Quick Calculations
RICH GARLOCK: Going below, it was smoky and really hot. We had rescue teams with meters for oxygen and carbon dioxide. They also had temperature monitors. Here WTC 6 is over my head. The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running. I did some quick numbers with Gary Panariello, an engineer from Thornton-Tomasetti, to try and determine what the load on WTC 6 was and how much of the lateral system of the building the contractor could take down. There were a lot of judgment calls; people had immediate needs and needed immediate responses.
Richard Garlock is an associate of LERA, whose founder Leslie E. Robertson is the structural engineer of record for the World Trade Center complex. Garlock used the firm's years of experience on the site, along with the vast collection of architectural and structural drawings, to advise the rescue and stabilization operations on structural issues.
<a href='http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/engineering/engineering_debris_06.html' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/enginee..._debris_06.html
Has this red-hot, molten, running debris been looked into?
reasonwhy
25th March 2006 - 06:29 AM
 QUOTE Preventing Spills
RICH GARLOCK: This is the emergency generator fuel for standby generators in WTC 5 — two 10,000-gallon diesel tanks completely intact. Diesel storage for the emergency generators located on the B-6 level, west of Tower One were also found intact. The Environmental Protection Agency was able to remove the diesel from those as well. We didn't want to have a fuel spill, and we wanted to take every precaution to eliminate these threats before a contractor went in and demolished the building.
NEU-FONZE doesn’t have to worry about all the fuel in the WTC complex.
reasonwhy
25th March 2006 - 06:39 AM
 QUOTE RICH GARLOCK: These are the drawings that were in the hands of the fire chiefs and search and rescue guys. They show the elevator, the internal core, the exterior wall. This is a drawing of the mezzanine level. If you were on the plaza, you could walk in these doors and take escalators down to the lobby. For the South Tower, they had to turn the plan to face north. http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/enginee..._rescue_07.htmlChristophera this is the mezzanine level and it does not show a 17 foot thick concrete core.
newton
25th March 2006 - 06:47 AM
QUOTE (yesitdid+Mar 25 2006, 06:17 AM) QUOTE (newton+Mar 25 2006, 06:09 AM) maybe, "tao-where-seh-ven, tao-where-seh-ven" is the rallying cry for the revolution.
chant it in your head for a bit. it works pretty good.
maybe i start a new puppet, 'paul revere'.
although, recently, i feel proud to be a resonant 'newton', with newtonnjd's concise, info-torpedoes repeatedly striking the hull of the sinking 'fascist ship lollipop-land'.
fascist evil is stealing the mutual future of humanity for short term gain, followed by a long term status quo of orwellian/huxleyish mass slavery.
"tao-where-seh-ven, tao-where-seh-ven"
"tao-where-seh-ven, tao-where-seh-ven" I should have known that newtonnjd was not the same as newton. His posts suggest he isn't constantly high. better than bein' lower than a snake's belly, i figger. anyway. you know nothing. that's beer poetry, and i can't afford to be constantly high, unfortunately. cheers.
steve52
25th March 2006 - 07:10 AM
yesitdid,
I'm not sure if any of you are old enough to remember that Monty Python movie back in the 70's where a group of people were on a trail to some place up in the mountain tops and a mid-evil soldier stood in their way and challenged one of the guys to a duel with the sword.
So two guys battled it out, and one guy slashed off his arm, then his leg, but the guy kept on fighting, so he slashed off his other arm, and then his other leg, leaving just a torso, but even though the guy was all slashed up he wouldn't give up, he continued yelling at the guy to keep fighting him, saying he'd kick his butt, even though he had no chance in hell.
And finally the group marched right on past the guy, all the while hearing him shouting "Come back and fight"
And this reminds me of these battles in which the fairy tale believers keep trying to battle it out with the HONEST PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD who have shown fact after fact that proves UNDENIABLY that control demolition was used.
Even though the battle has been over and the fairy tale supporters have been hacked to pieces, and are no nothing more than worthless torsos they act as if they have a chance to win the battle.
Of course the Monty Python movie was a comedy, just as these posts are usually hilarious. If it weren't for the fact that all those people were murdered it would be nothing but funny.
But even you gotta admit that the virtual free fall speed destroys all arguments, legitimate arguments that is.
newton
25th March 2006 - 07:29 AM
none shall pass.
NONE SHALL PASS.
hack-arm
hack-leg
hack-other arm
hack-last leg
'stumped' murderercarclown: "it's just a flesh wound. come back here, i'll bite your bloody head off."
reasonwhy
25th March 2006 - 07:31 AM
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 24 2006, 11:10 PM) yesitdid,
I'm not sure if any of you are old enough to remember that Monty Python movie back in the 70's where a group of people were on a trail to some place up in the mountain tops and a mid-evil soldier stood in their way and challenged one of the guys to a duel with the sword.
So two guys battled it out, and one guy slashed off his arm, then his leg, but the guy kept on fighting, so he slashed off his other arm, and then his other leg, leaving just a torso, but even though the guy was all slashed up he wouldn't give up, he continued yelling at the guy to keep fighting him, saying he'd kick his butt, even though he had no chance in hell.
And finally the group marched right on past the guy, all the while hearing him shouting "Come back and fight"
And this reminds me of these battles in which the fairy tale believers keep trying to battle it out with the HONEST PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD who have shown fact after fact that proves UNDENIABLY that control demolition was used.
Even though the battle has been over and the fairy tale supporters have been hacked to pieces, and are no nothing more than worthless torsos they act as if they have a chance to win the battle.
Of course the Monty Python movie was a comedy, just as these posts are usually hilarious. If it weren't for the fact that all those people were murdered it would be nothing but funny.
But even you gotta admit that the virtual free fall speed destroys all arguments, legitimate arguments that is. Steve52 I think this is what you and newton are refuring to from Monty Python The Holy Grail:  Black Knight: Okay, we'll call it a draw. The film was so ridicules it was hilarious. It does remind me of the shills denying WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition and continuing to argue the point. That alone tells me someone is a shill or insane like the black knight.
newtonnjd
25th March 2006 - 09:04 AM
YID - firstly, thank you for going back and providing full answers.
| QUOTE | A "similar" accelleration? I see the Landmark falling at a faster rate. Would it be close to that of the towers? Sure it would since the term "close" is so subjective.
<br>Let's focus fully on WTC7, and not towers plural. WTC7 and the Landmark make a useful comparison because they are both medium sized buildings, both collapses initiated at or near the base, and neither was hit by a plane.
You say the Landmark falls faster. Considering that WTC7s fall has been measured to be almost dead-on free-fall, that would be pretty unlikely - and I daresay you have not attempted to measure the Landmark's acceleration quantitatively? From the comparison videos, there is no noticeable visual difference between the two accelerations - or to put it another way, you cannot tell that there is any resistance slowing down either of the collapses.
Your only argument here is that your eyes perceive the Landmark as accelerating faster, even though the various shots are from different distances and you have made no attempt at a quantitative analysis. Let's just say, you are asking a lot for us to trust your perception of the videos, especially when it implies that Landmark fell FASTER than free-fall!
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | A "similar" accelleration? I see the Landmark falling at a faster rate. Would it be close to that of the towers? Sure it would since the term "close" is so subjective.
<br>Let's focus fully on WTC7, and not towers plural. WTC7 and the Landmark make a useful comparison because they are both medium sized buildings, both collapses initiated at or near the base, and neither was hit by a plane.
You say the Landmark falls faster. Considering that WTC7s fall has been measured to be almost dead-on free-fall, that would be pretty unlikely - and I daresay you have not attempted to measure the Landmark's acceleration quantitatively? From the comparison videos, there is no noticeable visual difference between the two accelerations - or to put it another way, you cannot tell that there is any resistance slowing down either of the collapses.
Your only argument here is that your eyes perceive the Landmark as accelerating faster, even though the various shots are from different distances and you have made no attempt at a quantitative analysis. Let's just say, you are asking a lot for us to trust your perception of the videos, especially when it implies that Landmark fell FASTER than free-fall!
Actually as I pointed out the Landmark falls very definately to one side due to the supports on lower floors that are closest to that side were blown slightly ahead of the others.
<br>This difference is irrelevant. The whole point of a controlled demolition is to control where the debris ends up. For the Landmark this favored one side over the other, so it was allowed a tilt to shepherd it toward the open block. But as you may have noticed, not all controlled demolitions are the same. Many do go straight down. WTC7 was surrounded by other buildings so an ideal CD would have it fall straight onto its footprint, as was the case. The tilt is not a credible reason to conclude that we are seeing two different processes given that it's a factor that varies from demolition to demolition. If anything, it only weakens the assertion that WTC7 could have fallen straight down from asymmetric damage, as the Landmark is noticeably affected by asymmetric damage at the collapse point. i.e. WTC7 must have collapsed from symmetric damage.
| QUOTE | WTC 7 on the other hand shows good evidence of having suffered a failure very close to the center, back to front, of the building and somewhat to one side of center lengthwise. The evidence of this is the penthouse structure sinking before the rest of the building collapses. Progression of the collapse then moves along the center of the building as evidenced by the other roof structures sinking. All of this does suggest an initial failure deep within the building.
<br>The collapse of the penthouse and the roof bowing downwards toward the center only add further support to controlled demolition. According to the official story there was no damage directly beneath the penthouse for a substantial distance down through the building. So your theory is that the penthouse falls due to a failure around 30 floors below it. This theory must assume that 30 floors worth of lateral support could not support the penthouse at the top. Very difficult to believe. Much more likely that a sequence of pre-collapse charges designed to weaken the overall structure caused a failure right beneath the penthouse. (Akin to the pre-collapse sequence for the Landmark, but minus the flashes due to being deeper in the building). Alternatively thermite was used on the core columns instead of pre-collapse explosives, and it melted the support beneath the penthouse a few seconds too early.
The penthouse is great evidence for CD, because there were atleast 30 floors of intact structure beneath it. We are being asked to believe that removing a section of a column at floor 17 should cause that column to start falling, despite being rigidly connected to 30 intact floors above it.
The bowed roof is a common feature of CDs when the core is made to collapse first and pulls the perimeter in toward it as it falls:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | WTC 7 on the other hand shows good evidence of having suffered a failure very close to the center, back to front, of the building and somewhat to one side of center lengthwise. The evidence of this is the penthouse structure sinking before the rest of the building collapses. Progression of the collapse then moves along the center of the building as evidenced by the other roof structures sinking. All of this does suggest an initial failure deep within the building.
<br>The collapse of the penthouse and the roof bowing downwards toward the center only add further support to controlled demolition. According to the official story there was no damage directly beneath the penthouse for a substantial distance down through the building. So your theory is that the penthouse falls due to a failure around 30 floors below it. This theory must assume that 30 floors worth of lateral support could not support the penthouse at the top. Very difficult to believe. Much more likely that a sequence of pre-collapse charges designed to weaken the overall structure caused a failure right beneath the penthouse. (Akin to the pre-collapse sequence for the Landmark, but minus the flashes due to being deeper in the building). Alternatively thermite was used on the core columns instead of pre-collapse explosives, and it melted the support beneath the penthouse a few seconds too early.
The penthouse is great evidence for CD, because there were atleast 30 floors of intact structure beneath it. We are being asked to believe that removing a section of a column at floor 17 should cause that column to start falling, despite being rigidly connected to 30 intact floors above it.
The bowed roof is a common feature of CDs when the core is made to collapse first and pulls the perimeter in toward it as it falls:
I cannot tell you exactly how this occured any more than you can explain exactly how demolitions could accomplish this. NIST also has only been able to come up with a preliminary explanation. Odd that you would demand that I come up with an exact , second by second explanation of what damage occured where and when to cause the collapse as seen while you only feel the need to state that explosives could do it. Sure they could, given months of prep time to load explosives in place, weaken key columns etc. CD is a pretty well understood concept while the randomness of debris impact and fire damage makes an exact description of a collapse much more difficult.
<br>You first state that I could not explain exactly how a demolition could cause the collapse, then go on to imply that infact the demolition method IS knowable, but that you don't think the resources were available. So demolition is a concept that CAN fit the observations (unlike any so far proposed by the experts who've had the time to investigate it several times over - if there's been no breakthrough at this point there never will be), and the only arguement you're left with is that "they couldn't have pulled it off". A pretty subjective and unscientific area for debate I think you'll agree.
| QUOTE | NO, a huge mass, relatively undamaged(unlike the mass of the Landmark which has had all columns cut) such as the top section of the WTC towers has enormous force acting straight down.
<br>A force that the lower section of the building resisted easily for decades. But let that top section move about 3 meters and that massive resistance suddenly becomes negligible? The fact that there was a lot more mass involved than usual only means that the rest of the building had to be much stronger to begin with, so the logic defeats itself. Mass and resistance will go up proportionally.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | NO, a huge mass, relatively undamaged(unlike the mass of the Landmark which has had all columns cut) such as the top section of the WTC towers has enormous force acting straight down.
<br>A force that the lower section of the building resisted easily for decades. But let that top section move about 3 meters and that massive resistance suddenly becomes negligible? The fact that there was a lot more mass involved than usual only means that the rest of the building had to be much stronger to begin with, so the logic defeats itself. Mass and resistance will go up proportionally.
Such huge mass would require very specific conditions to be in place in order to NOT fall straight down.
<br>It could certainly be argued that a real pancake collapse would have a good chance of going straight down (might take a while though). WTC7 doesn't fall into this category anyway.
| QUOTE | True, it does not do as adequate a job as Sunder would like.
<br>I could have predicted that a long time ago, because a non-explosive explanation will NEVER do an adequate job.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | True, it does not do as adequate a job as Sunder would like.
<br>I could have predicted that a long time ago, because a non-explosive explanation will NEVER do an adequate job.
That Japanese building leaning over differs in several significant ways from the towers. Since it is in Japan(at least I assume the characters on the signs are Japanese) one could expect that it is built to a fairly stringent earthquake code.
There is no evidence of prior damage to the structure nor is there any evidence of fire. This means that all of the structure was in absolutely pristine condition prior to the earthquake.
<br>It was never meant to be a direct comparison with any of the WTC buildings. It was simply to illustrate that under asymmetric stresses intact buildings are inclinded to topple rather than implode. Infact, if you've encountered any past examples of buildings imploding from non-explosive, localised, asymmetric damage I'd be interested to hear about them.
Rove's shill
25th March 2006 - 09:27 AM
Sorry guys, I've got to do some cheerleading again. NEWTONNJD CAN BRING IT !!!!!! THERE IS ANOTHER BULLET IN THE GUN CALLED TRUTH!!!! And YID limps away with another fat eye.
steve52
25th March 2006 - 10:02 AM
Newton & Reasonwhy,
Thank you so much for remembering.
If only we can get yesdidit to watch the movie maybe then he'll understand
Insertclevername
25th March 2006 - 10:41 AM
Here's a CNN quickvote poll update: Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
Yes 83% 28735 votes
No 17% 5828 votes
Total: 34563 votes Click here for results: http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html
yesitdid
25th March 2006 - 03:24 PM
Just waking up after a good night's sleep guys.
Yes, I have seen "In Search Of the Holy Grail" many times. I am 50 yrs old.
I can quote whole passages of that movie as well as any of you.
What is your favourite color?
newtonnjd. I will get back to the diuscussion of #7 soon but now is the weekend and time to play.
lenbrazil
25th March 2006 - 03:41 PM
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 25 2006, 03:30 AM) | QUOTE | You really should have been straight with us and said that this partial collapse was the result of an EARTHQUAKE*. Toppling is not uncommon in earthquakes.
<br>It doesn't matter. The point is, part of the structural support was lost, and an entire portion of the building was able to start moving downwards, exactly what is supposed to have happened with each WTC. (And infact, the earthquake would have put stresses on the entire building, not just a small section). But this downwards motion was quickly extinguished due to the structural integrity of the rest of the building. Even if collapse had ensued, it would have been asymmetric (the plane crashes and fires were assymetric too) and the top portion would have toppled.
<br>Of course it matters. When a building collapses due to damage to its structure caused by explosives, fire, faulty construction etc only one force acts on it gravity which of course is straight down. Earthquakes are very different scenario, during earthquakes there is a 2nd much stronger force moving laterally which is why buildings tipping over is not uncommon. For some reason this building failed a few floors up rather than at ground level the paper it was taken from classified it as being due to “Soft first story/inadequate shear strength” ( http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/e...s/eqphotos1.pdf pgs. 1 & 9 ). Without knowing more details it’s hard to judge the relevance of this case. As YID pointed out the Japanese building probably was reinforced to resist earthquakes.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | You really should have been straight with us and said that this partial collapse was the result of an EARTHQUAKE*. Toppling is not uncommon in earthquakes.
<br>It doesn't matter. The point is, part of the structural support was lost, and an entire portion of the building was able to start moving downwards, exactly what is supposed to have happened with each WTC. (And infact, the earthquake would have put stresses on the entire building, not just a small section). But this downwards motion was quickly extinguished due to the structural integrity of the rest of the building. Even if collapse had ensued, it would have been asymmetric (the plane crashes and fires were assymetric too) and the top portion would have toppled.
<br>Of course it matters. When a building collapses due to damage to its structure caused by explosives, fire, faulty construction etc only one force acts on it gravity which of course is straight down. Earthquakes are very different scenario, during earthquakes there is a 2nd much stronger force moving laterally which is why buildings tipping over is not uncommon. For some reason this building failed a few floors up rather than at ground level the paper it was taken from classified it as being due to “Soft first story/inadequate shear strength” ( http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~braile/edumod/e...s/eqphotos1.pdf pgs. 1 & 9 ). Without knowing more details it’s hard to judge the relevance of this case. As YID pointed out the Japanese building probably was reinforced to resist earthquakes.
Any structure built strong enough to safely support its own weight will not suddenly lose ~90% of its effectiveness when its equilibrium is broken. It will put up a hell of a fight against being quickly and completely dismantled, as the earthquake-hit building above did.
<br>The WTC building did not “suddenly lose ~90% of their effectiveness when their equilibrium was broken” they had suffered sever impact and fire damage. Equalibrium was really an issue.
| QUOTE | QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Buildings that collapse due to faulty construction (a situation much closer to what happened to 1, 2 & 7 WTC than a quake) tend to fall straight down.
<br>Now this should be interesting - please provide the evidence you base this assertion on. Then once you've done that, explain how this faulty construction mimics the damage to the WTC buildings.
<br>L’Ambiance Plaza in Connecticut
http://www.eng.uab.edu/cee/reu_nsf99/ambiance.htm
http://www.engineering.com/content/Content...tentId=41009018
The Palace II and Areia Branca in Brazil.
Sorry I couldn’t find much in English about them but the photos show clearly that they fell down basically into their footprints rather than fall over.
It was easier to find photos of the “Areia Branca” because it was more recent
more photos can be found at the following links
http://jc.uol.com.br/webcards/galeria.php?categoria=553
http://www.cb.ce.gov.br/html/151004_desaba...m%20recife.html
http://pe360graus.globo.com/noticias360/al...=&query=&page=1
The collapse of the Palace II was photographed live because the building had become unstable the day before and the residents moved out. When it finally fell down the press was waiting
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidia...95u110838.shtml
http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidia...0608-palace.jpg
The collapses of these buildings mimicked the collapse of the WTC building much more than the building from Kobe.
lenbrazil
25th March 2006 - 03:52 PM
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 25 2006, 05:44 AM) You can debate all these other items for the next 50 years, but there is NO DEBATE OVER THE SPEED AT WHICH THE TOWERS FELL. Even if people want to waste valuable time on whether it was 10 seconds or 13 seconds, that is IRRELEVANT, because it is physically IMPOSSIBLE for those buildings to have collapsed as fast as they did unless explosives were used to remove the RESISTANCE FACTOR. Can you cite any civil engineers, fire engineers, demolition experts, failure analysis experts or physicists with backgrounds in mechanics that agree with you? Or are we just to take the word of some guy who thinks photos of someone puking into a toilet, a crippled kid and maxipads is germaine the collapse of the WTC?
lenbrazil
25th March 2006 - 03:59 PM
I’m still waiting for anyone from the CD camp to cite the names of people who were in of near the WTC between the time WTC 1 was hit and when WTC 7 collapsed who made comments AFTER 9/11 indicating that they STILL though the buildings collapsed due to CD. People other than Rodriguez and his 2 buddies and the EMT who saw planes explode over NJ.
Christophera
25th March 2006 - 04:23 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 25 2006, 06:39 AM) | QUOTE | RICH GARLOCK: These are the drawings that were in the hands of the fire chiefs and search and rescue guys. They show the elevator, the internal core, the exterior wall. This is a drawing of the mezzanine level. If you were on the plaza, you could walk in these doors and take escalators down to the lobby. For the South Tower, they had to turn the plan to face north.
<br>http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/enginee..._rescue_07.html
Christophera this is the mezzanine level and it does not show a 17 foot thick concrete core. Any drawing that is not after 1966 looks like that. Those were used by Yamasaki to determine loading, choose a core and design it.
These photos show how narrow the space was between the core and the perimeter.
brian
25th March 2006 - 04:24 PM
Can those supporting the official version of the collapses please give a reasoned quantative answer to the question raised here - http://www.911truestory.com/ProjectileMotion.wmvmetamars etc, for us non scientists - Is an answer to the source of the energy in a gravity driven collapse scenario even theoretically possible? I do not include a Reality Check type answer in theoretically possible.
steve52
25th March 2006 - 04:26 PM
lenbrazil, it's over, you lost the debateThe speed of the colapse "Slash"
The towers fell at virtual free fall speed "Slash"
The towers blew up "Slash"
No plane hit building 7 "Slash"Your theory has no arms or legs
It's time to surrender.
newtonnjd
25th March 2006 - 04:33 PM
| QUOTE | Of course it matters. When a building collapses due to damage to its structure caused by explosives, fire, faulty construction etc only one force acts on it gravity which of course is straight down. Earthquakes are very different scenario, during earthquakes there is a 2nd much stronger force moving laterally which is why buildings tipping over is not uncommon.
<br>As I said in my previous post, this was not supposed to be a direct comparison (the direct comparison is the Landmark). You are correct that there is a lateral force that would encourage toppling more than usual. It would still not lessen the effect of gravity once part of the structure failed, however, as it was a different style of building suffering different stresses, as you and YID point out, I will happily remove it from the discussion - it is not necessary to my case and you have both chosen to focus on it too strongly.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Of course it matters. When a building collapses due to damage to its structure caused by explosives, fire, faulty construction etc only one force acts on it gravity which of course is straight down. Earthquakes are very different scenario, during earthquakes there is a 2nd much stronger force moving laterally which is why buildings tipping over is not uncommon.
<br>As I said in my previous post, this was not supposed to be a direct comparison (the direct comparison is the Landmark). You are correct that there is a lateral force that would encourage toppling more than usual. It would still not lessen the effect of gravity once part of the structure failed, however, as it was a different style of building suffering different stresses, as you and YID point out, I will happily remove it from the discussion - it is not necessary to my case and you have both chosen to focus on it too strongly.
The WTC building did not “suddenly lose ~90% of their effectiveness when their equilibrium was broken” they had suffered sever impact and fire damage. Equalibrium was really an issue.
<br>"Severe"? I don't think so. But in any case, are you denying that atleast 90% of each building was undamaged when it started to collapse?
| QUOTE | L’Ambiance Plaza in Connecticut
<br>Thank you. That is a very nice little example of what a real pancake collapse would be like. Unfortunately it has no relevance at all to the non-pancake, straight down collapse of WTC7, which is the focus of my arguement. Without further details about the other two collapses you cite, you have given no examples of bottom up collapses that went straight down, which is what you need to do to prove your assertion.
But back to the L'Ambiance Plaza. Let's first note that the building was "little more than halfway completed." Buildings that do not yet have a completed structure will not be as strong as they should be. Next we note that the pancaking took 5 seconds. (For comparison WTC7 took just 1.6 seconds longer despite being FOUR times higher). The free-fall time was 2.5 seconds, so this half-finished structure fell much slower than the pancake supporters require in the case of the WTC. If we apply the acceleration of the L'Ambiance to the three WTC buildings we should have got collapse times of ~ 19s for 1&2 and ~ 12s for 7. So your example actually supports the collapses of the WTC buildings being too fast.
Guest_lenbrazil
25th March 2006 - 05:26 PM
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 25 2006, 04:26 PM) lenbrazil, it's over, you lost the debateThe speed of the colapse "Slash"
The towers fell at virtual free fall speed "Slash"
The towers blew up "Slash"
No plane hit building 7 "Slash"Your theory has no arms or legs
It's time to surrender. Okay, we'll call it a draw
steve52
25th March 2006 - 05:32 PM
| QUOTE | Guest_lenbrazil,
Okay, we'll call it a draw
<br>As long as you let us pass you got a deal!
metamars
25th March 2006 - 06:40 PM
QUOTE (brian+Mar 25 2006, 04:24 PM) Can those supporting the official version of the collapses please give a reasoned quantative answer to the question raised here - http://www.911truestory.com/ProjectileMotion.wmvmetamars etc, for us non scientists - Is an answer to the source of the energy in a gravity driven collapse scenario even theoretically possible? I do not include a Reality Check type answer in theoretically possible. This was an interesting video, but one could get the idea that explosive, directional charges were set to go off at exactly 45 degrees. However, they only matched this theorectical calculation to one phase of one part of the collapsing debris. We've already discussed the fact that there is obviously upwardly pointing components of force vectors acting on some of the debris. If explosives were used as the demolition agents, the fact that the collapsing top was not a solid body - not even a stack of pancakes, but apparently extremely broken up - may have simply resulted in less shielding of an explosive discharge in the upwards direction. The answer to the question: "Is an answer to the source of the energy in a gravity driven collapse scenario even theoretically possible?" depends on how one interprets the question. From the context, I will assume you are asking "Can gravity account for the upward pointing force vectors involved?" Of course, not directly, as gravity is pointing strictly downwards. Can building materials "bounce" back up, as it collapses due to tons of crushing buildings and their contents? Intuitively, no, they can't. To convince oneself of this, I suppose one could drop concrete onto concrete, steel onto concrete, and concrete onto steel, from various heights. If you get it to bounce, do be good enough to make a video and poste it.  The answer to the question: "Is there enough gravitational potential energy to allow for a progressive, global collapse, even allowing for a local one? " certainly appears to be "Absolutely not." , and we have Gordon's paper to put the nail in that coffin. Due to the recent murder of Scholar for 911 Truth member Zebuhr, I'm somewhat more pessimistic regarding the odds of Gordon's paper being accepted for publication at it's optimal, journalistic "home", but that remains to be seen. In any event, we can still spread the word, "secret college" style, if it comes down to that (and Gordon is OK with that.) In fact, in light of the recent violence, I would recommend such a course of action. A disclaimer can be added to the paper to the effect that we live in extraordinary times, and that, under better conditions, sticking with just the formal peer review process would have been preferred. But since the violence may 1) put a damper on the willingness of the peer reviewers to honestly evaluate the paper and 2) can be interpreted as a sign of willingness to commit violent acts against other members of Scholars for 911 Truth, which we are seeking to circumnavigate, a decision has been made to circulate the paper publicly, while still seeking journal publication. As Professor Jones has taken a lot of criticism for submitting his paper to a non-optimal publication, I DO NOT RECOMMEND FOLLOWING SUIT. THE PAPER SHOULD BE STILL SUBMITTED TO AN OPTIMAL JOURNAL* I believe that this is the ideal course to take, both for Gordon's sake, and also for the sake of the world, which needs this type of information to refute the official Fairy Tales.Of course, the popes and their ilk will interpret this as a sign that Gordon is attempting to run from the peer review process, perhaps because he has no confidence in his paper, or because he is just another of those lunatic CT's.
But I don't care what the popes think, and I doubt many working structural engineers do, either. Especially those who know about the collapse of WTC 7 in about .5 seconds more than free fall time.* Herein, I admit that I'm not 100% sure what the current status of the paper is, as a draft copy was sent to me, in confidence, but that was a few weeks back. It's possible it was already accepted, judging by some of the verbiage, but I'm not sure.
Christophera
25th March 2006 - 06:46 PM
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 25 2006, 02:56 AM) Christophera, At least you have the decency to post various concepts that require some neurological activity, and you do raise some interesting points that have enough merit to discuss, as the unconscious mind does exist, if nothing else than being an underlying aspect of the mind.  Take an onion and peel it off layer by layerWhile some of the less fortunate individuals on this board can't seem to comprehend much more than a 2 dimensional world, where all that exists are one liners from the white house, there are a few people who realize that life and reality consist of many layers. Even if the subject of subconscious activity brings up many debatable issues, we cannot deny the fact that the human mind has many different layers of thought.  The folding of the $20. bill and why it's there does raise some questions, not necessarily to prove or disprove control demolition, (as that has already been proven by simple mathematics and physics), but who knows maybe there are some other mysteries going on that will some day come to light. And sometimes revelations and scientific discoveries come from the strangest of places. The scientist who discovered DNA said it came to him in a very strange dream, through what you might call symbolic form, which motivated the guy into piecing it together.  But of course the mentally handicapped don't like to discuss things that imply life is more than a one sided, 2 dimensional, one liner slogan put out by fox news, which is why all too many of them just can't handle the truth about 9/11, it causes the brain to think, and that is something the mentally handicapped aren't trained to do.  I should be kinder to yesdidit, and be more understanding of his problem Understanding does help. Many such as yessie cannot understand that fear can be unconscious. In that case it is not reasonable, or will not stand the tests of reason. Meaning that no matter what solid reasoning we generate to show demolition, their fear is so great they cannot use the information. The fears they react to are ingrained in their unconscious since childhood. Add 30 years of having media telling you that you know the truth (whatever it is) and suddenly anything that is counter to what media told you, is deemed ridiculous. Whereupon the social structure, also learned at childhood, becomes involved and all reason is abandoned as we see with those supporting the lies of 9-11. It is very true, we do not know everything about the mind.
newton
25th March 2006 - 07:55 PM
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 25 2006, 04:23 PM) you realise that's the short space, right? look at the escalator in the drawing, and match it to the escalator in the photo. you can also see on the floor that the arc of the mezzanine floor slab. or by the fact that you can see only three or four perimeter columns between the on the far wall, and match this to the drawing. the drawing perfectly matches the photos. the '17ft. thick concrete wall' is not on the drawing.
newton
25th March 2006 - 08:20 PM
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 25 2006, 03:41 PM) L’Ambiance Plaza in Connecticut The Palace II and Areia Branca in Brazil. Sorry I couldn’t find much in English about them but the photos show clearly that they fell down basically into their footprints rather than fall over. It was easier to find photos of the “Areia Branca” because it was more recent more photos can be found at the following links http://jc.uol.com.br/webcards/galeria.php?categoria=553http://www.cb.ce.gov.br/html/151004_desaba...m%20recife.htmlhttp://pe360graus.globo.com/noticias360/al...=&query=&page=1The collapse of the Palace II was photographed live because the building had become unstable the day before and the residents moved out. When it finally fell down the press was waiting http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidia...95u110838.shtmlhttp://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/cotidia...0608-palace.jpgThe collapses of these buildings mimicked the collapse of the WTC building much more than the building from Kobe. thanks tons, len brazil. you have illustrated VERY WELL that when concrete buildings fall, the resulting dust cloud does not have umpteen dozen-fold the volume of the building, and it does not have a 'cauliflower' appearence, and the building is not instantly ground into an ultrafine powder, and the dust falls down, not upwards and outwards. (sometimes i feel like this is a grade nine physics discussion. "okay class, REMEMBER, stuff falls DOWN, and not UP!") too bad they weren't steel framed buildings. but, then, had they been, they probably wouldn't have collapsed and given us such a wonderful illustration of the propensity of concrete to not instantly undergo explosive granulation.
frater plecticus
25th March 2006 - 09:59 PM
Natural philosophy or the philosophy of nature, known in Latin as philosophia naturalis, is a term applied to the objective study of nature and the physical universe before the development of modern science. It is considered the precursor of what is now called natural science, especially physics. Forms of science historically developed out of philosophy or more specifically natural philosophy. At older universities, long-established Chairs of Natural Philosophy are nowadays occupied mainly by professors of physics. Our notions of science and scientists date only to the 19th century. Before then, the word "science" simply meant knowledge and the label of scientist did not exist. Issac Newton's 1687 scientific treatise is known as The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. The term has been revived in the context of the creation-evolution controversy by those concerned that modern science does not accept supernatural explanations. Origin of the term Natural philosophy was the term whose usage preceded our current term science in the sense that prior to the replacement of the term natural philosophy with the term science, the term science was used exclusively (and comparatively rarely) as a synonym for knowledge or study and when the subject of that knowledge or study was 'the workings of nature', then the term natural philosophy would be used. Natural philosophy became science (scientia in Latin, which means "knowledge") when inductive methods of knowledge acquisition, known as the scientific method became emphasized over pure deduction. While proposals for a much more 'inquisitive' and practical approach to the study of nature originated with Francis Bacon, Robert Boyle wrote what is considered to be a seminal work on the distinction between nature and metaphysics called A Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature. This book, written in 1686, marked the point where the scene was set for natural philosophy to turn into science. It represented a radical departure from the scholasticism of the Middle Ages, and while features of natural philosophy retained some of the trappings of the elitism associated with its precursor, natural philosophy was arguably empirical while previous attempts to describe nature were not. An important distinguishing characteristic of science and natural philosophy is the fact that natural philosophers generally did not feel compelled to test their ideas in a practical way. Instead, they observed phenomena and came up with 'philosophical' conclusions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophyHasta Manyana (lesson 2) Summary Table - Logical Learning Types Learning Type Compared to Movement Nature of Flexibility Nature of Context Type of Correction Available Nature of Difference Components Required Zero Learning Static Hard-Wired, Soldered-In Signal, No Context None Detection of Difference (Data) Difference Learning I Constant Velocity Learning as Commonly Defined Context of Signal (Signal arrives with a metamessage which classifies it) Trial and Error (Correction of errors of choice within a set of alternatives) Difference Makes a Difference (Information) Difference + Context Learning II Acceleration Learning to Learn Context of Context of Signal (Signal arrives with a meta-metamessage which classifies the metamessage) Choice from a Choice of Sets of Alternatives (Change in how the sequence of experience is punctuated) Difference can Adjust the Perception of How the Difference Makes a Difference (Knowledge) Difference + Context + Pattern Learning III Rate of Acceleration Set of Learning to Learn Strategies Context of Learning II Choice from a Choice of System of Sets of Alternatives (Can cause pathogenic crisis) Perception of Different Differences in Differences which Make a Difference (Insight) Difference + Context + Pattern + MetaPattern Foot Notes lesson 2
Guest_David B. Benson
25th March 2006 - 10:10 PM
newton --- The Palace II appears to be about 25 stories high. Please compute the available potential energy and compare to the potential energy for WTC 1, 2 & 7. Big difference, yes?
I do wish somebody with some pull with the site administrators would help fix things so that I could post as a member. I did register, I did properly confirm, but when I 'log in' I am informed that I have no permission to reply. Thanks.
reasonwhy
25th March 2006 - 10:49 PM
Escaping from the elevator through the gypsum elevator wall in the bombing of 1993 shows it was not concrete:
| QUOTE | It was essential that they find fresh air, and soon. A lawyer named Rich Williams took off his undershirt and tore it into strips for people to tie around their noses and mouths. In desperation they pried the doors fully open. The wall that faced them was made of fire-resistant gypsum board two inches thick. Rinaldi, Lombardi, and Williams formed a chorus line and tried repeatedly to kick a hole through it--one, two, three!--but the wall merely flexed. Then Rinaldi remembered the wall work he had done at home, and suggested that if they scored the surface, they might be able to get the wall to break. He took out his keys and immediately started scraping. Others crowded forward to join him. Using a key ring, one of them managed to unscrew a metal access plate that could serve as a chopping tool. The emergency lighting failed, and they continued to work under the green glow from a couple of electronic beepers. Eventually they dug all the way through, breaking a small hole into what seemed by feel to be an area of pipes. Fresh air came flooding in, diminishing the smoke inside.
<a href='http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:L1_PK99N7aEJ:acephalous.typepad.com/lj101a/files/americanground.doc+%0D%0ARichard+Garlock+LERA&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:L1_PK9...en&ct=clnk&cd=7
This is consistent with the NIST report. If Christophera is really interested in the truth he will stop spamming the thread with the concrete core.
Lon Waters
25th March 2006 - 10:50 PM
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 25 2006, 10:10 PM) newton --- The Palace II appears to be about 25 stories high. Please compute the available potential energy and compare to the potential energy for WTC 1, 2 & 7. Big difference, yes?
I do wish somebody with some pull with the site administrators would help fix things so that I could post as a member. I did register, I did properly confirm, but when I 'log in' I am informed that I have no permission to reply. Thanks. You may have tried this already, but just in case, when I run in to problems with web sites it is almost always due to issues with cookies. Double check to make sure you are accepting cookies. I sometimes have problems even when I am accepting and need to clear out old cookies, you should try that as well. I obviously don't have any pull with the site admin but thought this might help, it is worth trying anyway. Regarding your reply to newton, one of the features of the WTC 1 and 2 collapses is the large volume of dust (concrete, gypsum, etc) that is created from the outset of the collapse with an upper mass that is relatively small, ~14 stories worth for WTC 1, and moving relatively slowly. Much more is created than I would expect under these circumstances for gravitational collapse alone.
newtonnjd
25th March 2006 - 10:52 PM
| QUOTE | newton --- The Palace II appears to be about 25 stories high. Please compute the available potential energy and compare to the potential energy for WTC 1, 2 & 7. Big difference, yes?
<br>Yes, and a similarly big difference in the structural strength needed to support that potential.
Whatever amount of mass you put up there, you build a structure that will support it and not let it fall easily.
Christophera
25th March 2006 - 11:18 PM
QUOTE (newton+Mar 25 2006, 07:55 PM) QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 25 2006, 04:23 PM) you realise that's the short space, right? look at the escalator in the drawing, and match it to the escalator in the photo. you can also see on the floor that the arc of the mezzanine floor slab. or by the fact that you can see only three or four perimeter columns between the on the far wall, and match this to the drawing. the drawing perfectly matches the photos. the '17ft. thick concrete wall' is not on the drawing. Hmmmm, You do have a point newton. I tried scaling, it made no sense anyway. I thought may be the wide angle lense was taking it too far out, then I thought, check for artifacts, splices. Lo and behold right up the middle. Interesting. The bottom image appears photoshopped to the max. Here is what is seen at 600x. Exactly whats been done, I can't be sure. 
Christophera
25th March 2006 - 11:57 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 25 2006, 10:49 PM) Escaping from the elevator through the gypson elevator wall in the bombing of 1993 shows it was not concrete:
| QUOTE | It was essential that they find fresh air, and soon. A lawyer named Rich Williams took off his undershirt and tore it into strips for people to tie around their noses and mouths. In desperation they pried the doors fully open. The wall that faced them was made of fire-resistant gypsum board two inches thick. Rinaldi, Lombardi, and Williams formed a chorus line and tried repeatedly to kick a hole through it--one, two, three!--but the wall merely flexed. Then Rinaldi remembered the wall work he had done at home, and suggested that if they scored the surface, they might be able to get the wall to break. He took out his keys and immediately started scraping. Others crowded forward to join him. Using a key ring, one of them managed to unscrew a metal access plate that could serve as a chopping tool. The emergency lighting failed, and they continued to work under the green glow from a couple of electronic beepers. Eventually they dug all the way through, breaking a small hole into what seemed by feel to be an area of pipes. Fresh air came flooding in, diminishing the smoke inside.
<a href='http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:L1_PK99N7aEJ:acephalous.typepad.com/lj101a/files/americanground.doc+%0D%0ARichard+Garlock+LERA&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:L1_PK9...en&ct=clnk&cd=7
This is consistent with the NIST report. If Christophera is really interested in the truth he will stop spamming the thread with the concrete core. There is no doubt that the stairwells where sheeted with gypsum separating them from elevators.
I'v seen another account where someone dug through gypsum to find concrete.
My point is, if the 47, 1,300 foot columns are not seen in this and other images, WHY.
lenbrazil
26th March 2006 - 12:09 AM
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 25 2006, 05:32 PM) | QUOTE | Guest_lenbrazil,
Okay, we'll call it a draw
<br>As long as you let us pass you got a deal! Note that the person who wrote that was a guest I never wrote it was some BS imposter.
lenbrazil
26th March 2006 - 12:18 AM
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 25 2006, 11:57 PM) QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 25 2006, 10:49 PM) Escaping from the elevator through the gypson elevator wall in the bombing of 1993 shows it was not concrete:
| QUOTE | It was essential that they find fresh air, and soon. A lawyer named Rich Williams took off his undershirt and tore it into strips for people to tie around their noses and mouths. In desperation they pried the doors fully open. The wall that faced them was made of fire-resistant gypsum board two inches thick. Rinaldi, Lombardi, and Williams formed a chorus line and tried repeatedly to kick a hole through it--one, two, three!--but the wall merely flexed. Then Rinaldi remembered the wall work he had done at home, and suggested that if they scored the surface, they might be able to get the wall to break. He took out his keys and immediately started scraping. Others crowded forward to join him. Using a key ring, one of them managed to unscrew a metal access plate that could serve as a chopping tool. The emergency lighting failed, and they continued to work under the green glow from a couple of electronic beepers. Eventually they dug all the way through, breaking a small hole into what seemed by feel to be an area of pipes. Fresh air came flooding in, diminishing the smoke inside.
<a href='http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:L1_PK99N7aEJ:acephalous.typepad.com/lj101a/files/americanground.doc+%0D%0ARichard+Garlock+LERA&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:L1_PK9...en&ct=clnk&cd=7
This is consistent with the NIST report. If Christophera is really interested in the truth he will stop spamming the thread with the concrete core.
There is no doubt that the stairwells where sheeted with gypsum separating them from elevators.
I'v seen another account where someone dug through gypsum to find concrete.
My point is, if the 47, 1,300 foot columns are not seen in this and other images, WHY.
<br>There weren't any concrete walsl in the core. Where did you get this 17 foot core nonsense from? There is a similar story of people escaping and elevator on 9/11 when it got stuck between floors. They were able to break through the drywall with a squeege. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html
If you've "seen another account where someone dug through gypsum to find concrete" quote it and post a link
You can't see any columns because they collapsed.
steve52
26th March 2006 - 12:21 AM
| QUOTE | Christophera
My point is, if the 47, 1,300 foot columns are not seen in this and other images, WHY.
<br>They were either blown to smitherings with explosives,
or
They magically disappeared
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 12:42 AM
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 26 2006, 12:18 AM) QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 25 2006, 11:57 PM) QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 25 2006, 10:49 PM) Escaping from the elevator through the gypson elevator wall in the bombing of 1993 shows it was not concrete:
| QUOTE | It was essential that they find fresh air, and soon. A lawyer named Rich Williams took off his undershirt and tore it into strips for people to tie around their noses and mouths. In desperation they pried the doors fully open. The wall that faced them was made of fire-resistant gypsum board two inches thick. Rinaldi, Lombardi, and Williams formed a chorus line and tried repeatedly to kick a hole through it--one, two, three!--but the wall merely flexed. Then Rinaldi remembered the wall work he had done at home, and suggested that if they scored the surface, they might be able to get the wall to break. He took out his keys and immediately started scraping. Others crowded forward to join him. Using a key ring, one of them managed to unscrew a metal access plate that could serve as a chopping tool. The emergency lighting failed, and they continued to work under the green glow from a couple of electronic beepers. Eventually they dug all the way through, breaking a small hole into what seemed by feel to be an area of pipes. Fresh air came flooding in, diminishing the smoke inside.
<a href='http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:L1_PK99N7aEJ:acephalous.typepad.com/lj101a/files/americanground.doc+%0D%0ARichard+Garlock+LERA&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:L1_PK9...en&ct=clnk&cd=7
This is consistent with the NIST report. If Christophera is really interested in the truth he will stop spamming the thread with the concrete core.
There is no doubt that the stairwells where sheeted with gypsum separating them from elevators.
I'v seen another account where someone dug through gypsum to find concrete.
My point is, if the 47, 1,300 foot columns are not seen in this and other images, WHY.
<br>There weren't any concrete walsl in the core. Where did you get this 17 foot core nonsense from? There is a similar story of people escaping and elevator on 9/11 when it got stuck between floors. They were able to break through the drywall with a squeege. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html
If you've "seen another account where someone dug through gypsum to find concrete" quote it and post a link
You can't see any columns because they collapsed.
If the interior box columns are standing and the stairwell is standing the steel core columns inside the stairwell area should be somewhat intact, We see none. We see none to the right of the core where there should be the steel core columns, if they existed.
Then, what is that thick grey zone between the interior box column and the stairwell.
Foxx
26th March 2006 - 01:18 AM
| QUOTE | Originally posted by reasonwhy
Escaping from the elevator through the gypson elevator wall in the bombing of 1993 shows it was not concrete: ...
This is consistent with the NIST report. If Christophera is really interested in the truth he will stop spamming the thread with the concrete core.
<br>I concur. It is bad enough that we need put up with the repetitious drivel of the sophistry of the likes of lenbrazil, (and many other CTers before him), but at least they announce their allegiance to the NIST fairy tale, so it is plain to see their bias.
Those like Jayhan, Tannenbaum, and 'Christophera' do more damage to the truth (while pretending they support truth) than obvious gov't shills.
Just like it was not ABSOLUTELY clear whether the Schneibster was just a deranged lunatic, OR a paid disinformationist - the same is true about Christophera.
Every photo which he has put forward to support the lunacy of this concrete core theory has been debunked... (or at least shown to be not 'evidence' of that which he purports it to be).
Any rational and intelligent person can admit to being wrong - (no one is a 'pope' - except the many 'popes' who have entertained us previously on this thread).
Christophera (for some reason) just does not accept absolute proof that 'his theory' is in error...
...such as the excavation photo which clearly shows steel core columns (while at the same time) does NOT show his pet 17 ft thick concrete box core boogie woogie...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Core001.jpg
Again with the photo below...(which he somehow claims is evidence of the 17' thick concrete box)...
http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc...000_lobby_s.jpg
I have already pointed out that the scale of the photo is consistent with NIST drawings of the Core.
The ground floor lobby was 5 stories high (60 ft ?)... the distance between the short side of the core and the perimeter columns was ~ 35 feet.
Measure it out... and anyone can determine that the photo is consistent with NIST (and other) drawings of the floor plans --- which ALL show steel columns within the core.... and NO 17 ft thick concrete wall.
Look again at the lobby photo... The windows between the massive tree columns were 10 feet wide !!!
Now, count the number of windows showing on the end wall, add in the widths of the massive columns and AGAIN you come up with about 35 feet between the core wall and the perimeter wall. This is point-blank obvious to anyone who is even semi-rational.
Yet STILL Christophera persists in attempting to proclaim that the lobby photos show evidence of a 17' thick concrete wall !!! ??!!!
The photo he is fond of posting...
is also highly suspect (and akin to 'pod photos')...
As I have said before, I have blown it up to the point it begins to pixelate and the dark image / object (that he claims is 'evidence' of a concrete core) is very nebulous, and my opinion is that it is nothing more than a lingering dust cloud... HOWEVER...
... Just for our fine feathered friends sake, let's assume that what we are seeing is remnants of the 'core' which stood for a few seconds before disappearing...
Still, this is NO evidence of a concrete core. It would appear as the same dark object even if it had gyprock walls still intact (which would block the view of the inner steel columns).
The insistence of Christopheras 'sticking to his delusion guns' on this issue MUST really become suspect in view of all of the above... and any seeker of truth must begin to question whether the poster behind the 'Christophera' handle is just another delusional Schneibster (so wrapped up in his own delusions that he can not let go of them) OR...
Does this 'poster' have an agenda which is contrary to seeking the actual truth, and have a purpose to disrupt the seeking of truth by posting absolute bizarro BS that no one in their right mind can believe... yet such propositions FEED the shill perception that ALL 'CTers' are just as wacky as this loon, and provides them with a straw-man to knock down... in an attempt to discredit the whole 9/11 truth movement by association ?
Whose 'side' does 'Christophera' represent?
In my opinion, he certainly DOES NOT represent the intelligent 9/11 truth movement, but fits quite nicely with the Jayhans, and Tannenbaums, and 'WebFairies' (whom I believe are shill 'plants'), sent out to discredit the movement with their lunacy.
Foxx
26th March 2006 - 02:48 AM
| QUOTE | posted by Yid
Awww, Fox, I tend to have you on ignore. You remember ignore don't you.
Sorry I did not read your post.
<br>Ahhh yes, YID... I also have used the 'ignore' function, so, I forgive you for not addressing the facts I presented - you were just 'caught-up' in other issues - right?
Quote:..."yes my position is that this firefighter never mentions anything about the conditions above the 78th floor, the lowest impact floor. Am I incorrect in that?"
Yes you are correct there, Yid. As he was reporting from the 78th floor (moments before the unexpected collapse), he did NOT reach the higher floors before his life was terminated by circumstances unforseen by him.
"I have been speaking to the Charlie Sheen and paper money subjects specifically because I have addressed all the other issues before(with the exception of the Landmark which I also did address and will further address later)".
OK, great... when do you expect to address my previous posts of the factual evidence related to the 'alleged' infernos burning on floors above his position (and which I provided graphic photo-documentary evidence of...) ?
Quote: "I see that you are completely ignoring the fact that I did not bring up either Charlie Sheen or folding money. Others did. I am now being attacked for addressing two new issues on this thread. If you don't want non-physics issues brought into the discussion then perhaps those who bring them up should be told to stay on topic by you and others who those posters might listen to.
Pfftttt... get real, Yid. I was not 'attacking you' for not responding... I merely pointed out that you had a choice of which topics to respond to, and you chose the 'easiest'.
I don't blame you for taking the easy way out.
It doesn't matter WHO first brought up a certain topic... (my understanding is that we each have a choice as to which topic to respond to). Also, please note that I am NOT any kind of 'moderator' so my preferences regarding topics have no bearing whatsoever on the thread. Like you... I'm just a poster here, and have no influence on what the 'rules' should be. Please don't imply that I have sway over what anyone else posts. These threads are made up of individuals who do NOT see anyone else as their 'leader' ...
(at least not from the 'clown car' perspective) - it might be different in the 'murderer-car' ?
Quote: - I have , on many occasions complained about non-science issues being brought up here. I have been told that they are relevant and that I am just trying to shut down debate, that I am a lover of secrets. This time I instead went with it and now you and others are weeping that I am attacking straw men. Too bad so sad, your comrades made that bed and now you and others are avoiding lieing on it.
You are copping-out, YID. Non-science issues will always overlap on these threads... so what? If YOU, wish to be an objective scientific observer / responder it is easy enough to 'blink-out' the 'fluff', and address the real issues... is it NOT ???
Personally, I don't have a problem in assimilating the folding money thingie... it's an oddity... it's a fact... what can I say?... however (as you claim to be MORE Interested in material sciences aspects) why not leave those 'mysterious' aspects aside... and address the real-world (material sciences aspects --- as I presented)?
Quote: "As far as I am concerned the issue of the folding money is settled. It is no more than the human brain's propensity to attempt to make sense of patterns by comparing them with experiences. It is completely irrelevant and bears absolutly no significance to the issue of 9/11. Good night and thanks for playing the Woo-Woo game.
I don't wish to argue with you on your above perspective... but perhaps after resting over the weekend, you might consider making some kind of response to the NIST photos (I provided in my earlier post) which do NOT show 'raging infernos' on the floors above the 78th (reached by NYFD) ???
What say you?
Or... does it suit your purposes better to keep me on 'ignore' ???
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 03:08 AM
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 26 2006, 12:21 AM) | QUOTE | Christophera
My point is, if the 47, 1,300 foot columns are not seen in this and other images, WHY.
<br>They were either blown to smitherings with explosives,
or
They magically disappeared
<br>
Well that seems as if it could be partially right, at least within a rational analysis of the official account attempting to explain 2, 1,300 foot towers coming down identically in a sequence backwards from the impacts/fire supposedly causing their demise. Definately a fairy tail.
Now the notion of cutting 47, 1300 foot columns with explosives sounds good when trying to rationally fit free fall into the equation, when you bring in the event we saw, it doesn't add up. The steel core columns were never there, this I know from a documentary I watched in 1990 that spent an hour + mostly detailing the construction of the concrete core, or aspect of the steel and the core connecting.
But that notion of cutting those 47 columns inside the core as many times as required to make them disappear within the free fall scenario, does not add up within the visual event.
If you know about cutting steel with high explosives then you know that it is very inefficient unless you use shape charges. With box tubing, all 4 sides must have contact with the shape charge. Without them, huge overloading must be done and very ragged column ends would result. Unconstrained high explosives make very loud sharp cracks, what people heard was a constant, high speed series of detonations that were muffled.
In the above image, if tempered steel were not cut in very constrained conditions, not possible after construction, then the horizontal travel of large shrapnel would be 4-5 times more. The visual character would be totally different.
I assert there were 47 interior box columns, every bit as large as they say, but they were not inside the core, they surrounded the core which was a cast concrete tube using high tensile steel rebar.
http://concretecore.741.com/
Foxx
26th March 2006 - 03:23 AM
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 26 2006, 03:08 AM) QUOTE (steve52+Mar 26 2006, 12:21 AM) | QUOTE | Christophera
My point is, if the 47, 1,300 foot columns are not seen in this and other images, WHY.
<br>They were either blown to smitherings with explosives,
or
They magically disappeared
<br>
Well that seems as if it could be partially right, at least within a rational analysis of the official account attempting to explain 2, 1,300 foot towers coming down identically in a sequence backwards from the impacts/fire supposedly causing their demise. Definately a fairy tail.
Now the notion of cutting 47, 1300 foot columns with explosives sounds good when trying to rationally fit free fall into the equation, when you bring in the event we saw, it doesn't add up. The steel core columns were never there, this I know from a documentary I watched in 1990 that spent an hour + mostly detailing the construction of the concrete core, or aspect of the steel and the core connecting.
But that notion of cutting those 47 columns inside the core as many times as required to make them disappear within the free fall scenario, does not add up within the visual event.
If you know about cutting steel with high explosives then you know that it is very inefficient unless you use shape charges. With box tubing, all 4 sides must have contact with the shape charge. Without them, huge overloading must be done and very ragged column ends would result. Unconstrained high explosives make very loud sharp cracks, what people heard was a constant, high speed series of detonations that were muffled.
In the above image, if tempered steel were not cut in very constrained conditions, not possible after construction, then the horizontal travel of large shrapnel would be 4-5 times more. The visual character would be totally different.
I assert there were 47 interior box columns, every bit as large as they say, but they were not inside the core, they surrounded the core which was a cast concrete tube using high tensile steel rebar.
http://concretecore.741.com/ More delusional misinformation.
Christophera... you are sounding MORE like a gov't disinformationist with each subsequent post.
Maybe we should take a poll?
Is 'Christophera' delusional? OR...
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 03:24 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 26 2006, 01:18 AM) Christophera (for some reason) just does not accept absolute proof that 'his theory' is in error... ...such as the excavation photo which clearly shows steel core columns (while at the same time) does NOT show his pet 17 ft thick concrete box core boogie woogie... http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/Core001.jpgAgain with the photo below...(which he somehow claims is evidence of the 17' thick concrete box)... http://www.wirednewyork.com/wtc/images/wtc...000_lobby_s.jpgI have already pointed out that the scale of the photo is consistent with NIST drawings of the Core. The ground floor lobby was 5 stories high (60 ft ?)... the distance between the short side of the core and the perimeter columns was ~ 35 feet. Measure it out... and anyone can determine that the photo is consistent with NIST (and other) drawings of the floor plans --- which ALL show steel columns within the core.... and NO 17 ft thick concrete wall. Look again at the lobby photo... The windows between the massive tree columns were 10 feet wide !!! Now, count the number of windows showing on the end wall, add in the widths of the massive columns and AGAIN you come up with about 35 feet between the core wall and the perimeter wall. This is point-blank obvious to anyone who is even semi-rational. Yet STILL Christophera persists in attempting to proclaim that the lobby photos show evidence of a 17' thick concrete wall !!! ??!!! The photo he is fond of posting... is also highly suspect (and akin to 'pod photos')... As I have said before, I have blown it up to the point it begins to pixelate and the dark image / object (that he claims is 'evidence' of a concrete core) is very nebulous, and my opinion is that it is nothing more than a lingering dust cloud... HOWEVER... ... Just for our fine feathered friends sake, let's assume that what we are seeing is remnants of the 'core' which stood for a few seconds before disappearing... Still, this is NO evidence of a concrete core. It would appear as the same dark object even if it had gyprock walls still intact (which would block the view of the inner steel columns). <br> Still insisting drywall can stand hundreds of thousands of tons of steel falling past it. Whoa, not only are you delusional, you expect others to buy into it. I explain here, http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.htmlwhat happened to the concrete, so I expect no concrete to show, but here, one piece of the core wall did not detonate.  The core walls are UP TO 17 feet thick at the base. That I believe was on the long axis which would make about an 8 foot think wall on the short end. So the dimension still works. You still haven't explained why the 47, 1,300 foot columns are not seen in photos.
Foxx
26th March 2006 - 03:33 AM
| QUOTE | posted by 'Algoxy/Christophera'
The steel core columns were never there, this I know from a documentary I watched in 1990 that spent an hour + mostly detailing the construction of the concrete core, or aspect of the steel and the core connecting.
<br>A 'documentary' that coincidentally no one else in the world ever saw?... and there exists absolutely NO evidence that this 'alleged' documentary ever existed (except in the delusional world of concrete-lovers).
Geez, 'Christophera'... NO ONE (from either car) is buying this sh1t. WHY do you keep trying to sell it?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | posted by 'Algoxy/Christophera'
The steel core columns were never there, this I know from a documentary I watched in 1990 that spent an hour + mostly detailing the construction of the concrete core, or aspect of the steel and the core connecting.
<br>A 'documentary' that coincidentally no one else in the world ever saw?... and there exists absolutely NO evidence that this 'alleged' documentary ever existed (except in the delusional world of concrete-lovers).
Geez, 'Christophera'... NO ONE (from either car) is buying this sh1t. WHY do you keep trying to sell it?
If I state it enough... MAYBE SOMEONE will believe my BS?
You still haven't explained why the 47, 1,300 foot columns are not seen in photos.
<br>I have explained 'WHY' numerous times (the latest is in my post above)... it's all in the record for anyone to see.
Get a grip on reality...Schneibster-Chistophera.
Seek Help !
Foxx
26th March 2006 - 04:00 AM
| QUOTE | by Algoxy/Chistophera
Interesting. The bottom image appears photoshopped to the max. Here is what is seen at 600x. Exactly whats been done, I can't be sure.
<br>Well, I'm not surprised that you "can't be sure".
The 600x blow-up tells us NOTHING.
Very reminiscent of 'pod photo blow-ups' though....
(or security cam images of alleged deviant muslims walking through airport check-points)... very CLEAR, indeed!
Great investigative work there, algoxy !!!
reasonwhy
26th March 2006 - 05:28 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 25 2006, 07:23 PM)
Is 'Christophera' delusional? OR... You have to admit Christophera is a brilliant idea on the murder car side. They loss all credibility with the regulars so they bring in Christophera. His theory is so impossible (17 foot thick core) with absolutely no evidence to back it up that the clown car has to waste time on his nonsense. He post's on other forums that unsubstantiated theories are a problem for the truth movement then proceeds to prove it. Christophera started spamming (50 pictures of the supposedly concrete core in less then 150 pages) when the other spammer (common sense) left.
Foxx
26th March 2006 - 06:02 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 26 2006, 05:28 AM) QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 25 2006, 07:23 PM)
Is 'Christophera' delusional? OR... You have to admit Christophera is a brilliant idea on the murder car side. They loss all credibility with the regulars so they bring in Christophera. His theory is so impossible (17 foot thick core) with absolutely no evidence to back it up that the clown car has to waste time on his nonsense. He post's on other forums that unsubstantiated theories are a problem for the truth movement then proceeds to prove it. Christophera started spamming (50 pictures of the supposedly concrete core in less then 150 pages) when the other spammer (common sense) left. I agree...but... 'brilliant' - ONLY in a limited sense. Some will see past this delusion... (most of the truth-seekers here). I find it absolutely 'Amazing'... the lengths these disinformationists will go to... ...to circumvent 'truth'... mind you - anyone prepared to commit mass-murder to promote their 'ends' are quite beyond normal human logic, and find ways to circumvent that logic... IE - the philosophy of the 'murderer car'. I am thankful to be associated with the 'clown car' As a wise man sayeth..."SeptemberGate is Coming" The truth WILL BE revealed... (the writing is upon the wall and is being more revealed with each passing day) Cheers.
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 07:41 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 26 2006, 03:23 AM) QUOTE (steve52+Mar 26 2006, 12:21 AM) | QUOTE | Christophera
Well that seems as if it could be partially right, at least within a rational analysis of the official account attempting to explain 2, 1,300 foot towers coming down identically in a sequence backwards from the impacts/fire supposedly causing their demise. Definately a fairy tail.
Now the notion of cutting 47, 1300 foot columns with explosives sounds good when trying to rationally fit free fall into the equation, when you bring in the event we saw, it doesn't add up. The steel core columns were never there, this I know from a documentary I watched in 1990 that spent an hour + mostly detailing the construction of the concrete core, or aspect of the steel and the core connecting.
But that notion of cutting those 47 columns inside the core as many times as required to make them disappear within the free fall scenario, does not add up within the visual event.
If you know about cutting steel with high explosives then you know that it is very inefficient unless you use shape charges. With box tubing, all 4 sides must have contact with the shape charge. Without them, huge overloading must be done and very ragged column ends would result. Unconstrained high explosives make very loud sharp cracks, what people heard was a constant, high speed series of detonations that were muffled.
In the above image, if tempered steel were not cut in very constrained conditions, not possible after construction, then the horizontal travel of large shrapnel would be 4-5 times more. The visual character would be totally different.
I assert there were 47 interior box columns, every bit as large as they say, but they were not inside the core, they surrounded the core which was a cast concrete tube using high tensile steel rebar.
<br>http://concretecore.741.com/
More delusional misinformation.
Christophera... you are sounding MORE like a gov't disinformationist with each subsequent post.
Maybe we should take a poll?
Is 'Christophera' delusional? OR...
But, ......... you haven't shown us why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are not seen. That is the basis of your whole theory, right? Could it be you are not sincere about the truth? You have no evidence, except lies from liars like NIST and FEMA. In fact there is major raw evidence disproving the steel core column fallacy.
Look! Not one core column inside the core. Not one!
No, the below is not inside the core. That is outside the core.
reasonwhy
26th March 2006 - 07:57 AM
| QUOTE | To get away with crimes,
pretend to be a crime fighter
By Eric Hufschmid
11 Oct 2005
updated 21 Oct 2005
Give conspiracy theories a bad image
Joe could turn some people away from the few honest web sites by giving a bad image to the people who claim Joe is a criminal. Joe could pay his friends to post ridiculous theories in order to make the message boards look like they are dominated by people with mental disorders.
For example, one of Joe's friends could post a photograph that shows a blurry, mysterious object in the sky above Joe's car. The object is a bird that is out of focus, but Joe's friend tries to encourage people to believe that it might be an alien spacecraft, and that perhaps the aliens stole your car for their museum of human technology.
Another of Joe's criminal friends could announce that he heard from a reliable source that your car was picked up by the police along the Polish-Austrian border.
By flooding the message boards with stupid and deceptive messages, the honest messages are lost in the nonsense. Some of the honest citizens who look at the message board will be so overwhelmed by the nonsense that they ignore the issue.
<a href='http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_Hufschmid11Oct2005.htm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_Hufschmid11Oct2005.htm
This explains why Christophera posts his ridiculous theories.
Coastal
26th March 2006 - 08:57 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 26 2006, 04:00 AM) | QUOTE | by Algoxy/Chistophera
Interesting. The bottom image appears photoshopped to the max. Here is what is seen at 600x. Exactly whats been done, I can't be sure.
<br>Well, I'm not surprised that you "can't be sure".
The 600x blow-up tells us NOTHING.
Very reminiscent of 'pod photo blow-ups' though....
(or security cam images of alleged deviant muslims walking through airport check-points)... very CLEAR, indeed!
Great investigative work there, algoxy !!!
<b>Somebody call David Icke!!!
It's the goddam lizard people!
I knew they were behind it all along.
shhh....
Coastal
26th March 2006 - 09:05 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 26 2006, 02:48 AM)
If YOU, wish to be an objective scientific observer / responder it is easy enough to 'blink-out' the 'fluff', and address the real issues... is it NOT ???
<br>Says Foxx..... ..... immediately prior to writing two pages 'debunking' the 'concrete core theory'! Priceless! 
newton
26th March 2006 - 09:31 AM
QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 25 2006, 10:10 PM) newton --- The Palace II appears to be about 25 stories high. Please compute the available potential energy and compare to the potential energy for WTC 1, 2 & 7. Big difference, yes?
the question of scale does not signifigantly change the similiarities and differences. i'm thinking in relative terms, when i say the cloud is smaller. if it was similiar to the towers, you would not see the bottom halves of the surrounding buildings. you cannot compare the dynamics of a concrete building collapse(concrete is brittle) with a steel framed building collapse(more ductile). you CAN compare the ratios of the buildings height to it's dust cloud size and shape changes. someone else already pointed out that the exploding dust cloud of the twin towers began at the outset of the collapse, when there WERE only ten storeys falling. it would be pointless to plug in numbers. i prefer to deal with what is verifiable, be it ever so vague. a crisp definition that the sky is green is unrealistic, and in my experience, non-existant. compute it yourself, if you think it has meaning. i have one calculation that moots all others, regarding 911. tower seven fell in 6.5 seconds with classic demolition symmetry.
lenbrazil
26th March 2006 - 03:15 PM
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 26 2006, 03:33 AM) | QUOTE | posted by 'Algoxy/Christophera'
The steel core columns were never there, this I know from a documentary I watched in 1990 that spent an hour + mostly detailing the construction of the concrete core, or aspect of the steel and the core connecting.
<br>A 'documentary' that coincidentally no one else in the world ever saw?... and there exists absolutely NO evidence that this 'alleged' documentary ever existed
I gotta go with Foxx on this one. He reminds me of the nut case who I met who insisted he saw the Sex Pistols show at Madison Square Garden in NYC. The problem is they never played there, they never were scheduled to play NYC and if they had would have played a smaller venue. These arguments didn't dissuade him.
Christophera give up already, you're either crazy or playing some silly prank.
I took a look at your cite. It's not at all convincing. You claim that all those quotes about the core are from engineers but in reality only 1 or 2 are. They are simply in error. I googled "world trade center" +core and got 1,830,000 hits even if only 1/1000 of those mistakenly say the core was concrete that would give you nearly 2000 pages to support you lunatic theory.
I think I can speak for every one else on this board, "shut up already"!!!!
P.S. Leslie Robertson was the lead engineer NOT the architect of the towers. Someone who claims to know so much about them should know that.
lenbrazil
26th March 2006 - 03:33 PM
QUOTE (newton+Mar 26 2006, 09:31 AM) QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 25 2006, 10:10 PM) newton --- The Palace II appears to be about 25 stories high. Please compute the available potential energy and compare to the potential energy for WTC 1, 2 & 7. Big difference, yes?
the question of scale does not signifigantly change the similiarities and differences. i'm thinking in relative terms, when i say the cloud is smaller. if it was similiar to the towers, you would not see the bottom halves of the surrounding buildings. you cannot compare the dynamics of a concrete building collapse(concrete is brittle) with a steel framed building collapse(more ductile). you CAN compare the ratios of the buildings height to it's dust cloud size and shape changes. someone else already pointed out that the exploding dust cloud of the twin towers began at the outset of the collapse, when there WERE only ten storeys falling. it would be pointless to plug in numbers. i prefer to deal with what is verifiable, be it ever so vague. a crisp definition that the sky is green is unrealistic, and in my experience, non-existant. compute it yourself, if you think it has meaning. i have one calculation that moots all others, regarding 911. tower seven fell in 6.5 seconds with classic demolition symmetry. The question isn't as simple as relative height but also relates to total mass and most importantly mass per floor. Each floor took up an acre of floor space much larger than your typical Brazilian apartment building. Each floor of the WTC would have struck the one below it which much more force than in the PalaceII. The WTC was also of totally different construction including drywalls, asbestos fireproofing and IIRC dropped ceilings, materials which would produce a lot of dust when crushed. You guys always say how closely the WTC collapse resembles CD. Got any pix or video of CD with a similarly large dust cloud?
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 04:13 PM
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 26 2006, 03:15 PM) QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 26 2006, 03:33 AM) | QUOTE | posted by 'Algoxy/Christophera'
The steel core columns were never there, this I know from a documentary I watched in 1990 that spent an hour + mostly detailing the construction of the concrete core, or aspect of the steel and the core connecting.
<br>A 'documentary' that coincidentally no one else in the world ever saw?... and there exists absolutely NO evidence that this 'alleged' documentary ever existed
I gotta go with Foxx on this one. He reminds me of the nut case who I met who insisted he saw the Sex Pistols show at Madison Square Garden in NYC. The problem is they never played there, they never were scheduled to play NYC and if they had would have played a smaller venue. These arguments didn't dissuade him.
Christophera give up already, you're either crazy or playing some silly prank.
I took a look at your cite. It's not at all convincing. You claim that all those quotes about the core are from engineers but in reality only 1 or 2 are. They are simply in error. I googled "world trade center" +core and got 1,830,000 hits even if only 1/1000 of those mistakenly say the core was concrete that would give you nearly 2000 pages to support you lunatic theory.
I think I can speak for every one else on this board, "shut up already"!!!!
P.S. Leslie Robertson was the lead engineer NOT the architect of the towers. Someone who claims to know so much about them should know that.
<br>Hmmmmm, there were so many engineers, and Yamasaki is the one that designed the concrete core, so your point is meaningless. Particuarly since you have not explained why no steel core columns are seen in the images below nor have you explained how tempered steel columns free fall.
It seems you are unable to support the existence of multiple steel core columns in any way whatsoever with raw evidence, and this is needed.
Free fall happened, and no theory that DOES NOT explain that can be accepted. Your steel columned core does not and you also cannot show with raw evidence that the steel core columns existed. Basically, a person a person with a brain that thinks there was a steel core, has no reason to think, except that you and some others say so.
I have a silohuette of something that IS the core, and it is so strong that hundreds of thousands of tons of heavy steel debris has fallen past it, and it stilll stands.
I have elements of steel so fine that they cannot be seen standing alone at the distance seen here where they are only seen because there are hundreds of them. They logically cannot be anything but rebar. [hint, add this factor to the above, "can only be concrete" and you have 2 absolutes]
And to show their size I have another image taken a second before from the same camera at the same distance of 14 inch x 2'+- interior box column attached to the outside of the concrete core wall.
So the case for the concrete core is a done deal from a rational perspective utilizing raw information. But, ............... perhaps you do not use information either and actually work with others to make valid information go away.
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 04:18 PM
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 26 2006, 03:33 PM) QUOTE (newton+Mar 26 2006, 09:31 AM) QUOTE (Guest_David B. Benson+Mar 25 2006, 10:10 PM) newton --- The Palace II appears to be about 25 stories high. Please compute the available potential energy and compare to the potential energy for WTC 1, 2 & 7. Big difference, yes?
the question of scale does not signifigantly change the similiarities and differences. i'm thinking in relative terms, when i say the cloud is smaller. if it was similiar to the towers, you would not see the bottom halves of the surrounding buildings. you cannot compare the dynamics of a concrete building collapse(concrete is brittle) with a steel framed building collapse(more ductile). you CAN compare the ratios of the buildings height to it's dust cloud size and shape changes. someone else already pointed out that the exploding dust cloud of the twin towers began at the outset of the collapse, when there WERE only ten storeys falling. it would be pointless to plug in numbers. i prefer to deal with what is verifiable, be it ever so vague. a crisp definition that the sky is green is unrealistic, and in my experience, non-existant. compute it yourself, if you think it has meaning. i have one calculation that moots all others, regarding 911. tower seven fell in 6.5 seconds with classic demolition symmetry. The question isn't as simple as relative height but also relates to total mass and most importantly mass per floor. Each floor took up an acre of floor space much larger than your typical Brazilian apartment building. Each floor of the WTC would have struck the one below it which much more force than in the PalaceII. The WTC was also of totally different construction including drywalls, asbestos fireproofing and IIRC dropped ceilings, materials which would produce a lot of dust when crushed. You guys always say how closely the WTC collapse resembles CD. Got any pix or video of CD with a similarly large dust cloud? There you go again. Pretending you can provide a competent analysis of how the towers fell WITHOUT explaining how the towers 47 steel core columns can be removed as support instantly, enabling free fall. The floors did not hold the building up.
Common Sense
26th March 2006 - 04:21 PM
The guy on the right is obviously a very tall government robot. Look at his legs! HEHEHE!  This is a HOOT!
steve52
26th March 2006 - 04:35 PM
Christophera,  Regarding the exact types of charges that were used is something that Foxx, Gordon, and other more scientifically inclined people might be able to shed light on, as when I posted that cartoon of simple dynamite, it was only to suggest that the OBVIOUS, that some type of controlled explosive device must have been used, at least in accordance with the laws of physics and reality. I'm sure that if anyone wanted to take the time, they could easily do a google search or go to a million websites that discuss the different types of RDX, C-4, shape charges and multitudes of other explosives specifically designed for control demolition that would explain why the columns disappeared. There are obviously many things about the control demolition that are not known to many of us on this board, as well as much other information, but the fact of the matter is that there are many things that are known, and many things that are obvious. So it's my intention to start with what we do know, (within the laws of physics, gravity and reality) and go from there, and all the while being careful not to be SIDE TRACKED off into fairy tales, such as the ones the administration and NIST report tries to pawn off. People can say what they want about Charlie Sheen, and say he's not a structural engineer, or control demolition expert, however I thought he raised some very valid and honest and correct points in that if we do another investigation of what really happened it is imperative that the people doing the investigation are not biased, I mean look at the 9/11 commission report. It's like having the wolf guard the hen house. Now, in all reality, I can't really say whether it would be possible to find people who are un-biased or un-influenced or who are susceptible to being influenced through lots of money and/or threats, but the point is an honest investigation will undoubtedly reveal much different reports as a dishonest one.
reasonwhy
26th March 2006 - 04:58 PM
QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 26 2006, 07:33 AM)
You guys always say how closely the WTC collapse resembles CD. Got any pix or video of CD with a similarly large dust cloud?
Watch the video , the building produce's a large dust cloud:     http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/jlhudson.mpgAlso look at the shape of the clouds of dust produced. Does it look similar?
reasonwhy
26th March 2006 - 05:02 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 25 2006, 11:57 PM) | QUOTE | To get away with crimes,
pretend to be a crime fighter
By Eric Hufschmid
11 Oct 2005
updated 21 Oct 2005
Give conspiracy theories a bad image
Joe could turn some people away from the few honest web sites by giving a bad image to the people who claim Joe is a criminal. Joe could pay his friends to post ridiculous theories in order to make the message boards look like they are dominated by people with mental disorders.
For example, one of Joe's friends could post a photograph that shows a blurry, mysterious object in the sky above Joe's car. The object is a bird that is out of focus, but Joe's friend tries to encourage people to believe that it might be an alien spacecraft, and that perhaps the aliens stole your car for their museum of human technology.
Another of Joe's criminal friends could announce that he heard from a reliable source that your car was picked up by the police along the Polish-Austrian border.
By flooding the message boards with stupid and deceptive messages, the honest messages are lost in the nonsense. Some of the honest citizens who look at the message board will be so overwhelmed by the nonsense that they ignore the issue.
<a href='http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_Hufschmid11Oct2005.htm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_Hufschmid11Oct2005.htm
This explains why Christophera posts his ridiculous theories.
Christophera has now spammed the thread 52 times with a blurry, mysterious object. Giving the same explanation every time he posts the photo.
He claims it is not possible to cut the core box columns then claims there are interior box columns outside the concrete core that were cut.
reasonwhy
26th March 2006 - 05:26 PM
I have been thinking about the exterior columns being a good shield for the flashes from a controlled demolition. If you were not at a perfect angle from a distance, you would not be able to see the flashes. This could explain why people close to the building report seeing flashes and cameras farther away at an angle do not.
reasonwhy
26th March 2006 - 05:46 PM
edited to remove post
steve52
26th March 2006 - 06:06 PM
| QUOTE | reasonwhy
According to reports, the device appeared to be a replica of the famed "Fat Man" nuclear bomb.
<img src='http://skaneateles.org/images/mk6.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
Oh my God!!! I guess we should all bow our heads and give thanks that little GW saved this nation once again for another terror attack.
newtonnjd
26th March 2006 - 07:09 PM
Regarding the strange idea that there was a concrete core, take a look at this collapse video from 9/11 Eyewitness: http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmvThis video shows that the supposedly "solid" core that Christophera keeps posting a picture of is actually just columns with dark smoke/dust filling in the gaps to make it appear solid.
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 07:11 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 26 2006, 05:02 PM) QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 25 2006, 11:57 PM) | QUOTE | To get away with crimes,
pretend to be a crime fighter
By Eric Hufschmid
11 Oct 2005
updated 21 Oct 2005
Give conspiracy theories a bad image
Joe could turn some people away from the few honest web sites by giving a bad image to the people who claim Joe is a criminal. Joe could pay his friends to post ridiculous theories in order to make the message boards look like they are dominated by people with mental disorders.
For example, one of Joe's friends could post a photograph that shows a blurry, mysterious object in the sky above Joe's car. The object is a bird that is out of focus, but Joe's friend tries to encourage people to believe that it might be an alien spacecraft, and that perhaps the aliens stole your car for their museum of human technology.
Another of Joe's criminal friends could announce that he heard from a reliable source that your car was picked up by the police along the Polish-Austrian border.
By flooding the message boards with stupid and deceptive messages, the honest messages are lost in the nonsense. Some of the honest citizens who look at the message board will be so overwhelmed by the nonsense that they ignore the issue.
<a href='http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_Hufschmid11Oct2005.htm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_Hufschmid11Oct2005.htm
This explains why Christophera posts his ridiculous theories.
Christophera has now spammed the thread 52 times with a blurry, mysterious object. Giving the same explanation every time he posts the photo. A few board members trying to obscure relative information have produced at least 50 pages of spam pretending to rationally discuss anything at all just to get real information off the last page where it is easy to find, in the process of trying to make the information of raw evidence go away.
Evidence that shows the core of the towers was constructed from the most common building material on the planet, concrete.
However, ony 2 serious attempts to explain why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are never seen in photos of the demolition have been posted.
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 07:17 PM
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 26 2006, 07:09 PM) Regarding the strange idea that there was a concrete core, take a look at this collapse video from 9/11 Eyewitness: http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmvThis video shows that the supposedly "solid" core that Christophera keeps posting a picture of is actually just columns with dark smoke/dust filling in the gaps to make it appear solid. That is WTC 1, which went down differently than WTC 2, here. The video is but another angle of this and shows a few box columns standing as the spire.
newtonnjd
26th March 2006 - 07:51 PM
lenbrazil -
| QUOTE | The question isn't as simple as relative height but also relates to total mass and most importantly mass per floor. Each floor took up an acre of floor space much larger than your typical Brazilian apartment building. Each floor of the WTC would have struck the one below it which much more force than in the PalaceII. The WTC was also of totally different construction including drywalls, asbestos fireproofing and IIRC dropped ceilings, materials which would produce a lot of dust when crushed.
<br>1. Again I reiterate, as the mass per floor increases, so does the structural strength needed to counter the potential energy of that mass. So yes there would be a much larger downward force in the case of the WTC, but there would in turn be a much larger resistance to that force too.
As a simple example, imagine replacing the lower sections of the WTC buildings with the construction of the PalaceII. This weaker lower section would be crushed straight away, its resistance to the mass above insuffient to hold it in place. In your comparison of going from the PalaceII to the WTC you are only increasing the mass of the upper section, but failing to similarly increase the strength of what it's pushing against.
2. A general comment about pancaking. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Hence the large force acting downwards that you cite is reciprocated as an upward force on the falling section. Therefore the falling section is exposed to the same level of stress as the lower section and should break up at an equal rate (or actually slightly quicker due to the initial explosions and subsequent fires having spread upwards more than they did downwards). Taking the north tower as an example, this means that by the time about 13 floors of the lower section have been crushed, the falling section should have disintegrated too. So now you are basically dropping a pile of rubble, a fair amount of which is being flung out of the buildings footprint decreasing the mass doing the crushing, on to over 80 floors of completely intact building. And it still cuts through it like a knife through butter..
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The question isn't as simple as relative height but also relates to total mass and most importantly mass per floor. Each floor took up an acre of floor space much larger than your typical Brazilian apartment building. Each floor of the WTC would have struck the one below it which much more force than in the PalaceII. The WTC was also of totally different construction including drywalls, asbestos fireproofing and IIRC dropped ceilings, materials which would produce a lot of dust when crushed.
<br>1. Again I reiterate, as the mass per floor increases, so does the structural strength needed to counter the potential energy of that mass. So yes there would be a much larger downward force in the case of the WTC, but there would in turn be a much larger resistance to that force too.
As a simple example, imagine replacing the lower sections of the WTC buildings with the construction of the PalaceII. This weaker lower section would be crushed straight away, its resistance to the mass above insuffient to hold it in place. In your comparison of going from the PalaceII to the WTC you are only increasing the mass of the upper section, but failing to similarly increase the strength of what it's pushing against.
2. A general comment about pancaking. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Hence the large force acting downwards that you cite is reciprocated as an upward force on the falling section. Therefore the falling section is exposed to the same level of stress as the lower section and should break up at an equal rate (or actually slightly quicker due to the initial explosions and subsequent fires having spread upwards more than they did downwards). Taking the north tower as an example, this means that by the time about 13 floors of the lower section have been crushed, the falling section should have disintegrated too. So now you are basically dropping a pile of rubble, a fair amount of which is being flung out of the buildings footprint decreasing the mass doing the crushing, on to over 80 floors of completely intact building. And it still cuts through it like a knife through butter..
You guys always say how closely the WTC collapse resembles CD. Got any pix or video of CD with a similarly large dust cloud?
<br>In terms of buildings 1 & 2 that is not a fair question because normal CDs are not top-down collapses.
However, for the big smoking gun, building 7, we do indeed have pictures and videos of many CDs that closely resemble it. Such as this one, linked to previously:
http://www.checktheevidence.com//911/LandmarkDemolition.htm
And even here the resulting dust cloud looks like a smaller version of the dust clouds that followed the collapses of 1 & 2.
reasonwhy
26th March 2006 - 07:56 PM
QUOTE (Christophera+Mar 26 2006, 11:11 AM) QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 26 2006, 05:02 PM) QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 25 2006, 11:57 PM) | QUOTE | To get away with crimes,
pretend to be a crime fighter
By Eric Hufschmid
11 Oct 2005
updated 21 Oct 2005
Give conspiracy theories a bad image
Joe could turn some people away from the few honest web sites by giving a bad image to the people who claim Joe is a criminal. Joe could pay his friends to post ridiculous theories in order to make the message boards look like they are dominated by people with mental disorders.
For example, one of Joe's friends could post a photograph that shows a blurry, mysterious object in the sky above Joe's car. The object is a bird that is out of focus, but Joe's friend tries to encourage people to believe that it might be an alien spacecraft, and that perhaps the aliens stole your car for their museum of human technology.
Another of Joe's criminal friends could announce that he heard from a reliable source that your car was picked up by the police along the Polish-Austrian border.
By flooding the message boards with stupid and deceptive messages, the honest messages are lost in the nonsense. Some of the honest citizens who look at the message board will be so overwhelmed by the nonsense that they ignore the issue.
<a href='http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_Hufschmid11Oct2005.htm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.iamthewitness.com/by_Hufschmid11Oct2005.htm
This explains why Christophera posts his ridiculous theories.
Christophera has now spammed the thread 52 times with a blurry, mysterious object. Giving the same explanation every time he posts the photo.
A few board members trying to obscure relative information have produced at least 50 pages of spam pretending to rationally discuss anything at all just to get real information off the last page where it is easy to find, in the process of trying to make the information of raw evidence go away.
Evidence that shows the core of the towers was constructed from the most common building material on the planet, concrete.
However, ony 2 serious attempts to explain why the 47, 1,300 foot steel core columns are never seen in photos of the demolition have been posted.
I started a new thread on the concrete core:
Does anyone believe the wtc had a concrete core?
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=76910
please stop spamming this thread.
newtonnjd
26th March 2006 - 08:01 PM
edit - thank you for starting the new thread reasonwhy, this discussion is taking away from more important considerations. I have moved my reply to Christophera to the new thread.
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 08:17 PM
QUOTE (steve52+Mar 26 2006, 04:35 PM) Christophera, Regarding the exact types of charges that were used is something that Foxx, Gordon, and other more scientifically inclined people might be able to shed light on, as when I posted that cartoon of simple dynamite, it was only to suggest that the OBVIOUS, that some type of controlled explosive device must have been used, at least in accordance with the laws of physics and reality. I'm sure that if anyone wanted to take the time, they could easily do a google search or go to a million websites that discuss the different types of RDX, C-4, shape charges and multitudes of other explosives specifically designed for control demolition that would explain why the columns disappeared. There are obviously many things about the control demolition that are not known to many of us on this board, as well as much other information, but the fact of the matter is that there are many things that are known, and many things that are obvious. So it's my intention to start with what we do know, (within the laws of physics, gravity and reality) and go from there, and all the while being careful not to be SIDE TRACKED off into fairy tales, such as the ones the administration and NIST report tries to pawn off. People can say what they want about Charlie Sheen, and say he's not a structural engineer, or control demolition expert, however I thought he raised some very valid and honest and correct points in that if we do another investigation of what really happened it is imperative that the people doing the investigation are not biased, I mean look at the 9/11 commission report. It's like having the wolf guard the hen house. Now, in all reality, I can't really say whether it would be possible to find people who are un-biased or un-influenced or who are susceptible to being influenced through lots of money and/or threats, but the point is an honest investigation will undoubtedly reveal much different reports as a dishonest one. <br> I don’t think you have to worry about fox contributing, he pretends, but that’s the real extent. Real 9-11 truth seekers do not spend a lot of time trying to debunk well evidenced information. Real researchers do not spend a lot of time presenting questionable evidence. If they need help they post the information and either show by their lack of facts regarding the information that they need help, thus attracting the attention of those who do know, or they ask for it outright. Those who do know have sources of evidence to support their logical, rational position post, and others with similar knowledge confirm it with reasonable comment. That is a normal internet bb working. Keep in mind that the military developed the internet with gov dollars to create the web. The web can be controlled in ways that other mediums cannot, so making a safe place to allow people to assemble gives people a sense of security in their ability to share something. We do not know how functional it is in the long run. Will we be able to share effectively what we need to share? I do not know, but am trying. Others are too. They are developing an ability to read between the lines and see an intent behind the posts as I have. The best thing I can think of to do with the web is develop some new software I have conceived of I call, POLL TO POST that will allow us to moderate our own board. As a person that believes in the goodness of human nature, I propose a place where it is allowed to be recognized. I have estimates from software developers to build this for $15k. If I know but do not have the type pre digested evidence Americans have become accustomed to, and readers see it, and it makes sense; then others who appear by their language and reference to official materials and other zones of corporate support for the murders of 3k Americans, illegal war etc.; then the reader is not sure any longer. They still realize I’ve made valid points, particuarly in regard to what we DO KNOW, free fall. Free fall must be explained. Meaning I’m totally on board with using what we do know. That is EXACTLY my way of thinking. Exactly .................. I’m so hard core about it that I took the most fundamental aspects we do know and logically made a decision that prolonged promotion of remote control is misinformation with the goal of disinformation. Take my page, 9-11 Scenario. http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667and the section on flight 11, 175 & 93. It is purely logical within performance of technology and human nature. We do know the wrong tower fell first and that is the most fundamentally wrong element of the official story. Free fall is next, then pulverization. These things are VERY well documented. You are correct, the use of high explosives is OBVIOUS (emphasis yours, approved and supported continuously). There is not much info on their application however, so people can easily get the wrong impression of their use under conditions present prior to 9-11.
shagster
26th March 2006 - 08:18 PM
I watched a video from the CBS helicopter from the south side of the south tower collapse. It looked like there might have been a piece of the core wall still standing near the end of the collapse but it's hard to tell with all the dust. All the news stations are impatient and cut their video right as the collapse is ending so it's always difficult to see what happened as the collapse finished. I saw another video from another helicopter that was on the north side. The south tower showed a vertical plume but it's difficult to see if any of the core was still standing from that video. The video was shaky. Someone did shoot this still of the south tower from the east-northeast near the end of the collapse which shows part of the core standing. The north tower in his set of stills is seen on the right of the pics. This may be the shadowy figure that was seen behind the dust cloud in the west side stills. 
shagster
26th March 2006 - 08:26 PM
Here's another pic from the sequence with the north tower seen at the right. 
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 08:47 PM
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 26 2006, 08:26 PM) Here's another pic from the sequence with the north tower seen at the right. There is a video that shows it from the north. I'll see if I can get the frames from it that show the east side of the WTC 2 concrete core from the same time as this.
newtonnjd
26th March 2006 - 08:59 PM
shagster, great images. I wonder if you would mind continueing any discussion you have with Christophera in the new thread about the possibility of a concrete core: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5631
reasonwhy
26th March 2006 - 09:03 PM
Thanks newtonnjd for moving your post.
steve52
26th March 2006 - 09:28 PM
| QUOTE | Christophera
I have estimates from software developers to build this for $15k.
<br>No problem with trying to make an honest buck, in fact it doesn't even bother me if someone mentions something on these boards that may be worthy of buying or investing in, provided it's a legitimate and useful product and that people refrain from bombarding these posts ad nausea with their advertisements.
And most all of us on both sides of the 9/11 issue still have to make money, whether by their own businesses or if they work for someone else, unless of course one is independently wealthy.
But what is important is RECOGNIZING & BEING AWARE of the truth, the facts and reality of our own human nature and our own potential biases, such as the way you mentioned "the goodness of human nature" because in truth and reality, the fact is both night and day, pain and joy, love and hate, truth and lies all exist in this thing we call life.
And so if we're honest with ourselves we have to admit that while the goodness in human nature does exist and is very real, the fact also remains that the badness of human nature simultaneously exists as well, I should say co-exists.
Just like this message board. It's not all truthful and it's not all lies, but you see a lot of both.
And when you look at outside influences in our lives that effect our opinions, you might say there can be positive influences that compel us to be more honest, just as there are negative influences that may effect the outcome of our conclusions.
I'm sure many of the people on this board will say I'm the worse of the worse and the most guilty for having a business on the side, and even a website that offers my product for sale, and even though I don't push it or even mention, unless someone addresses it, forcing my response, the fact is anyone can click a few links or do some searches and find out I have a business on the Internet, which some say makes me an evil liar and that everything I say about 9/11 is all untrue lies, seeings how I have a business on the Internet.
And while I argue that my perspective on 9/11 has nothing to do with my business, as I've been on the Internet for over 10 years now, well before 9/11 was even a thought.
However I do acknowledge the fact that when a person is trying to make some money it can often influence our statements about 9/11. If 90% of your potential market believe in the governmental fairy tale and you speak out against it and show much evidence that the buildings indeed collapsed due to control demolition then you risk pissing people off, hence loosing a lot of money.
So you gotta take it all with a grain of salt and not automatically assume that someone trying to make a buck on the Internet is lying to make a buck, but you should be aware of the fact that we as humans are all subject to various influences within and without our selves.
With that said, I suggest that people simply look at the most basic of facts and go from there. Many things are unknown, while many other things are well known, such as...
It is impossible and it defies the laws of physics that the buildings in question could fall at virtual free fall speed, unless the resistance factor, IE all that mass, all of those columns and support beams etc. was INSTANTLY removed, at almost the EXACT SAME TIME AS THE TOWERS BEGAN TO COLLAPSE.
And it is also impossible that the fires, which were almost out could have not only removed all that critical mass, (the critical metal joints that held the buildings up), but have also achieved it at the EXACT POINT OF TIME.
Even if the fires were hot enough, (which is impossible) the fact is the fires would have had to suddenly and SIMULTANEOUSLY HEAT UP at the exact point in time so that the RESISTANCE FACTOR was removed. Otherwise they would have tipped over, some pieces would have remained, while others fell, so that the top pieces would have bent over and fallen, leaving the rest of the towers standing.
But as we all know all three buildings collpased in a perfect symetrical manner, EXACTLY LIKE CONTROL DEMOLITION.
You see the RESISTANCE FACTOR was already proven to be removed at the exact point in time, because of the virtual free fall speed, IE; resistance would have delayed the speed of the collapse, and the very fact that there was virtually no delay in the time the towers began to collapse and the time it took to hit the ground shows us that the RESISTANCE FACTOR was zilch, nada, 0 GONE. of course I say virtual, as there was only a minor delay, (as can be expected) from the air, smoke, and debris of the buildings that were exploded.
And so if we focus on what we do know, in accordance with the laws of gravity, physics and reality that something instantaneously removed the resistance factor of 110 floors all at the EXACT SAME TIME, or better yet at a PERFECT POINT IN TIME, that was necessary to achieve virtual free fall speed, we then have to move on to what could have caused it.
And it just so happens that RDX, C-4 and other types of control demolition explosives provide the most reasonable explanation, we can then look further into that possibility.
Remember fires could not have achieved this, for several reasons, as that would defy all the laws of physics, whereas various types of control demolition explosives just so happen to explain what really happened in the most logical manner.
In the game of chess, a master will look at thousands of different combinations and variables and potential moves that he may make in order to succeed and hopefully win the game, and in so doing he has to weed out all of the countless moves that end up in check mate and or a loosing position, as a chess master may have to look at a game and contemplate dozens and dozens of moves ahead and the possible responses from his opponent, and he has to assume the other player will spot any mistakes he makes.
And so in order for the chess master to look at the thousands of possibilities he or she will rule out obvious moves that cause him to loose and then consider the other remaining moves and these are called "Candidate moves". Another words, you have to rule out the impossible so you can move onto what may have happened.
And in the case of what really happened on 9/11, there are countless possibilities of what may or may not have happened, and so it is that we who are honest and sincerely seeking to find out what the truth of it all is, have to examine the possibilities and weed out the things that are impossible, so we can focus our time on what is possible and then proceed from there.
The NIST report is such a scam because it suggests that the impossible happened and completely avoids what most likely happened, IE; control demolition, and most honest people who have delved into this have already discovered this and have provided countless reasons why the government sponsored reports are such a scam.
It's like sitting at a chess game, analyzing what the best move is and hearing someone suggest that they move their rook in a diagonal direction.
Bishops move in a diagonal direction, and bishops are not Rooks.
Rooks don't move in a diagonal direction, but only vertical and horizontal, yet the governments stories insist likewise theories that we already know are impossible.
ROOK
shagster
26th March 2006 - 09:59 PM
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 26 2006, 08:59 PM) shagster, great images. I wonder if you would mind continueing any discussion you have with Christophera in the new thread about the possibility of a concrete core: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5631 Yes , I can post them in the other thread. I didn't read through the previous posts about the thread change.
reasonwhy
26th March 2006 - 10:22 PM
Thanks shagster .
Christophera
26th March 2006 - 10:25 PM
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 26 2006, 08:01 PM) edit - thank you for starting the new thread reasonwhy, this discussion is taking away from more important considerations. I have moved my reply to Christophera to the new thread. <br> QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 26 2006, 08:59 PM) shagster, great images. I wonder if you would mind continueing any discussion you have with Christophera in the new thread about the possibility of a concrete core: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5631<br> QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 26 2006, 09:03 PM) Thanks newtonnjd for moving your post. <br> QUOTE (shagster+Mar 26 2006, 09:59 PM) QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 26 2006, 08:59 PM) shagster, great images. I wonder if you would mind continueing any discussion you have with Christophera in the new thread about the possibility of a concrete core: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=5631 Yes , I can post them in the other thread. I didn't read through the previous posts about the thread change. <br> QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 26 2006, 10:22 PM) Thanks shagster . <br>How touching!! Cooperation, oh ........ what considerate 9-11 truth researchers, making a thread to separate valid challenges to their bogus discussion from their discussion. I knew I should have tracked down that vomit emoticon. Definitely appears these disinfos are working together. They can pretend to do an analysis of towers having the wrong sructural configuration but they cannot answer the question, “Why are no steel core columns seen in the core ares shown in these images.”WTC 2 CORE 3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS INTERIOR BOX COLUMNSI object to the pretense of “Basic Physics” being discussed seriously and USED as a deception to reinforce a deception concerning the fundamental structure that stood as the core to the Twin towers. Reasonable and real 9-11 truth researchers doubting the official story, seeking to find a true explanation for free fall would never consider eliminating a structural material as commonly used as cement that also enabled free fall because it fractured instantly and easily with high explosives. They would never do that while they could not explain why the steel core columns the government said existed, are never seen, or after seeing that no one has provided such an explanation. But then, ......... what is reality on the internet, but controlled.
reasonwhy
26th March 2006 - 11:12 PM
I copied your post and replied to it on the concrete core thread.
newtonnjd
26th March 2006 - 11:30 PM
Well, my fellow disinfo agents, I suggest we all just completely ignore Christophera in this thread from this point on. Don't even justify his baiting with a response.
lenbrazil
27th March 2006 - 01:47 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 26 2006, 04:58 PM) QUOTE (lenbrazil+Mar 26 2006, 07:33 AM)
You guys always say how closely the WTC collapse resembles CD. Got any pix or video of CD with a similarly large dust cloud?
Watch the video , the building produce's a large dust cloud: http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/jlhudson.mpgAlso look at the shape of the clouds of dust produced. Does it look similar? Note that the photo of the Palace II is from the beginning of it's collapse. Corresponding to the 2nd or 3rd still of the CD, the amounts of dust are comparable, if anything the Brazilian building is kicking up more dust. So far I have seen NO evidence that a CD will produce more smoke than a spontaneous collapse. And no the shape of the dust cloud isn't that close to that of the WTC. There is no reason to expect the cloud from one type of collapse to be that different from another any way. Newtonnjd - I'm too lazy to search back for your post about the L'Ambiance Plaza but you cited a collapse time of 5 seconds for that building and compared it to 7 WTC. You do realize that that time was only and estimate? That collapse was not captured on video and was unexpected so there was no one hanging out outside with a stop watch to time it. You also said that it unlike the WTC looks the what you'd expect a true pancake collapse to look like, care to elaborate? Obviously the collapse site of an incomplete 18 story "lift slab" building will look very different from those of much larger occupied cental core buildings.
lenbrazil
27th March 2006 - 01:52 AM
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 26 2006, 11:30 PM) Well, my fellow disinfo agents, I suggest we all just completely ignore Christophera in this thread from this point on. Don't even justify his baiting with a response. I 2nd that emotion, he is a either nuts or a prankster, in other words a complete waste of time.
shagster
27th March 2006 - 02:20 AM
Did Palace II collapse from top to bottom? Or was it bottom to top? The vertical plume makes me think it collapsed from top to bottom. Also, in that photo on the webpage that shows the vertical plume of the Palace, was that the first collapse or was that something that was done during the intentional demolition of it later? Most of the pages are not in English, so I can't read them readily. A website mentions it was demolished 6 days after the collapse, so I'm not sure how much of the building was still standing after the initial collapse.
Guest_David B. Benson
27th March 2006 - 02:36 AM
Fires --- Going to 9-11 Research, thence to Mirrors, thence to "Guardians", there is an annotated copy of the FEMA report. I read Chapter 2. Therein is FEMA's floorplans for WTC 1 and WTC 2. These are more different than merely rotation by a right angle. The X areas usually mean voids such as elevators and air shafts. I don't know enough to decode the rest.
A blue addition is an account of a 1975(?) fire in WTC 1. It was discovered on the 11th floor. It spread from the 9th floor to the 19th floor. It is described as "intense" by the time the firefighters arrived. A total of 125 firefighters were engaged. Question for you: How long was the fire burning?
There was a fire in 1993, in WTC 2, I believe. Where do I find out how big and how long it lasted?
One of the earlier links took me to a "Madrid Winsor Tower Fire" with an analysis of a fire destroying a post and beam construction tower, and different visuals than the "Marie Winsor Tower Fire". However, I currently suspect these refer to the same physical event. Nothing that I noticed said anything about how long the fire burned before the steel structural members collapsed. Help!
Thank you.
newtonnjd
27th March 2006 - 03:09 AM
len, there is quite a lot I've written that you aren't responding to.
| QUOTE | Note that the photo of the Palace II is from the beginning of it's collapse. Corresponding to the 2nd or 3rd still of the CD, the amounts of dust are comparable, if anything the Brazilian building is kicking up more dust. So far I have seen NO evidence that a CD will produce more smoke than a spontaneous collapse.
<br>You're basing that conclusion on a single photo of a spontaneous collapse? A collapse for which you don't actually know the cause? (unless I missed it somewhere). Do you even know if this collapse was top-down or bottum-up? If top-down the comparison to CDs is pretty useless.
And I see now that shagster questions if the image is even from the initial collapse.
This is an extremely tenuous example you're trying to use. To make a valid point you need a lot more information on spontaneous collapses than you have so far presented. Certainly you have shown nothing that comes close to resembling WTC7, as the Landmark tower does.
Intuitively it just isn't reasonable to suggest that a spontaneous collapse should resemble a CD. In one case only a localised part of the structure gives way, in another case energy is added to cause the entire structure to give way. Why are you expecting these two scenarios to be indistinguishable?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Note that the photo of the Palace II is from the beginning of it's collapse. Corresponding to the 2nd or 3rd still of the CD, the amounts of dust are comparable, if anything the Brazilian building is kicking up more dust. So far I have seen NO evidence that a CD will produce more smoke than a spontaneous collapse.
<br>You're basing that conclusion on a single photo of a spontaneous collapse? A collapse for which you don't actually know the cause? (unless I missed it somewhere). Do you even know if this collapse was top-down or bottum-up? If top-down the comparison to CDs is pretty useless.
And I see now that shagster questions if the image is even from the initial collapse.
This is an extremely tenuous example you're trying to use. To make a valid point you need a lot more information on spontaneous collapses than you have so far presented. Certainly you have shown nothing that comes close to resembling WTC7, as the Landmark tower does.
Intuitively it just isn't reasonable to suggest that a spontaneous collapse should resemble a CD. In one case only a localised part of the structure gives way, in another case energy is added to cause the entire structure to give way. Why are you expecting these two scenarios to be indistinguishable?
So far I have seen NO evidence that a CD will produce more smoke than a spontaneous collapse.
<br>Well that could be because evidence on spontaneous collapses is extremely sparse!
Intuitively again, surely a collapse that involves explosive energy is going to produce more dust? Let's imagine two concrete blocks, the first sits on the ground with a small explosive sitting on top of it. The second block is dropped from the roof of a two story building. Which scenario will produce more dust?
| QUOTE | And no the shape of the dust cloud isn't that close to that of the WTC. There is no reason to expect the cloud from one type of collapse to be that different from another any way.
<br>Those two statements are contradictory.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | And no the shape of the dust cloud isn't that close to that of the WTC. There is no reason to expect the cloud from one type of collapse to be that different from another any way.
<br>Those two statements are contradictory.
Newtonnjd - I'm too lazy to search back for your post about the L'Ambiance Plaza but you cited a collapse time of 5 seconds for that building and compared it to 7 WTC. You do realize that that time was only and estimate? That collapse was not captured on video and was unexpected so there was no one hanging out outside with a stop watch to time it.
<br>It probably took more than 5 seconds (if you witness a collapse and it comes down quicker than you expected you're likely to underestimate how long it took). Still, if someone estimated 5 seconds, it's unlikely they could have been so far off a collapse time of ~3s, which is what you need to support your arguments.
| QUOTE | You also said that it unlike the WTC looks the what you'd expect a true pancake collapse to look like, care to elaborate? Obviously the collapse site of an incomplete 18 story "lift slab" building will look very different from those of much larger occupied cental core buildings.
<br>I didn't use the word "look". I was talking about the circumstances (i.e. collapse time), not the visuals of the rubble pile.
In any case, you are making comparisons to WTC1/2 here when it is the WTC 7 CD that I'm primarily challenging you to debunk.
Common Sense
27th March 2006 - 03:20 AM
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 27 2006, 03:09 AM) In any case, you are making comparisons to WTC1/2 here when it is the WTC 7 CD that I'm primarily challenging you to debunk. http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
newtonnjd
27th March 2006 - 04:11 AM
| QUOTE | http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
<br>As I am no proponent of using the Silverstein quote to strengthen the case, your link is mostly irrelevant to me.
What I think is pretty funny is that firefighters could apparantly be sure the building was going to collapse 3 hours before it did, and yet over 4 years of investigations by experts has not yet reached the same conclusion. Perhaps NIST should have hired a common firefighter for their investigation, then it could have been wrapped up in a day!
Apparantly the author of this article feels it's as clear as day that the damage was extreme enough to make the building collapse. Instead of a firefighter, perhaps HE should go work for FEMA or NIST and save them a ton of wasted effort trying to explain it.
Another amusing part of this article is the line:
"Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire..."
A "normal" collapse from fire? A steel-framed building has NEVER collapsed from fire. So I have no clue what he is referring to.
All in all, this is a classic straw-man article, defeating Silverstein's quote and pretending that settles it. All it establishes is that firefighters were concerned about the damage to WTC7 (not really surprising after two buildings that never should have collapsed had already come down). But it says nothing about how the collapse, even if it did initiate, could behave exactly like a controlled demolition.
Lon Waters
27th March 2006 - 04:16 AM
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 03:20 AM) QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 27 2006, 03:09 AM) In any case, you are making comparisons to WTC1/2 here when it is the WTC 7 CD that I'm primarily challenging you to debunk. <a href='http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD.
Foxx
27th March 2006 - 04:18 AM
| QUOTE | posted by Steve52
And it is also impossible that the fires, which were almost out could have not only removed all that critical mass, (the critical metal joints that held the buildings up), but have also achieved it at the EXACT POINT OF TIME.
Even if the fires were hot enough, (which is impossible) the fact is the fires would have had to suddenly and SIMULTANEOUSLY HEAT UP at the exact point in time so that the RESISTANCE FACTOR was removed. Otherwise they would have tipped over, some pieces would have remained, while others fell, so that the top pieces would have bent over and fallen, leaving the rest of the towers standing.
But as we all know all three buildings collpased in a perfect symetrical manner, EXACTLY LIKE CONTROL DEMOLITION.
You see the RESISTANCE FACTOR was already proven to be removed at the exact point in time, because of the virtual free fall speed, IE; resistance would have delayed the speed of the collapse, and the very fact that there was virtually no delay in the time the towers began to collapse and the time it took to hit the ground shows us that the RESISTANCE FACTOR was zilch, nada, 0 GONE. of course I say virtual, as there was only a minor delay, (as can be expected) from the air, smoke, and debris of the buildings that were exploded.
And so if we focus on what we do know, in accordance with the laws of gravity, physics and reality that something instantaneously removed the resistance factor of 110 floors all at the EXACT SAME TIME, or better yet at a PERFECT POINT IN TIME, that was necessary to achieve virtual free fall speed, we then have to move on to what could have caused it.
And it just so happens that RDX, C-4 and other types of control demolition explosives provide the most reasonable explanation, we can then look further into that possibility.
<br>Good points Steve52.
Regarding the 'fires'...
I haven't yet got into analysing the North Tower fires yet - (still working on the South tower analysis).
Even NIST admits in it's final report that the south tower fires were far less 'severe' than the north tower fires.
The south tower fires were hardly more 'severe' than the WTC 7 spotty fires. Any rational person who takes the time to actually study the south tower fires, can easily see that they were not prolonged enough, sufficiently intense, NOR symmetrical enough to have caused the massive steel columns in the core to just buckle and 'give up the ghost'. This was essentially proven in NISTs own report in actual NIST-sponsored fire tests performed at UL...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/ULtestresults.jpg
I think we should be careful in suggesting 'normal' explosives such as RDX and C-4 were responsible, (although they may have been partially utilized). You disappeared for a while while discussions were advancing along the lines of more likely 'explosives' as thermobaric weapons, as well as 'superthermite'. Some new evidence has been uncovered regarding the potential of this 'superthermite' which utilizes nanotechnology to produce superfine aluminum powder which makes the 'superthermite' incendiary bombs more powerful and more 'controllable' that regular thermite (or thermate / diasite).
One of the 'problems' with RDX, C-4 and other types of conventional explosives (used in conventional controlled demolitions) is the very short heat productions of these. The heat is almost instantly generated and then quickly dissipated / changed to other forms of energy. For any explosive to fit the scenario it must create a huge heat 'reservoir' which could not only fuel the 'pyroclastic' expansion of the dust clouds, but also be transferred to the underground fires which caused rivers of molten steel beneath GZ...
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
Thermite (especially 'Superthermite') fits the parameters of what was observed related to the underground fires...
Continuing to burn even though a 'lake' of water was applied to it... Thermite will be fueled in many cases by applying water because a thermite fire can suck the oxygen out of water thereby extending it's burn rate (in compressed conditions where normally there is not a high oxygen content or source). Another 'flag' is the use of PyroCool which was eventually tried and succeeded in reducing the fires. Pre-2001 the main buyer of pyrocool was the military, which used it to extinguish incendiary fires such as napalm and thermite-based tank-busting grenades / rockets. Personally I find it VERY coincidental that the underground fires resisted ALL fire-fighting efforts at GZ until Pyrocool was applied...
http://www.pyrocool.org/news.htm
As I previously mentioned 'superthermite' fit's nicely with the observed circumstances... more info on superthemite can be found here...
http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/w...105,318,p1.html
And a special casing for this type of bomb is described in the links below...
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/Pat...d=6766744&HL=ON
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...4&RS=PN/6766744
Another plausible candidate is the METC 'bomb'...
http://www.totse.com/en/bad_ideas/ka_fucki...om/ciametc.html
which seems to incorporate some factors of the above.
Now, having posted all this... I am not claiming that the above superthermite / METC type bombs WERE Definately used... I am just saying that we need NOT be pigeon-holed to claiming that conventional demolition explosives MUST have been used.
The above superthermite / METC type incendiary 'explosives' are just now coming to light.
Just imagine what secret stuff the military has developed which we know nothing about (as yet), and I have long thought that conventional explosives can not provide for all the characteristics of the phenomena that we saw...
Charcteristics such as the massive pulverization effects (not ONLY of the concrete - but virtually ALL non-steel contents such as carpeting, plastics, porcelain, ceramics, and glass)...
And the extended and obstinate underground fires.
Just some things to think about
Guest_guest
27th March 2006 - 04:46 AM
QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 03:20 AM) <br>I think what they meant was for you to explain the speed, symmetry, and features of the wtc7 collapse - and how they can happen spontaneously from random fires and damage in the building. Silverstein's statements are not the burden of proof in this case. Also, did you ever receive an email back from Lu Xiang regarding the inconsistencies in his paper?? What were his explanations?
Common Sense
27th March 2006 - 04:49 AM
QUOTE (Lon Waters+Mar 27 2006, 04:16 AM) QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 03:20 AM) QUOTE (newtonnjd+Mar 27 2006, 03:09 AM) In any case, you are making comparisons to WTC1/2 here when it is the WTC 7 CD that I'm primarily challenging you to debunk. <a href='http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm A refutation that Silverstein meant demolition when he said "pull it" does not in any way refute the argument that WTC 7 was brought down by CD. Your being dishonest. You know there is more than just Silverstein clearing up the "Pull it" quote. Did you not see all the quotes from all the fireman who said the building was going to fall? Especially the one where Boyle said: "but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good." and "Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many? Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it." or what about Hayden who said this... "but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." What about the video which is all but conclusive... http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi Why are you being dishonest? Does your theory need dishonesty to work? 
Common Sense
27th March 2006 - 04:52 AM
QUOTE (Guest_guest+Mar 27 2006, 04:46 AM) QUOTE (Common Sense+Mar 27 2006, 03:20 AM) <br>I think what they meant was for you to explain the speed, symmetry, and features of the wtc7 collapse - and how they can happen spontaneously from random fires and damage in the building. Silverstein's statements are not the burden of proof in this case. Also, did you ever receive an email back from Lu Xiang regarding the inconsistencies in his paper?? What were his explanations? No he did not reply. And there is more than just the Silverstein statement. Look at the above quotes from fireman who were there at the time.
metamars
27th March 2006 - 05:00 AM
I still wasn't ready to post the results of my latest look into Hoffman's dust/energy calculations, but as the thread has some discussion of the dust produced, I will just make mention of the following, for now, and will try and follow up, by next weekend, with some values from a spreadsheet:
>> there seems to be no way that, using Hoffman's numbers, we can get a rapid enough "cool down" going away from the source of the heating. In a nutshell, the same assumption regarding a tremendous amount of heating of 90 billion grams of concrete to a target temperature of 1000 K, or so, makes it impossible to "cool off" fast enough, since the only mechanism that I can think of that would provide a significant "route" for cooling off is via heating of formerly ambient air.
But, while air has a higher specific density than concrete, it's density is still so low that even "diluting" it in an inverse square fashion, it still cannot absorb sufficient heat from the concrete particles to diminish temperature "rapidly" enough, going away from the center of the towers.
>> Hoffman's key error (assuming he essentially wrong) is almost certainly vastly underestimating the percentage of air that is added into the original dust/air mixture as the dust cloud expands. I believe (based on my intuition, not specific physics knowledge) that the "churning" observed in the front was due, in part, to hot concrete (and other) particles, heating the ambient air in an inhomogenous fashion, which resulted in eddy currents, and the like. I don't know, but suppose that this is also at least part of the story in a volcanic pyroclastic flow.
However, the leap of logic to conclude that this visible turbulence is a good indicator that temperatures near Hoffman's target of 1000K not too far* inside the front prevailed, even if only momentarily, seems unjustifiable.
Actually, (IIRC), Hoffman himself has noted the contradiction between his target temperature and the experiences of individuals caught within the cloud. However, Hoffman did not resolve the contradiction (he is probably attempting to do so in his latest revision, which he is working on now.) I was essentially trying to do that, but have failed utterly, I believe because it can't be resolved.
>> I believe it's quite possible that work done in moving air about, due to inhomogenous pressures, might represent a significant energy sink (and thus account for significant cooling), but I have no idea how to calculate this. I am guessing that there's no way that such an effect would be sufficient to explain a humanly survivable amount of cooling in the WTC scenarios.
>> finally, I note that I have only made simple, crude calculations, with assumptions that were not even run by specialists who would have a good handle on this. I did seek the input of a Ph.D. techie guy, who had expertise in fluid dynamics, but the expertise wasn't sufficiently closely related, and this guy did not want to "bless" my arguments, and didn't want to offer anything substantial in their stead. This Ph.D. techie guy thought that chemists or chemical engineers would have a better handle on this type of calculation.
* again, Hoffman did not precisely define a temperature map or function, but his statement that he thew out about a third of the dust cloud size to compensate for mixing with ambient air at least gives us some idea of what "too far" can mean
Foxx
27th March 2006 - 05:00 AM
| QUOTE | by David B. Benson
One of the earlier links took me to a "Madrid Winsor Tower Fire" with an analysis of a fire destroying a post and beam construction tower, and different visuals than the "Marie Winsor Tower Fire". However, I currently suspect these refer to the same physical event. Nothing that I noticed said anything about how long the fire burned before the steel structural members collapsed. Help!
Thank you.
<br>You might want to begin your search / research with Arup's analysis of the Madrid Windsor fire...
http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6150
An estimated time frame of fire development (and collapses) can be found here...
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/r...res/default.htm
Here is a layout of the Madrid Windsor showing the components...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/BZ_madrid.html
Foxx
27th March 2006 - 05:05 AM
Reasonwhy...
Thanks for starting that new thread. Excellent move.
Foxx
27th March 2006 - 05:29 AM
| QUOTE |
Remember the Windsor fire in Spain?
The Madrid Windsor fire made Irwin Allen's "Towering Inferno" look like a small birthday candle. This building burned arguably hotter for a much longer duration than any high-rise building in history.
The Windsor building in Madrid had no such sprinkler system, as the WTC did. As a matter of fact, at the time of this monstrous blaze, the building was shut down for repairs, to actually retrofit the building with a fire safety sprinkler system. Unlike the WTC towers, this building had nothing to keep it from getting very hot. It burned as a raging inferno for all the world to watch for 21 hours continuously!
<br>
The above is a partial quote from an excellent article which compares the Madrid Windsor Fire to the WTC Fires...
A 'Must Read' !
http://www.newsfocus.org/wtc_fire.htm
Now HERE'S a REAL steel-killing fire...
newton
27th March 2006 - 05:32 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 27 2006, 05:05 AM) Reasonwhy...
Thanks for starting that new thread. Excellent move. the point of posting is to keep a volume of text which speaks truth in the publicly searchable domain of hypertext. mutiple hits with the exact same content are ignored. unique statements are a 'weak force', lol. the controlled demo video was very educational. thanks again, newtonnjd. isn't it murderous(as opposed to 'funny'), foxx, how as soon as one spamachine is diverted, common sense kicks in?
Foxx
27th March 2006 - 05:44 AM
QUOTE (newton+Mar 27 2006, 05:32 AM) QUOTE (Foxx+Mar 27 2006, 05:05 AM) Reasonwhy...
Thanks for starting that new thread. Excellent move. the point of posting is to keep a volume of text which speaks truth in the publicly searchable domain of hypertext. mutiple hits with the exact same content are ignored. unique statements are a 'weak force', lol. the controlled demo video was very educational. thanks again, newtonnjd. isn't it murderous(as opposed to 'funny'), foxx, how as soon as one spamachine is diverted, common sense kicks in? Quote: isn't it murderous(as opposed to 'funny'), foxx, how as soon as one spamachine is diverted, common sense kicks in?Ohhh.... you noticed also, I see. maybe a 'tag team' ?
HEH!
27th March 2006 - 05:44 AM
HEH!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
