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? 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
15th June 2006 - 09:34 PM
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)
15th June 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.
NEU-FONZE
15th June 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
Mel_Guest
15th June 2006 - 10:42 PM
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.
Mel_Guest
15th June 2006 - 10:47 PM
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 experimentQuit 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
16th June 2006 - 12:45 AM
MEL:
Sounds like you're a witness for the Port Authority then?
NF
NEU-FONZE
16th June 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
Yochanan
16th June 2006 - 01:06 AM
How does the official conspiracy theory explain the ‘squibs’?
adoucette
16th June 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? 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.
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
16th June 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 experimentEvery 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!...  ), 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
16th June 2006 - 01:19 AM
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
16th June 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
Foxx
16th June 2006 - 02:10 AM
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
16th June 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.htmThat's a blow to the conspiracy story isn't it.
Common Sense
16th June 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...?
Mel
16th June 2006 - 02:49 AM
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? 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.
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
16th June 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 experimentEvery 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!...  ), 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
16th June 2006 - 02:53 AM
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
16th June 2006 - 03:07 AM
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 experimentEvery 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!...  ), 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 experimentWazza 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
16th June 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? 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.
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
16th June 2006 - 03:16 AM
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.htmThat's a blow to the conspiracy story isn't it.  Regarding this photo image used on CSpams 9/11debunking site... http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7_Smoke.jpg 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 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
16th June 2006 - 03:16 AM
yesitdid
16th June 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.
Mel
16th June 2006 - 03:23 AM
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? 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.
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>
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
16th June 2006 - 03:24 AM
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
16th June 2006 - 03:25 AM
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.htmThat's a blow to the conspiracy story isn't it.  Regarding this photo image used on CSpams 9/11debunking site... http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/WTC7_Smoke.jpg 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 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.
Common Sense
16th June 2006 - 03:40 AM
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
16th June 2006 - 03:40 AM
| 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"

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
16th June 2006 - 03:46 AM
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 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 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
16th June 2006 - 03:48 AM
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"

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
Mel
16th June 2006 - 03:51 AM
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
16th June 2006 - 03:54 AM
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
16th June 2006 - 03:59 AM
 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
16th June 2006 - 04:07 AM
| 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

yesitdid
16th June 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. 
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
16th June 2006 - 04:37 AM
Here's a blow-up of CSpam's "WTC 7" image... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/wtc7cornerhLG.jpg 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
16th June 2006 - 04:41 AM
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.  <!--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.  <!--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
16th June 2006 - 05:20 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:
Foxx
16th June 2006 - 05:37 AM
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 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 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
16th June 2006 - 05:45 AM
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?

I guess it must be one of those embarrassing questions that has to buried in a cascade of debris - right?
adoucette
16th June 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...  Not very 'clear' is it ? The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...  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
16th June 2006 - 05:59 AM
| 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)
16th June 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.
Mel
16th June 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...  Not very 'clear' is it ? The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...  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.
Foxx
16th June 2006 - 06:12 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...  Not very 'clear' is it ? The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...  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. Ditto to that... Amen ... errr sorry... Allah Akbar... and good night.
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
16th June 2006 - 06:15 AM
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
16th June 2006 - 06:22 AM
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
16th June 2006 - 06:51 AM
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: http://www.geocities.com/tower_collapse/it...e_equations.gifCheckout 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?  -------------------------------------------------- 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
16th June 2006 - 01:46 PM
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:
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

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
16th June 2006 - 02:34 PM
| 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
16th June 2006 - 02:45 PM
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
16th June 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 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
16th June 2006 - 03:08 PM
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...  Not very 'clear' is it ? The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...  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. I got your "perfectly straight down", right here! http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htmYou 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
16th June 2006 - 03:14 PM
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 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
16th June 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.
adoucette
16th June 2006 - 03:30 PM
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...  Not very 'clear' is it ? The NEW photo being broadcast by 'debunking sites' has been 'cleaned-up' and is much 'clearer'...  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. 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
16th June 2006 - 03:31 PM
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.  http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02b.gifhttp://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02a.gif916: http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/lg-map-therm1_916.jpg1018: http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/lg-...therm2_1018.jpgAlso: 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' />  Obvious - isn't it?
adoucette
16th June 2006 - 03:38 PM
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.  http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02b.gifhttp://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/geonews-02a.gif916: http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/lg-map-therm1_916.jpg1018: 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
16th June 2006 - 03:48 PM
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
16th June 2006 - 03:49 PM
"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 waveSpherical bodies = balls!
adoucette
16th June 2006 - 03:57 PM
| 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>
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>
the long-dead official story. <br>
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
16th June 2006 - 04:47 PM
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.
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
16th June 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?
Common Sense
16th June 2006 - 05:49 PM
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 (-> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|