug on the smallest string in the hopes of unraveling some outlandish conspiracy. As if the NIST report hangs on one small part of the 77th floor computer model alone.. Heh! Absurd! What is REALLY pathetic is Reasonwhy's portrayal of the modeling work NIST did. The way he describes it you would think there was just ONE model. Which is why its obvious that either he has not really read the NIST reports concerning the Fire, Impact and Global models (and is parrotting BS from people like Jones) or he has real problems with reading comprehension. Arthur. <br>My statement: QUOTE (reasonwhy+Apr 21 2006, 06:27 AM) Yesitdid can check if NIST used the correct model in the 480 page NISTNCSTAR1-6D fire report were it would not make a difference. I no longer think the NIST report is BS. Now, I Think the NIST report is a JOKE! Not using the correct model for floor 77 on the impact simulation when it is part of the database is unbelievable (It’s much more difficult to model it wrong). You can speculate all day about why they did not use the correct floor structure for 78-83( all having some beam construction) however, 77 was part of the database and already modeled. <br> What are you Implying? I am not aware of anyone else making the same comments about NIST. The same SAP2000 model is used for all the FEA simulations contracted by NIST. Obviously, different FEA software would be implemented. Look at E.2.1 in the executive summery of (NIST NCSTAR 1-6D) .They converted the model from SAP2000 developed by NIST (NIST NCSTAR 1-2). http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdfSGH might not have fraudulently replaced beam floor 77 with truss floor 96 in their simulation like NIST. It made absolutely no difference because they used the information from (NIST NCSTAR 1-2) in the (NIST NCSTAR 1-6D) simulation according to the executive summery of (NIST NCSTAR 1-6D).
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|