|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 18, 2007 7:21:55 GMT -4
For you to believe the OCT you best stick with Phantoms third law. It's a beauty, although I'm a little bit confused as to why in Phantoms 3rd law the mass of the towers didn't make a great big hole to the center of the Earth. Can you explain that? Your "in-your-face" and "holier-than-thou" attitude does nothing to hide your lack of understanding.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 18, 2007 7:57:22 GMT -4
3onthetree, look-up the difference between "towards" and "to" and get back to us. No need, this has been done to death. Phantomwolf knows Newtons laws of motion and that's why he only quoted half of the first law. Because if you apply any more than that to the OCT it falls apart.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 18, 2007 8:32:40 GMT -4
3onthetree, look-up the difference between "towards" and "to" and get back to us. No need, this has been done to death. Phantomwolf knows Newtons laws of motion and that's why he only quoted half of the first law. Because if you apply any more than that to the OCT it falls apart. See if you can elaborate (rather than simply be sarcastic) and explain exactly how the collapses violated one of Newton's laws. The first law: "Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare."OR "An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force."
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 18, 2007 18:42:08 GMT -4
No need, this has been done to death. Phantomwolf knows Newtons laws of motion and that's why he only quoted half of the first law. Because if you apply any more than that to the OCT it falls apart.
No, I know what forces were at work. I deliberately didn't quote the entire thing because I wanted you to answer the question, which you haven't actually done. I am assuming by your answers however that you think that the base of the tower should have exerted enough force up to have stopped the collapse. Here's were I say "Prove it."
Assuming the CT best case senario of the colunms falling directly onto the columns below, show that the force applied to the columns would be enough to stop the collapse without further displacement or buckling that would have lead to a continued progression of the collapse.
Once you have shown that, you should be able to apply your proof to the real situation where it was the floor trusses which took the impact. Using the equations from above you should be able to show that the floors were sturdy enough to halt the collapse when the top of the building fell onto them.
If you can't do that, then all you are doing is taking out of your lower anatomy and you have no idea how Newton's Laws should have affected the collapses.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 18, 2007 18:51:34 GMT -4
In other words, convince me that an office building can survive having an office building dropped on it.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 19, 2007 0:34:44 GMT -4
In other words, convince me that an office building can survive having an office building dropped on it. Why would a building affected by fire behave that way in this instance when never before in history has the top section of a building committed Harri Karri like that.? What forces are at work? Only one, Gravity. Here's what I think. If indeed there was a mechanical failure within the towers caused by a Kerosene blast furnace, seems ridiculous that we're talking about two independent structures failing the same way, but hey. Would you not expect to find large pieces of debris, large slab sections and maybe some people. Would you not expect in a gravity alone driven collapse to have seen the main portion take the path of least resistance? Inertia is forgotten in your Nistian universe, for a progressive collapse to actually have happened the stationary inertia of each floor would have to be overcome. This takes time, something that your theory lacks because they go on to break Newtons speed record.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 19, 2007 1:10:00 GMT -4
We will never know if the lower section of the towers could have withstood what you describe because that's not what happened. There is only one theory which answers the questions raised by what was actually witnessed. That is explosives. All of the twisted convoluted arguments about the effects of fire, the missing core columns in pro government analysis, the hidden blueprints and ignored witness testimony. The Janitor the firemen the sound of great big explosions, the fact that the debris was not centered in mass yet blown all over the shop. These are things you must ignore to continue to speak from your lower anatomy.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 19, 2007 7:47:30 GMT -4
3onthetree is no engineer, as we can see.
Next!
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Jul 19, 2007 11:41:32 GMT -4
Leary is entitled to his opinion like anyone else. I totally disagree with the view that "CT''s devalue the sacrifice made" by the firefighters, etc. on 9/11. Were they all "deceived about how severe the fires were"? Imo - no, they were not. They had years of experience, and would not have all gone in if they felt the fires had left the structures on the brink of total collapse. I do believe that they were deceived, however. They thought that they were just dealing with fires. Ironiclly Turbonium’s post above is a perfect example of what Leary was talking about. He believes the firemen would not have entered the towers is they suspected there lives were at risk. These are guys who opted for a not that well paying profession in which they regularly risk their lives to save total strangers. Numerous firemen before and after them died after entering much less study buildings that were ablaze. If they KNEW the towers were about to collapse presumably they would not have gone in but I don’t think that the suspicion that they MIGHT would have prevented them from doing so. Yes they had years of experience fighting fires but none for buildings that had been hit by large passenger jets (or even small planes), none for buildings that had extensive pre-fire structural damage and fireproofing removal and very little with uncontrolled fires in central core buildings. Funny that he tries to have it both ways 1) Rodriguez was amazingly brave for ignoring the danger of accompanying the firemen up the fire stairs well below the impact / fire zone but 2) the fact that the firemen went in is evidence that the danger was unforeseeable. There is no indication they were unaware of “how severe the fires were”. FD commanders said things like they expected local collapses and knew they would not be able to contain the fires and that 9/11 would be a horrible day for the dept.
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jul 19, 2007 14:56:37 GMT -4
How's this for both ways; 3onthetree appears to consider it evidence of explosives that the towers did NOT fall into their own footprint!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 19, 2007 20:21:45 GMT -4
Why would a building affected by fire behave that way in this instance when never before in history has the top section of a building committed Harri Karri like that.?Please provide a list of all tube in tube buildings first hit by an aircraft at cruising speed, folowed by massive fires, which has not collapsed in this way. What forces are at work? Only one, Gravity.Correct and what way do objects travel when only acted on by gravity? If indeed there was a mechanical failure within the towers caused by a Kerosene blast furnaceStrawman. The fires were fueled primarily by the shattered remains of office supplies and furniture, not by the jet fuel which burnt off quite quickly and at lower temperatures. we're talking about two independent structures failing the same wayyes, two structures build in the same way, that suffered similar damage and fires. Why shouldn't they have failed in similar ways? Would you not expect to find large pieces of debrisYou mean like the large pieces of extrenal wall that were found? large slab sectionsYou mean like all the large compressed floor structures that created a seven story high pile in the tower's footprints? and maybe some people.You mean like the hundreds of bodies and body parts that they did find? Would you not expect in a gravity alone driven collapse to have seen the main portion take the path of least resistance?I'd expect to see it take a path where the offered resistance was less that the resistance require to change the path to something else. Exactly what happened. Please work out the requirements for changing the path of the building. Or perhaps you think this should have happened? Do you understand why a building collapses the way it does in a Controlled demollision? By what you are claiming, they shouldn't fall almost straight down either since when the building hits the ground and encounters that resistance, it should then topple over like in the video above. Buildings just don't do that. Their parts can't handle the impact forces, buildings are fragile things and when struck with large impact forces they break and offer very little resistance. Until you understand that, you aren't going to understand anything on the topic. Inertia is forgotten in your Nistian universe, for a progressive collapse to actually have happened the stationary inertia of each floor would have to be overcome. This takes time, something that your theory lacks because they go on to break Newtons speed record.Rubbish. Take a hammer. Hold it above your foot, now drop it. Did it hover in the air waiting for it's inertia to be overcome? The only time required above freefall was that loss by deceleration during impact, and since the force applied to the floors was an order of magnitude above what was required to destroy its support brackets, that was about a 1/10th of a sec. Over the 90 floors it added up to about 9 seconds meaning that whereas freefall was 10 seconds for WTC 1, the tower collapse was 18-20 seconds. There is no breaking of Newton's laws at all. You just don't have a clue what you're going on about. You are simply parroting Consiracy Propogandists who spout a heap of peusdoscience and you fall for it hook line and sinker because you so desparately want to believe the US Government is the ultimate evil. Try going and learning some real science instead and then caompare what your hucksters are claiming to that. Put them under the same spotlight you want to put the offical claims under and see how well they stack up. You'll find that your precoius Dr Jones and the rest have no idea what they are talking about. Heck Jones' work is such an embrassement to himself in the Scientific community that he had to start up his own Journal because he knew that any real journal would laugh his "papers" out of the room. We will never know if the lower section of the towers could have withstood what you describe because that's not what happened.Circular Argument noted. Evasion of math noted. Noncomprehension of the science involved noted. There is only one theory which answers the questions raised by what was actually witnessed. That is explosives.Baloney. There is only one theory that fits all the facts, and that is BFP+BFF (ask Gillianren if you don't know what that is) All of the twisted convoluted arguments about the effects of fireSo you are claiming that fire can't weaken steel? That beams and trusses don't sag when exposed to fire? Perhaps you need to tell the AMCE that they are wasting all their money on fireproofing for steel in highrise buildings because fire can't harm steel. the missing core columns in pro government analysisRubbish. NIST never ignored the core columns, they just aren't as significant to the equation as you like to claim. The failure occured in the exterior columns and the core could never hold up the building alone. the hidden blueprintsThe blueprints are hidden, they are owned by the architects who designed the buildings. Get it, private property. Or are you advicating Communism where the State can conficate any private property and make it public? here I thought you were supposed to be fighting that sort of thing and yet you seem to be advocating it here. and ignored witness testimony.Eyewittness testimony is notoriously incorrect in details. This has been proven many times by scientists. Eyewittnesses like to try and interpret what they sense rather than just give the data, and even the data can be skewed by the questions. Loud bangs become explosions then explosives. There are many stories where structures have failed where the witnesses have said it sounded like a bomb. heck yesterday in NY a steampipe blew up and most people intially thought it was a bomb. I even heard one witnes say thay even though he;d been told it was a transformer he thought it was too big an explosion to have been one. Does that mean it was really a bomb? Eyewittness testimony has to be taken and weighed with other witnesses and with coroberating physical evidence. The JanitorWilliam Rodriguezthe firemenYou mean the same ones that claim WTC 7 was suffering massive fires, was unstable and going to collapse? The same ones that say that WTC 1 and 2 were determined to be unstable and could collapse, the same ones that tried to order an evacuation of WTC 1 & 2 because they considered them danagerous and could collapse? Those firemen? the sound of great big explosionsWhat sounds of great big explosions? The only ones I have seen have been on Videos were the soundtracks have been altered. the fact that the debris was not centered in mass yet blown all over the shop.So if the Towers did fall in their own footprint it was explosives, and if they didn't fall in their own footprints it was explosives? When a change of the evidence doesn't change the conclusion it is called a Tautology, when evidence doesn't afrect a conclusion, that is called a Belief, when a belief is unsupported by evidence, that is called faith. It's obvious that you have nothing other then faith in your belief, you certainly don't have any science or reality that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 19, 2007 20:40:29 GMT -4
Questions for 3onthetree
1) Why blow up the buildings? Do you think that crashing 3 planes into three of the major office buildings in the US and killing hundreds of people would not have been sufficent enough to have gotten the American people to support an invasion of Afghanistan?
2) Why wait an hour? Why wait for an hour of evacuations before demolishing them? Would the numbers killed been too great to have done it immediately, and not enough if done done later?
3) What would the result have looked been assuming a controlled demolition with the explosives set only on or about the level of impact? Would the buildings have still fallen as they did, or would the top of toppled off?
4) If you think that charges had to be set on multiple floors to stop the towers from toppling over, why do demolition companies not need to do this in their demolistion work? How did the explosives get installed onto all these floors without anyone spotting them?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Jul 19, 2007 22:02:00 GMT -4
Citation needed, where does the NIST include undamaged floors in their investigation. What are you basing your 1/10th of a second per floor ignoring the independent structure of the core on? Where do you get your 18 to 20 seconds from. PS . My foot is inert and I wear steel capped boots. No these ones, That's one way of dismissing them I suppose. I didn't bother with your Willie link, I know what a thorn in your collective sides he is. ;D I'm a pinko from way back when it comes to solving murder cases. It's a good thing that Larry's Leak department came to the party. Yeah right. The pile with the big pile driving mass of building on top.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 20, 2007 0:59:28 GMT -4
Where does NIST deal with the collapse in their report? They deal with the initiation.
It's a guessimate based on the timing of the collapses and the number of floors that had to fall.
Show that the internal core would have had any effect on the collpase once it initiated and I'll take it into consideration. Note here that the main cause of the global collapse was the weak points of the floors, the seats the trusses were fitted in to. These bend down (as reported by FEMA and NIST) failing under loading on the floors causing the floor to collapse to the next. While NIST decided that FEMA was wrong is concluding that the floors opancaking had initiated the collapse, and instead placed the blame on the exterior columns being pulled in and giving way , once the collapses had started, the progressive nature created and was mantained by a pancake effect.
Get a video of the collaspe and a stopwatch. Time it.
Read your sources.
Not one of them actually claims to have seen explosives, rather they interupted what they saw as an explosion. read what I said about eyewittnesses in my pevious post.
Most of their accounts can be explained by the flames being pushed out during the collapse initiation. At least one (the first one) has been doctored from the original (I can't be bothered checking out the rest to original sources) The flashes they saw where outside the building, not inside, and they determined they were likely a transformer sparking (all of which is in the original quote.) I suggest you go and read the original sources and stop getting quotes from CT sites, they are notoriuosly incaurate with their quotes.
Show me your video evidence of explosives and I'll tell you if they are one of the four I know of that have be doctored. One of the doctored ones in of a policeman on the phone and an "explosion" is hear from an unidentified area. The explosion is inconsistant with the reactions of the people on camera and is stereo on an otherwise mono track. Thereis no echo to it either which is unusual in an area surrounded by buildings. Another two are from the Liberty Church and one right under the Tower. Both of these have changed soundtracks which is easily proven since the originals are also posted to YouTube and so can be compared. The final one is from 9/11 eyewittness and in the original the "explosions" are wind blowing on the microphone. There is another versin that has added soundeffects and explosions, much the original videor's chagrin. If you have a different one, provide it.
I'll take that to mean you know you can refute the exhuastive information in that link.
Those aren't blueprints, they are architeict plans, and I haven't noticed anyone finding any smoking gun in them, dispite the huge noise Dylan made on annoucing them.
Sure show a top down view so you can't see how high the debris pile is, and why do you expect that the top of the buildings should have survived intact?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 20, 2007 1:50:54 GMT -4
Dr Steven Jones doesn't know the difference in composition of Structural Steel and Stainless Steel. He expects to find cromium in structural steel So do the EPA and the Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado at Boulder... ....chromium, and benzene, which she said were elements used as alloys in the WTC steel.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3MKT/is_36_110/ai_83376479Lead and chromium were released as the structural steels burned and shattered in the collapse.www.colorado.edu/MCEN/EnvTox/wtc.pdf (pg.3) and queries why there is manganese, something a 5 minute search on the web would find him. No, he queries why there is such an unusually high content of manganese, not why it is present at all. He thinks that because there is a pressence of Aluminium and Iron in the WTC dust that it had to be therm*te, He never said that. And you obviously must know he didn't say that, since you just brought up his comments about manganese being identified in the samples (at unusually high levels), which is one of several factors supporting his proposal that thermate was used. To suggest he said something like "aluminum and iron are present in the dust, which proves thermate was used", is completely ridiculous. not seeming to realise that a) the main structural supports were iron based, and that not only was there a massive plane made of Aluminium, but the towers themselves had Aluminium cladding all over them. Nonsense. He is most certainly aware of the WTC's structural material content, and that the plane was mostly aluminum. He not claims that Thermate was used because of the presence of the managnese (used in common structural steel) Right. First you say Jones is claiming aluminum and iron proved thermate was used. And now you say Jones is claiming it's the presence of manganese that proves thermate was used? He never made either claim. but ignores the fact that there is no presence of Barium, a major component of Thermate. This is more nonsense. Jones has not "ignored" the lack of barium - he has addressed it several times, including here.... "I've heard that an anonymous debunker is attaking my data saying that if it doesn't show barium nitrate, it can't be thermate. My response:
It is true that the military form of thermate, thermate-TH-3, contains a large amount of barium nitrate. I never said I had found the signature of thermate-TH-3.
Rather, as I explained in my talk, variations are easily done using aluminum, sulfur, and various metal oxides and oxidizers, and what I've shown evidence for is the basic signature of thermite/thermate-analogs." However, as a point of interest, barium has been found, as reported by the EPA... In addition, samples have shown high concentrations of metals and metalloids including aluminum (702 µg/L), chromium (403 µg/L), antimony (74 µg/L), molybdenum (140 µg/L), barium (62 µg/L), manganese (35 µg/L), copper (39 µg/L), and zinc (62 µg/L), as well as moderate concentrations of lead, selenium, and vanadium.(pg.14, 15 from above pdf link) The EPA barium does not have to be relevant to the issue of thermate, although it may be worthwhile to give it a closer look in the future. At any rate - as Dr. Jones noted, the lack of barium in his samples does not preclude the use of thermate variations. Not only that he ignores the numberous sources of sulphur to exclusively claim it come from Therm*te. Yet again, this is incorrect. He has not claimed the sulfur must be exclusively from thermate. Nor has he ignored any possible sources of the sulfur. He is studying the sulfur content, levels, sulfur oxides, etc., in situ, and it's correlation with the rest of the material. He had previous posted images of compacted concrete slabs complete with rebar and burnt paper, claiming it was metal slag, You're referring to the image of a large, unidentified slab, in his paper. The abundance of iron (rust) is quite evident, which he suggests is an indication that the object is quite likely solidified metal, with entrained material (ie: rebar). He has requested permission to obtain samples from this material, in order to find out the actual contents. His requests have been ignored / denied. You are claiming it is a compacted concrete slab with rebar and burnt paper. This material has never been analysed, so your claim is entirely unsubstantiated as well. Until (if ever) the material is allowed to be analysed, we won't know the actual chemical makeup. he claims that molten aluminium can't glow yellow (dispite the numerous photos of molten aluminium doing so,) It does? AFAIK, pure molten aluminum does not glow yellow, it's always silver. he still claims the buildings fell in 10 seconds, even though it can be simply shown that it took 16-18 for WTC 2 to fall and 18-20 for WTC 1. The total collapse times for the towers cannot "be simply shown". The smoke and dust completely obscure any view of the structures' end (ground) point of collapse. Btw, FEMA and NIST have also stated that the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds - it's not the exclusive claim of so-called "CT's". Jones does have one interesting thing however, the iron sphericals. However this is still not proof of Therm*te, and in fact there are several people, including Dr Frank Greening, who are working on another theory that so far has proved promising. When blood is mixed with molten aluminuim, there is a nasty reaction, and one of the by products is small magnetic iron sphericals. The microspheres are still being analysed, but so far the data supports the thermate argument. Alternative causes are still being considered, as they properly should be. The blood theory seems quite unlikely, imo, for several reasons (albeit quite likely to evoke gruesome images and thoughts). it shows that Jones has not and has not even bothered to attempt to eliminate any likely alternatives to his own theories, and as such, fails as a scientist. Unlike NIST, who didn't bother to eliminate any likely alternatives to their fire/damage theory...
|
|