To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Basic Physics
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148

NEU-FONZE
Astaire:

Yes, Greening's calculation is a reasonable first approximation to the energy transfer mechanisms in WTC 1 & 2, but could certainly be greatly improved. The approach you are suggesting is one way to go, but is still not without problems. It reminds me of what is generally referred to as "pile-driving" theory. I have played around a little with the math but it is heavy going as far as I'm concerned. You may want to check out some classic papers on the subject (I have access to a good university science library - I hope you do too!):

L. H. Donnell: "Longitudinal Wave Transmission and Impact" APM-52-14 (Applied Mechanics Division) page 153, June 1930

E. A. L. Smith: "Pile-Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation" Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division Vol 86, page ?, August 1960

H. C. Fischer: "On Longitudinal Impact" Applied Science Research Section A Vol 9 page 93, year ~ 1965 ?

The problems I see arise when the compression waves strike the boundaries of the body. I believe the column splices may be considered as one such boundary, especially in an asymmetrically damaged structure.

By the way, Astaire and Shagster, there is AT LEAST ONE recent article of interest that everyone appears to have missed:

Q. Zhou et al. "Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Buildings" Journal of Engineering Mechanics Vol 130(10) page 1177, Oct 2004. The authors talk a lot about safety factors.......

NF
Mel_Guest
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE
The floor beams are loosely-coupled to the steel columns in a 'relative' sense in that the shear/tension strength of the bolts holding to floor beams to the columns is vastly weaker than the compression strength of a steel column. This concept is not hard to understand,.
<br>Sorry Mel,

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of how WTC 7 was constructed so I can't comment on the validity of any of your statements about the bolts and the floor beams. I don't even know if they were bolted and welded or just bolted.

I have NO IDEA of what damage was caused to structural members of WTC 7 by flying debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed. We do know of some serious damage, but don't know if it was structural.

I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

I'm quite satisfied to wait for the NIST report to discuss WTC 7 when I can do so based on something besides the VERY LIMITED information I now have.

Arthur
<b>Massive cop-out and evasive maneuver on your part. I'll accept this as an admission that you know WTC 7 was demo'ed in a controlled fashion. Some loony-tunes problems with your statements, though (man, it seems your reasoning faculties are worthless):

1. Bolted/welded? Doesn't matter one iota. The logic of my post is still sound.

2.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The floor beams are loosely-coupled to the steel columns in a 'relative' sense in that the shear/tension strength of the bolts holding to floor beams to the columns is vastly weaker than the compression strength of a steel column. This concept is not hard to understand,.
<br>Sorry Mel,

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of how WTC 7 was constructed so I can't comment on the validity of any of your statements about the bolts and the floor beams. I don't even know if they were bolted and welded or just bolted.

I have NO IDEA of what damage was caused to structural members of WTC 7 by flying debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed. We do know of some serious damage, but don't know if it was structural.

I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

I'm quite satisfied to wait for the NIST report to discuss WTC 7 when I can do so based on something besides the VERY LIMITED information I now have.

Arthur
<b>Massive cop-out and evasive maneuver on your part. I'll accept this as an admission that you know WTC 7 was demo'ed in a controlled fashion. Some loony-tunes problems with your statements, though (man, it seems your reasoning faculties are worthless):

1. Bolted/welded? Doesn't matter one iota. The logic of my post is still sound.

2. We do know of some serious damage, but we don't know if it was structural.
Are you a total loon? Maybe the damage was emotional? laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
It's crystal clear that the sides of the building seen in the famous CD videos of WTC 7 are completely untouched by debris. NO DAMAGE. And it's the steel columns and beams immediately behind these walls that I refer to. Nice try at obfuscation, though.

3. It matters NOT ONE LITTLE bit where the fires were, or how long they burned (and how will we ever know?). They DID NOT soften every single steel column all the way to the top of the building on the two sides visible in the video evidence. The still-cold portion of the columns (and that's the majority of them), would come to an abrupt stop when they hit the ground, thus shaking the siding and floors loose. As can be seen in the video, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Only a small amount of dust is seen escaping from parts of the wall's face. No evidence of the jarring that would occur from necessarily fully-intact columns

Oh ya, and if I've read correctly, NIST has taken the fifth on the WTC 7 issue, and is trying to farm it off to some other suckers can anyone verify this?). If true, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, and neither do you and all the other members of the murder car.

It's confirmed: WTC 7 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There is NO other possibility based on the simple experiment detailed here:

WTC 7 thought experiment

Any of you other murder car occupants care to find the logical fallacy in the experiment outlined in the above link?

Mel_Guest
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 15 2006, 09:15 PM)
Astaire:

Yes, Greening's calculation is a reasonable first approximation to the energy transfer mechanisms in WTC 1 & 2, but could certainly be greatly improved. The approach you are suggesting is one way to go, but is still not without problems. It reminds me of what is generally referred to as "pile-driving" theory. I have played around a little with the math but it is heavy going as far as I'm concerned. You may want to check out some classic papers on the subject (I have access to a good university science library - I hope you do too!):

L. H. Donnell: "Longitudinal Wave Transmission and Impact" APM-52-14 (Applied Mechanics Division) page 153, June 1930

E. A. L. Smith: "Pile-Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation" Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division Vol 86, page ?, August 1960

H. C. Fischer: "On Longitudinal Impact" Applied Science Research Section A Vol 9 page 93, year ~ 1965 ?

The problems I see arise when the compression waves strike the boundaries of the body. I believe the column splices may be considered as one such boundary, especially in an asymmetrically damaged structure.

By the way, Astaire and Shagster, there is AT LEAST ONE recent article of interest that everyone appears to have missed:

Q. Zhou et al. "Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Buildings" Journal of Engineering Mechanics Vol 130(10) page 1177, Oct 2004. The authors talk a lot about safety factors.......

NF

None of this crap matters...WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. The gummint was complicit. End of story.

Time to start rounding up the guilty (including paid shills).

Alan ('vator man)
I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

And Arthur, let's not forget that 7 was built on a moment frame on top of the columns to the Con-Ed plant. Basically a scaffold was put across part of the plant and then 7 was built on that. Smaller 'day tanks' for the emergency generators above ground, and a large diesel tank supplying them below ground. All of those will contribute to the problem, but I'm thinking massive transformers grounding out below that 'scaffold' will have alot to do with 7 falling down. There's no doubt that electricity will melt steel.
NEU-FONZE
MEL:

NOT EVERYONE THINKS THE WAY YOU DO....

Like Con Edison for example:

In an action filed in September 2002, the Port Authority was sued by Con Edison and its insurers for $314 million for the destruction of a Con Edison substation at 7 World Trade Center.

The substation was built at Washington and Barclay streets in 1970 to provide electricity to the World Trade Center and the surrounding area. In 1983, 7 World Trade Center was built on top of and adjacent to the substation and in 1999 New York City constructed its emergency "command bunker" on the 23rd floor of the building.

To accommodate a potential shortage of fuel and a loss of power, and to keep the command bunker running in an emergency, a series of diesel fuel tanks and electricity generators were installed in the building.

The collapse of the south and north towers of the World Trade Center within 29 minutes of one another triggered a fire at 7 World Trade Center and the explosion of the diesel tanks, which plaintiffs charge was the reason the building collapsed on Sept. 11.

The suit alleges that Con Edison's substation as well as its equipment and other facilities on site would have sustained merely "minor damage" had the Port Authority chosen to adhere to fire codes. Simply locating the diesel tanks in the building was negligent, the suit charges, adding that the tanks were also improperly located and constructed.

The lawsuit, filed by Ganet, Kallmann, Antin & Robinson, also charges that "the Port Authority did not apply, interpret and enforce safe engineering practices and standards commonly known and utilized in high-rise office buildings throughout the City and State of New York."

The individual wrongful-death actions filed by Speiser Krause and other firms follow filing of notice of intent to sue the Port Authority by more than 1,000 families.

NF

Mel_Guest
QUOTE (Alan ('vator man)+Jun 15 2006, 09:57 PM)
I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

And Arthur, let's not forget that 7 was built on a moment frame on top of the columns to the Con-Ed plant. Basically a scaffold was put across part of the plant and then 7 was built on that. Smaller 'day tanks' for the emergency generators above ground, and a large diesel tank supplying them below ground. All of those will contribute to the problem, but I'm thinking massive transformers grounding out below that 'scaffold' will have alot to do with 7 falling down. There's no doubt that electricity will melt steel.

Another mysterious new guy shows up in a timely manner with utter crap.

The electricity melted the steel columns, everyone! Our new murder car passenger says so.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Mel_Guest
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 15 2006, 10:08 PM)
MEL:

NOT EVERYONE THINKS THE WAY YOU DO....

Like Con Edison for example:

In an action filed in September 2002, the Port Authority was sued by Con Edison and its insurers for $314 million for the destruction of a Con Edison substation at 7 World Trade Center.

The substation was built at Washington and Barclay streets in 1970 to provide electricity to the World Trade Center and the surrounding area. In 1983, 7 World Trade Center was built on top of and adjacent to the substation and in 1999 New York City constructed its emergency "command bunker" on the 23rd floor of the building.

To accommodate a potential shortage of fuel and a loss of power, and to keep the command bunker running in an emergency, a series of diesel fuel tanks and electricity generators were installed in the building.

The collapse of the south and north towers of the World Trade Center within 29 minutes of one another triggered a fire at 7 World Trade Center and the explosion of the diesel tanks, which plaintiffs charge was the reason the building collapsed on Sept. 11.

The suit alleges that Con Edison's substation as well as its equipment and other facilities on site would have sustained merely "minor damage" had the Port Authority chosen to adhere to fire codes. Simply locating the diesel tanks in the building was negligent, the suit charges, adding that the tanks were also improperly located and constructed.

The lawsuit, filed by Ganet, Kallmann, Antin & Robinson, also charges that "the Port Authority did not apply, interpret and enforce safe engineering practices and standards commonly known and utilized in high-rise office buildings throughout the City and State of New York."

The individual wrongful-death actions filed by Speiser Krause and other firms follow filing of notice of intent to sue the Port Authority by more than 1,000 families.

NF

You mean not everyone thinks, like I do? (the placement of the comma is very important in the differencve between the two statements).

The fires had ZERO to do with the problem outlined in the WTC 7 experiment posted here:

WTC 7 thought experiment

Quit dancing around the subject. The steel columns evaporated as they plummeted to the ground. THIS MEANS WTC 7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. PERIOD. The gummint was complicit (and so are you).

NEU-FONZE
MEL:

Sounds like you're a witness for the Port Authority then?

NF
NEU-FONZE
MEL:

The October 2001 issue of Engineering News Record includes comments based on observations by Irwin C. Cantor, WTC 7’s local structural engineer:

“Cantor, who arrived at the (WTC 7) site just after the collapse and has combed through the remains since, says there is a 24-in.-dia high-pressure gas main under the building. “They were unable to shut it down for a long time,” says Cantor….. Cantor wonders whether high-intensity heat from the burning gas collapsed a floor.”

NF
Yochanan
How does the official conspiracy theory explain the ‘squibs’?
adoucette
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 15 2006, 05:32 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE
The floor beams are loosely-coupled to the steel columns in a 'relative' sense in that the shear/tension strength of the bolts holding to floor beams to the columns is vastly weaker than the compression strength of a steel column. This concept is not hard to understand,.
<br>Sorry Mel,

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of how WTC 7 was constructed so I can't comment on the validity of any of your statements about the bolts and the floor beams. I don't even know if they were bolted and welded or just bolted.

I have NO IDEA of what damage was caused to structural members of WTC 7 by flying debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed. We do know of some serious damage, but don't know if it was structural.

I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

I'm quite satisfied to wait for the NIST report to discuss WTC 7 when I can do so based on something besides the VERY LIMITED information I now have.

Arthur
<b>Massive cop-out and evasive maneuver on your part. I'll accept this as an admission that you know WTC 7 was demo'ed in a controlled fashion. Some loony-tunes problems with your statements, though (man, it seems your reasoning faculties are worthless):

1. Bolted/welded? Doesn't matter one iota. The logic of my post is still sound.

2.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The floor beams are loosely-coupled to the steel columns in a 'relative' sense in that the shear/tension strength of the bolts holding to floor beams to the columns is vastly weaker than the compression strength of a steel column. This concept is not hard to understand,.
<br>Sorry Mel,

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of how WTC 7 was constructed so I can't comment on the validity of any of your statements about the bolts and the floor beams. I don't even know if they were bolted and welded or just bolted.

I have NO IDEA of what damage was caused to structural members of WTC 7 by flying debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed. We do know of some serious damage, but don't know if it was structural.

I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

I'm quite satisfied to wait for the NIST report to discuss WTC 7 when I can do so based on something besides the VERY LIMITED information I now have.

Arthur
<b>Massive cop-out and evasive maneuver on your part. I'll accept this as an admission that you know WTC 7 was demo'ed in a controlled fashion. Some loony-tunes problems with your statements, though (man, it seems your reasoning faculties are worthless):

1. Bolted/welded? Doesn't matter one iota. The logic of my post is still sound.

2. We do know of some serious damage, but we don't know if it was structural.
Are you a total loon? Maybe the damage was emotional? laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
It's crystal clear that the sides of the building seen in the famous CD videos of WTC 7 are completely untouched by debris. NO DAMAGE. And it's the steel columns and beams immediately behind these walls that I refer to. Nice try at obfuscation, though.

3. It matters NOT ONE LITTLE bit where the fires were, or how long they burned (and how will we ever know?). They DID NOT soften every single steel column all the way to the top of the building on the two sides visible in the video evidence. The still-cold portion of the columns (and that's the majority of them), would come to an abrupt stop when they hit the ground, thus shaking the siding and floors loose. As can be seen in the video, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Only a small amount of dust is seen escaping from parts of the wall's face. No evidence of the jarring that would occur from necessarily fully-intact columns

Oh ya, and if I've read correctly, NIST has taken the fifth on the WTC 7 issue, and is trying to farm it off to some other suckers can anyone verify this?). If true, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, and neither do you and all the other members of the murder car.

It's confirmed: WTC 7 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There is NO other possibility based on the simple experiment detailed here:

WTC 7 thought experiment

Any of you other murder car occupants care to find the logical fallacy in the experiment outlined in the above link?

Mel, you continue to prove what an I D I O T you are.

This has to go down in Physorg lore as one of the STUPIDEST STATEMENTS ever made (and there has been some SERIOUS competition for this 'honor')

It's confirmed: WTC 7 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There is NO other possibility based on the simple experiment detailed here:

WTC 7 thought experiment


According to Mel, it doesn't matter how WTC 7 was constructed, it doesn't matter how much damage was done by WTC 1 debris, it doesn't matter how long or hot or where the fires were. NOTHING MATTERS because Mel (the GREAT) can SEE exactly what happened. No pulling the WOOL over HIS eyes.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

As PROOF here's Mel's description of what he thinks he should see (and claims we don't see):

The still-cold portion of the columns (and that's the majority of them), would come to an abrupt stop when they hit the ground, thus shaking the siding and floors loose

Doesn't match any bottom up collapse I've ever seen and is meaningless since one can't SEE the floors any more than one could see them in the WTC towers.

Which also brings up the issue that I don't believe I've seen one video that shows the actual bottom of the collapse of WTC7 at all.

And NO, NIST has NOT taken the 5th on WTC 7, they have farmed out part of the SIMULATION work to another firm and are working with them on it. It is my understanding, that unlike WTC 1 & 2, NIST does plan on simulating the Global Collapse of WTC 7.

So, unlike Mel, who is OBVIOUSLY WILLING to JUMP to unwarranted conclusions based on ZIP evidence EXCEPT that it doesn't LOOK RIGHT to his "trained eye", I am willing to let the EXPERTS take the time necessary to examine ALL the factors and write their report.

Arthur
Mel
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 16 2006, 12:54 AM)
MEL:

The October 2001 issue of Engineering News Record includes comments based on observations by Irwin C. Cantor, WTC 7’s local structural engineer:

“Cantor, who arrived at the (WTC 7) site just after the collapse and has combed through the remains since, says there is a 24-in.-dia high-pressure gas main under the building. “They were unable to shut it down for a long time,” says Cantor….. Cantor wonders whether high-intensity heat from the burning gas collapsed a floor.”

NF

Do you not hear right, son? Fires play no part in determining the logical fallacy in the WTC experiment found here:

WTC 7 experiment

Every single steel column behind the two sides of WTC 7 visible in all the collapse videos seem to turn to jelly on their way down, and thus prevent them from jolting to a stop as their lower section lawn-darts into the foundation. No stuttering is seen in the face of the building as it slides smoothly to the ground. No fire, electricity (<- electricity!... laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif), or whatever other flight-of-fancy you OCT nuts want to invent will explain this away. Your OCT goose is fully cooked.

WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. The gummint was complicit. Time to start rounding up the guilty.


adoucette
Mel,

You obviously have a HIGH regard for your own OPINION, problem is you have done NOTHING to convince anybody who wasn't ALREADY convinced that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

You can repeat your mantra like a deranged Buddist all you want, but YOUR OPINION is not evidence of anything.

Arthur
NEU-FONZE
MEL:

Please help me understand this:

"Every single steel column ..... seems to turn to jelly on their way down, and thus prevent them from jolting to a stop as their lower section lawn-darts into the foundation."

So, some columns "turn to jelly", while others become "lawn darts."

Interesting........

NF
Foxx
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 15 2006, 10:08 PM)

In an action filed in September 2002, the Port Authority was sued by Con Edison and its insurers for $314 million for the destruction of a Con Edison substation at 7 World Trade Center.

The substation was built at Washington and Barclay streets in 1970 to provide electricity to the World Trade Center and the surrounding area. In 1983, 7 World Trade Center was built on top of and adjacent to the substation and in 1999 New York City constructed its emergency "command bunker" on the 23rd floor of the building.

To accommodate a potential shortage of fuel and a loss of power, and to keep the command bunker running in an emergency, a series of diesel fuel tanks and electricity generators were installed in the building.

The collapse of the south and north towers of the World Trade Center within 29 minutes of one another triggered a fire at 7 World Trade Center and the explosion of the diesel tanks, which plaintiffs charge was the reason the building collapsed on Sept. 11.

The suit alleges that Con Edison's substation as well as its equipment and other facilities on site would have sustained merely "minor damage" had the Port Authority chosen to adhere to fire codes. Simply locating the diesel tanks in the building was negligent, the suit charges, adding that the tanks were also improperly located and constructed.

The lawsuit, filed by Ganet, Kallmann, Antin & Robinson, also charges that "the Port Authority did not apply, interpret and enforce safe engineering practices and standards commonly known and utilized in high-rise office buildings throughout the City and State of New York."

The individual wrongful-death actions filed by Speiser Krause and other firms follow filing of notice of intent to sue the Port Authority by more than 1,000 families.

NF

Yeah, I seem to recall reading about that lawsuit. That was initiated in September 2002 wasn't it? About 12 months after the events of 9/11. Almost 4 years ago now.

The first set of 'New York Conspiracy Theorists' began to raise alarm bells that the Port Authority may be 'trying to hide' certain structural details and safety features of the building (in order to protect themselves from lawsuits)...

(such as the 'wisdom' of having diesel fuel tanks in close proximity to an electrical substation), .

Now, why don't you carry on with the story Neu-Fonze, (seeing as how it was you who brought up this particular court case).

Do you recall the evidence and findings put forth by parties from both sides on the issues ?

It's hard to claim in court that the owners of a diesel fuel tank(s) were causal to the events... when the opposing side puts before the judge documents confirming that

- apart from structural damage from the collapse itself the tank(s) suffered no pre-collapse damage breeches which could have possibly led to... 'raging fires' in the area(s)

as well as...

- "Oh, BTW, judge... here are documents showing the amount of fuel we recovered intact from those tanks...

so HOW could our 'allegedly carelessly handled' and much-maligned diesel fuel, BE CONTRIBUTORY to the events... ???"





Are you still waiting for the conclusion of that lawsuit?





When you post information about some EARLY investigative court proceeding related to these events, and we already have the results from the lawsuit why don't you come right out and say it, instead of beating around the bushes.

Or... are you implying there was some Conspiracy Theory related to the outcome of that lawsuit ?


-----------


I've been too busy to check up on our old friend Schneibster lately, but has anyone noticed whether CSpam has corrected his website yet - with regard to HIS NIST refuted 13 psf calculations, regarding fuel load at WTC ???


Someone let me know please, IF he corrects his calculations to reflect the actual figure that NIST uses as an appropriate load figure.

Cspam has made great handwaves about Professor Jones' corrections regarding valid criticisms of his ( Jones ) 'calculations'.

Does anyone think that CSpam will have the same integity... and will correct his site and figures after being shown openly on this forum that the figure he uses as floor-loadings is over 300% higher than EVEN NIST claims ?

I call for him to redo his calculations -

(as it is perfectly clear to all)...

One cannot BEGIN a mathematical calculation with an erroreous figure injected, and then expect to derive anything useful from the following calculations.




Common Sense
QUOTE (Yochanan+Jun 15 2006, 08:06 PM)
How does the official conspiracy theory explain the ‘squibs’?

<br>No such thing as "Official Conspiracy Theory" but here you go.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/overp.htm

That's a blow to the conspiracy story isn't it. wink.gif
Common Sense
QUOTE (Guest_guest+Jun 15 2006, 03:07 PM)
I see CSpam is still linking to this «Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths»-site.

From geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

«[…] without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors […]»

Tell me, exactly where did the «millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc» come from? Maybe the terrorists placed it there? Or maybe the towers collapsed due to overloading because of the millions of tons of imaginary magic paper?
You're right, It's a 1.7 tons as NEU-FONZE I believe pointed out. Or was it DB Benson...?
Mel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2006, 01:10 AM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 15 2006, 05:32 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE
The floor beams are loosely-coupled to the steel columns in a 'relative' sense in that the shear/tension strength of the bolts holding to floor beams to the columns is vastly weaker than the compression strength of a steel column. This concept is not hard to understand,.
<br>Sorry Mel,

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of how WTC 7 was constructed so I can't comment on the validity of any of your statements about the bolts and the floor beams. I don't even know if they were bolted and welded or just bolted.

I have NO IDEA of what damage was caused to structural members of WTC 7 by flying debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed. We do know of some serious damage, but don't know if it was structural.

I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

I'm quite satisfied to wait for the NIST report to discuss WTC 7 when I can do so based on something besides the VERY LIMITED information I now have.

Arthur
<b>Massive cop-out and evasive maneuver on your part. I'll accept this as an admission that you know WTC 7 was demo'ed in a controlled fashion. Some loony-tunes problems with your statements, though (man, it seems your reasoning faculties are worthless):

1. Bolted/welded? Doesn't matter one iota. The logic of my post is still sound.

2.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The floor beams are loosely-coupled to the steel columns in a 'relative' sense in that the shear/tension strength of the bolts holding to floor beams to the columns is vastly weaker than the compression strength of a steel column. This concept is not hard to understand,.
<br>Sorry Mel,

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of how WTC 7 was constructed so I can't comment on the validity of any of your statements about the bolts and the floor beams. I don't even know if they were bolted and welded or just bolted.

I have NO IDEA of what damage was caused to structural members of WTC 7 by flying debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed. We do know of some serious damage, but don't know if it was structural.

I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

I'm quite satisfied to wait for the NIST report to discuss WTC 7 when I can do so based on something besides the VERY LIMITED information I now have.

Arthur
<b>Massive cop-out and evasive maneuver on your part. I'll accept this as an admission that you know WTC 7 was demo'ed in a controlled fashion. Some loony-tunes problems with your statements, though (man, it seems your reasoning faculties are worthless):

1. Bolted/welded? Doesn't matter one iota. The logic of my post is still sound.

2. We do know of some serious damage, but we don't know if it was structural.
Are you a total loon? Maybe the damage was emotional? laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
It's crystal clear that the sides of the building seen in the famous CD videos of WTC 7 are completely untouched by debris. NO DAMAGE. And it's the steel columns and beams immediately behind these walls that I refer to. Nice try at obfuscation, though.

3. It matters NOT ONE LITTLE bit where the fires were, or how long they burned (and how will we ever know?). They DID NOT soften every single steel column all the way to the top of the building on the two sides visible in the video evidence. The still-cold portion of the columns (and that's the majority of them), would come to an abrupt stop when they hit the ground, thus shaking the siding and floors loose. As can be seen in the video, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Only a small amount of dust is seen escaping from parts of the wall's face. No evidence of the jarring that would occur from necessarily fully-intact columns

Oh ya, and if I've read correctly, NIST has taken the fifth on the WTC 7 issue, and is trying to farm it off to some other suckers can anyone verify this?). If true, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, and neither do you and all the other members of the murder car.

It's confirmed: WTC 7 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There is NO other possibility based on the simple experiment detailed here:

WTC 7 thought experiment

Any of you other murder car occupants care to find the logical fallacy in the experiment outlined in the above link?

Mel, you continue to prove what an I D I O T you are.

This has to go down in Physorg lore as one of the STUPIDEST STATEMENTS ever made (and there has been some SERIOUS competition for this 'honor')

It's confirmed: WTC 7 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There is NO other possibility based on the simple experiment detailed here:

WTC 7 thought experiment


According to Mel, it doesn't matter how WTC 7 was constructed, it doesn't matter how much damage was done by WTC 1 debris, it doesn't matter how long or hot or where the fires were. NOTHING MATTERS because Mel (the GREAT) can SEE exactly what happened. No pulling the WOOL over HIS eyes.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

As PROOF here's Mel's description of what he thinks he should see (and claims we don't see):

The still-cold portion of the columns (and that's the majority of them), would come to an abrupt stop when they hit the ground, thus shaking the siding and floors loose

Doesn't match any bottom up collapse I've ever seen and is meaningless since one can't SEE the floors any more than one could see them in the WTC towers.

Which also brings up the issue that I don't believe I've seen one video that shows the actual bottom of the collapse of WTC7 at all.

And NO, NIST has NOT taken the 5th on WTC 7, they have farmed out part of the SIMULATION work to another firm and are working with them on it. It is my understanding, that unlike WTC 1 & 2, NIST does plan on simulating the Global Collapse of WTC 7.

So, unlike Mel, who is OBVIOUSLY WILLING to JUMP to unwarranted conclusions based on ZIP evidence EXCEPT that it doesn't LOOK RIGHT to his "trained eye", I am willing to let the EXPERTS take the time necessary to examine ALL the factors and write their report.

Arthur
<br>Looks like it's time to hang up your shill keyboard, Two Sheds. It's WAY over for you and your murder car buddies.

No matter what you do to obfuscate the issue, WTC 7 was brought down via controlled demolition. End of story.

You'd better let your bosses know that you've been soundly defeated on the issue of WTC 7, and hand your cohorts around the boardroom table their pink slips.

IT IS DONE. OVER. THE VIDEO RECORD PROVIDES IRREFUTABLE PROOF, AS EVIDENCED BY ALL YOU IDIOTS' LACK OF VALID REFUTATION.

Time to stop talking about the towers' CD, and start rounding up the guilty.

yesitdid
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 01:14 AM)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 16 2006, 12:54 AM)
MEL:

The October 2001 issue of Engineering News Record includes comments based on observations by Irwin C. Cantor, WTC 7’s local structural engineer:

“Cantor, who arrived at the (WTC 7) site just after the collapse and has combed through the remains since, says there is a 24-in.-dia high-pressure gas main under the building. “They were unable to shut it down for a long time,” says Cantor….. Cantor wonders whether high-intensity heat from the burning gas collapsed a floor.”

NF

Do you not hear right, son? Fires play no part in determining the logical fallacy in the WTC experiment found here:

WTC 7 experiment

Every single steel column behind the two sides of WTC 7 visible in all the collapse videos seem to turn to jelly on their way down, and thus prevent them from jolting to a stop as their lower section lawn-darts into the foundation. No stuttering is seen in the face of the building as it slides smoothly to the ground. No fire, electricity (<- electricity!... laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif), or whatever other flight-of-fancy you OCT nuts want to invent will explain this away. Your OCT goose is fully cooked.

WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. The gummint was complicit. Time to start rounding up the guilty.
,,,,,, and who, pray tell might the 'guilty' be?

If your previous leaps of intuition are anything to go by your evidence against specific poeple should be a hoot.
Mel
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 16 2006, 01:29 AM)
MEL:

Please help me understand this:

"Every single steel column ..... seems to turn to jelly on their way down, and thus prevent them from jolting to a stop as their lower section lawn-darts into the foundation."

So, some columns "turn to jelly", while others become "lawn darts."

Interesting........

NF

Your inability to understand the simple concept makes me think it's not worth responding to your question. Simply amazing stupidity.

Mel
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 02:52 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 01:14 AM)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 16 2006, 12:54 AM)
MEL:

The October 2001 issue of Engineering News Record includes comments based on observations by Irwin C. Cantor, WTC 7’s local structural engineer:

“Cantor, who arrived at the (WTC 7) site just after the collapse and has combed through the remains since, says there is a 24-in.-dia high-pressure gas main under the building. “They were unable to shut it down for a long time,” says Cantor….. Cantor wonders whether high-intensity heat from the burning gas collapsed a floor.”

NF

Do you not hear right, son? Fires play no part in determining the logical fallacy in the WTC experiment found here:

WTC 7 experiment

Every single steel column behind the two sides of WTC 7 visible in all the collapse videos seem to turn to jelly on their way down, and thus prevent them from jolting to a stop as their lower section lawn-darts into the foundation. No stuttering is seen in the face of the building as it slides smoothly to the ground. No fire, electricity (<- electricity!... laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif), or whatever other flight-of-fancy you OCT nuts want to invent will explain this away. Your OCT goose is fully cooked.

WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. The gummint was complicit. Time to start rounding up the guilty.

,,,,,, and who, pray tell might the 'guilty' be?

If your previous leaps of intuition are anything to go by your evidence against specific poeple should be a hoot.

You dorks' ability to side-step the issue is tremendous. Sadly, you fool no-one with this tactic.

Not one of you idiots is willing to tackle the simple experiment outlined here:

WTC 7 experiment

Wazza madder? Is the CD of WTC 7 just WAY TOP OBVIOUS to even attempt to obfuscate?

As for the guilty? How about we start with the following 'suspects':

Larry Silverspooninhand
Rudolf Guilliani (sp?)
*** Cheney (the bad-language filter'll ironically take care of this guy's name)
GWB
Condi Rice
You
Two Sheds
CS

Once these guys are in custody, we can milk 'em for the names of their bosses, then we milk their bosses for their bosses, and so on. It'll be a great little party. We just need to be sure to bring enough rope.

Common Sense
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 15 2006, 09:49 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2006, 01:10 AM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 15 2006, 05:32 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE
The floor beams are loosely-coupled to the steel columns in a 'relative' sense in that the shear/tension strength of the bolts holding to floor beams to the columns is vastly weaker than the compression strength of a steel column. This concept is not hard to understand,.
<br>Sorry Mel,

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of how WTC 7 was constructed so I can't comment on the validity of any of your statements about the bolts and the floor beams. I don't even know if they were bolted and welded or just bolted.

I have NO IDEA of what damage was caused to structural members of WTC 7 by flying debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed. We do know of some serious damage, but don't know if it was structural.

I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

I'm quite satisfied to wait for the NIST report to discuss WTC 7 when I can do so based on something besides the VERY LIMITED information I now have.

Arthur
<b>Massive cop-out and evasive maneuver on your part. I'll accept this as an admission that you know WTC 7 was demo'ed in a controlled fashion. Some loony-tunes problems with your statements, though (man, it seems your reasoning faculties are worthless):

1. Bolted/welded? Doesn't matter one iota. The logic of my post is still sound.

2.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The floor beams are loosely-coupled to the steel columns in a 'relative' sense in that the shear/tension strength of the bolts holding to floor beams to the columns is vastly weaker than the compression strength of a steel column. This concept is not hard to understand,.
<br>Sorry Mel,

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of how WTC 7 was constructed so I can't comment on the validity of any of your statements about the bolts and the floor beams. I don't even know if they were bolted and welded or just bolted.

I have NO IDEA of what damage was caused to structural members of WTC 7 by flying debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed. We do know of some serious damage, but don't know if it was structural.

I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

I'm quite satisfied to wait for the NIST report to discuss WTC 7 when I can do so based on something besides the VERY LIMITED information I now have.

Arthur
<b>Massive cop-out and evasive maneuver on your part. I'll accept this as an admission that you know WTC 7 was demo'ed in a controlled fashion. Some loony-tunes problems with your statements, though (man, it seems your reasoning faculties are worthless):

1. Bolted/welded? Doesn't matter one iota. The logic of my post is still sound.

2. We do know of some serious damage, but we don't know if it was structural.
Are you a total loon? Maybe the damage was emotional? laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
It's crystal clear that the sides of the building seen in the famous CD videos of WTC 7 are completely untouched by debris. NO DAMAGE. And it's the steel columns and beams immediately behind these walls that I refer to. Nice try at obfuscation, though.

3. It matters NOT ONE LITTLE bit where the fires were, or how long they burned (and how will we ever know?). They DID NOT soften every single steel column all the way to the top of the building on the two sides visible in the video evidence. The still-cold portion of the columns (and that's the majority of them), would come to an abrupt stop when they hit the ground, thus shaking the siding and floors loose. As can be seen in the video, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Only a small amount of dust is seen escaping from parts of the wall's face. No evidence of the jarring that would occur from necessarily fully-intact columns

Oh ya, and if I've read correctly, NIST has taken the fifth on the WTC 7 issue, and is trying to farm it off to some other suckers can anyone verify this?). If true, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, and neither do you and all the other members of the murder car.

It's confirmed: WTC 7 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There is NO other possibility based on the simple experiment detailed here:

WTC 7 thought experiment

Any of you other murder car occupants care to find the logical fallacy in the experiment outlined in the above link?

Mel, you continue to prove what an I D I O T you are.

This has to go down in Physorg lore as one of the STUPIDEST STATEMENTS ever made (and there has been some SERIOUS competition for this 'honor')

It's confirmed: WTC 7 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There is NO other possibility based on the simple experiment detailed here:

WTC 7 thought experiment


According to Mel, it doesn't matter how WTC 7 was constructed, it doesn't matter how much damage was done by WTC 1 debris, it doesn't matter how long or hot or where the fires were. NOTHING MATTERS because Mel (the GREAT) can SEE exactly what happened. No pulling the WOOL over HIS eyes.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

As PROOF here's Mel's description of what he thinks he should see (and claims we don't see):

The still-cold portion of the columns (and that's the majority of them), would come to an abrupt stop when they hit the ground, thus shaking the siding and floors loose

Doesn't match any bottom up collapse I've ever seen and is meaningless since one can't SEE the floors any more than one could see them in the WTC towers.

Which also brings up the issue that I don't believe I've seen one video that shows the actual bottom of the collapse of WTC7 at all.

And NO, NIST has NOT taken the 5th on WTC 7, they have farmed out part of the SIMULATION work to another firm and are working with them on it. It is my understanding, that unlike WTC 1 & 2, NIST does plan on simulating the Global Collapse of WTC 7.

So, unlike Mel, who is OBVIOUSLY WILLING to JUMP to unwarranted conclusions based on ZIP evidence EXCEPT that it doesn't LOOK RIGHT to his "trained eye", I am willing to let the EXPERTS take the time necessary to examine ALL the factors and write their report.

Arthur
<br>Looks like it's time to hang up your shill keyboard, Two Sheds. It's WAY over for you and your murder car buddies.

No matter what you do to obfuscate the issue, WTC 7 was brought down via controlled demolition. End of story.

You'd better let your bosses know that you've been soundly defeated on the issue of WTC 7, and hand your cohorts around the boardroom table their pink slips.

IT IS DONE. OVER. THE VIDEO RECORD PROVIDES IRREFUTABLE PROOF, AS EVIDENCED BY ALL YOU IDIOTS' LACK OF VALID REFUTATION.

Time to stop talking about the towers' CD, and start rounding up the guilty.
<b>Mel is calling the fireman stupid lying shills. Because THEY KNEW and told EVERYONE they KNEW the building was falling before it fell.

Mel is actually shilling for libertarians who hate government. He'll stoop to NO LOW in order to slander the very people who would save his life. That's down right SICK!

But what do you expect from people who use the deaths of 3000 people for someone elses political gain. Hes one sick puppy.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
Foxx
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jun 16 2006, 02:12 AM)
QUOTE (Yochanan+Jun 15 2006, 08:06 PM)
How does the official conspiracy theory explain the ‘squibs’?

<br>No such thing as "Official Conspiracy Theory" but here you go.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/overp.htm

That's a blow to the conspiracy story isn't it. wink.gif

Regarding this photo image used on CSpams 9/11debunking site...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

User posted image

I think FEMA used it in one of their reports.

However, I have not come across the 'closer shot' before.

It seems as if the camera man has zoomed in to the area... and AT THE SAME time zoomed himself to a much closer position to a view from closer to the gound just beyond Winter Gardens... (the 'greenhouse' building in the foreground).

I call that amazing technology - (to be able to zoom in photographically while at the same time teleporting yourself to a 'zoomed' (much closer) view-point.

OR... maybe...... They were shots from two different photographers?

Let's ask CSpam, if he will provide a direct link to the original copy of where he found the second picture...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7cornerh.jpg

User posted image

The blue sky appearing at the highest floor (one column over from the southwest corner) is 'interesting'... I wonder how blue sky shows through the building in that area? Has the south face already fallen one floor, whilst leaving the west wall pretty much pristine except for what appears to be minor corner damage.

IF the corner was damaged (as it appears in the photo)... wouldn't it have begun collapsing along with the south face? As can be see, the windows in the very top floor of the south face are still unbroken mere feet away from where the building seems to be collapsing.

Where did you get this photo, CSpam?

Where did you get this photo, CSpam?

Where did you get this photo, CSpam?

Did you make it yourself? If NOT... please provide a reference link to where you first found the photo, so we can analyse the original.

Whoever made it, did a very unprofessional air-bush to the sky area one column over from the top floor on the south west corner... (IMHO).

Not that this surprises me, coming from the Schneib ... (errrr... I mean) CSpams site...

I mean... after ALL...if he is going to continue to promote mathematical calculations based upon FALSE floor / fuel loadings... a photo like this, does not surprise me at all.



Common Sense
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/evidence.htm
yesitdid
As much as Mel disgusts me by continually calling for blood (in part specifically mine ),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

QUOTE
That document has gotta be the stupidest thing I've ever read on the subject of WTC 7. No point in going over it with a fine-tooth comb.
<br>translation: I did not read or understand the whole thing

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
That document has gotta be the stupidest thing I've ever read on the subject of WTC 7. No point in going over it with a fine-tooth comb.
<br>translation: I did not read or understand the whole thing

Suffice it to say that one merely needs to watch the CD of the building to know that the explanation is BUNK. From the time the outer, top edge begins its descent, to the time it hits the ground in about 6.x seconds. Who gives a rat's arse what's happening before that?
<br>Completely ignores the FACT that a good portion of the building beyond that wall had already collapsed when the wall he refers to starts to fall. The rat's arse not withstanding, it most certainly is part of the collapse and bears great relevance to the manner of the outer wall's eventual collapse.

QUOTE
Since WTC 7 was held up by steel, one simply has to ask the question: what happened to the steel columns running up the edges and outer face of the building as it collapsed? Answer: they were systematically broken into small pieces by some man-made 'force' (ie. thermite/thermate/whatever, and I don't care which). If they weren't, then what would have been observed as the lower parts of these steel columns (amazingly) simultaneously failed (due to fire?...suuuure they did, nudge, nudge, wink, wink), would be that the columns would have 'shed' themselves of their floors due to their sudden impact with the ground below.
<br>Since thermite simply cannot act on a steel column that fast, it is a given that thermite was not involved, and of course there is no visual evidence of thermite burning on the perimeter columns. Care to change that to an actual explosive? Probably not since in order for an explosive to have been used on those outer steel columns that Mel claims were broken into pieces it should be very obvious throughout the wall, that the columns are being cut by explosives.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Since WTC 7 was held up by steel, one simply has to ask the question: what happened to the steel columns running up the edges and outer face of the building as it collapsed? Answer: they were systematically broken into small pieces by some man-made 'force' (ie. thermite/thermate/whatever, and I don't care which). If they weren't, then what would have been observed as the lower parts of these steel columns (amazingly) simultaneously failed (due to fire?...suuuure they did, nudge, nudge, wink, wink), would be that the columns would have 'shed' themselves of their floors due to their sudden impact with the ground below.
<br>Since thermite simply cannot act on a steel column that fast, it is a given that thermite was not involved, and of course there is no visual evidence of thermite burning on the perimeter columns. Care to change that to an actual explosive? Probably not since in order for an explosive to have been used on those outer steel columns that Mel claims were broken into pieces it should be very obvious throughout the wall, that the columns are being cut by explosives.

Simple experiment:

1. Find a nice big tree somewhere that environmentalists won't mind you messing with. This tree will be analogous to any one of the steel columns on the outer wall/corner of WTC 7.
2. You and Two Sheds and CS and RealityCheck (you still lurking around, bozo?) and tikay and YID and the rest XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, climb up the tree (the higher the better) and hang by XXXXXXXXXXX your hands from any branch you like. This will simulate floors being 'loosely' coupled to the steel column.
3. Now ask one of us rational people from the clown car to somehow cause the lower 10-20 feet of the tree to instantly turn to jelly (I sure as he11 don't know how we'd do this, but some magical force made it happen in WTC 7).
<br>There's your error right there. The FACT of the penthouses and other rooftop structures falling through the building bears witness that those floors were in the process of no longer being attached, some already not attached, to the perimeter columns when the wall began its fall.

QUOTE
What happens? Simple: the tree drops straight down, and the abrupt stop from impacting the ground causes you loons to shed your grip on the branch (as the WTC 7 floors likely would have, or at least the outer wall 'covering' would have been visibly jarred from its mooring) and fall painfully to the ground XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. The tree remains upright for a time, then might tip over. Either way, it DOES NOT snap into short segments and repeat the above process all over till it's lying on the ground in short pieces.

Now repeat the above experiment with a bunch of trees layed out in a grid pattern. Good freakin' luck making step 3 come together like it magically did with steel on 9/11
<br>Another error, no one has ever claimed that such a mechanism as the sudden removal of the bottom few feet of the perimeter columns caused the wall to collapse. The interior floors are moving downward , within the building. As they pull away from the walls they do two things. First they remove all buttressing of the wall columns AND they induce a preferred direction for buckling. Evidence of this is the FACT that the building's wall moves in towards the area of the initial collapse, the west penthouse.
Mel
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jun 16 2006, 03:11 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 15 2006, 09:49 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2006, 01:10 AM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 15 2006, 05:32 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 15 2006, 09:01 PM)
QUOTE
The floor beams are loosely-coupled to the steel columns in a 'relative' sense in that the shear/tension strength of the bolts holding to floor beams to the columns is vastly weaker than the compression strength of a steel column. This concept is not hard to understand,.
<br>Sorry Mel,

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of how WTC 7 was constructed so I can't comment on the validity of any of your statements about the bolts and the floor beams. I don't even know if they were bolted and welded or just bolted.

I have NO IDEA of what damage was caused to structural members of WTC 7 by flying debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed. We do know of some serious damage, but don't know if it was structural.

I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

I'm quite satisfied to wait for the NIST report to discuss WTC 7 when I can do so based on something besides the VERY LIMITED information I now have.

Arthur
<b>Massive cop-out and evasive maneuver on your part. I'll accept this as an admission that you know WTC 7 was demo'ed in a controlled fashion. Some loony-tunes problems with your statements, though (man, it seems your reasoning faculties are worthless):

1. Bolted/welded? Doesn't matter one iota. The logic of my post is still sound.

2.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The floor beams are loosely-coupled to the steel columns in a 'relative' sense in that the shear/tension strength of the bolts holding to floor beams to the columns is vastly weaker than the compression strength of a steel column. This concept is not hard to understand,.
<br>Sorry Mel,

I have only a rudimentary knowledge of how WTC 7 was constructed so I can't comment on the validity of any of your statements about the bolts and the floor beams. I don't even know if they were bolted and welded or just bolted.

I have NO IDEA of what damage was caused to structural members of WTC 7 by flying debris from WTC 1 when it collapsed. We do know of some serious damage, but don't know if it was structural.

I have NO IDEA of where the fires were and for how long and what temps were reached by the fires in WTC 7. We don't know how the fires burned or if they were fed by the large diesel storage tanks etc.

I'm quite satisfied to wait for the NIST report to discuss WTC 7 when I can do so based on something besides the VERY LIMITED information I now have.

Arthur
<b>Massive cop-out and evasive maneuver on your part. I'll accept this as an admission that you know WTC 7 was demo'ed in a controlled fashion. Some loony-tunes problems with your statements, though (man, it seems your reasoning faculties are worthless):

1. Bolted/welded? Doesn't matter one iota. The logic of my post is still sound.

2. We do know of some serious damage, but we don't know if it was structural.
Are you a total loon? Maybe the damage was emotional? laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
It's crystal clear that the sides of the building seen in the famous CD videos of WTC 7 are completely untouched by debris. NO DAMAGE. And it's the steel columns and beams immediately behind these walls that I refer to. Nice try at obfuscation, though.

3. It matters NOT ONE LITTLE bit where the fires were, or how long they burned (and how will we ever know?). They DID NOT soften every single steel column all the way to the top of the building on the two sides visible in the video evidence. The still-cold portion of the columns (and that's the majority of them), would come to an abrupt stop when they hit the ground, thus shaking the siding and floors loose. As can be seen in the video, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. Only a small amount of dust is seen escaping from parts of the wall's face. No evidence of the jarring that would occur from necessarily fully-intact columns

Oh ya, and if I've read correctly, NIST has taken the fifth on the WTC 7 issue, and is trying to farm it off to some other suckers can anyone verify this?). If true, I don't expect that to happen anytime soon, and neither do you and all the other members of the murder car.

It's confirmed: WTC 7 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There is NO other possibility based on the simple experiment detailed here:

WTC 7 thought experiment

Any of you other murder car occupants care to find the logical fallacy in the experiment outlined in the above link?

Mel, you continue to prove what an I D I O T you are.

This has to go down in Physorg lore as one of the STUPIDEST STATEMENTS ever made (and there has been some SERIOUS competition for this 'honor')

It's confirmed: WTC 7 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There is NO other possibility based on the simple experiment detailed here:

WTC 7 thought experiment


According to Mel, it doesn't matter how WTC 7 was constructed, it doesn't matter how much damage was done by WTC 1 debris, it doesn't matter how long or hot or where the fires were. NOTHING MATTERS because Mel (the GREAT) can SEE exactly what happened. No pulling the WOOL over HIS eyes.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

As PROOF here's Mel's description of what he thinks he should see (and claims we don't see):

The still-cold portion of the columns (and that's the majority of them), would come to an abrupt stop when they hit the ground, thus shaking the siding and floors loose

Doesn't match any bottom up collapse I've ever seen and is meaningless since one can't SEE the floors any more than one could see them in the WTC towers.

Which also brings up the issue that I don't believe I've seen one video that shows the actual bottom of the collapse of WTC7 at all.

And NO, NIST has NOT taken the 5th on WTC 7, they have farmed out part of the SIMULATION work to another firm and are working with them on it. It is my understanding, that unlike WTC 1 & 2, NIST does plan on simulating the Global Collapse of WTC 7.

So, unlike Mel, who is OBVIOUSLY WILLING to JUMP to unwarranted conclusions based on ZIP evidence EXCEPT that it doesn't LOOK RIGHT to his "trained eye", I am willing to let the EXPERTS take the time necessary to examine ALL the factors and write their report.

Arthur
<br>Looks like it's time to hang up your shill keyboard, Two Sheds. It's WAY over for you and your murder car buddies.

No matter what you do to obfuscate the issue, WTC 7 was brought down via controlled demolition. End of story.

You'd better let your bosses know that you've been soundly defeated on the issue of WTC 7, and hand your cohorts around the boardroom table their pink slips.

IT IS DONE. OVER. THE VIDEO RECORD PROVIDES IRREFUTABLE PROOF, AS EVIDENCED BY ALL YOU IDIOTS' LACK OF VALID REFUTATION.

Time to stop talking about the towers' CD, and start rounding up the guilty.
<b>Mel is calling the fireman stupid lying shills. Because THEY KNEW and told EVERYONE they KNEW the building was falling before it fell.

Mel is actually shilling for libertarians who hate government. He'll stoop to NO LOW in order to slander the very people who would save his life. That's down right SICK!

But what do you expect from people who use the deaths of 3000 people for someone elses political gain. Hes one sick puppy.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
<br> laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

See my previous post about issue-avoidance. This post from CS is text-book, issue-avoidance 101. He covers up the murder of 3000 Americans, then tries to tell you that I'm using it for political gain. What a sub-human chimp.

Now, CS, please address the experiment outlined here:

WTC 7 experiment

Cat got yer tongue?

Foxx
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jun 16 2006, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_guest+Jun 15 2006, 03:07 PM)
I see CSpam is still linking to this «Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths»-site.

From geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

«[…] without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors […]»

Tell me, exactly where did the «millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc» come from? Maybe the terrorists placed it there? Or maybe the towers collapsed due to overloading because of the millions of tons of imaginary magic paper?

You're right, It's a 1.7 tons as NEU-FONZE I believe pointed out. Or was it DB Benson...?
Are you NOW saying it wasn't millions of tons, but rather ONLY 1.7 tons?

When do you plan to correct your calculations (shown at your website) to reflect this NEW figure ???




Common Sense
QUOTE (Foxx+Jun 15 2006, 10:16 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jun 16 2006, 02:12 AM)
QUOTE (Yochanan+Jun 15 2006, 08:06 PM)
How does the official conspiracy theory explain the ‘squibs’?

<br>No such thing as "Official Conspiracy Theory" but here you go.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/overp.htm

That's a blow to the conspiracy story isn't it. wink.gif

Regarding this photo image used on CSpams 9/11debunking site...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

User posted image

I think FEMA used it in one of their reports.

However, I have not come across the 'closer shot' before.

It seems as if the camera man has zoomed in to the area... and AT THE SAME time zoomed himself to a much closer position to a view from closer to the gound just beyond Winter Gardens... (the 'greenhouse' building in the foreground).

I call that amazing technology - (to be able to zoom in photographically while at the same time teleporting yourself to a 'zoomed' (much closer) view-point.

OR... maybe...... They were shots from two different photographers?

Let's ask CSpam, if he will provide a direct link to the original copy of where he found the second picture...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7cornerh.jpg

User posted image

The blue sky appearing at the highest floor (one column over from the southwest corner) is 'interesting'... I wonder how blue sky shows through the building in that area? Has the south face already fallen one floor, whilst leaving the west wall pretty much pristine except for what appears to be minor corner damage.

IF the corner was damaged (as it appears in the photo)... wouldn't it have begun collapsing along with the south face? As can be see, the windows in the very top floor of the south face are still unbroken mere feet away from where the building seems to be collapsing.

Where did you get this photo, CSpam?

Where did you get this photo, CSpam?

Where did you get this photo, CSpam?

Did you make it yourself? If NOT... please provide a reference link to where you first found the photo, so we can analyse the original.

Whoever made it, did a very unprofessional air-bush to the sky area one column over from the top floor on the south west corner... (IMHO).

Not that this surprises me, coming from the Schneib ... (errrr... I mean) CSpams site...

I mean... after ALL...if he is going to continue to promote mathematical calculations based upon FALSE floor / fuel loadings... a photo like this, does not surprise me at all.
HEHEHE! I hope Jones is panicing like you are right now. I hope he tries to pull the same SHAIT you are!!! I LOVE IT!!! HEHEHE!!!

I told you once before I'm not giving you SHAIT. Do your own research.

And don't try the "I bet it's a forgery" just to get me to give up the site URL. Not gonna work. wink.gif
Common Sense
QUOTE (Foxx+Jun 15 2006, 10:24 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jun 16 2006, 02:31 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_guest+Jun 15 2006, 03:07 PM)
I see CSpam is still linking to this «Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy theories and Controlled Demolition Myths»-site.

From geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm

«[…] without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors […]»

Tell me, exactly where did the «millions of tons of paper, wood, plastic, etc» come from? Maybe the terrorists placed it there? Or maybe the towers collapsed due to overloading because of the millions of tons of imaginary magic paper?

You're right, It's a 1.7 tons as NEU-FONZE I believe pointed out. Or was it DB Benson...?

Are you NOW saying it wasn't millions of tons, but rather ONLY 1.7 tons?

When do you plan to correct your calculations (shown at your website) to reflect this NEW figure ???

Am I NOW saying? I never said it was millions. That's not from my post. I only took his post and parked it on my site. Hence "From a blogger". And NO calculations were done with "Millions of tons" of anything. He was just making a point which still stands, be it millions of "TONS" or "POUNDS".

I know NEU-FONSE or DB Benson linked to a carting firm who pulled 1.7 million tons of debris from ground zero but I think that includes the steel. Not sure. Doesn't matter anyway. Heh!

I corrected the site. It now says "Pounds".
Foxx
QUOTE

You're right, It's a 1.7 tons as NEU-FONZE I believe pointed out. Or was it DB Benson...?
<br>Translation...

"Help me out here Neu-Fonze or DBBenson... I'm drowning in my own Shaitt"

tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif

Pitiful...


Although not quite as bad as his last gasps for air saying that he WILL NOT provide the original URL.

Strange... I would have thought that he would LOVE to post the NIST (or FEMA , or OTHER 'Official') url where he allegedly found this photo... as 'PROOF' that it is a 'real' photo, and to support his position.

He likes to play 'Cat & Mouse', this one...

as he scurries about looking for his mouse-hole.

Now quit playing teenager, CSpam. Where did you find this picture...

at the 'Urology site', again ???


When do you plan to modify your 'debunking site' to include the REAL NIST figures of 4 psf and admit Schneibsters lies about 13 psf ???


Or do you plan to leave it unchanged?


yesitdid
QUOTE (Foxx+Jun 16 2006, 03:16 AM)
Regarding this photo image used on CSpams 9/11debunking site...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

User posted image

I think FEMA used it in one of their reports.

However, I have not come across the 'closer shot' before.

It seems as if the camera man has zoomed in to the area... and AT THE SAME time zoomed himself to a much closer position to a view from closer to the gound just beyond Winter Gardens... (the 'greenhouse' building in the foreground).

I call that amazing technology - (to be able to zoom in photographically while at the same time teleporting yourself to a 'zoomed' (much closer) view-point.

OR... maybe...... They were shots from two different photographers?

Let's ask CSpam, if he will provide a direct link to the original copy of where he found the second picture...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7cornerh.jpg

User posted image

The blue sky appearing at the highest floor (one column over from the southwest corner) is 'interesting'... I wonder how blue sky shows through the building in that area? Has the south face already fallen one floor, whilst leaving the west wall pretty much pristine except for what appears to be minor corner damage.

IF the corner was damaged (as it appears in the photo)... wouldn't it have begun collapsing along with the south face? As can be see, the windows in the very top floor of the south face are still unbroken mere feet away from where the building seems to be collapsing.

Where did you get this photo, CSpam?

Where did you get this photo, CSpam?

Where did you get this photo, CSpam?

Did you make it yourself? If NOT... please provide a reference link to where you first found the photo, so we can analyse the original.

Whoever made it, did a very unprofessional air-bush to the sky area one column over from the top floor on the south west corner... (IMHO).

Not that this surprises me, coming from the Schneib ... (errrr... I mean) CSpams site...

I mean... after ALL...if he is going to continue to promote mathematical calculations based upon FALSE floor / fuel loadings... a photo like this, does not surprise me at all.

1) Foxx, explain to me why it simply cannot be the same cameraman who has walked towards the scene and taken more pictures.

2) WtheF are you going on about blue sky showing through any window of WTC7. Now I could be wrong , correct me if I am, but the rust brown building in the center of the shot is WTC 7. All the windows are either black or reflecting lighter colors of other windows, no blues though.

The blue sky through a window that I do see is through a damaged corner of a building west of #7, possibly one of the WFC (#3?) buildings.

put the bong down or come back later.
Common Sense
QUOTE (Foxx+Jun 15 2006, 10:40 PM)
QUOTE

You're right, It's a 1.7 tons as NEU-FONZE I believe pointed out. Or was it DB Benson...?
<br>Translation...

"Help me out here Neu-Fonze or DBBenson... I'm drowning in my own Shaitt"

tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif

Pitiful...


Although not quite as bad as his last gasps for air saying that he WILL NOT provide the original URL.

Strange... I would have thought that he would post the NIST (or FEMA , or OTHER 'Official') url where he allegedly found this photo... as 'PROOF' that it is a 'real' photo.

He likes to play 'Cat & Mouse', this one...

as he scurries about looking for his mouse-hole.

Now quit playing teenager, CSpam. Where did you find this picture...

at the 'Urology site', again ??? It's in one of these fu<King thread you mor@n. Why would I lie?

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4299

That took me all of two seconds. GEEZZZ dry.gif
Mel
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 03:22 AM)
As much as Mel disgusts me by continually calling for blood (in part specifically mine ),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

QUOTE
That document has gotta be the stupidest thing I've ever read on the subject of WTC 7. No point in going over it with a fine-tooth comb.
<br>translation: I did not read or understand the whole thing

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
That document has gotta be the stupidest thing I've ever read on the subject of WTC 7. No point in going over it with a fine-tooth comb.
<br>translation: I did not read or understand the whole thing

Suffice it to say that one merely needs to watch the CD of the building to know that the explanation is BUNK. From the time the outer, top edge begins its descent, to the time it hits the ground in about 6.x seconds. Who gives a rat's arse what's happening before that?
<br>Completely ignores the FACT that a good portion of the building beyond that wall had already collapsed when the wall he refers to starts to fall. The rat's arse not withstanding, it most certainly is part of the collapse and bears great relevance to the manner of the outer wall's eventual collapse.

QUOTE
Since WTC 7 was held up by steel, one simply has to ask the question: what happened to the steel columns running up the edges and outer face of the building as it collapsed? Answer: they were systematically broken into small pieces by some man-made 'force' (ie. thermite/thermate/whatever, and I don't care which). If they weren't, then what would have been observed as the lower parts of these steel columns (amazingly) simultaneously failed (due to fire?...suuuure they did, nudge, nudge, wink, wink), would be that the columns would have 'shed' themselves of their floors due to their sudden impact with the ground below.
<br>Since thermite simply cannot act on a steel column that fast, it is a given that thermite was not involved, and of course there is no visual evidence of thermite burning on the perimeter columns. Care to change that to an actual explosive? Probably not since in order for an explosive to have been used on those outer steel columns that Mel claims were broken into pieces it should be very obvious throughout the wall, that the columns are being cut by explosives.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Since WTC 7 was held up by steel, one simply has to ask the question: what happened to the steel columns running up the edges and outer face of the building as it collapsed? Answer: they were systematically broken into small pieces by some man-made 'force' (ie. thermite/thermate/whatever, and I don't care which). If they weren't, then what would have been observed as the lower parts of these steel columns (amazingly) simultaneously failed (due to fire?...suuuure they did, nudge, nudge, wink, wink), would be that the columns would have 'shed' themselves of their floors due to their sudden impact with the ground below.
<br>Since thermite simply cannot act on a steel column that fast, it is a given that thermite was not involved, and of course there is no visual evidence of thermite burning on the perimeter columns. Care to change that to an actual explosive? Probably not since in order for an explosive to have been used on those outer steel columns that Mel claims were broken into pieces it should be very obvious throughout the wall, that the columns are being cut by explosives.

Simple experiment:

1. Find a nice big tree somewhere that environmentalists won't mind you messing with. This tree will be analogous to any one of the steel columns on the outer wall/corner of WTC 7.
2. You and Two Sheds and CS and RealityCheck (you still lurking around, bozo?) and tikay and YID and the rest XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, climb up the tree (the higher the better) and hang by XXXXXXXXXXX your hands from any branch you like. This will simulate floors being 'loosely' coupled to the steel column.
3. Now ask one of us rational people from the clown car to somehow cause the lower 10-20 feet of the tree to instantly turn to jelly (I sure as he11 don't know how we'd do this, but some magical force made it happen in WTC 7).
<br>There's your error right there. The FACT of the penthouses and other rooftop structures falling through the building bears witness that those floors were in the process of no longer being attached, some already not attached, to the perimeter columns when the wall began its fall.

QUOTE
What happens? Simple: the tree drops straight down, and the abrupt stop from impacting the ground causes you loons to shed your grip on the branch (as the WTC 7 floors likely would have, or at least the outer wall 'covering' would have been visibly jarred from its mooring) and fall painfully to the ground XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. The tree remains upright for a time, then might tip over. Either way, it DOES NOT snap into short segments and repeat the above process all over till it's lying on the ground in short pieces.

Now repeat the above experiment with a bunch of trees layed out in a grid pattern. Good freakin' luck making step 3 come together like it magically did with steel on 9/11
<br>Another error, no one has ever claimed that such a mechanism as the sudden removal of the bottom few feet of the perimeter columns caused the wall to collapse. The interior floors are moving downward , within the building. As they pull away from the walls they do two things. First they remove all buttressing of the wall columns AND they induce a preferred direction for buckling. Evidence of this is the FACT that the building's wall moves in towards the area of the initial collapse, the west penthouse.
<br>I called for hangings, so there likely won't be any blood involved. And I am THOROUGHLY disgusted with you sub-humans covering up the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11.

And you doinks STILL keep avoiding the issue of the outside columns falling straight down without buckling in fits and starts on the way. Entire steel columns slipping into the ground, smooth as butter, all the way across both visible faces of the video. Nary a piece of the buildings' siding gets jarred loose from the columns' impacts with the ground. All we see is little puffs of dust here and there.

And I clearly stated 'or whatever' with regards to the mechanism used to 'cut' the columns. Since your reading comprehension is so poor, let me state it again: OR WHATEVER. It's completely unimportant.

And you say nobody stated that the columns turned to mush? Well, for the record then, what DID happen to them along their ENTIRE length? They certainly weren't intact on the way down..the video evidence assures this.

And the CD initiation with the penthouse helped to ensure that the rubble pile went inward as much as possible when everything finally slipped smoothly to the ground.

Find yourself another job, you disgusting jackal. WTC 7's CD is a certainty.


stunned_observer
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jun 16 2006, 03:25 AM)
I told you once before I'm not giving you SHAIT. Do your own research.
If you have a legitimate photo, wouldn't it make more sense to rub it in by giving your source? Furthermore, researchers interested in the truth operate transparently and in the open. I am forced to translate this as you saying: "I have something to hide".
yesitdid
User posted image

Yep, its WFC3 alright. This diagram has it damaged right where the pictures show it to be damaged, in the corner.

Gee, dat was tough to figger out Foxx.
Foxx
QUOTE

It's in one of these fu<King thread you mor@n. Why would I lie?

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4299

That took me all of two seconds. GEEZZZ
<br>Quick... gotta find the mouse-hole.

Now, what are you on about?

The 13 psf figure can be found in another thread? Are you STILL Standing by that ?

The "millions of tons" is 'somewhere' ... ("I just don't know where I found it now... but it 'sounded good' at the time")...

Are you still Standing by that? Then why do you mention 1.7 tons? Do you have any clue as to what position you are trying to support?

AND... about the obviously faked photo-shop WTC 7 image, (and IF you yourself did NOT make it)... where did you find the 'original' ???

Please don't tell us that you found it on an FBI ... CIA... Homeland Security... or Urology site!

Well... that's enough batting mice around for me tonight. Play time is over... I have real work to do.

Manyana

tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif


yesitdid
QUOTE
Mal posts
I called for hangings, so there likely won't be any blood involved. And I am THOROUGHLY disgusted with you sub-humans covering up the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11.
<br>ooooh, such a riposte. Blood, in the figurative sense.(use a dictionary to look up figurative)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Mal posts
I called for hangings, so there likely won't be any blood involved. And I am THOROUGHLY disgusted with you sub-humans covering up the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11.
<br>ooooh, such a riposte. Blood, in the figurative sense.(use a dictionary to look up figurative)

And you doinks STILL keep avoiding the issue of the outside columns falling straight down without buckling in fits and starts on the way. Entire steel columns slipping into the ground, smooth as butter, all the way across both visible faces of the video. Nary a piece of the buildings' siding gets jarred loose from the columns' impacts with the ground. All we see is little puffs of dust here and there.
<br>Slipping into the ground, impacts with the ground?? You must have a video I haven't seen. Is the ground along the two faces of the building visible in a video? Post a link.

QUOTE
And I clearly stated 'or whatever' with regards to the mechanism used to 'cut' the columns. Since your reading comprehension is so poor, let me state it again: OR WHATEVER. It's completely unimportant.
<br>,,,, and I addressed both thermite(or any steel melting incendiary) and cutter explosives. Neither are evident. You can't just make this stuff up and expect it to be taken seriously.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And I clearly stated 'or whatever' with regards to the mechanism used to 'cut' the columns. Since your reading comprehension is so poor, let me state it again: OR WHATEVER. It's completely unimportant.
<br>,,,, and I addressed both thermite(or any steel melting incendiary) and cutter explosives. Neither are evident. You can't just make this stuff up and expect it to be taken seriously.

And you say nobody stated that the columns turned to mush? Well, for the record then, what DID happen to them along their ENTIRE length? They certainly weren't intact on the way down..the video evidence assures this.

And the CD initiation with the penthouse helped to ensure that the rubble pile went inward as much as possible when everything finally slipped smoothly to the ground.
<br>That makes absolutly no sense whatsoever. The columns , according to you, hit the ground AND THEN went inward because the penthouse went first???? How about the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse AND was pulled inwards and down. Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.

QUOTE
Mal spews forth vitriol
Find yourself another job, you disgusting jackal. WTC 7's CD is a certainty.
<br>I'm a jackal?? You are the one who is creaming himself in anticipation of extra-judicial hangings. rolleyes.gif

Its people like you who want to excuse terrorist actions by blaming the victims no matter what contortions you have to perform to do so.
Foxx
Here's a blow-up of CSpam's "WTC 7" image...

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7cornerhLG.jpg

User posted image

Of course... it doesn't seem 'odd' at all to YID how the blue sky is air-brushed into the area next to the column (top floor / south face) one over from the south-west corner... Does it seem like a straight (man-made) line at that area to anyone else? I guess YID will just tell me to get my glasses checked... he sees nothing at ALL 'unusual' about this photo... (Looks REAL to HIM)...

Everyone who AGREES with YID, please raise your hands. I'll check back tomorrow to see the results.

Cheers

&

Manyana


Mel
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 04:17 AM)
QUOTE
Mal posts
I called for hangings, so there likely won't be any blood involved. And I am THOROUGHLY disgusted with you sub-humans covering up the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11.
<br>ooooh, such a riposte. Blood, in the figurative sense.(use a dictionary to look up figurative)

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Mal posts
I called for hangings, so there likely won't be any blood involved. And I am THOROUGHLY disgusted with you sub-humans covering up the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11.
<br>ooooh, such a riposte. Blood, in the figurative sense.(use a dictionary to look up figurative)

And you doinks STILL keep avoiding the issue of the outside columns falling straight down without buckling in fits and starts on the way. Entire steel columns slipping into the ground, smooth as butter, all the way across both visible faces of the video. Nary a piece of the buildings' siding gets jarred loose from the columns' impacts with the ground. All we see is little puffs of dust here and there.
<br>Slipping into the ground, impacts with the ground?? You must have a video I haven't seen. Is the ground along the two faces of the building visible in a video? Post a link.

QUOTE
And I clearly stated 'or whatever' with regards to the mechanism used to 'cut' the columns. Since your reading comprehension is so poor, let me state it again: OR WHATEVER. It's completely unimportant.
<br>,,,, and I addressed both thermite(or any steel melting incendiary) and cutter explosives. Neither are evident. You can't just make this stuff up and expect it to be taken seriously.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And I clearly stated 'or whatever' with regards to the mechanism used to 'cut' the columns. Since your reading comprehension is so poor, let me state it again: OR WHATEVER. It's completely unimportant.
<br>,,,, and I addressed both thermite(or any steel melting incendiary) and cutter explosives. Neither are evident. You can't just make this stuff up and expect it to be taken seriously.

And you say nobody stated that the columns turned to mush? Well, for the record then, what DID happen to them along their ENTIRE length? They certainly weren't intact on the way down..the video evidence assures this.

And the CD initiation with the penthouse helped to ensure that the rubble pile went inward as much as possible when everything finally slipped smoothly to the ground.
<br>That makes absolutly no sense whatsoever. The columns , according to you, hit the ground AND THEN went inward because the penthouse went first???? How about the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse AND was pulled inwards and down. Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.

QUOTE
Mal spews forth vitriol
Find yourself another job, you disgusting jackal. WTC 7's CD is a certainty.
<br>I'm a jackal?? You are the one who is creaming himself in anticipation of extra-judicial hangings. rolleyes.gif
<!--QuoteBegin-->
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Mal spews forth vitriol
Find yourself another job, you disgusting jackal. WTC 7's CD is a certainty.
<br>I'm a jackal?? You are the one who is creaming himself in anticipation of extra-judicial hangings. rolleyes.gif
<!--QuoteBegin)
ooooh, such a riposte. Blood, in the figurative sense.

<br>No shait, Sherlock. I understood your 'figure of speech' nonsense, because unlike you and your cohorts, my reading comprehension is fine. It's simply tragic that you didn't catch the sarcasm in my response.

QUOTE
Slipping into the ground, impacts with the ground??
<br>You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid, It's exasperating. My point, AGAIN, is that the columns DID NOT impact with the ground, they 'slid' into it. My God! The video of the CD shows NO sign that the vertical columns are 'impacting'. the are 'gently' settling into the ground without complaint. I can't make this any clearer for you, but happily the smart people in here will get it.

I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Slipping into the ground, impacts with the ground??
<br>You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid, It's exasperating. My point, AGAIN, is that the columns DID NOT impact with the ground, they 'slid' into it. My God! The video of the CD shows NO sign that the vertical columns are 'impacting'. the are 'gently' settling into the ground without complaint. I can't make this any clearer for you, but happily the smart people in here will get it.

I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).

That makes absolutly no sense whatsoever
Judging from your comprehension of all the other stuff, I'm not surprised...

QUOTE
How about the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How about the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?

Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.

My polite judgment of you stands. Suck it up. And if it makes you cry, well...so be it (you're not crying, are you?)

Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
QUOTE
a juvenile anti-scientist said:
explain migration at all? less volume at the 'fringes' should mean that the fringes cool first yet they are hot later on in the study not at the beginning.
Learn to READ
and learn to stop LYING:
user posted image
Foxx
It seems like the image used in the FEMA documents... has been manipulated (enhanced even beyond FEMA's wildest dreams)...

here is an enlargement of the FEMA photo...

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/WTC7SmokeZM.jpg

User posted image

Not very 'clear' is it ?

The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7cornerhLG.jpg

User posted image

This is great !!!

We can see the manipulation of the photo much clearer NOW.

Thanks... cia, pentagon, fbi (or whoever)... for clearing that up for us.




Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
A comon liar posted photos, but refused to post the origianal source reference.
QUOTE
As a immensely popular writer, Gould is conscious that he is paradoxically safe from exposure in whatever he asserts because only minuscule number of his readers will actually consult the original sources
[...]
We propose to roll back the "security camera" by consulting the primary literature that Gould pretends to be reacting against in his recent outburst, and compare against his critical claims.
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Debate/CEP_Gould.html
A common liar refuses to reference its imagery. I wonder why not...
addendum: I haven't worked out exactly how the photo is supposed to "debunk" the obviously controlled demolition of 7WTC - it isn't a photo of the floor-by-floor flashes and smoke trails th atprogess upwards along the face of WTC captured on video - it isn't the photo of what have been labelled "squibs". It is a strawman photo.

YESITDID:
* I note that you haven't explained how steel and powdered concrete and the odd telephone, credit card or stuffed toy can produce a subterranean foundry.
* I note that yu haven't taught us how to produce a blacksmith's weld or a eutectic compound.

and I note that your AGAIN failed in any way to address my question -
* Do any of the collapse models include an explosive mass reduction parameter during progress?
user posted image

I guess it must be one of those embarrassing questions that has to buried in a cascade of debris - right?
adoucette
QUOTE (Foxx+)
It seems like the image used in the FEMA documents... has been manipulated (enhanced even beyond FEMA's wildest dreams)...

here is an enlargement of the FEMA photo...

User posted image

Not very 'clear' is it ?

The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...

User posted image

This is great !!!

We can see the manipulation of the photo much clearer NOW.

Thanks... cia, pentagon, fbi (or whoever)... for clearing that up for us.


<br>Its OBVIOUSLY not the same photo.

Arthur
Foxx
QUOTE
by the defender of the walls of Jerico

Its OBVIOUSLY not the same photo.

Arthur
<br>... but shows the same anomalous blue sky shading where there should be the south-face wall of WTC 7 at the top floor (one column away from the corner).

I think it's about time to call the photo experts to the stand.



Alan (ex elevator man)
Its OBVIOUSLY not the same photo.

Hey, even the blue-collar guy can see the penthouse has dropped below view in one of those.
Mel
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2006, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+)
It seems like the image used in the FEMA documents... has been manipulated (enhanced even beyond FEMA's wildest dreams)...

here is an enlargement of the FEMA photo...

User posted image

Not very 'clear' is it ?

The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...

User posted image

This is great !!!

We can see the manipulation of the photo much clearer NOW.

Thanks... cia, pentagon, fbi (or whoever)... for clearing that up for us.


<br>Its OBVIOUSLY not the same photo.

Arthur

You've got nothing to say about WTC 7 until NIST produces its lies for you, so why did you respond to Foxx's post? Maybe 'cause this photo is one of those subjects that you know can be argued INFINITELY?

I'll bet the NIST report on WTC 7 is gonna be real entertaining. It'll probably go something like this:

Debris from the collapsing South Tower (?...who cares which) struck the corner of WTC 7. Fires in the sub-basement ensued, and global, symmetrical collapse was inevitable 6 hours later. We'll get several thousand pages about the angle and speed at which the debris struck, and maybe a thousand more about the small fires.

Of course, there will be no mention of the graceful way in which the walls of the building slid perfectly straight down to the ground without so much as a single stutter. Oh wait, maybe they will mention this only to say that they 'looked' at the 'possibility' of CD, but found no evidence to support it. I can already say in advance, that [b]if[/] the report ever comes out, it'll be Two Sheds' obfuscating wet-dream.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Foxx
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 06:07 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2006, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+)
It seems like the image used in the FEMA documents... has been manipulated (enhanced even beyond FEMA's wildest dreams)...

here is an enlargement of the FEMA photo...

User posted image

Not very 'clear' is it ?

The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...

User posted image

This is great !!!

We can see the manipulation of the photo much clearer NOW.

Thanks... cia, pentagon, fbi (or whoever)... for clearing that up for us.


<br>Its OBVIOUSLY not the same photo.

Arthur

You've got nothing to say about WTC 7 until NIST produces its lies for you, so why did you respond to Foxx's post? Maybe 'cause this photo is one of those subjects that you know can be argued INFINITELY?

I'll bet the NIST report on WTC 7 is gonna be real entertaining. It'll probably go something like this:

Debris from the collapsing South Tower (?...who cares which) struck the corner of WTC 7. Fires in the sub-basement ensued, and global, symmetrical collapse was inevitable 6 hours later. We'll get several thousand pages about the angle and speed at which the debris struck, and maybe a thousand more about the small fires.

Of course, there will be no mention of the graceful way in which the walls of the building slid perfectly straight down to the ground without so much as a single stutter. Oh wait, maybe they will mention this only to say that they 'looked' at the 'possibility' of CD, but found no evidence to support it. I can already say in advance, that [b]if[/] the report ever comes out, it'll be Two Sheds' obfuscating wet-dream.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Ditto to that...

Amen ... errr sorry... Allah Akbar... and good night.



Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
addendum from above:

I haven't worked out exactly how the photo is supposed to "debunk" the obviously controlled demolition of 7WTC - it isn't a photo of the floor-by-floor flashes and smoke trails that progess upwards along the face of WTC captured on video - it isn't the photo of what have been labelled "squibs". It is a strawman photo.

And if the commonliar can't provide a primary reference, then we should
ALL PLAY THAT GAME and OPERATE ON PURE IPSE DIXIT.

I heard that Larry Silverstein enjoys killing goyim - but I'm not telling you my source.

wise word from Mel:
QUOTE
Maybe 'cause this photo is one of those subjects that you (Arturio) know can be argued INFINITELY?
Like the 100s of pages of faith-based bafflemath that doesn't even try to account for the explosive loss of mass.
newton
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Jun 16 2006, 06:05 AM)
Its OBVIOUSLY not the same photo.

Hey, even the blue-collar guy can see the penthouse has dropped below view in one of those.
i believe it's a matter of perspective. the closer shot is shot from closer, you can tell by the angle between the two visible walls. the sharper angle indicates that the photographer is closer to the building, and the hence the vanishing points create a more extreme angle, and the more extreme angle obscures the penthouse.

these are different pics, fer sure, but the idea that the penthouse has sunken already in the second pic is has no basis.

i liked the post about the lack of buckling along the corners as the building descended. that's good proof. MMMMMM, GOOD!
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
yesitdid - contradicting your fringe-fire assertion is the annotation accompanying the thermal migration map -- quote: "Left: Thermal Imagery of the progression of molten steel hotspots from September 18 to September 25. Notice how the heat becomes concentrated towards the center from the fringe areas" - GeoNews.

astaire:
User posted image
http://www.geocities.com/tower_collapse/it...e_equations.gif

Checkout those massive reinforced concreted slabs suspended so delicately on such feeble legs. It looks ready to collapse already!

Does the equation include an explosive mass-reduction parameter?
user posted image
--------------------------------------------------
The building was designed to have a fully-loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners, because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid. And the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Frank A. DeMartini
Manager, WTC Construction & Project Management
History Channel, January 2001. (WMV extract - 440Kb)
--------------------------------------------------
Did you know that DeMartini was initially hired by the structural engineering firm Leslie E. Robertson to oversee the 93 WTC truck-bombing repairs?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...753C1A9679C8B63

QUOTE
NeoFonzie to MEL:
The October 2001 issue of Engineering News Record includes comments based on observations by Irwin C. Cantor, WTC 7’s local structural engineer: (the in-the-know guy - the"expert")
"Cantor, who arrived at the (WTC 7) site just after the collapse and has combed through the remains since, says there is a 24-in.-dia high-pressure gas main under the building. "They were unable to shut it down for a long time," says Cantor….. Cantor wonders whether high-intensity heat from the burning gas collapsed a floor." - NF
<span style='color:#000099'>FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 5:
There was also a Con Ed 4-inch-diameter gas line with 0.25 pounds per square inch (psi) (low) pressure going into WTC 7 for cooking purposes. Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building; however, this proved not to be true.
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch5.pdf
adoucette
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Jun 16 2006, 01:20 AM)
QUOTE
a juvenile anti-scientist said:
explain migration at all? less volume at the 'fringes' should mean that the fringes cool first yet they are hot later on in the study not at the beginning.
Learn to READ
and learn to stop LYING:
user posted image
I notice you no longer post the picture.

Why?

the movement of heat in the debris pile doesn't support a thermite story does it?

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02b.gif

User posted image

Nor does the lack of pictures of a massive amount of SLAG and SOLIDIFIED MELTED STEEL at the bottom of this pile, which would of course be a consequence of burning TONS and TONS of thermite.

You see, you need some ACTUAL EVIDENCE of thermite to propose thermite, but so far you've produced NONE.

On the other hand, the ~14 million pounds of combustible material in the debris pile is a KNOWN source of the energy seen. (110 * 32,000 * 4 * 2) (stories(-6 mech +6 underground) * Sq ft tennent space * #s cumbustibles per sq ft * number towers, Marriott left out but another million probably)

Of course the ROARING OVENS from burning debris also comes with VIDEOS.

WTC Roaring Ovens

Arthur
Foxx
QUOTE
by arthurs
You see, you need some ACTUAL EVIDENCE of thermite to propose thermite, but so far you've produced NONE.

<br>A HUGE body of evidence leading to the plausibility of the use of some sort of incendiary has been gathered and much has been presented on this thread. The fact that you personally reject the EVIDENCE presented, means nothing at all, because you have been unable to PROVE that either...

the official story is believable,

NOR have you presented ANY evidence which refutes the body of evidence which points to the use of incendiaries... (apart from your notable theory of Amazing Underground Bellows fueled by heavy equipment bouncing across the surface of WTC.

Anyone who would post such ridiculous nonsense has lost ALL credibility long ago arthur. Your obfuscating oratory and sophistry (no matter how well spoken) cannot save your credibilty in the face of such nonsense.

There is no doubt that you have gathered a following of lemmings with your desperate nonsense, but your audience is highly limited to those who cannot think for themselves, and depend upon your ramblings to support the long-dead official story.

The majority of intelligent persons are not swayed by your exclamations and demands that the emperor is in fact wearing clothes, when he is standing there naked for all to see.

You conveniently IGNORE the fact that NIST has been caught red-handed in denying and trying to conceal the fact that steel was indeed collected from WTC 7 - the obvious reason for such deceit is so they do not have to address the eutectic actions documented by Barnett & Biederman. You are simply misguided by your own bias... and like Don Quixote are bent upon attacking 'enemies' who are a threat to your emotional well-being.





Common Sense
QUOTE (Foxx+Jun 16 2006, 09:34 AM)
QUOTE
by arthurs
You see, you need some ACTUAL EVIDENCE of thermite to propose thermite, but so far you've produced NONE.

<br>A HUGE body of evidence leading to the plausibility of the use of some sort of incendiary has been gathered and much has been presented on this thread. The fact that you personally reject the EVIDENCE presented, means nothing at all, because you have been unable to PROVE that either...

the official story is believable,

NOR have you presented ANY evidence which refutes the body of evidence which points to the use of incendiaries... (apart from your notable theory of Amazing Underground Bellows fueled by heavy equipment bouncing across the surface of WTC.

Anyone who would post such ridiculous nonsense has lost ALL credibility long ago arthur. Your obfuscating oratory and sophistry (no matter how well spoken) cannot save your credibilty in the face of such nonsense.

There is no doubt that you have gathered a following of lemmings with your desperate nonsense, but your audience is highly limited to those who cannot think for themselves, and depend upon your ramblings to support the long-dead official story.

The majority of intelligent persons are not swayed by your exclamations and demands that the emperor is in fact wearing clothes, when he is standing there naked for all to see.

You conveniently IGNORE the fact that NIST has been caught red-handed in denying and trying to conceal the fact that steel was indeed collected from WTC 7 - the obvious reason for such deceit is so they do not have to address the eutectic actions documented by Barnett & Biederman. You are simply misguided by your own bias... and like Don Quixote are bent upon attacking 'enemies' who are a threat to your emotional well-being. More faux lies...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/
yesitdid
QUOTE (Foxx+Jun 16 2006, 04:37 AM)
Here's a blow-up of CSpam's "WTC 7" image...

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7cornerhLG.jpg

User posted image

Of course... it doesn't seem 'odd' at all to YID how the blue sky is air-brushed into the area next to the column (top floor / south face) one over from the south-west corner... Does it seem like a straight (man-made) line at that area to anyone else? I guess YID will just tell me to get my glasses checked... he sees nothing at ALL 'unusual' about this photo... (Looks REAL to HIM)...

Everyone who AGREES with YID, please raise your hands. I'll check back tomorrow to see the results.

Cheers

&

Manyana

Are you then referring to the tiny piece of missing facade to the left of the column or the larger open blue area to the viewer's right?

I assume you mean to the right.

Perhaps you need to look again at the construction of the WTC 7 building , specifically the ends of the south face. Please look at picture L-21 in NIST's appendixL which deals with WTC 7. It clearly shows the outcrop at the end of the south face. That is why you see sky to the right of the top edge in that high angle shot. So, no, it does not seem odd at all. You on the other hand.......

Common Sense
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 01:07 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2006, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+)
It seems like the image used in the FEMA documents... has been manipulated (enhanced even beyond FEMA's wildest dreams)...

here is an enlargement of the FEMA photo...

User posted image

Not very 'clear' is it ?

The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...

User posted image

This is great !!!

We can see the manipulation of the photo much clearer NOW.

Thanks... cia, pentagon, fbi (or whoever)... for clearing that up for us.


<br>Its OBVIOUSLY not the same photo.

Arthur

You've got nothing to say about WTC 7 until NIST produces its lies for you, so why did you respond to Foxx's post? Maybe 'cause this photo is one of those subjects that you know can be argued INFINITELY?

I'll bet the NIST report on WTC 7 is gonna be real entertaining. It'll probably go something like this:

Debris from the collapsing South Tower (?...who cares which) struck the corner of WTC 7. Fires in the sub-basement ensued, and global, symmetrical collapse was inevitable 6 hours later. We'll get several thousand pages about the angle and speed at which the debris struck, and maybe a thousand more about the small fires.

Of course, there will be no mention of the graceful way in which the walls of the building slid perfectly straight down to the ground without so much as a single stutter. Oh wait, maybe they will mention this only to say that they 'looked' at the 'possibility' of CD, but found no evidence to support it. I can already say in advance, that [b]if[/] the report ever comes out, it'll be Two Sheds' obfuscating wet-dream.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
I got your "perfectly straight down", right here!

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

You people are flopping around like a school of fish on a fishing troller. Heh!

Let me guess, it's more trick photography. HEHEHE!!!
Common Sense
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 10:06 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jun 16 2006, 04:37 AM)
Here's a blow-up of CSpam's "WTC 7" image...

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7cornerhLG.jpg

User posted image

Of course... it doesn't seem 'odd' at all to YID how the blue sky is air-brushed into the area next to the column (top floor / south face) one over from the south-west corner... Does it seem like a straight (man-made) line at that area to anyone else? I guess YID will just tell me to get my glasses checked... he sees nothing at ALL 'unusual' about this photo... (Looks REAL to HIM)...

Everyone who AGREES with YID, please raise your hands. I'll check back tomorrow to see the results.

Cheers

&

Manyana

Are you then referring to the tiny piece of missing facade to the left of the column or the larger open blue area to the viewer's right?

I assume you mean to the right.

Perhaps you need to look again at the construction of the WTC 7 building , specifically the ends of the south face. Please look at picture L-21 in NIST's appendixL which deals with WTC 7. It clearly shows the outcrop at the end of the south face. That is why you see sky to the right of the top edge in that high angle shot. So, no, it does not seem odd at all. You on the other hand.......
Shoooooooosh... I wanted to see faux's argument in Jones report. I wanted to see the "scholars" try to explain this away. HEHEHE!!!
yesitdid
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 04:41 AM)


You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid, It's exasperating. My point, AGAIN, is that the columns DID NOT impact with the ground, they 'slid' into it. My God! The video of the CD shows NO sign that the vertical columns are 'impacting'. the are 'gently' settling into the ground without complaint. I can't make this any clearer for you, but happily the smart people in here will get it.

<br>That IS my point, they do not come straight down. The image you are viewing clearly shows that all the columns tilt towards the 'kink' which is in a vertical alignment with the fallen penthouse. The building's wall also is tilting inwards which is no wonder given that the floors are or have already been pulled down and inward, on the inside of the wall. So again your straight down tree analogy is simply not a model of what happened or what anyone has stated happened or that can be shown to have happened.

QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?


QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

My polite judgment of you stands. Suck it up. And if it makes you cry, well...so be it (you're not crying, are you?)
<br>Polite? You call for my execution in the most innocuous way possible I suppose.

Polite, you? Not that I have ever witnessed.
adoucette
QUOTE (Foxx+Jun 16 2006, 02:12 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 06:07 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2006, 05:46 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+)
It seems like the image used in the FEMA documents... has been manipulated (enhanced even beyond FEMA's wildest dreams)...

here is an enlargement of the FEMA photo...

User posted image

Not very 'clear' is it ?

The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...

User posted image

This is great !!!

We can see the manipulation of the photo much clearer NOW.

Thanks... cia, pentagon, fbi (or whoever)... for clearing that up for us.


<br>Its OBVIOUSLY not the same photo.

Arthur

You've got nothing to say about WTC 7 until NIST produces its lies for you, so why did you respond to Foxx's post? Maybe 'cause this photo is one of those subjects that you know can be argued INFINITELY?

I'll bet the NIST report on WTC 7 is gonna be real entertaining. It'll probably go something like this:

Debris from the collapsing South Tower (?...who cares which) struck the corner of WTC 7. Fires in the sub-basement ensued, and global, symmetrical collapse was inevitable 6 hours later. We'll get several thousand pages about the angle and speed at which the debris struck, and maybe a thousand more about the small fires.

Of course, there will be no mention of the graceful way in which the walls of the building slid perfectly straight down to the ground without so much as a single stutter. Oh wait, maybe they will mention this only to say that they 'looked' at the 'possibility' of CD, but found no evidence to support it. I can already say in advance, that [b]if[/] the report ever comes out, it'll be Two Sheds' obfuscating wet-dream.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Ditto to that...

Amen ... errr sorry... Allah Akbar... and good night.

Mel

Responding to the fact that Foxx claims they are the SAME picture and that one has been photoshopped does not require any knowledge of WTC 7's construction or demise, thus I feel perfectly free to comment.

Its obvious it is not the same photo.

Oh, and Mel, you figure most of the people at NIST are "in on it" as well?

Arthur
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
The reason for not reposting the thermal migration molten metal map was simply one of courtesy, Arturio. I was hoping that having mentioned the molten metal thermal migration map several times that was posted by me several times, yesitdid might have also remembered what it looked like.

The description of the map - cooling more rapidly at the fringes - is concordant with all thermal maps, as well you know. The pattern doesn't spread like fire - it retracts like a crudely gaussian distribution of molten metal might be expected to do in response to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and pyrocool™.
User posted imageuser posted image
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02b.gif
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02a.gif
916:
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/lg-map-therm1_916.jpg
1018:
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/lg-...therm2_1018.jpg

Also:
What is the principle behind the blacksmiths' forge-weld?
How does one make a eutectic compound?
Do your equations decrement mass during collapse progress in order to account for the explosive ejection of mass evident in the real world collapse(s)?

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

Now here's an example of real common sense - from newton:
QUOTE
i believe it's a matter of perspective. the closer shot is shot from closer(!), you can tell by the angle between the two visible walls. the sharper angle indicates that the photographer is closer to the building, and the hence the vanishing points create a more extreme angle, and the more extreme angle obscures the penthouse.
<img src='http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/perspective-1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' /> user posted image
Obvious - isn't it?
adoucette
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Jun 16 2006, 11:31 AM)
The description of the map - cooling more rapidly at the fringes - is concordant with all thermal maps, as well you know. The pattern doesn't spread like fire - it retracts like a crudely gaussian distribution of molten metal might be expected to do in response to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and pyrocool™.
User posted imageuser posted image
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02b.gif
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02a.gif
916:
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/lg-map-therm1_916.jpg
1018:
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/lg-...therm2_1018.jpg

Its also concordant with a pile of burning debris that matches the sloping profiles of the debris piles (also from the same source: See LICAR profile).

What YOU DON'T have is ANY EVIDENCE of solidified pools of metal which one would expect if tons of thermite were set off in the basement, nor of the resultant slag.

What we do have, as the Video I've posted from 6 weeks after the collapse shows, Excellent evidence that the debris pile was ON FIRE.

Arthur



Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
Foxx
QUOTE
the obvious reason for such deceit is so they do not have to address the eutectic actions documented by Barnett & Biederman
<br>Barnett & Biederman LIED.

NO EUTECTICS USED IN A BLACKMITHS' FORGE WELD - GOT IT?
NO SULPHUR REQUIRED BY BLACKSMITHS TO WELD - NO EUTECTICS - UNDERSTAND?
You can NOT apply sulphur to STEEL or IRON TOPICALLY in order to LOWER THE MELTING POINT -- YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT - THAT IS WHAT BARNETT AND BIDERMANN WERE TRYING TO SAY HAPPENED AT 7WTC.

CAPICE?

Sorry for SHOUTING AT YOU, Foxx - but I seem to have made that particular point several times over the past few pages.

Here's a refresher:


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
the obvious reason for such deceit is so they do not have to address the eutectic actions documented by Barnett & Biederman
<br>Barnett & Biederman LIED.

NO EUTECTICS USED IN A BLACKMITHS' FORGE WELD - GOT IT?
NO SULPHUR REQUIRED BY BLACKSMITHS TO WELD - NO EUTECTICS - UNDERSTAND?
You can NOT apply sulphur to STEEL or IRON TOPICALLY in order to LOWER THE MELTING POINT -- YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT - THAT IS WHAT BARNETT AND BIDERMANN WERE TRYING TO SAY HAPPENED AT 7WTC.

CAPICE?

Sorry for SHOUTING AT YOU, Foxx - but I seem to have made that particular point several times over the past few pages.

Here's a refresher:


Fonzie:
And I suspect in the hottest regions of my charcoal fire the Fe forms a eutectic
Thanks for answering the question, Fonzie.

I suspect it doesn't. I would be willing to bet money on it.

I've been doing my homework, and I've discovered that blackmith's forge welds were not accomplished by eutectics or with any aid from charcoal with high sulphur content. That is called "rewriting history" - three thousand years worth of it for the sake of one Arab-framing lie.
Remember how you correctly noted that sulphur is volatile?

____________________________
charcoal
Chared wood or other dense organic matter used as fuel. Charcoal is manufactured from wood by heating it in a controlled fire with insufficient oxygen to completely burn the wood that drives off the water, volatiles and light elements. The result is mostly porus carbon. Charcoal burns hot and clean leaving a light white ash. For thousands of years it was used as fuel for everything including smelting and melting metals, fueling blacksmith forges and cooking.

coal
An organic mineral product resulting from the accumulation of organic material in peat bogs millions of years ago. Geologic process compressed the peat into a carbonaceous material. Coal varies in quality due to the inclusion of non-organic materials such as sand, silt and clay. These determine the character of the coal ash and clinkers. Coal also contains variable quantities of volitile hyrdocarbon compounds and sulfur. This large number of variables means coal can be in any number of grades ranging from peat, to nearly pure carbon to slate.
http://www.anvilfire.com/FAQs/glossary.htm
____________________________
Whereas in the barbecue fuel market charcoal has little competition, in almost all other applications charcoal could be substituted by coal, coke, petroleum coke or lignite. The advantages or charcoal depend on six significant properties which account for its continued use in industry.
- low sulphur content [...] - relatively few and unreactive inorganic impurities
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5555e/x5555e07.htm
____________________________
Coal used by a blacksmith must be relatively free of sulphur and other chemicals that would damage the iron or steel.
http://www.ferdinando.org.uk/apprentice_gallery.htm
___________________________

THE FIRE
It is proper before we go any farther to say a few words about the fire.

An old foreman in the blacksmith department of a factory told me once in a conversation we had about the fire, that he had come to the conclusion that very few blacksmiths have learned how to make a good fire. It takes years of study and practice before the eye is able to discern a good fire from a bad one. A good fire must be a clear fire, the flame must be concentrated and of a white color. Even the nose must serve to decide a bad fire from a good one. A strong sulphur smell indicates a poor fire for welding.
[...]
WELDING IRON
Welding iron is easy and no other welding compound is needed than sand, unless it is a case when the iron is liable to burn or scale off, borax will prevent this.
- Modern Blacksmithing -- 1904
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preserva...mithy/chpt3.htm
___________________________
Corrosion and its Prevention:
[...]
A lot has been said over the years about the virtues of wrought iron over mild steel in Ironwork. Among these is wrought iron's resistance to rust. There are several factors involved here. The first of which is that the higher the carbon content of steel lowers it's resistance to oxidation. Wrought iron has virtually no carbon and therefor rusts less easily than carbon steels. The second factor is the fuel with which the iron was manufactured and worked. The majority of old iron work was produced using charcoal as fuel. Most modern ironwork has been produced using coal and mild steel. During the three thousand year history of blacksmithing charcoal was the smiths fuel. It's only in the last 100 years that coal has almost totally replaced charcoal as the blacksmiths fuel of choice.

Without KING COAL the industrial revolution would have stalled as we stripped every forest on earth to produce fuel for iron making. Without coal there would have been no materials or fuel for the great steam engines that powered the factories of the industrial revolution or the railroads that opened the American West and moved the materials of commerce world wide. Coal, alone, is the raw material of many chemical industries. Coal made possible the mass production of cheap mild steel and it's eventual replacement of expensive wrought iron. Steel manufactured with coal picks up sulfur and it is the sulfur that makes the big difference in corrosion resistance of old wrought iron as apposed to modern steel.
http://www.anvilfire.com/FAQs/coal.htm
___________________________
Welds & Other Welds
© Robert Heath

published in ANVIL Magazine, July 1996

[...] Over many years of striving toward higher levels of the craft, I keep making the same old welding error over and over again in an attempt to achieve what I consider to be a high-quality forge weld. A high-quality forge weld, to my mind, is one that can be completely forged over and over again at the joint at any temperature, just as if the iron had no joint at all in its original state. A master blacksmith once told me that to achieve this type weld (where the joint is as strong as the original bar), one must forge the two pieces into one at the scarfs with double the thickness of the original bar. That seems to be pretty much the standard in blacksmithing practice.

Another factor in achieving a quality weld is the fusing temperature. Some master blacksmiths say that there are two welding ranges, one high and one low. The high range, of course, is white - almost sparkling heat - and the lower range being closer to a yellow red. Both welding ranges will produce a quality weld. Others say that there are a whole range of welding temperatures, from a dull red to the classical white heat. Much depends on the lighting conditions in the shop and also the humidity. It seems that most master blacksmiths depend not on the color of the metal they are welding but its condition. Basically, the condition that is sought in the fire is that wet look on the surface of the metal that is not the result of melted flux. There are a lot of other factors that enter into the process that will produce results ranging to what is known in the trade as a "glue job" (barely stuck in a weld) to the really high-quality weld that will stand up under repeated forging at any temperature. The vast majority of welds that blacksmiths produce are definitely not of this last category. A master blacksmith knows the strength of his welds from the glue job on up and prepares his work to conform to the strength requirements that must be met.
http://www.anvilmag.com/smith/wldandot.htm
___________________________

QUOTE
ANALYSIS:
[...] Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a "blacksmith’s weld" in a hand forge.
- An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
----------------------------------------
A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron.
-The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html
------------------------------------------
<br>A strong sulphur smell indicates a poor fire for welding.
- Modern Blacksmithing -- 1904
Guest
"The approach you are suggesting is one way to go, but is still not without problems. It reminds me of what is generally referred to as "pile-driving" theory. I have played around a little with the math but it is heavy going as far as I'm concerned. You may want to check out some classic papers on the subject (I have access to a good university science library - I hope you do too!):

L. H. Donnell: "Longitudinal Wave Transmission and Impact" APM-52-14 (Applied Mechanics Division) page 153, June 1930

E. A. L. Smith: "Pile-Driving Analysis by the Wave Equation" Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division Vol 86, page ?, August 1960

H. C. Fischer: "On Longitudinal Impact" Applied Science Research Section A Vol 9 page 93, year ~ 1965 ?

The problems I see arise when the compression waves strike the boundaries of the body. I believe the column splices may be considered as one such boundary, especially in an asymmetrically damaged structure. "



For a visual display of compression waves crossing from a moving spherical body to a second spherical body, which is touching but otherwise disconnected, see this site.

energy transfer through a compressive wave


Spherical bodies = balls!
adoucette
QUOTE
A HUGE body of evidence leading to the plausibility of the use of some sort of incendiary has been gathered and much has been presented on this thread.
<br> laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A HUGE body of evidence leading to the plausibility of the use of some sort of incendiary has been gathered and much has been presented on this thread.
<br> laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

the long-dead official story.
<br> laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Still NO CERTIFIED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER has signed up with your VERSION of what happened. B&Z and NIST remain UNCHALLENGED in the OFFICAL ENGINEERING world.

QUOTE
The majority of intelligent persons are not swayed by your exclamations and demands that the emperor is in fact wearing clothes, when he is standing there naked for all to see.

<br>Still stuck in FAIRY TALES I see.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The majority of intelligent persons are not swayed by your exclamations and demands that the emperor is in fact wearing clothes, when he is standing there naked for all to see.

<br>Still stuck in FAIRY TALES I see.

trying to conceal the fact that steel was indeed collected from WTC 7 - the obvious reason for such deceit is so they do not have to address the eutectic actions documented by Barnett & Biederman
<br>Only for the tenth or so time, NIST says that there were no UNAMBIGUOUS samples of steel from WTC 7. Which is not to say there were not WTC 7 steel found, it just NOBODY can PROVE the steel came from WTC 7. It doesn't MATTER if the B&B's research assist. FOUND it in the WTC 7 pile, since WTC 7 was hit by material ejected from WTC 1. Thus the AMBIGUOUS nature of the steel.

Even B&B don't claim the steel is undeniably from WTC 7
QUOTE (B&B+)
Two structural steel members with unusual erosion patterns were observed in the WTC debris field. The first appeared to be from WTC 7 and the second from either WTC 1 or WTC 2. Samples were taken from these beams and labeled Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. A metallurgic examination was conducted.

<br>None the less, Foxx, going on and on about NIST lying about this steel is truly an example of jousting at windmills. NIST funded the original research. Its been published so there is no chance of "covering it up", and MOST IMPORTANTLY, there is no SIGNIFICANT difference to your interpretation of the meaning of this piece of steel regardless if this steel came from WTC 1 or WTC 7.

So Foxx, what DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE since you CLAIM ALL THREE TOWERS were done in with Thermite?

Arthur
adoucette
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Jun 16 2006, 11:48 AM)
Foxx
QUOTE
the obvious reason for such deceit is so they do not have to address the eutectic actions documented by Barnett & Biederman
<br>Barnett & Biederman LIED.

NO EUTECTICS USED IN A BLACKMITHS' FORGE WELD - GOT IT?
NO SULPHUR REQUIRED BY BLACKSMITHS TO WELD - NO EUTECTICS - UNDERSTAND?
You can NOT apply sulphur to STEEL or IRON TOPICALLY in order to LOWER THE MELTING POINT -- YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT - THAT IS WHAT BARNETT AND BIDERMANN WERE TRYING TO SAY HAPPENED AT 7WTC.

CAPICE?

Sorry for SHOUTING AT YOU, Foxx - but I seem to have made that particular point several times over the past few pages.


So Al K'the jews did it'ami, when are you going to publish YOUR paper in the Journal of Metallurgy and show once and for all that Barnett & Biederman are Arab-Framing LIARS?

I'll be waiting.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Since its highly unlikely you will infact write a pape, here's a suggestion, that is if you have a pair, why don't you write them and tell them they are Arab Framing LIARS

J.R. Barnett at jbarnett@wpi.edu
or
R.R. Biederman at rrb@wpi.edu.

Here's their paper so you can show them LINE BY LINE where they lied.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m.../WTC_apndxC.htm

Please share with us their replies.

Arthur
Mel_Guest
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 04:41 AM)


You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid, It's exasperating. My point, AGAIN, is that the columns DID NOT impact with the ground, they 'slid' into it. My God! The video of the CD shows NO sign that the vertical columns are 'impacting'. the are 'gently' settling into the ground without complaint. I can't make this any clearer for you, but happily the smart people in here will get it.

<br>That IS my point, they do not come straight down. The image you are viewing clearly shows that all the columns tilt towards the 'kink' which is in a vertical alignment with the fallen penthouse. The building's wall also is tilting inwards which is no wonder given that the floors are or have already been pulled down and inward, on the inside of the wall. So again your straight down tree analogy is simply not a model of what happened or what anyone has stated happened or that can be shown to have happened.

QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?


QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

My polite judgment of you stands. Suck it up. And if it makes you cry, well...so be it (you're not crying, are you?)
<br>Polite? You call for my execution in the most innocuous way possible I suppose.

Polite, you? Not that I have ever witnessed.
Blatant fabrication.

Here is WTC 7 falling razor-straight down:

WTC 7 butter-smooth collapse

I couldn't care less if the last 50 ft or so 'tipped' (or 'pulled in'...a better description). As I said, the penthouse initiation of the CD helped to ensure that the final resting place of the walls was 'on top' of the pile, instead of spread out all over the surrounding blocks. That's the WHOLE point of CD.

Furthermore, the two visible walls in the collapse video show almost NO significant trauma as a result of the bottom of each wall crashing to the ground, thus PROVING, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that NO SUCH CRASHING was occurring because the bottom portion of each wall was being systematically 'decoupled' from the upper portion as it moved toward the ground. How could this happen, you ask (or in your case, refuse to ask)? Easy:

WTC 7 was a Controlled Demolition. Period. All this nonsense about the towers' collapse is MOOT. The gummint was complicit, and so are YOU.


Here's some polite: you are a dear, sweet, lovable, heinous, contemptible, murdering sack of crap. You and your buddies on this thread are terrorists, and constitute a SERIOUS thread to the security of the U.S.

Better?

Common Sense
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 12:18 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 04:41 AM)


You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid, It's exasperating. My point, AGAIN, is that the columns DID NOT impact with the ground, they 'slid' into it. My God! The video of the CD shows NO sign that the vertical columns are 'impacting'. the are 'gently' settling into the ground without complaint. I can't make this any clearer for you, but happily the smart people in here will get it.

<br>That IS my point, they do not come straight down. The image you are viewing clearly shows that all the columns tilt towards the 'kink' which is in a vertical alignment with the fallen penthouse. The building's wall also is tilting inwards which is no wonder given that the floors are or have already been pulled down and inward, on the inside of the wall. So again your straight down tree analogy is simply not a model of what happened or what anyone has stated happened or that can be shown to have happened.

QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?


QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

My polite judgment of you stands. Suck it up. And if it makes you cry, well...so be it (you're not crying, are you?)
<br>Polite? You call for my execution in the most innocuous way possible I suppose.

Polite, you? Not that I have ever witnessed.
Blatant fabrication.

Here is WTC 7 falling razor-straight down:

WTC 7 butter-smooth collapse

I couldn't care less if the last 50 ft or so 'tipped' (or 'pulled in'...a better description). As I said, the penthouse initiation of the CD helped to ensure that the final resting place of the walls was 'on top' of the pile, instead of spread out all over the surrounding blocks. That's the WHOLE point of CD.

Furthermore, the two visible walls in the collapse video show almost NO significant trauma as a result of the bottom of each wall crashing to the ground, thus PROVING, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that NO SUCH CRASHING was occurring because the bottom portion of each wall was being systematically 'decoupled' from the upper portion as it moved toward the ground. How could this happen, you ask (or in your case, refuse to ask)? Easy:

WTC 7 was a Controlled Demolition. Period. All this nonsense about the towers' collapse is MOOT. The gummint was complicit, and so are YOU.


Here's some polite: you are a dear, sweet, lovable, heinous, contemptible, murdering sack of crap. You and your buddies on this thread are terrorists, and constitute a SERIOUS thread to the security of the U.S.

Better?
Does this look "Laser straight down" you fu<king lunatic.

User posted image


http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7f2.jpg
No, it fell to the south east mor@n. Some of the east even fell to the north.

user posted image

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7f2.jpg

What's that on the white building north east of 7... Keep talking shait. I'm going to keep reposting this just to show what a liar you are... Heh!
yesitdid
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 05:18 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 04:41 AM)


You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid, It's exasperating. My point, AGAIN, is that the columns DID NOT impact with the ground, they 'slid' into it. My God! The video of the CD shows NO sign that the vertical columns are 'impacting'. the are 'gently' settling into the ground without complaint. I can't make this any clearer for you, but happily the smart people in here will get it.

<br>That IS my point, they do not come straight down. The image you are viewing clearly shows that all the columns tilt towards the 'kink' which is in a vertical alignment with the fallen penthouse. The building's wall also is tilting inwards which is no wonder given that the floors are or have already been pulled down and inward, on the inside of the wall. So again your straight down tree analogy is simply not a model of what happened or what anyone has stated happened or that can be shown to have happened.

QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?


QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

My polite judgment of you stands. Suck it up. And if it makes you cry, well...so be it (you're not crying, are you?)
<br>Polite? You call for my execution in the most innocuous way possible I suppose.

Polite, you? Not that I have ever witnessed.
Blatant fabrication.

Here is WTC 7 falling razor-straight down:

WTC 7 butter-smooth collapse

I couldn't care less if the last 50 ft or so 'tipped' (or 'pulled in'...a better description). As I said, the penthouse initiation of the CD helped to ensure that the final resting place of the walls was 'on top' of the pile, instead of spread out all over the surrounding blocks. That's the WHOLE point of CD.

Furthermore, the two visible walls in the collapse video show almost NO significant trauma as a result of the bottom of each wall crashing to the ground, thus PROVING, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that NO SUCH CRASHING was occurring because the bottom portion of each wall was being systematically 'decoupled' from the upper portion as it moved toward the ground. How could this happen, you ask (or in your case, refuse to ask)? Easy:

WTC 7 was a Controlled Demolition. Period. All this nonsense about the towers' collapse is MOOT. The gummint was complicit, and so are YOU.


Here's some polite: you are a dear, sweet, lovable, heinous, contemptible, murdering sack of crap. You and your buddies on this thread are terrorists, and constitute a SERIOUS thread to the security of the U.S.

Better?
I am not a terrorist, I am not the apologist for terrorists that you are. I am not a threat to the USA or my own country. You are a threat to the USA and ironically I consider the President of the USA, Geo.W.Bush to also be a threat to the USA.


You also, it seems , have no concept of the term polite let alone civil.

You see a video taken from blocks away and attempt to tell me that the columns remain razor-straight all the way down. You say you don't care if the top 50 feet pulled inward. Look again, every floor visible in your "butter smooth" collapse is pulling towards the kink in the wall. NONE OF THE columns are vertical as they go down, NONE!

You state that the CD of the columns under the penthouse(if that is what "the penthouse initiation of the CD" refers to) causes the debris to fall inward. I agree that the loss of those columns caused the penthouse to sink and therefore pull the walls inward.I see that you now even correct yourself and show that a portion(the eastern portion) fell northwards whereas you have claimed in the past it fell into its own footprint, that this was the purpose of CD of the building. The majority of the perimeter did indeed end up falling inward whereas in the towers the perimeter columns largely fell outward.

You on the other hand are stating that the walls came straight down because the lower portions of those perimeter walls(the portion we simply don't see and therefore you feel entitled to make up any story you wish about that portion) were structurally compromised, removed in fact, in order to drop that wall straight down.( and you are completely at a loss as to how this would be accomplished in the first place with no one noticing it rolleyes.gif ) How in God's name then does the fact that the penthouse is falling pull this wall in after the fact? It simply cannot. the only possible way for the perimeter walls of the building to collapse inward is for them to be pulled that way as part of the collapse. therefore no razor sharp fall therefore you are shown to be the present driver of the clown car.

User posted image
QUOTE
Does this look "Laser straight down"
<br>No, indeed it doesn't.
yesitdid
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 03:06 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jun 16 2006, 04:37 AM)
Here's a blow-up of CSpam's "WTC 7" image...

http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7cornerhLG.jpg

User posted image

Of course... it doesn't seem 'odd' at all to YID how the blue sky is air-brushed into the area next to the column (top floor / south face) one over from the south-west corner... Does it seem like a straight (man-made) line at that area to anyone else? I guess YID will just tell me to get my glasses checked... he sees nothing at ALL 'unusual' about this photo... (Looks REAL to HIM)...

Everyone who AGREES with YID, please raise your hands. I'll check back tomorrow to see the results.

Cheers

&

Manyana

Are you then referring to the tiny piece of missing facade to the left of the column or the larger open blue area to the viewer's right?

I assume you mean to the right.

Perhaps you need to look again at the construction of the WTC 7 building , specifically the ends of the south face. Please look at picture L-21 in NIST's appendixL which deals with WTC 7. It clearly shows the outcrop at the end of the south face. That is why you see sky to the right of the top edge in that high angle shot. So, no, it does not seem odd at all. You on the other hand.......
Page L-19 figure L-21 Foxx
Mel_Guest
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 05:53 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 05:18 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 04:41 AM)


You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid, It's exasperating. My point, AGAIN, is that the columns DID NOT impact with the ground, they 'slid' into it. My God! The video of the CD shows NO sign that the vertical columns are 'impacting'. the are 'gently' settling into the ground without complaint. I can't make this any clearer for you, but happily the smart people in here will get it.

<br>That IS my point, they do not come straight down. The image you are viewing clearly shows that all the columns tilt towards the 'kink' which is in a vertical alignment with the fallen penthouse. The building's wall also is tilting inwards which is no wonder given that the floors are or have already been pulled down and inward, on the inside of the wall. So again your straight down tree analogy is simply not a model of what happened or what anyone has stated happened or that can be shown to have happened.

QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?


QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

My polite judgment of you stands. Suck it up. And if it makes you cry, well...so be it (you're not crying, are you?)
<br>Polite? You call for my execution in the most innocuous way possible I suppose.

Polite, you? Not that I have ever witnessed.
Blatant fabrication.

Here is WTC 7 falling razor-straight down:

WTC 7 butter-smooth collapse

I couldn't care less if the last 50 ft or so 'tipped' (or 'pulled in'...a better description). As I said, the penthouse initiation of the CD helped to ensure that the final resting place of the walls was 'on top' of the pile, instead of spread out all over the surrounding blocks. That's the WHOLE point of CD.

Furthermore, the two visible walls in the collapse video show almost NO significant trauma as a result of the bottom of each wall crashing to the ground, thus PROVING, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that NO SUCH CRASHING was occurring because the bottom portion of each wall was being systematically 'decoupled' from the upper portion as it moved toward the ground. How could this happen, you ask (or in your case, refuse to ask)? Easy:

WTC 7 was a Controlled Demolition. Period. All this nonsense about the towers' collapse is MOOT. The gummint was complicit, and so are YOU.


Here's some polite: you are a dear, sweet, lovable, heinous, contemptible, murdering sack of crap. You and your buddies on this thread are terrorists, and constitute a SERIOUS thread to the security of the U.S.

Better?
I am not a terrorist, I am not the apologist for terrorists that you are. I am not a threat to the USA or my own country. You are a threat to the USA and ironically I consider the President of the USA, Geo.W.Bush to also be a threat to the USA.


You also, it seems , have no concept of the term polite let alone civil.

You see a video taken from blocks away and attempt to tell me that the columns remain razor-straight all the way down. You say you don't care if the top 50 feet pulled inward. Look again, every floor visible in your "butter smooth" collapse is pulling towards the kink in the wall. NONE OF THE columns are vertical as they go down, NONE!

You state that the CD of the columns under the penthouse(if that is what "the penthouse initiation of the CD" refers to) causes the debris to fall inward. I agree that the loss of those columns caused the penthouse to sink and therefore pull the walls inward.I see that you now even correct yourself and show that a portion(the eastern portion) fell northwards whereas you have claimed in the past it fell into its own footprint, that this was the purpose of CD of the building. The majority of the perimeter did indeed end up falling inward whereas in the towers the perimeter columns largely fell outward.

You on the other hand are stating that the walls came straight down because the lower portions of those perimeter walls(the portion we simply don't see and therefore you feel entitled to make up any story you wish about that portion) were structurally compromised, removed in fact, in order to drop that wall straight down.( and you are completely at a loss as to how this would be accomplished in the first place with no one noticing it rolleyes.gif ) How in God's name then does the fact that the penthouse is falling pull this wall in after the fact? It simply cannot. the only possible way for the perimeter walls of the building to collapse inward is for them to be pulled that way as part of the collapse. therefore no razor sharp fall therefore you are shown to be the present driver of the clown car.

User posted image
QUOTE
Does this look "Laser straight down"
<br>No, indeed it doesn't.
Start the video posted above, pause it at the beginning. Hold a straight-edge against the right corner of the building. Continue the video. ZERO deflection away from vertical up to the point the roof-line goes out of sight. RAZOR_STRAIGHT COLLAPSE. No discernable tip in any direction.

And who cares, anyway? The whole point of my argument, ONCE AGAIN ('cause you're too stupid to get it), is that the steel columns inside the building walls are not undergoing any trauma as they plummet. Why do you continue to avoid this issue?

Please provide an explanation for what is happening to the columns, step-by-step, as the walls fall. And I want a COMPLETE description of what the columns are doing, not some useless statement like "they're falling down". Where are they breaking, and what force, or combination of forces, is breaking them? And why isn't that breaking force 'reflected' in the faces of the building (jarring from impacts)?

Fire away, Mr. Terrorist.

Heh, CS. Where'd ya get the nice photos? Do you have a video to go along with that, or are your bosses with-holding it till the right moment?

Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
eutectic
Including: Eutectic Solid, Eutectic Phase, Eutectic Reaction

A eutectic reaction is a three-phase reaction, by which, on cooling, a liquid transforms into two solid phases at the same time. It is a phase reaction, but a special one. For example: liquid alloy becomes a solid mixture of alpha and beta at a specific temperature (rather than over a temperature range). The eutectic solid is commonly lamellar (stripy) in form.
http://www.soton.ac.uk/~pasr1/g22.htm
================

Three Phase Equilibria
Introduction
This section discusses what happens in the unfortunate case that our two components do not posses complete solubility. Actually, life among phase diagrams would be rather dull if all we had was complete solubility. Fortunately, there is quite a smorgasbord of phase transitions out there to delight the metallurgist connoisseur. Yet before we detenebrate the mysteries of peritectic reactions, evince the silent beauty of the monotectic diagram, there are a few apposite points to discuss. So pay attention, for there shall be no sclaffing, no desultory drivel, but merely concise expiscation into the nature of limited solubility. (Note: most of this information comes from Prince, A. Alloy Phase Equilibria. Elsevier Publishing, Amsterdam :1966. ) (All the phase diagrams used here come from that book)

Factors Affecting Solubility
There are four major factors that determine whether a solid solution will indeed arise between two metals. The foremost is the atomic size factor. If a foreign atom is substituted into a lattice, there will naturally be a distortion of the lattice. This will cause the formation of a new phase. Well, more closely in size this atom is to the lattice atoms, the easier it will be to assimilate. Research has shown that the atomic sizes of the two components have to be within 15% to get complete solubility. However, size compatibility does not entail solubility. There are other forces at work here. The elements have to have similar electrochemical factors. The more electropositive one element and the more electronegative the other, the more there will be a tendency to form an intermetallic compound instead of a solid solution. The third factor of relevance is the relative valency of the two elements. The higher the valency of one component, the more likely will it tend to dissolve in the other component. And finally, the two potential solid solution members need to have the same crystal structure for complete solubility.

A quantitative method of measuring solubility is to look at dHm, the enthalpy of mixing. The more positive this quantity is, the less ideal the solution. The diagram below shows a progression from ideal to less ideal solutions and what the corresponding diagrams look like as the dHm increases.
User posted image
http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteB...lytic/vic_5.gif

After that refreshing meal of metallurgical wisdom, we are ready to look at the most prominent type of phase diagram.

Eutectic Reactions

User posted image
http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteB...lytic/vic_6.gif

Above is the typical eutectic diagram. At first, it may look formidable, but fear not, for we shall tame the roynish scoundrel. As you can see, we have all the regions common to a complete solubility system. Now, it is common to call the terminal solution on the left side the alpha and the one on the right the beta. And so it shall be. So we have the alpha, the beta, and the liquid phase. Thus the term three-phase equilibria. We also have the alpha + beta, alpha + L, and beta + L. The liquidus line in a binary eutectic is the curve Ta-E-Tb. The solubility curves ac and bd delimit the solid phases (a.k.a. the solvus curves). The solidus curve is the line Ta-a-E-b-Tb. Note that the solubility curves slope inward, in accordance with the fact that solubility increases with temperature.

Now lets consider what happens when a solution of certain composition cools. The simplest case is that of a compound of eutectic composition, denoted by line 1 on the diagram. The eutectic reaction occurs at Te, the eutectic temperature, and is denoted by:

L -> alpha + beta

where L is the liquid phase. As the compound cool(s), it will reach Te. Here, the eutectic reaction will proceed until all of the liquid has been consumed. At this point, the alpha and beta will be in equilibrium with each other. Now the resulting solid will cool, where the relative compositions of the phases will be controlled by the solubility curves ac and bd. Remember the lever rule and tie lines and all that? It is explained elsewhere in the analytic section, Interpretation of phase diagrams by that hardworking Chris Lattin, our Analytic Group leader.

Now, a eutectic mixture will have a characteristic microstructure. These structures are called lamellar, globular, rod and acicular, depending on the appearance of the two phases (see main analytical page). However, this classification is somewhat misleading, since it has been shown that the structure of the eutectic composition is dependent upon the conditions of solidification as well as the effect of impurities in the liquid. The solidification will initiate with the nucleation of one of the phases. This will cause the other phase to be rejected at the interphase of the first phase with the liquid. At some further point, the other phase will begin to nucleate. In the case of a lamellar eutectic, the second phase nucleates on the first phase, thus creating the lamellar growth which give it its name.
[...]

Solid State Reactions
There are three major solid state reactions that arise:
The eutectoid: alpha -> beta + gamma
The monotectoid: alpha1 -> beta + alpha2
The peritectoid: alpha + beta -> gamma
user posted image
http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteB...ytic/vic_12.gif

These are exactly as the previously mentioned reactions, except now the liquid phase has been replaced by a solid phase. The only difference is in the kinetics of the reactions, the solid state reactions are slower than their liquid counterparts.
http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteB...lytic/simk.html
Vik's Page!
----------------------------------

Wrought iron is a fibrous iron-based material. It's main distinctive features is one it has a lot of impurities and two it has a very low carbon content which gives it the properties essential for fire-welding. The material is actually made by smelting iron ore, coke and limestone in a furnace known as a puddling furnace. Wrought iron now is I believe available from only one furnace that's left in the world as somewhere in England. The only wrought iron that we can get now is what we salvage from building sites and people who bring wrought iron railings or old gates to us which are beyond repair, we salvage the bars out of that to use in other repair work or restoration work.

It's beautiful material to weld with. Seeing it come out of the fire at welding heat it actually drips like thick treacle and as soon as the two bars are joined together, touched together at white hot they stick and then it's a very simple matter of just lightly tapping it with a hammer and it's fused together, and this is known as fire weld or forge welding. And until the advent of the electric arc welder, round about the 1920's, this was the only way of welding metal.
http://www.abc.net.au/arts/headspace/speci...metal/er_hm.htm
NEU-FONZE
Guest:

From H. C. Fischer's "On Longitudinal Impact" page 132:

"The application of the theory of collisions of free spheres is not adequate in pile driving where the pile IS NOT FREE and, being long and slender (like a column), has a form which deviates very much from that of a sphere."

But also see:

D. Auerbach's "Colliding rods: Dynamics and Relevance to Colliding Balls." in American Journal of Physics Vol 62(6) 1994, page 522:

"If instead of balls one uses STEEL RODS colliding longitudinally, one finds a DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT MOTION AFTER COLLISION."

BALLS INDEED!!!!

AK and MEL:

I have had many e-mail exchanges and a long telephone discussion with Dr. Barnett about the sulfiding of steel at the WTC. I can state that I respect his honesty, scientific integrity and desire to discover the TRUTH about 9-11. HE IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT A LIAR!

He has proposed a theory about the sulfiding; you guys have a different theory. That is all!

Therefore, anyone who claims WITHOUT PROOF that Dr. Barnett is a liar,
is a de facto LIAR!

NF

Mel_Guest
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jun 16 2006, 06:49 PM)
Guest:

From H. C. Fischer's "On Longitudinal Impact" page 132:

"The application of the theory of collisions of free spheres is not adequate in pile driving where the pile IS NOT FREE and, being long and slender (like a column), has a form which deviates very much from that of a sphere."

But also see:

D. Auerbach's "Colliding rods: Dynamics and Relevance to Colliding Balls." in American Journal of Physics Vol 62(6) 1994, page 522:

"If instead of balls one uses STEEL RODS colliding longitudinally, one finds a DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT MOTION AFTER COLLISION."

BALLS INDEED!!!!

AK and MEL:

I have had many e-mail exchanges and a long telephone discussion with Dr. Barnett about the sulfiding of steel at the WTC. I can state that I respect his honesty, scientific integrity and desire to discover the TRUTH about 9-11. HE IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT A LIAR!

He has proposed a theory about the sulfiding; you guys have a different theory. That is all!

Therefore, anyone who claims WITHOUT PROOF that Dr. Barnett is a liar,
is a de facto LIAR!

NF

Where have I ever said anything about sulfiding?

Tell it to someone who cares...

NEU-FONZE
Sorry, Mel, pardon me for confusing you with someone that cared!

But you know the sulfiding of structural steel is the Holy Grail of the CD crowd and I thought you were in that crowd.......

NF
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
If you don't care about eutectic lies, Mel, don't spray an entire post for the sake of saying "I don't care" - prove it by keeping your hate-filled mouth shut instead - okay?
QUOTE
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
[...]
This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a "blacksmith’s weld" in a hand forge.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
1) structural steel melts at approximately 1500C
2) topical application of sulfur will certainly increase the rate of corrosion, but it will not reduce the melting temperature of the steel.
3) blacksmiths did not exploit sulphur-rich charcoal for eutectic forge-welding
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.
[...]
This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a "blacksmith’s weld" in a hand forge.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html
1) structural steel melts at approximately 1500C
2) topical application of sulfur will certainly increase the rate of corrosion, but it will not reduce the melting temperature of the steel.
3) blacksmiths did not exploit sulphur-rich charcoal for eutectic forge-welding
Wrought iron is a fibrous iron-based material. It's main distinctive features is one it has a lot of impurities and two it has a very low carbon content which gives it the properties essential for fire-welding. The material is actually made by smelting iron ore, coke and limestone in a furnace known as a puddling furnace. Wrought iron now is I believe available from only one furnace that's left in the world as somewhere in England. The only wrought iron that we can get now is what we salvage from building sites and people who bring wrought iron railings or old gates to us which are beyond repair, we salvage the bars out of that to use in other repair work or restoration work.

It's beautiful material to weld with. Seeing it come out of the fire at welding heat it actually drips like thick treacle and as soon as the two bars are joined together, touched together at white hot they stick and then it's a very simple matter of just lightly tapping it with a hammer and it's fused together, and this is known as fire weld or forge welding. And until the advent of the electric arc welder, round about the 1920's, this was the only way of welding metal.
http://www.abc.net.au/arts/headspace/speci...metal/er_hm.htm
Your personal anecdote doesn't refute the facts, and those facts demonstrate, intractably, that Barnett and his "expert" colleagues lied:
QUOTE
lie2 n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
You should check out the sulfur spike in a phase of that laminar eutectic compound that ate WTC7:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/fig4.gif
- and talk to some expert blacksmiths about sulphur and forge-welding.
Common Sense
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 01:20 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 05:53 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 05:18 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 04:41 AM)


You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid, It's exasperating. My point, AGAIN, is that the columns DID NOT impact with the ground, they 'slid' into it. My God! The video of the CD shows NO sign that the vertical columns are 'impacting'. the are 'gently' settling into the ground without complaint. I can't make this any clearer for you, but happily the smart people in here will get it.

<br>That IS my point, they do not come straight down. The image you are viewing clearly shows that all the columns tilt towards the 'kink' which is in a vertical alignment with the fallen penthouse. The building's wall also is tilting inwards which is no wonder given that the floors are or have already been pulled down and inward, on the inside of the wall. So again your straight down tree analogy is simply not a model of what happened or what anyone has stated happened or that can be shown to have happened.

QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?


QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

My polite judgment of you stands. Suck it up. And if it makes you cry, well...so be it (you're not crying, are you?)
<br>Polite? You call for my execution in the most innocuous way possible I suppose.

Polite, you? Not that I have ever witnessed.
Blatant fabrication.

Here is WTC 7 falling razor-straight down:

WTC 7 butter-smooth collapse

I couldn't care less if the last 50 ft or so 'tipped' (or 'pulled in'...a better description). As I said, the penthouse initiation of the CD helped to ensure that the final resting place of the walls was 'on top' of the pile, instead of spread out all over the surrounding blocks. That's the WHOLE point of CD.

Furthermore, the two visible walls in the collapse video show almost NO significant trauma as a result of the bottom of each wall crashing to the ground, thus PROVING, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that NO SUCH CRASHING was occurring because the bottom portion of each wall was being systematically 'decoupled' from the upper portion as it moved toward the ground. How could this happen, you ask (or in your case, refuse to ask)? Easy:

WTC 7 was a Controlled Demolition. Period. All this nonsense about the towers' collapse is MOOT. The gummint was complicit, and so are YOU.


Here's some polite: you are a dear, sweet, lovable, heinous, contemptible, murdering sack of crap. You and your buddies on this thread are terrorists, and constitute a SERIOUS thread to the security of the U.S.

Better?
I am not a terrorist, I am not the apologist for terrorists that you are. I am not a threat to the USA or my own country. You are a threat to the USA and ironically I consider the President of the USA, Geo.W.Bush to also be a threat to the USA.


You also, it seems , have no concept of the term polite let alone civil.

You see a video taken from blocks away and attempt to tell me that the columns remain razor-straight all the way down. You say you don't care if the top 50 feet pulled inward. Look again, every floor visible in your "butter smooth" collapse is pulling towards the kink in the wall. NONE OF THE columns are vertical as they go down, NONE!

You state that the CD of the columns under the penthouse(if that is what "the penthouse initiation of the CD" refers to) causes the debris to fall inward. I agree that the loss of those columns caused the penthouse to sink and therefore pull the walls inward.I see that you now even correct yourself and show that a portion(the eastern portion) fell northwards whereas you have claimed in the past it fell into its own footprint, that this was the purpose of CD of the building. The majority of the perimeter did indeed end up falling inward whereas in the towers the perimeter columns largely fell outward.

You on the other hand are stating that the walls came straight down because the lower portions of those perimeter walls(the portion we simply don't see and therefore you feel entitled to make up any story you wish about that portion) were structurally compromised, removed in fact, in order to drop that wall straight down.( and you are completely at a loss as to how this would be accomplished in the first place with no one noticing it rolleyes.gif ) How in God's name then does the fact that the penthouse is falling pull this wall in after the fact? It simply cannot. the only possible way for the perimeter walls of the building to collapse inward is for them to be pulled that way as part of the collapse. therefore no razor sharp fall therefore you are shown to be the present driver of the clown car.

User posted image
QUOTE
Does this look "Laser straight down"
<br>No, indeed it doesn't.
Start the video posted above, pause it at the beginning. Hold a straight-edge against the right corner of the building. Continue the video. ZERO deflection away from vertical up to the point the roof-line goes out of sight. RAZOR_STRAIGHT COLLAPSE. No discernable tip in any direction.

And who cares, anyway? The whole point of my argument, ONCE AGAIN ('cause you're too stupid to get it), is that the steel columns inside the building walls are not undergoing any trauma as they plummet. Why do you continue to avoid this issue?

Please provide an explanation for what is happening to the columns, step-by-step, as the walls fall. And I want a COMPLETE description of what the columns are doing, not some useless statement like "they're falling down". Where are they breaking, and what force, or combination of forces, is breaking them? And why isn't that breaking force 'reflected' in the faces of the building (jarring from impacts)?

Fire away, Mr. Terrorist.

Heh, CS. Where'd ya get the nice photos? Do you have a video to go along with that, or are your bosses with-holding it till the right moment?
Does this look straight you freak of nature...

User posted image

No feaken trauma? Do you have something other than that brown stuff your pulling out of your A$$ to prove the south side wasn't blown out by the penthouse collapse? NO, Your pathetic.

What's this dumb a$$,

User posted image

The south side is LEADING THE COLLPASE!!! Gee, I wonder why... dry.gif
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
user posted image user posted image
What point were you trying to make with the second photo, common?
Common Sense
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Jun 16 2006, 02:28 PM)
user posted image user posted image
What point were you trying to make with the second photo, common?
You've GOT to be kidding... Read my site.
adoucette
So Al K'the jews did it'ami, when are you going to publish YOUR paper in the Journal of Metallurgy and show once and for all that Barnett & Biederman are Arab-Framing LIARS?

I'll be waiting.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Since its highly unlikely you will infact write a pape, here's a suggestion, that is if you have a pair, why don't you write them and tell them they are Arab Framing LIARS

J.R. Barnett at jbarnett@wpi.edu
or
R.R. Biederman at rrb@wpi.edu.

Here's their paper so you can show them LINE BY LINE where they lied.

Barnett & Bierderman's paper

Please share with us their replies.

Arthur
yesitdid
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jun 16 2006, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 01:20 PM)
Start the video posted above, pause it at the beginning. Hold a straight-edge against the right corner of the building. Continue the video. ZERO deflection away from vertical up to the point the roof-line goes out of sight. RAZOR_STRAIGHT COLLAPSE. No discernable tip in any direction.

And who cares, anyway? The whole point of my argument, ONCE AGAIN ('cause you're too stupid to get it), is that the steel columns inside the building walls are not undergoing any trauma as they plummet. Why do you continue to avoid this issue?

Please provide an explanation for what is happening to the columns, step-by-step, as the walls fall. And I want a COMPLETE description of what the columns are doing, not some useless statement like "they're falling down". Where are they breaking, and what force, or combination of forces, is breaking them? And why isn't that breaking force 'reflected' in the faces of the building (jarring from impacts)?

Fire away, Mr. Terrorist.

Heh, CS. Where'd ya get the nice photos? Do you have a video to go along with that, or are your bosses with-holding it till the right moment?

Does this look straight you freak of nature...

User posted image

No feaken trauma? Do you have something other than that brown stuff your pulling out of your A$$ to prove the south side wasn't blown out by the penthouse collapse? NO, Your pathetic.

What's this dumb a$$,

User posted image

The south side is LEADING THE COLLPASE!!! Gee, I wonder why... dry.gif
CS, according to Mel, it seems, there was nothing else happening on the other side of the north wall. Oh, sure the rooftop structures fell in but that doesn't really mean anything was happening to the columns of that wall. He can see all of this in ONE video he likes, all other photos must therefore, by definition(Mel's and probably Foxx's too) be fakes developed either by you or simply believed and used by you.

You can bring up anything else you want to demonstrate to him that he is wrong but he "don't care". In fact , aside from his calling for you, I and others to be hung, his favorite expression seems to be "I don't care" or other colourful expressions of the same sentiment. This of course translates to his stating, "I got nothing".
Mel_Guest
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jun 16 2006, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 01:20 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 05:53 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 05:18 PM)
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 03:28 PM)
QUOTE (Mel+Jun 16 2006, 04:41 AM)


You can't POSSIBLY be this stupid, It's exasperating. My point, AGAIN, is that the columns DID NOT impact with the ground, they 'slid' into it. My God! The video of the CD shows NO sign that the vertical columns are 'impacting'. the are 'gently' settling into the ground without complaint. I can't make this any clearer for you, but happily the smart people in here will get it.

<br>That IS my point, they do not come straight down. The image you are viewing clearly shows that all the columns tilt towards the 'kink' which is in a vertical alignment with the fallen penthouse. The building's wall also is tilting inwards which is no wonder given that the floors are or have already been pulled down and inward, on the inside of the wall. So again your straight down tree analogy is simply not a model of what happened or what anyone has stated happened or that can be shown to have happened.

QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I DON'T CARE WHAT WAS USED TO DESTROY THE COLUMNS, AND I REALLY DON'T CARE THAT YOU THINK YOU'VE STRAIGHTENED ME OUT ON WHAT I DON'T CARE ABOUT (sadly, I fear you won't understand that last sentence...it's a shame to waste it on you).
<br>Of course you don't care, because you can't show anything that would actually do what you claim was done. Actually caring about that would force you to view more than your own ficticious sequence of events.

QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How about considering this sequence; the wall broke along the vertical alinged with the initial collapse of the interior below the penthouse(the kink) AND was pulled inwards and down
Now I don't understand this sentence, and I'm way too tired to decipher it. Is this in any way relevant to the columns sliding smoothly to the ground?
<br>Edited here.Better now?


QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Gee, no vertical drop like your tree analogy.
Gee, this statement is blatantly in conflict with the video evidence. Let's just make shait up, shall we, even if it doesn't jibe with the right-in-your-face physical evidence.
<br>No, your contention of a straight down falling is contradicted by the video and stills of the collapse.

My polite judgment of you stands. Suck it up. And if it makes you cry, well...so be it (you're not crying, are you?)
<br>Polite? You call for my execution in the most innocuous way possible I suppose.

Polite, you? Not that I have ever witnessed.
Blatant fabrication.

Here is WTC 7 falling razor-straight down:

WTC 7 butter-smooth collapse

I couldn't care less if the last 50 ft or so 'tipped' (or 'pulled in'...a better description). As I said, the penthouse initiation of the CD helped to ensure that the final resting place of the walls was 'on top' of the pile, instead of spread out all over the surrounding blocks. That's the WHOLE point of CD.

Furthermore, the two visible walls in the collapse video show almost NO significant trauma as a result of the bottom of each wall crashing to the ground, thus PROVING, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that NO SUCH CRASHING was occurring because the bottom portion of each wall was being systematically 'decoupled' from the upper portion as it moved toward the ground. How could this happen, you ask (or in your case, refuse to ask)? Easy:

WTC 7 was a Controlled Demolition. Period. All this nonsense about the towers' collapse is MOOT. The gummint was complicit, and so are YOU.


Here's some polite: you are a dear, sweet, lovable, heinous, contemptible, murdering sack of crap. You and your buddies on this thread are terrorists, and constitute a SERIOUS thread to the security of the U.S.

Better?
I am not a terrorist, I am not the apologist for terrorists that you are. I am not a threat to the USA or my own country. You are a threat to the USA and ironically I consider the President of the USA, Geo.W.Bush to also be a threat to the USA.


You also, it seems , have no concept of the term polite let alone civil.

You see a video taken from blocks away and attempt to tell me that the columns remain razor-straight all the way down. You say you don't care if the top 50 feet pulled inward. Look again, every floor visible in your "butter smooth" collapse is pulling towards the kink in the wall. NONE OF THE columns are vertical as they go down, NONE!

You state that the CD of the columns under the penthouse(if that is what "the penthouse initiation of the CD" refers to) causes the debris to fall inward. I agree that the loss of those columns caused the penthouse to sink and therefore pull the walls inward.I see that you now even correct yourself and show that a portion(the eastern portion) fell northwards whereas you have claimed in the past it fell into its own footprint, that this was the purpose of CD of the building. The majority of the perimeter did indeed end up falling inward whereas in the towers the perimeter columns largely fell outward.

You on the other hand are stating that the walls came straight down because the lower portions of those perimeter walls(the portion we simply don't see and therefore you feel entitled to make up any story you wish about that portion) were structurally compromised, removed in fact, in order to drop that wall straight down.( and you are completely at a loss as to how this would be accomplished in the first place with no one noticing it rolleyes.gif ) How in God's name then does the fact that the penthouse is falling pull this wall in after the fact? It simply cannot. the only possible way for the perimeter walls of the building to collapse inward is for them to be pulled that way as part of the collapse. therefore no razor sharp fall therefore you are shown to be the present driver of the clown car.

User posted image
QUOTE
Does this look "Laser straight down"
<br>No, indeed it doesn't.
Start the video posted above, pause it at the beginning. Hold a straight-edge against the right corner of the building. Continue the video. ZERO deflection away from vertical up to the point the roof-line goes out of sight. RAZOR_STRAIGHT COLLAPSE. No discernable tip in any direction.

And who cares, anyway? The whole point of my argument, ONCE AGAIN ('cause you're too stupid to get it), is that the steel columns inside the building walls are not undergoing any trauma as they plummet. Why do you continue to avoid this issue?

Please provide an explanation for what is happening to the columns, step-by-step, as the walls fall. And I want a COMPLETE description of what the columns are doing, not some useless statement like "they're falling down". Where are they breaking, and what force, or combination of forces, is breaking them? And why isn't that breaking force 'reflected' in the faces of the building (jarring from impacts)?

Fire away, Mr. Terrorist.

Heh, CS. Where'd ya get the nice photos? Do you have a video to go along with that, or are your bosses with-holding it till the right moment?
Does this look straight you freak of nature...

User posted image

No feaken trauma? Do you have something other than that brown stuff your pulling out of your A$$ to prove the south side wasn't blown out by the penthouse collapse? NO, Your pathetic.

What's this dumb a$$,

User posted image

The south side is LEADING THE COLLPASE!!! Gee, I wonder why... dry.gif
<br>Just tell me where you got the photos, terrorist-boy. The two above are not only different (so I assume you have a bunch of 'em), but it PROVES NOTHING about how the walls (read 'steel columns') slid so sweetly and gently into the ground.

Quit wasting my time with this useless crap, M0R0N. Has anyone else noticed that in my last 10 attempts at getting one of these drips to discuss the 'smooth as butter' collapse of Building 7's walls, not ONE of 'em has dared go near the topic? No jarring or jolting or buckling as the walls smoothly glide to the ground.

CAN CD BE ANYMORE OBVIOUS? Nope.

Enjoy the dangle from your rope, you heinous pile of dung.




newton
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jun 16 2006, 05:49 PM)
Does this look "Laser straight down" you fu<king lunatic.

User posted image
the building fell down razor straight(for a 47 storey tower). a shockwave was reported live from a man on the street prior to collapse(as can be heard from the 1010wins broadcast 'live' on september 11th).

a few people knew EXACTLY when the tower was going to fall.

there was no buckling or stutter along the corner of the building, as it followed a buttery smooth RAZOR STRAIGHT path to the ground.

your debunking site is pathetic, CS. like the rest of your 'logic'.
Mel_Guest
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jun 16 2006, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jun 16 2006, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 01:20 PM)
Start the video posted above, pause it at the beginning. Hold a straight-edge against the right corner of the building. Continue the video. ZERO deflection away from vertical up to the point the roof-line goes out of sight. RAZOR_STRAIGHT COLLAPSE. No discernable tip in any direction.

And who cares, anyway? The whole point of my argument, ONCE AGAIN ('cause you're too stupid to get it), is that the steel columns inside the building walls are not undergoing any trauma as they plummet. Why do you continue to avoid this issue?

Please provide an explanation for what is happening to the columns, step-by-step, as the walls fall. And I want a COMPLETE description of what the columns are doing, not some useless statement like "they're falling down". Where are they breaking, and what force, or combination of forces, is breaking them? And why isn't that breaking force 'reflected' in the faces of the building (jarring from impacts)?

Fire away, Mr. Terrorist.

Heh, CS. Where'd ya get the nice photos? Do you have a video to go along with that, or are your bosses with-holding it till the right moment?

Does this look straight you freak of nature...

User posted image

No feaken trauma? Do you have something other than that brown stuff your pulling out of your A$$ to prove the south side wasn't blown out by the penthouse collapse? NO, Your pathetic.

What's this dumb a$$,

User posted image

The south side is LEADING THE COLLPASE!!! Gee, I wonder why... dry.gif

CS, according to Mel, it seems, there was nothing else happening on the other side of the north wall. Oh, sure the rooftop structures fell in but that doesn't really mean anything was happening to the columns of that wall. He can see all of this in ONE video he likes, all other photos must therefore, by definition(Mel's and probably Foxx's too) be fakes developed either by you or simply believed and used by you.

You can bring up anything else you want to demonstrate to him that he is wrong but he "don't care". In fact , aside from his calling for you, I and others to be hung, his favorite expression seems to be "I don't care" or other colourful expressions of the same sentiment. This of course translates to his stating, "I got nothing".

I got nothing? laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

I got EVERYTHING, boy, including popular opinion (from those that are even AWARE that a third building collapsed that day). And this means that you will be found most guilty in the cover-up of the murder of 3000 Americans on 9/11.

Quit stalling, YID, and explain away the neatness with which the walls came down.

I just can't think of any words that do justice to the disgust I feel towards you, Two Sheds, and CS. Nothing seems strong enough. I've already labeled you as terrorists, but that's insulting to other terrorists. Those 'guys' got nothin' on you.


yesitdid
Where do the pictures come from? I found them and it only took 5 minutes.


,,, and no, I did not ask CS
tikay
Um in regards to something Arthur spoke to al, about how he should write a paper...*sorry* i did not referance that particular post. (i was angry)

Or he could write a disgusting book with all his pictoral referances to the torture and death of mankind all throughout history....with glossy photos of the torture of every kind of human, including woman, the feminine aspect of man, and child their offspring. Nuts! luckily I was ready for him this time, made my daughter leave the room when i checked in to this thread, I already knew he was no gentleman, who could be influenced, as some of you are (sort of) in here rolleyes.gif

thanks Al, you keep showing those pretty pictures, of the bodies and the blood, because it really makes you look psycologically lucid...or maybe it invalidates you a bit?
When pure "Bias Bombs" are exploded into the room, no one cares.
It seems to be the only way to proceed for the most of you.
~Read some NIST stuff yesterday, i am back...sitting on the fence.
It is getting rickity though, I'll be sure to fall down any time now.

When I fall it might get bloody.... be sure to take a picture of that Al, why dont you?
Please more stupid pictures ....asap.
adoucette
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 04:48 PM)
I just can't think of any words that do justice to the disgust I feel towards you, Two Sheds, and CS. Nothing seems strong enough. I've already labeled you as terrorists, but that's insulting to other terrorists. Those 'guys' got nothin' on you.
You think ANY OF US care what some friggin TIN FOIL HAT WEARING LOSER with a mind of mush thinks of us?

ROTFLMAO

Arthur
Alan ('vator man)
I just can't think of any words that do justice to the disgust I feel towards you...


Mel, let me help you. The words you're looking for are... "I'm just not going to post here anymore because I can't convince anybody of anything, so goodbye."

How's that? It sure works for me.
adoucette
Well said 'vator man. Well said.

laugh.gif
tikay
QUOTE (Alan ('vator man)+Jun 16 2006, 02:08 PM)
I just can't think of any words that do justice to the disgust I feel towards you...


Mel, let me help you. The words you're looking for are... "I'm just not going to post here anymore because I can't convince anybody of anything, so goodbye."

How's that? It sure works for me.
Elevator dude! wub.gif where you been?


Guest_A
QUOTE (tikay+Jun 16 2006, 08:58 PM)
thanks Al, you keep showing those pretty pictures, of the bodies and the blood, because it really makes you look psycologically lucid...or maybe it invalidates you a bit?

I couldn't of said it better tikay...what the hell!!
IS there mods on this forum?
tikay
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Jun 16 2006, 08:48 AM)
Foxx
QUOTE
the obvious reason for such deceit is so they do not have to address the eutectic actions documented by Barnett & Biederman
<br>Barnett & Biederman LIED.

NO EUTECTICS USED IN A BLACKMITHS' FORGE WELD - GOT IT?
NO SULPHUR REQUIRED BY BLACKSMITHS TO WELD - NO EUTECTICS - UNDERSTAND?
You can NOT apply sulphur to STEEL or IRON TOPICALLY in order to LOWER THE MELTING POINT -- YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT - THAT IS WHAT BARNETT AND BIDERMANN WERE TRYING TO SAY HAPPENED AT 7WTC.

CAPICE?

Sorry for SHOUTING AT YOU, Foxx - but I seem to have made that particular point several times over the past few pages.

Here's a refresher:


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
the obvious reason for such deceit is so they do not have to address the eutectic actions documented by Barnett & Biederman
<br>Barnett & Biederman LIED.

NO EUTECTICS USED IN A BLACKMITHS' FORGE WELD - GOT IT?
NO SULPHUR REQUIRED BY BLACKSMITHS TO WELD - NO EUTECTICS - UNDERSTAND?
You can NOT apply sulphur to STEEL or IRON TOPICALLY in order to LOWER THE MELTING POINT -- YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT - THAT IS WHAT BARNETT AND BIDERMANN WERE TRYING TO SAY HAPPENED AT 7WTC.

CAPICE?

Sorry for SHOUTING AT YOU, Foxx - but I seem to have made that particular point several times over the past few pages.

Here's a refresher:


Fonzie:
And I suspect in the hottest regions of my charcoal fire the Fe forms a eutectic
Thanks for answering the question, Fonzie.

I suspect it doesn't. I would be willing to bet money on it.


will someone bet this gambling fool some hard cash ?



i bet he is gonna be outta the ball park soon, for those freakin' freakishly off topic pictures....anyone want to bet me? on that one?


*tikay smiles and reports the jerk*
you could have listened. be sure to post a link where we can find you before you go.

hee hee! he think CAPS can be heard... (he's yelling! there in his house)...ah hah hah hah hah ha! laugh.gif

bye Al pack up your crayons little dude!
be sure to "be a good boy" if you ever sneak back in!
it was nice for a minute~
adoucette
Al K is simply filled with HATE.

By his own admission.

He then PROJECTS this hatred he has onto us, claiming that those who don't support these inane conspiracies, do it because we HATE ARABs.

Though none of us has posted ANYTHING which indicates that this is true.

Ignore him, he'll go away and find someone else to vent his rage on.

Arthur

Masked Marauder
QUOTE (tikay+Jun 16 2006, 09:27 PM)
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Jun 16 2006, 08:48 AM)
Foxx
QUOTE
the obvious reason for such deceit is so they do not have to address the eutectic actions documented by Barnett & Biederman
<br>Barnett & Biederman LIED.

NO EUTECTICS USED IN A BLACKMITHS' FORGE WELD - GOT IT?
NO SULPHUR REQUIRED BY BLACKSMITHS TO WELD - NO EUTECTICS - UNDERSTAND?
You can NOT apply sulphur to STEEL or IRON TOPICALLY in order to LOWER THE MELTING POINT -- YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT - THAT IS WHAT BARNETT AND BIDERMANN WERE TRYING TO SAY HAPPENED AT 7WTC.

CAPICE?

Sorry for SHOUTING AT YOU, Foxx - but I seem to have made that particular point several times over the past few pages.

Here's a refresher:


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
the obvious reason for such deceit is so they do not have to address the eutectic actions documented by Barnett & Biederman
<br>Barnett & Biederman LIED.

NO EUTECTICS USED IN A BLACKMITHS' FORGE WELD - GOT IT?
NO SULPHUR REQUIRED BY BLACKSMITHS TO WELD - NO EUTECTICS - UNDERSTAND?
You can NOT apply sulphur to STEEL or IRON TOPICALLY in order to LOWER THE MELTING POINT -- YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT - THAT IS WHAT BARNETT AND BIDERMANN WERE TRYING TO SAY HAPPENED AT 7WTC.

CAPICE?

Sorry for SHOUTING AT YOU, Foxx - but I seem to have made that particular point several times over the past few pages.

Here's a refresher:


Fonzie:
And I suspect in the hottest regions of my charcoal fire the Fe forms a eutectic
Thanks for answering the question, Fonzie.

I suspect it doesn't. I would be willing to bet money on it.


will someone bet this gambling fool some hard cash ?



i bet he is gonna be outta the ball park soon, for those freakin' freakishly off topic pictures....anyone want to bet me? on that one?


*tikay smiles and reports the jerk* Tikay, on a past post you asked about me responding as to whether or not I was a Marine, did you get your question answered?

MM
Alan (ex elevator man)
Elevator dude! where you been?

Hiya Tikay!

Welp, I've been here lurkin'. They don't often hit a subject I could claim experience with, so I do alotta reading instead of posting.

*waves atcha*
tikay
QUOTE (Masked Marauder+)
Tikay, on a past post you asked about me responding as to whether or not I was a Marine, did you get your question answered?

MM

honey i got it...and admitted gladly that i was the fool in that thread, so yeah biggrin.gif
Masked Marauder
QUOTE (tikay+Jun 16 2006, 10:16 PM)
Tikay, on a past post you asked about me responding as to whether or not I was a Marine, did you get your question answered?

MM [/QUOTE]
honey i got it...and admitted gladly that i was the fool in that thread, so yeah biggrin.gif
No fool involved anywhere, you had a question, and this is the place to post it! Glad to be of some help...

Enjoy the weekend!

wwooo HOOOO

MM
tikay
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2006, 02:40 PM)
Al K is simply filled with HATE.

By his own admission.

He then PROJECTS this hatred he has onto us, claiming that those who don't support these inane conspiracies, do it because we HATE ARABs.

Though none of us has posted ANYTHING which indicates that this is true.

Ignore him, he'll go away and find someone else to vent his rage on.

Arthur

Hey Arthur....well i can say for sure that i too am filled with hatred, at times, and with much love at others. That is part of being human. But that fool shouldn't be getting up so high (thinking he won't be made to fall) on that political soap-box, because even if what he spoke had validity some-place it had nothing whatever to do with archetecture gravity falls, or those buildings, and it was grotesque too.
if i want to see that crap I will tune in to the nightly news programs, on ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Yuck!

now~ back to the great debate...Those towers fell because of chapter twelve in Aleister Crowley's tome, Moonchild, at least in part.
~ just believe me! biggrin.gif

here is a sampler:

Chapter XII
Of Brother Onofrio, His Stoutness And Valliance; And Of The Misadventures that Came thereby to the Black Lodge.


The ecclesiastic is a definite type of man. The Italian priest has changed his character, in three thousand years as little as he has his costume.
Brother onofrio's father happened to be a free-thinking Anti-clerical, a pillar of masonry ; otherwise, his son would assuredly have been a bishop.
The type is perfectly pagan, whatever the creed ; it is robust and subtle, spiritual and sensual, adroit in manipulation of inferiors and superiors alike. It has the courage which vigorous health and the conciousness of it's own validity combine to give ; and where courage will not serve the turn, astuteness deftly takes it's place.
A stupid pedant like Edwin Arthwait is the very feeblist opponent for such a man.
Brother Onofrio, while successfully, practicing magick, was quite ready at a moments notice to throw the whole theory overboard with a horse laugh---and at the same time to reckon his action in doing so a branch of magick also. It was the beginning of the duplicate brain-development which Cyril grey had cultivated to so high a point of perfection.
But Arthwait was in the fetters of his own egoism ; while he pronounced himself father and grandfather
of all spiritual science, in language that would have seemed archaic to Henry James, or Osric, and presumptuous in the mouth of an archangel, he was the bondslave of utterly insignificant writers, fakers of the magical " gimories " of the fourteenth century, hawkers of spells and conjurations to a benighted peasentry who wished to bewitch cows, or to prevent their neighbors from catching fish.
Arthwait had published a book to show the folly of such works, but in practice they were his only guide. In particular, he swore by the " Black Pullit, " which seemed to him less dangerous than the " Grand grimoire, " or the forgery attributed to Pope Honorius. he wanted to evoke the devil, but was terrified lest he should be successful. However, nobody could be more pedantically pious than he in folloeing out the practical prescriptions of these absurd charm-books.
This individual might usually have been discovered during that honeymoon in the Naples villa, seated in the arm-chair of the apartment which he had rented in the galleria Vittoria. He would be clad in a frock-coat of City cut, for he affected the " professional man, " and his air would be preoccupied. The arrival of his colleagues for consultation would apparently startle him from a profound speculation upon the weightier matters of the law.
It would be only by an effort that he spoke in English ; the least distraction would send him back into Latin, Greek, Hebrew, none which languages he understood. He was a peddler of words ; his mind a rag-and-bone shop of worthless ans disjointed mediaevalism.
The first formal conference took place when they had been about a week in naples.
" My fathers learned in Art Magic, " he began, addressing Gates and Abdul, "venerable and archetypal doctors of the hermetic Arcanum, it hath been sacramentally imposed upon our sophistic Tebunah by the monumentally aggregated psyco-mentality of Those whose names in respect of known dedications must here---juxta nos---be heled ob Danaos (as i should adumbrate advisedly, for is it not script, containing cowans, in the archives of the Clermont Harodim ?) that a term, in fine, should mete the orbit and currency ofr the heretic and apostate, quemintartarum conjuro, hight Grey, in hisareopagus of the averse hierarchy. I exiterate, clam populo, that all warrents of precursors falt no ratification, per-adventure, in the actual concatenation, sed, me judice, it is meliorated that by virtue and cosmodominicy of Satanas---cognomen ineffible, quod reverentissime proloquor !---the opus confronts the Sir Knights of the Black Chapter ---in via sua propia--- in the authentic valley and this lucus tenebrosa
Neapolitanensis, as the near ---nay, the next !---conflaguration of barbaric pilum against retiarial lubibry. Worthy Fathers and reverand in the doctrine, salutatio in summo imperio---per totum orbum---in the supranominal Donner of orcus and of Phlegethon---sufficit !"
The Turkish diplomat spoke nine languages, but not this one. gates, who had known Arthwait for many years, explaned that these remarks, formidable in appearence, meant only that Grey ought to be killed at any time, on general principles, but that as they were specially charged with that task by thier leaders, so much the better.
The conference, thus prosperously inaugurated, proved a legnthy one. how, indeed, could it be otherwise ? For Arthwait was naturally slow of thought and speech ; it took him some time to warm up to real eloquence ; and then he became solong-winded and lost himself so completely in his words and phrases that he would speak for many hours without conveying a single idea of any kind to his hearers, {editors note: How very like tikay!* } or even having one to convey.
But the upshot of his conversation upon this occasion was that an attempt should be made to poison the household magically by bewitching the food supplied to them from the market, certain succulent shell-fish, called vongole, very popular in Naples, were selected as a material basis, " because their appurtenance and charter was be-Yek! Klippoth, " as arthwait explained. Into these molluscs, therefore, might be conjured a spirit of Mars " of them that bear witness unto Bartzabel, " in the hope that those who partook of them might be stricken with some type of fever, fevers and allacute diseases being classified as Martial.
It was unfortunate for these plans that Brother Onofrio habitually took the precaution to purify and consecrate all food that came into the house before it reached the kiitchen ; and further, anticipating some attempt he had everything tested psycometrically by one of his acolytes, whom he had trained especially in sensitiveness to all such subtle impressions.
The shell-fish were consequently discovered to be charged with the Martial current ; Brother onofrio smiled hugely and proceeded to call upon the divine forces of mars, before which even Bartzabel " trembles every day " and, thus having converted himself into a high power engine of war, sat down to a gargantuan banquet, eating the entire consignment himself. the result was that the unfortunant Arthwait was seized with violent and intractable colic, which kept him twisted in agony on his bed for fourty-eight hours.
Gates had taken no part in this performance ; he knew how dangerous it was, and how likely to recoil upon the rash practitioner. But he did some genuinely useful work. He had been to the church in the village, near Posilippo, whose tower overlooked the Butterfly-net ; and he had pursuaded the priest to allow him continual access to that tower, on the pretext of being an artist. And indeed he had a pretty amatuer talent for painting in watercolors : some people thought it stronger than his verses. For ten days he watched the butterfly-net with extreme care, and he wrote down the routine of the inhabitants hour by hour. Nothing escaped himof their doings in the garden ; and ( as it happened ) the preponderating portion of their work lay out of doors. He could make nor head nor tail of the fact that the most important people were apparently doing no magick of any kind, but, careless lovers, enjoying the firstfruits of thier flight to the South.

{{{To be continued shortly.}}}
yesitdid
Mel spews forth

QUOTE
I just can't think of any words that do justice to the disgust I feel towards you, Two Sheds, and CS. Nothing seems strong enough. I've already labeled you as terrorists,
<br>,,, and you have repeatedly expressed extreme desire to see us executed.

Though I don't feel the same about you. Forced sterilization of you might appeal to me on some 'save the human race' level but generally I am opposed to capital punishment especially for simple stupidity.

You have convinced me of one thing though. Reading your posts is a waste of time. There are others here that don't like my views and will argue their points even salting them with insults. However you and Al-K go beyond insults and cross over into pure hatred. Well hate away, I dont care (you always liked that expression). If ever there was a case for putting someone on ignore you illustrate it.
Mel_GUEST
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2006, 08:59 PM)
QUOTE (Mel_Guest+Jun 16 2006, 04:48 PM)
I just can't think of any words that do justice to the disgust I feel towards you, Two Sheds, and CS. Nothing seems strong enough. I've already labeled you as terrorists, but that's insulting to other terrorists. Those 'guys' got nothin' on you.

You think ANY OF US care what some friggin TIN FOIL HAT WEARING LOSER with a mind of mush thinks of us?

ROTFLMAO

Arthur

YA, YOU DO!

(Struck a nerve, did I?) laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

adoucette
QUOTE (tikay+Jun 16 2006, 06:25 PM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jun 16 2006, 02:40 PM)
Al K is simply filled with HATE.

By his own admission.

He then PROJECTS this hatred he has onto us, claiming that those who don't support these inane conspiracies, do it because we HATE ARABs.

Though none of us has posted ANYTHING which indicates that this is true.

Ignore him, he'll go away and find someone else to vent his rage on.

Arthur

Hey Arthur....well i can say for sure that i too am filled with hatred, at times, and with much love at others. That is part of being human. But that fool shouldn't be getting up so high (thinking he won't be made to fall) on that political soap-box, because even if what he spoke had validity some-place it had nothing whatever to do with archetecture gravity falls, or those buildings, and it was grotesque too.
if i want to see that crap I will tune in to the nightly news programs, on ABC CBS and NBC.

Yuck!

now back to the great debate...Those towers fell because of chapter twelve in Alister Crowley's Moonchild, at least in part.
~ just believe me! biggrin.gif
I've hated people before, but I can honestly say I've never hated a SPECIFIC person simply because of their Nationality or Ethnicity.

For instance I hate Religious Fundamentalism in principle but only Religious Fundamentalists who think they have the right to FORCE others to believe the way they do, or punish them for NOT believing as they do.

As to Crowley, never read any of his works, give us a hint as to the 12th chap of Moonchild.

user posted image


Arthur
Mel_Guest
QUOTE (tikay+Jun 16 2006, 09:19 PM)
QUOTE (Alan ('vator man)+Jun 16 2006, 02:08 PM)
I just can't think of any words that do justice to the disgust I feel towards you...


Mel, let me help you.  The words you're looking for are... "I'm just not going to post here anymore because I can't convince anybody of anything, so goodbye."

How's that?  It sure works for me.

Elevator dude! wub.gif where you been?
According to his (its) own words, he's been 'not posting', since he's unable to convince anyone that the OCT is true.

BTW, all you murder car numskulls: I'm not here to convince YOU of anything. You're paid to be here to refute any and all evidence contrary to the OCT, in whatever manner you deem necessary. This is a given. My posts simply server as information for others who may chance upon this thread. And I'll bet there's a lot of lurkers cheering openly every time I call for your executions.

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.