Jump to content

I know what happens in 2012.


titorite
 Share

Recommended Posts

Instead of labeling me a tinfoil hat nut ball why don't you examin the points I put forth

The points you put forth are not your points, and they have been "examined" and a great many problems in their assumptions have been pointed out by many people. Since all you can apparantly do is parrot other people's materials, and not engage in a real discussion about honest science, I guess I will just start shot-gunning like you do.
Steve is an astronomer.

Wrong.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/

 

Research Group: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical

 

Specialty: Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry, Solar energy

Nothing there that says astronomy, does it? Once again we see your own excellent treatment of the facts. Your assumptions (which you do not even seem to know you are making) and your "evidence" is like swiss cheese it is so full of holes. But let's stay with Steven Jones, as you appear to put a lot of credence in his paper and his "expertise".

 

Address Steve Jones' 13 points. Vaildate your position.

His "points" do not rise to the level of requiring validation, because there are quite a few conclusions he comes to in his paper that have been decidedly INVALIDATED. But he doesn't stop at just sloppy science leading to sloppy conclusions. Your hero, Dr. Steven Jones is even practicing one of the things you decry: IGNORING EVIDENCE, and in doing so he is being deceitful. Here, let me show you how:

 

In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

 

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

But what you don't see from this EDITING JOB done by Steven Jones is that his source (Mr. Swartz from the EPA) actually said more than just what Steven Jones quotes. Here is the rest of Mr. Swartz' quote:

 

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

Obviously, Steven Jones PURPOSEFULLY decided to NOT include that statement from his source, BECAUSE INCLUDING IT WOULD UNDERMINE HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE 1,3-diphenypropane WAS EVIDENCE OF THERMITE.

THIS IS DECEIT AND PURPOSEFUL DELETION OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSIONS!

 

In all actuality, the FACT that Steven Jones stoops to disingenuous (and decidedly NON-SCIENTIFIC) tactics such as this should pretty much kill ALL his credibility. But there is PLENTY of other information out there that should cause a CAREFUL and REASONABLE person to question the kinds of conclusions Steven Jones has reached on a whole host of topics.

 

For instance, did you know that an earlier "scientific" paper published by Steven Jones was entitled: "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"? In it he points to circles in what seems to be the palms of south American deities suggesting they are the hands of the crucified Jesus.. As with the WTC paper, he ignores evidence like the other circles all over the artwork to make his case.

 

Did you get that, titorite? HE IS IGNORING EVIDENCE! This is something you speak out against (and one of the few things I agree with you on). And here is the guy you are pinning all your hopes of scientific credibility, doing EXACTLY what you decry. So tell me, titorite, are you a Mormon? Do you believe that Steven Jones' "science" in his paper about Christ in ancient America could possibly be "sound science"?

 

I tire of your games. You've fooled yourself into thinking your arguments are scientific and validated. They are not. So again, I will act just like you and start feeding you some web pages that, if you read them carefully, will refute the VAST MAJORITY of the "points" that you parrot from people like Steven Jones.

 

1) Here is an interesting page that gives many FACTS about thermite, many of which completely counter Steven Jones' conclusions. It will also address the fallacy of your parroted "certainty" that the cuts in the picture you offered could not possibly have been done by torches. You might be surprised to find that Steven Jones himself ADMITS that cuts that look VERY SIMILAR to the ONE picture you present actually WERE cut with acetylene torches!!

 

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

 

2)Here is another paper with a LOT of scientific analysis, all substantiated, about allegations of "thermite". They outline a completely plausible explanation for the "explosions" that you see in pictures which you JUMP TO A CONCLUSION that they MUST BE THERMITE. In fact, aluminum can have explosive and "sparky" reactions with plaster and even WATER when the aluminum is in molten form. Careful!! There is a LOT of chemistry in this paper! Just because you might not understand it does NOT mean it is not valid, and that it does not dispel Steven Jones's conclusions. In fact, it does!

 

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

 

3) Now here we have a wealth of information that addresses the misguided and misinterpreted points about "molten steel".

 

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

4) How about a wealth of information that is quite problematic to Steven Jones and his unsupported conclusions? Yes, we have plenty of that at this URL:

 

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

 

5) Now I had pointed out above how Steven Jones' paper (and conclusions) about "evidence for controlled demolition" of WTC towers was NOT peer reviewed by any sort of standards or governing body for civil engineering. That says a LOT more than presenting a list of people, some who might even be civil engineers, who just happen to BELIEVE what Jones believes (but none of them have published civil engineering papers laying out their evidence). HOWEVER, there IS at least one paper that HAS been published in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal. It includes a list of people who HAVE endorsed it. You can read about it, read this very paper, and see a helluva lot of supporting references at the following page:

 

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

 

These are FACTS, titorite. Facts which you ignore. And as I have pointed out to you time and time again (and you continue to ignore): Just because there are FACTS which don't support your belief does not mean those FACTS are not TRUTHFUL, VALID, and PERTINENT to understanding the TRUTH.

 

Over and over again people refuting "9-11 conspiracy theorists" have shown just the kind of selective editorial techniques which are used to TELL HALF-TRUTHS....and to PURPOSEFULLY not present evidence which counters their beliefs. Such is just bad science, and to pay any heed to it is to lend credence to DISINFORMATION! And yes, THAT is disinformation at its worst...telling only part of the story, and presenting only some of the facts.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 417
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

DarkTimes,

 

ok so all the videos that were shown on news stations were fake? so what your saying is i didn't see flashes on levels then that level would fall. and i didn't see puffs of smoke on a lower level then fall.

No, I am not saying that at all. I am questioning your apparant CONCLUSIONS that what you saw must equal explosive charges. Where is the evidence which supports that what you saw was definitely explosive charges, and not explainable by the fact that there were fires burning, and aluminum reacting with other elements in that fire? GOOD science does not simply jump from "I saw flashes and and puffs of smoke" to "ergo, that must mean there were explosives".

 

these building should not have fallen. and before you start to turn red in the face no i'm no expert.

You admit you are not an expert, but then you claim these buildings should not have fallen. What do you base that belief on? What someone else said? Did that someone else who said it offer up factual analysis to prove it... or was this person just saying it, and having said it with authority (perhaps LOUDLY, as Alex Jones likes to speak), you just accept it and believe it? This is not a scientific approach.

 

pancake effect? those beams stood for 40 years. then both buidlings get hit at the top.

Again, you admit you are not an expert. Then it would appear you don't have an appreciation for the difference between STATIC loads and DYNAMIC loads. Have you ever heard of a term called Euler column buckling? I can explain it if you have the patience to learn about it. But if you would rather "save time" as just ignore this pertinent concept (the PRIMARY failure mode of a vertical column under a load) then all I can say is you really do not have the patience to find truth. For as a professional aerospace engineer, I assure you with every bit of my professional demeanor that Euler column buckling is a concept which MUST be addressed in ANY analysis of the failure of the WTC towers. I should point out that Steven Jones never....NOT ONCE even brings up Euler column buckling, explains its relevance, nor shows how this failure mode had no evidence for causing the columns to fail.

 

this is what i need from you if you would explain flashes in serten spots, plus puffs of smoke under the level above the level that is falling.

Both of these issues have been addressed, and folks have put forth explanations which have a higher probability of being TRUTH (i.e. there is direct evidence to support them, where there is not for explosive charges). First here is a page which explains how molten aluminum can have "flashy" and "sparky" reactions in the presence of plaster which is comprised of several different elements.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

As to the "puffs of smoke" there is another much more probable (and totally supportable) conclusion about what you are seeing. It relates to air pressure. And believe me, as a professor who teaches aerospace engineering, I know an awful lot about air pressure. When a building collapses, there is AIR inside the building that has to go somewhere. It is forced out the windows. Indeed, the pressures can build to be quite high..this is called an overpressure situation. There are lots of facts to explain it at the following web page:

 

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

 

plus i dont think metal melts at 1,000 degrees. i think i heard it melts at 2,800 or higher or was it 1,500 please correct this if i am wrong. i just heard that on a few films.

Above I mentioned Euler column buckling. I would hope you look into this, for it is important. If you like I can provide links to explain it. Part of understanding column buckling also involves understanding how heat reduces the strength of metal to hold a load. So, it was not necessary for the steel columns to actually MELT. Even if they are heated (and not even heated CLOSE to their melting point) they will begin to lose rigidity. Again, since you are asking honest questions and not being Mr. know-it-all like someone else, I am happy to help you come to a scientific understanding. That is why I became a teacher (part time)... to help students come to understand complex engineering topics.

 

So your saying bush, not in a million years would he lie to american's? war makes money.

No, I am not saying that and I have never said that! In fact, NOWHERE will you see that I EVER "defend" the Bush Administration. And the points you made about other events in US history are very good ones. I acknowledge their importance. I especially would acknowledge this one, as I believe it is pertinent to 9-11:

 

FDR claimed Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. It wasn't. The United States saw war with Japan as the means to get into war with Germany, which Americans opposed. So Roosevelt needed Japan to appear to strike first. Following an 8-step plan devised by the Office of Naval Intelligence, Roosevelt intentionally provoked Japan into the attack.

I have said in another post recently that I have NOT absolved the US GOV and Bush Admin of KNOWING THAT THE 9-11 ATTACKS WERE COMING. I think there is AMPLE evidence that could, actually support this conclusion. But to go further and try to say there is "conclusive" evidence that not only did the GOV know about the attacks, but that they actually PROSECUTED the attacks themselves...that is ludicrous. There is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE (on MANY fronts) to support such conclusions. Such a conclusion would be tantamount to saying "Roosevelt and the US Armed Forces were the ones who ACTUALLY attacked Pearl Harbor, NOT the Japanese Fleet!" Such conclusions could NEVER be proven... and in almost exactly the same way, plenty of highly scientific, highly dedicated, and highly experienced people have SHOWN that the JUMP TO CONCLUSION of most conspiracy theorists that "9-11 was an inside job" just cannot be directly supported by honest evidence.

DarkTime, I am hoping you don't have the same "I know exactly what happened" attitude that titorite does. He is ignoring the evidence that refutes his hard-fast beliefs. And much like you admit to, he is also not an expert in these things. I hope you are reasonable enough to discuss these things. In fact, I am MORE THANT WILLING to explore the idea that the Bush Admin (and other gov agencies) KNEW this attack was coming, and just let it occur. But until we can SOLIDLY prove that FIRST STEP, jumping to an even more ludicrous step is, to put it bluntly, sheer stupidity and NOT in the best traditions of careful tragedy investigations!

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http:http:www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm#3 25 tactics and 8 traits of a disinformationalist

 

The points you put forth are not your points, and they have been "examined" and a great many problems in their assumptions have been pointed out by many people. Since all you can apparantly do is parrot other people's materials, and not engage in a real discussion about honest science, I guess I will just start shot-gunning like you do.

disinformation tactic 19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant.

Many people have pointed out the problems but not you because you address nothing in the link I provided. Way to ignore.

 

On page 6. I posted a few photos. I asked Bogz but the question may apply to you aswell. Do you think the photos are fake? If not do you understand why they fail to support the governments version of the story? In other words do you understand why they contradict the Offical Version?

 

Nothing there that says astronomy, does it? Once again we see your own excellent treatment of the facts. Your assumptions (which you do not even seem to know you are making) and your "evidence" is like swiss cheese it is so full of holes. But let's stay with Steven Jones, as you appear to put a lot of credence in his paper and his "expertise".

Disinformation tactics

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.

 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.

 

Steve may of changed areas of study too. According to the link I provided he was an astronomer at the time. Your indignation and ridicule is no excuse to avoid the information provided here http://dbarkertv.com/Steve%20Jones%20April%203%202006%20update.htm If you HAD clicked this link then you would know why I thought he was an astronomer.

 

If your not willing to address the ponits he raises in the link I provided I fail to see the point in keeping this debate going. I haven't seen the PDF you reference and you offer no inclination that you have clicked the link I provided so I have no way to verify your words since you don't offer a link and I do. For all I know your inventing the text comminting yourself to disinformation tactic 20. False evidence.

 

The thirteen points I referenced are in the link above. Stick to the information provided and/or provide sources for your information.

 

His "points" do not rise to the level of requiring validation, because there are quite a few conclusions he comes to in his paper that have been decidedly INVALIDATED. But he doesn't stop at just sloppy science leading to sloppy conclusions. Your hero, Dr. Steven Jones is even practicing one of the things you decry: IGNORING EVIDENCE, and in doing so he is being deceitful. Here, let me show you how:

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

 

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"

 

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

 

But what you don't see from this EDITING JOB done by Steven Jones is that his source (Mr. Swartz from the EPA) actually said more than just what Steven Jones quotes. Here is the rest of Mr. Swartz' quote:

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."

 

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

 

Obviously, Steven Jones PURPOSEFULLY decided to NOT include that statement from his source, BECAUSE INCLUDING IT WOULD UNDERMINE HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE 1,3-diphenypropane WAS EVIDENCE OF THERMITE.

 

THIS IS DECEIT AND PURPOSEFUL DELETION OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT HIS CONCLUSIONS!

 

In all actuality, the FACT that Steven Jones stoops to disingenuous (and decidedly NON-SCIENTIFIC) tactics such as this should pretty much kill ALL his credibility. But there is PLENTY of other information out there that should cause a CAREFUL and REASONABLE person to question the kinds of conclusions Steven Jones has reached on a whole host of topics.

 

For instance, did you know that an earlier "scientific" paper published by Steven Jones was entitled: "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America"? In it he points to circles in what seems to be the palms of south American deities suggesting they are the hands of the crucified Jesus.. As with the WTC paper, he ignores evidence like the other circles all over the artwork to make his case.

 

Did you get that, titorite? HE IS IGNORING EVIDENCE! This is something you speak out against (and one of the few things I agree with you on). And here is the guy you are pinning all your hopes of scientific credibility, doing EXACTLY what you decry. So tell me, titorite, are you a Mormon? Do you believe that Steven Jones' "science" in his paper about Christ in ancient America could possibly be "sound science"?

 

I tire of your games. You've fooled yourself into thinking your arguments are scientific and validated. They are not. So again, I will act just like you and start feeding you some web pages that, if you read them carefully, will refute the VAST MAJORITY of the "points" that you parrot from people like Steven Jones.

Again I have no idea where you got all this information and as far as I know it is fictictous unless you can provide a link for me to look it over...

 

1) Here is an interesting page that gives many FACTS about thermite, many of which completely counter Steven Jones' conclusions. It will also address the fallacy of your parroted "certainty" that the cuts in the picture you offered could not possibly have been done by torches. You might be surprised to find that Steven Jones himself ADMITS that cuts that look VERY SIMILAR to the ONE picture you present actually WERE cut with acetylene torches!!

 

[/url]

 

 

 

Disinformatiion tactic 22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably.

[it will also address the fallacy of your parroted "certainty" that the cuts in the picture you offered could not possibly have been done by torches.] Again you engage in sloppy debate and resort to saying something that is not true. I did not "parrot" certianty. I offered the photo as proof of a thermite cut. Nowhere did I insist it could not of been cut in any other fasion. But if it is posible I would draw your attention to the U shaped lump on the back of the collum as well as the amount of melt.

 

2)Here is another paper with a LOT of scientific analysis, all substantiated, about allegations of "thermite". They outline a completely plausible explanation for the "explosions" that you see in pictures which you JUMP TO A CONCLUSION that they MUST BE THERMITE. In fact, aluminum can have explosive and "sparky" reactions with plaster and even WATER when the aluminum is in molten form. Careful!! There is a LOT of chemistry in this paper! Just because you might not understand it does NOT mean it is not valid, and that it does not dispel Steven Jones's conclusions. In fact, it does!

 

http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

 

 

 

Disinformation tactic 4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. 

 

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent.

 

 

 

You are hung up on this thermite. When I wrote earlier I wrote that I was not sure what caused the molten metal. Of thermite I only wrote to the effect that it did burn at 2500C and that it could burn through an engine block so its likely it could cut through the collums. You are jumping to conclusions and inserting your own assumptions onto me....is it out of some kind of pro state zeal?

 

 

 

 

Disinformation tactic 23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues 

 

It maybe a wealth of information but what does it have to do with the original link I posted that you haven't addressed or even looked at as far as I can tell?

 

 

 

 

How about you cease in distractionary tactics and stick to the link and the 13 points you are still neglegecting to address? 

 

 

5) Now I had pointed out above how Steven Jones' paper (and conclusions) about "evidence for controlled demolition" of WTC towers was NOT peer reviewed by any sort of standards or governing body for civil engineering. That says a LOT more than presenting a list of people, some who might even be civil engineers, who just happen to BELIEVE what Jones believes (but none of them have published civil engineering papers laying out their evidence). HOWEVER, there IS at least one paper that HAS been published in a peer-reviewed civil engineering journal. It includes a list of people who HAVE endorsed it. You can read about it, read this very paper, and see a helluva lot of supporting references at the following page

 

 

 

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

 

 

 

These are FACTS, titorite. Facts which you ignore. And as I have pointed out to you time and time again (and you continue to ignore): Just because there are FACTS which don't support your belief does not mean those FACTS are not TRUTHFUL, VALID, and PERTINENT to understanding the TRUTH.

 

 

 

Over and over again people refuting "9-11 conspiracy theorists" have shown just the kind of selective editorial techniques which are used to TELL HALF-TRUTHS....and to PURPOSEFULLY not present evidence which counters their beliefs. Such is just bad science, and to pay any heed to it is to lend credence to DISINFORMATION! And yes, THAT is disinformation at its worst...telling only part of the story, and presenting only some of the facts.

 

 

 

It is funny you accuse me of ignoreing facts and you fail to comment on the point/link I provided instead baseing your entire argument off of your own links and unsourced materials. 

 

Oh I accept facts and you have provided plenty. Problem is that they don't relate to the thirteen points presented on the link.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DarkTimes,

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

ok so all the videos that were shown on news stations were fake? so what your saying is i didn't see flashes on levels then that level would fall. and i didn't see puffs of smoke on a lower level then fall.

 

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

 

No, I am not saying that at all. I am questioning your apparant CONCLUSIONS that what you saw must equal explosive charges. Where is the evidence which supports that what you saw was definitely explosive charges, and not explainable by the fact that there were fires burning, and aluminum reacting with other elements in that fire? GOOD science does not simply jump from "I saw flashes and and puffs of smoke" to "ergo, that must mean there were explosives".

 

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

these building should not have fallen. and before you start to turn red in the face no i'm no expert.

 

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

 

You admit you are not an expert, but then you claim these buildings should not have fallen. What do you base that belief on? What someone else said? Did that someone else who said it offer up factual analysis to prove it... or was this person just saying it, and having said it with authority (perhaps LOUDLY, as Alex Jones likes to speak), you just accept it and believe it? This is not a scientific approach.

 

5. Anti-conspiratorial 5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule

 

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

pancake effect? those beams stood for 40 years. then both buidlings get hit at the top.

 

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

 

Again, you admit you are not an expert. Then it would appear you don't have an appreciation for the difference between STATIC loads and DYNAMIC loads. Have you ever heard of a term called Euler column buckling? I can explain it if you have the patience to learn about it. But if you would rather "save time" as just ignore this pertinent concept (the PRIMARY failure mode of a vertical column under a load) then all I can say is you really do not have the patience to find truth. For as a professional aerospace engineer, I assure you with every bit of my professional demeanor that Euler column buckling is a concept which MUST be addressed in ANY analysis of the failure of the WTC towers. I should point out that Steven Jones never....NOT ONCE even brings up Euler column buckling, explains its relevance, nor shows how this failure mode had no evidence for causing the columns to fail.

 

10. Associate opponent charges with old news 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad 8. Invoke authority

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

this is what i need from you if you would explain flashes in serten spots, plus puffs of smoke under the level above the level that is falling.

 

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

 

Both of these issues have been addressed, and folks have put forth explanations which have a higher probability of being TRUTH (i.e. there is direct evidence to support them, where there is not for explosive charges). First here is a page which explains how molten aluminum can have "flashy" and "sparky" reactions in the presence of plaster which is comprised of several different elements. 15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions

 

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

 

As to the "puffs of smoke" there is another much more probable (and totally supportable) conclusion about what you are seeing. It relates to air pressure. And believe me, as a professor who teaches aerospace engineering, I know an awful lot about air pressure. When a building collapses, there is AIR inside the building that has to go somewhere. It is forced out the windows. Indeed, the pressures can build to be quite high..this is called an overpressure situation. There are lots of facts to explain it at the following web page:

 

http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

plus i dont think metal melts at 1,000 degrees. i think i heard it melts at 2,800 or higher or was it 1,500 please correct this if i am wrong. i just heard that on a few films.

 

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

 

Above I mentioned Euler column buckling. I would hope you look into this, for it is important. If you like I can provide links to explain it. Part of understanding column buckling also involves understanding how heat reduces the strength of metal to hold a load. So, it was not necessary for the steel columns to actually MELT. Even if they are heated (and not even heated CLOSE to their melting point) they will begin to lose rigidity. Again, since you are asking honest questions and not being Mr. know-it-all like someone else, I am happy to help you come to a scientific understanding. That is why I became a teacher (part time)... to help students come to understand complex engineering topics.

 

7. Inconsistent 18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad 5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule 8. Invoke authority

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

So your saying bush, not in a million years would he lie to american's? war makes money.

 

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

 

No, I am not saying that and I have never said that! In fact, NOWHERE will you see that I EVER "defend" the Bush Administration. And the points you made about other events in US history are very good ones. I acknowledge their importance. I especially would acknowledge this one, as I believe it is pertinent to 9-11:

 

In reply to:

 

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

 

FDR claimed Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. It wasn't. The United States saw war with Japan as the means to get into war with Germany, which Americans opposed. So Roosevelt needed Japan to appear to strike first. Following an 8-step plan devised by the Office of Naval Intelligence, Roosevelt intentionally provoked Japan into the attack.

 

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

 

DarkTime, I am hoping you don't have the same "I know exactly what happened" attitude that titorite does.

 

Nice goad, I don't claim to know it all. Again you apply your assumptions on to me. WHAT I DO KNOW IS the lies. I seriously doubt the truth of how the wtc 1 2 and SEVEN! came down will ever be known. The clean up and cover up was to quick and thourgh. What I can attest to is the lies when I see them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why do i feel like creedos here?!?! :confused:

 

seriously though, to rmt and titorite,

 

titorite, i see your side of view, wich is looking at things logically, and making the best guess. and rmt, i see your side, wich is looking at things scientifically, never making a guess, and getting an answer when the calculations are complete.

 

i see it both ways, so, the way i see it, theres two options...

 

A rmt is correct.

 

B titorite is correct.

 

BUT! theres a hidden option: C both of you are correct. titorite, what rmt is saying, is that he does not believe your view, and he is right for believing that way. one would expect no less from a man of science. however, if irrefutable proof is shown to him, he will not deny it.

 

and rmt, all titorite is saying is that he can logically assume that somethings not on the up and up. for it wouldnt be so many conspiracy theorists without probable cause, right? most of titorites stuff is proof to warrant suspicion.

 

i must admit that i have made a few assumptions myself, assumptions that were quickly dispelled after seeing that what you said coincided with the video i linked earlier. but, a few assumptions stayed.

 

i assume that the reason for the media reporting a 5th plane hitting camp david, and the early telling of the 3rd building collapsing is glitches in the "script"

 

also, after listening to how you think the towers fell, i stopped, visualized it, and realized you were correct, and this is also how the concrete got pounded to dust. makes perfect sense.

 

the one thing i do not understand though, is why we didnt see any bowing, or settling before it fell.

 

i do have to say that both of you seem to be very passionate about the way you feel, but i would say to you both: quit pulling a creedo vs. rainmantime fest!!! before creedo smells us! nooooooo! o_O

 

seriously though, im off to talk to a man about a clam... :devil:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few side line questions to ponder (Answers not required) everyone can agree that Larry Silverstien said the best thing to do to wtc7 was to "pull it".

 

Since when is Larry any kind of structual engineer capable of judgeing weather or not a building will stand or fall? Since when is HE in charge of the NYFD and able to give them the order to "pull it"? Since when is the NYFD trained in controled demolition and where did they get the demoltions needed to pull it off on such short notice? How was the NYFD able to bring it down the WTC7 so precisly so swiftly when it takes CDI months to calculate where charges are supposed to be set?

 

Just a few WTC7 questions to ponder.

 

How about a radar question? Since when can commercial air buses achive stealth? Every plane is on record as being lost and not visible to radar. Are you familier with how air tarffic control works and what happens when an air traffic controler loses the plane he is tracking? I am.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OYE talking about a hijaking. I can get empassioned about the 911 subject. www.johntitor.com has updated his website..he now features podcasting. Very nice. He mentions the poem on his site.

 

Ummm CAldera 2012 gonna suck gonna blot out the sun. Let us not forget that this is what the thread is about not 911. Although if you bring it to me I'll take it to you. what else to enter here?....?>?>? you can join the JTUK group at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/John_Titor_UK/

 

and I think thats it for now. Any questions?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few side line questions to ponder (Answers not required)

Your arguments and questions are about as pertinent as the following:

Uncomfortable Questions: Was The Death Star Attack An Inside Job?

 

Here is one of my favorites:

 

8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?

And as to your "13 points by Steven Jones" it is obvious you are not clicking and reading the links I gave you... for in those links quite a few of his "13 points" are debunked (not to mention showing the disingenuous tactics Jones uses to ignore other facts). Just as you do to me, I don't need to address them point-by-point... all I need to do is give you a link, and you can find the answers yourself. What's good for the goose...

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8. Invoke authority

The famous circular argument is implied by this little ditty:You invoke the authority of some unvalidated/unsubstantiated list (http:www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm#3) in an attempt to tell me that invoking authority is a disinformation tactic. Such circular logic makes you guilty of that which you accuse others of being guilty of.

Your arguments are replete with other such logical fallacies. They present a field day for me, or anyone else to expose your ignorance...of which I have barely scratched the surface. Of course you would never admit to these logical fallacies, even tho they can be proven as fact.

 

I think I've stirred your pot quite enough. Enjoy your wallowing in ignorance. Meanwhile other people who are actually willing to learn where they might have beliefs unfounded in facts will continue to ask questions and get veridical answers.

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RainmanTime, Go away. You posted a bunch of JUNK you CLAIMED was from a PDF file and offered no link to said PDF file.. You did not Touch the link "I" sourced thats why you said I was wrong when the link says in black and white his proffesion as of the time it was written is ASTRONOMER!

 

As I said Answers to my question were not required. Larry Silverstien has not qualification to judge the structual intergity of a building WHY ON GODS GREEN EARTH WOULD THE NYFD CHIEF EVEN BOTHER TALKING TO HIM ABOUT IT! The NYFD is NOT trained in controled demolitions therefore that rules them out as the choosen civil service department to "pull" the solomon building. As for where the demolition material was found on such short notice...geee hmmm let me think about that one IT WAS PREPLANED! You know diddly squat about Controled Demolition. IF you did you would know it takes months of planing surveying and calculating just where exactly to put the charges to bring down the building in a "safe" manner so that other buildings are not affected. You don't even know how many companies in the US handle Building Demolition do you? Heres a hint before you google it you can count em' on one hand.

 

Your a charity shill. The worst kind of all because you do it for entertainment. So many have died, and so much evil has come of it and you refuse to acknowledge the facts and the lies. How long of a logic leap is it from "I think they let it happen" to "They had a hand in it"

 

"I think they let it happen" is akin to "I might have a bad BooBoo" The Turth of the matter is so much worse then your willing to accept so you put on your rose colored glasses to look at it in the best possible (least incriminating) light.

 

I will post one more artical THE ARTICAL and then I'm done with you, if you haven't already fluttered on to some other imaginary dream reality by then , that is.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9/11 Terror

 

BECAUSE I HAVE TO DRAG ALL THE PHOTOS HERE MYSELF I WILL ONLY BE DRAGING THE PRETINENT PHOTOS.

 

THE ARTICAL CAN BE READ IN ITS ENTIRETY HERE http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/physics_1.html

 

And never mind the photos...they arent gonna copy over....I tried!

 

Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!

 

by J. McMichael

 

[email protected]

 

Some of the sources have departed since this essay was originally published on October 21.

 

Where I could find substitutes, I have indicated them with the word "or"

 

and a locally cached copy. This revision is published on November 25, 2001.

 

I tried to be patriotic.

 

I tried to believe. I watched those quarter mile high buildings fall through their jaw-dropping catastrophes over and over again. I listened to the announcer and the experts explain what had happened. And I worked at my pitiful lack of faith, pounding my skull with the remote control and staring at the flickering images on the TV screen.

 

But poor mental peasant that I am, I could not escape the teachings of my forefathers. I fear I am trapped in my time, walled off from further scientific understanding by my inability to abandon the Second Millennium mindset.

 

But enough of myself. Let us move on to the Science and Technology of the 21st Century. Those of you who cannot believe should learn the official truth by rote and perhaps you will be able to hide your ignorance.

 

Here are the bare bones of the WTC incident:

 

North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor, collapsed about 10:29 a.m.

 

South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor, collapsed about 9:50 a.m.;

 

(http://www.infoplease.com/spot/sept112001.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/info.html ). Impact locations estimated by Scientific American http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or:

 

Geographic information for WTC given at http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog

 

Comprehensive info on WTC with 3D model of complex at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

 

North tower struck 8:45 a.m. from the north at about the 93rd floor South tower struck 9:03 a.m. from the south at about the 80th floor

 

Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.

 

Let us consider: One plane full of jet fuel hit the north tower at 8:45 a.m., and the fuel fire burned for a while with bright flames and black smoke. We can see pictures of white smoke and flames shooting from the windows.

 

Then by 9:03 a.m. (which time was marked by the second plane's collision with the south tower), the flame was mostly gone and only black smoke continued to pour from the building. To my simple mind, that would indicate that the first fire had died down, but something was still burning inefficiently, leaving soot (carbon) in the smoke. A fire with sooty smoke is either low temperature or starved for oxygen -- or both.

 

( http://www.fosters.com/news2001c/september/11/04758CA1-AC58-4591-9F50-5976D2 BE2E04.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/fires1-2.html ).

 

But by 10:29 a.m., the fire in north tower had accomplished the feat that I find so amazing: It melted the steel supports in the building, causing a chain reaction within the structure that brought the building to the ground.

 

And with less fuel to feed the fire, the south tower collapsed only 47 minutes after the plane collision, again with complete destruction. This is only half the time it took to destroy the north tower.

 

I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel (steel is about 99% iron; for melting points of iron and steel, see http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Fe/heat.html ,

 

http://www.weldtechnology.com/rwintroduction.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/rwintroduction.html )

 

I try not to wonder how the fire reached temperatures that only bottled oxygen or forced air can produce.

 

And I try not to think about all the steel that was in that building -- 200,000 tons of it (for WTC statistics, see http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wtc1.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtc1.html ).

 

I try to forget that heating steel is like pouring syrup onto a plate: you can't get it to stack up. The heat just flows out to the colder parts of the steel, cooling off the part you are trying to warm up. If you pour it on hard enough and fast enough, you can get the syrup to stack up a little bit. And with very high heat brought on very fast, you can heat up one part of a steel object, but the heat will quickly spread out and the hot part will cool off soon after you stop.

 

Am I to believe that the fire burned for 104 minutes in the north tower, gradually heating the 200,000 tons of steel supports like a blacksmith's forge, with the heat flowing throughout the skeleton of the tower? If the collapse was due to heated steel, the experts should be able to tell us how many thousands of tons of steel were heated to melting temperature in 104 minutes and how much fuel would be required to produce that much heat. Can a single Boeing 767 carry that much fuel?

 

Thankfully, I found this note on the BBC web page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ): "Fire reaches 800 [degrees] C -- hot enough to melt steel floor supports."

 

That is one of the things I warned you about: In the 20th Century, steel melted at 1535 degrees Celsius (2795 F), (see http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html ), but in the 21st Century, it melts at 800 degrees C (1472 F).

 

This might be explained as a reporter's mistake -- 800 to 900 C is the temperature for forging wrought iron. As soft as wrought iron is, of course, it would never be used for structural steel in a landmark skyscraper. (Descriptions of cast iron, wrought iron, steel, and relevant temperatures discussed at http://www.metrum.org/measures/castiron.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/castiron.htm .)

 

But then lower down, the BBC page repeats the 800 C number in bold, and the article emphasizes that the information comes from Chris Wise, "Structural Engineer." Would this professional individual permit himself to be misquoted in a global publication?

 

Eduardo Kausel, an M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering, spoke as follows to a panel of Boston area civil and structural engineers: "I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements -- floor trusses and columns -- so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse." Kausel is apparently satisfied that a kerosene fire could melt steel -- though he does not venture a specific temperature for the fire ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam ).

 

I feel it coming on again -- that horrible cynicism that causes me to doubt the word of the major anchor-persons. Please just think of this essay as a plea for help, and do NOT let it interfere with your own righteous faith. The collapse of America's faith in its leaders must not become another casualty on America's skyline.

 

In my diseased mind, I think of the floors of each tower like a stack of LP (33-1/3 RPM) records, except that the floors were square instead of circular. They were stacked around a central spindle that consisted of multiple steel columns interspersed with dozens of elevator shafts (see http://www.skyscraper.org/tallest/t_wtc.htm , http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm , and http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html ).

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

Images cached from BBC page ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ) and HERA report by G. Charles Clifton ( http://www.hera.org.nz/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/clifton.pdf ). Items indicated in Clifton image (right): 13. Exterior columns; 17. Interior columns; 20. Usable office space

 

BBC News Image (left) is misleading:

 

A "beam" is always horizontal, "columns" are vertical. The vertical steel supports in the core were columns.

 

The central columns occupied about 25% of the floor area, not 10% as is shown on the left.

 

The central columns were not encased in a single block of concrete, but interspersed with elevator shafts

 

spacer.png

 

spacer.png

 

The outside shape of the towers was almost square, but the inner core was more rectangular. Pictures from the early phases of construction photos show how the rectangular inner cores were oriented in the finished buildings ( http://www.GreatBuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/World_Trade_Center_Images.html/cid_wtc_mya_WTC_const.4.gbi ). Note that the north tower core was aligned east-west, and the south tower core was aligned north-south.

 

This drawing shows the two WTC towers (black) and the paths of the attacking aircraft (red). Within the profile of each tower, the shape of the central core is shown by the green rectangle. WTC buildings 1 through 6 are numbered, WTC 7, north of 6, is not shown.

 

With the central core bearing the weight of the building, the platters were tied together and stabilized by another set of steel columns at the outside rim, closely spaced and completely surrounding the structure. This resulting structure was so stable that the top of the towers swayed only three feet in a high wind. The architects called it a "tube-within-a-tube design."

 

The TV experts told us that the joints between the floors and central columns melted (or the floor trusses, or the central columns, or the exterior columns, depending on the expert) and this caused the floor to collapse and fall onto the one below. This overloaded the lower floor, and the two of them fell onto the floor below, and so on like dominos (see http://news-info.wustl.edu/News/nrindex00/harmon.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/harmon ).

 

Back in the early 1970s when the World Trade Towers were built, the WTC was the tallest building that had ever been built in the history of the world. If we consider the architectural engineers, suppliers, builders, and city inspectors on the job, we can imagine they would be very careful to overbuild every aspect. If one bolt was calculated to serve, you can bet that three or four were used. If there was any doubt about the quality of a girder or steel beam, you can be sure it was rejected. After all, any failures would attract the attention of half the civilized world, and no corporation wants a reputation for that kind of stupidity -- particularly if there are casualties.

 

I do not know the exact specifications for the WTC, but I know in many trades (and some I've worked), a structural member must be physically capable of three times the maximum load that will ever be required of it (BreakingStrength = 3 x WorkingStrength).

 

According to Engineering and Technical Handbook by McNeese and Hoag, Prentice Hall, 3rd printing, September 1959: page 47 (Table) Safety Factors of Various Materials, the mandatory safety factor for structural steel is 600%. That is, a steel structure may be rated for a load of only one sixth the actual theoretical limit.

 

Given that none of those floors was holding a grand piano sale or an elephant convention that day, it is unlikely that any of them were loaded to the maximum. Thus, any of the floors should have been capable of supporting more than its own weight plus the two floors above it. I suspect the WTC was engineered for safer margins than the average railroad bridge, and the actual load on each floor was less than 1/6 the BreakingStrength. The platters were constructed of webs of steel trusses. Radial trusses ran from the perimeter of the floor to the central columns, and concentric rings of trusses connected the radial trusses, forming a pattern like a spider web (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

 

or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1540044w.gif ). Where the radial trusses connected with the central columns, I imagine the joints looked like the big bolted flanges where girders meet on a bridge -- inches thick bolts tying the beams into the columns.

 

In order to weaken those joints, a fire would have to heat the bolts or the flanges to the point where the bolts fell apart or tore through the steel. But here is another thing that gives me problems -- all the joints between the platter and the central columns would have to be heated at the same rate in order to collapse at the same time -- and at the same rate as the joints with the outer columns on all sides -- else one side of the platter would fall, damaging the floor below and making obvious distortions in the skin of the building, or throwing the top of the tower off balance and to one side.

 

But there were no irregularities in the fall of those buildings. They fell almost as perfectly as a deck of cards in the hands of a magician doing an aerial shuffle.

 

spacer.pngspacer.png

 

Images cached from PsyOpNews:

 

The Splitsecond Error

 

This is particularly worrisome since the first plane struck one side of the north tower, causing (you would think) a weakening on that side where the exterior columns were struck, and a more intense fire on that side than on the other side. And the second plane struck near the corner of the south tower at an angle that caused much of the fuel to spew out the windows on the adjacent side (see http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/southtowerpath.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/southtowerpath.jpg ).

 

Yet the south tower also collapsed in perfect symmetry, spewing dust in all directions like a Fourth of July sparkler burning to the ground (http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/DOCS/dustfountain.jpg ).

 

This symmetry of descent is even more remarkable in the south tower because in the first moments of the collapse, the top 20 floors of the south tower tilted over to the south ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/images/_1538563_thecollapseap150.jpg

 

or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews/DOCS/1538563t.jpg ).

 

Whatever irregularities caused the top of the tower to tilt, subsequent pictures show the tower falling mostly within its own footprint. There are no reports of this cube of concrete and steel from the upper floors (measuring 200 ft. wide, 200 ft. deep, and 250 ft high) falling a 1000 feet onto the buildings below.

 

Implosion expert Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD, was also misled by the picture. Having observed the collapses on television news, Loizeaux said the 1,362-ft-tall south tower failed much as one would fell a tree ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR ).

 

I have recently seen a videotape rerun of the south tower falling. In that take, the upper floors descend as a complete unit, tilted over as shown on the BBC page, sliding down behind the intervening buildings like a piece of stage scenery.

 

That scene is the most puzzling of all. Since the upper floors were not collapsed (the connection between the center columns and the platters were intact), this assembly would present itself to the lower floors as a block of platters WITHOUT a central hole. How then would a platter without a hole slide down the spindle with the other platters? Where would the central columns go if they could not penetrate the upper floors as the platters fell?

 

If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux's image) much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree.

 

This model would also hold for the north tower. According to Chris Wise's "domino" doctrine, the collapse began only at the floor with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel?

 

In trying to reconstruct and understand this event, we need to know whether the scenes we are watching are edited or simply shown raw as they were recorded.

 

But let us return our attention to the fire. Liquid fuel does not burn hot for long. Liquid fuel evaporates (or boils) as it burns, and the vapor burns as it boils off. If the ambient temperature passes the boiling point of the fuel and oxygen is plentiful, the process builds to an explosion that consumes the fuel.

 

Jet fuel (refined kerosene) boils at temperatures above 160 degrees Celsius (350 F) and the vapor flashes into flame at 41 degrees Celsius (106 F). In an environment of 1500 degrees F, jet fuel spread thinly on walls, floor, and ceiling would boil off very quickly. If there were sufficient oxygen, it would burn; otherwise it would disperse out the open windows and flame when it met oxygen in the open air -- as was likely happening in the pictures that showed flames shooting from the windows. Some New Yorkers miles distant claimed they smelled the fuel, which would indicate fuel vapors were escaping without being burned.

 

Note that jet fuel burning outside the building would heat the outside columns, but would not heat the central load-bearing columns significantly. Following this reasoning, the jet fuel fire does not adequately explain the failure of the central columns.

 

Whether the fuel burned gradually at a temperature below the boiling point of jet fuel (360 C), or burned rapidly above the boiling point of jet fuel, in neither case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a fire at 815 degrees C (1500 F) long enough to melt 200,000 tons of steel. And certainly, the carpets, wallpaper, filing cabinets, occasional desks -- nothing else in that office was present in sufficient quantity to produce that temperature.

 

The WTC was not a lumber yard or a chemical plant. What was burning?

 

OK, since it was mentioned, I am also upset with the quantity of concrete dust (see http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why ) or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/index.htm#why ). No concrete that I have ever known pulverizes like that. It is unnerving. My experience with concrete has shown that it will crumble under stress, but rarely does it just give up the ghost and turn to powder. But look at the pictures -- it is truly a fine dust in great billowing clouds spewing a hundred feet from the collapsing tower.

 

The University of Sydney -- Department of Civil Engineering

 

And the people on the ground see little more than an opaque wall of dust -- with inches of dust filling the streets and the lungs afterward ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/thirdexplosion.jpg or:

 

http://public-action.com/911/jmcm /thirdexplosion.jpg ).

 

What has happened here?

 

I need a faith booster shot. I would like to find a picture of all those platters piled up on the ground, just as they fell -- has anyone seen a picture like that? I am told it was cumulative weight of those platters falling on each other that caused the collapse, but I don't see the platters piled up like flapjacks on the ground floor.

 

In this picture, the top of the picture is south and the right side is west. The ruined shell in the lower left is WTC building 6, and lower left of that is WTC 7, which was leveled by forces not explained. Picture cached from http://www.eionews.com before it was removed.

 

Instead, the satellite pictures show the WTC ruins like an ash pit ( http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter_closeup.jpg ,

 

http://eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/wtcaerial.jpg or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcaerial.jpg ).

 

I am told by a friend that a man named Dr. Robert Schuller was on television telling about his trip to the ruins. He announced in the interview that there was not a single block of concrete in that rubble. From the original 425,000 cubic yards of concrete that went into the building, all was dust. How did that happen?

 

I have just one other point I need help with -- the steel columns in the center. When the platters fell, those quarter-mile high central steel columns (at least from the ground to the fire) should have been left standing naked and unsupported in the air, and then they should have fallen intact or in sections to the ground below, clobbering buildings hundreds of feet from the WTC site like giant trees falling in the forest. But I haven't seen any pictures showing those columns standing, falling, or lying on the ground. Nor have I heard of damage caused by them.

 

Now I know those terrorists must have been much better at these things than I am. I would take one look at their kamikaze plans with commercial jets and I would reject it as -- spectacular maybe, but not significantly damaging. The WTC was not even a strategic military target.

 

But if I were given the assignment of a terrorist hijacker, I would try to hit the towers low in the supports to knock the towers down, maybe trapping the workers with the fire and burning the towers from the ground up, just as the people in the top stories were trapped. Even the Japanese kamikaze pilots aimed for the water line.

 

But you see, those terrorists were so sure the building would magically collapse that way, the pilot who hit the north tower chose a spot just 20 floors from the top ( http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/worldtrade010911.html or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABCNews ).

 

And the kamikaze for south tower was only slightly lower -- despite a relatively open skyline down to 25 or 30 stories ( http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/920/15m/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/rubble_ny091101.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/wtcgeog )

 

The terrorists apparently predicted the whole scenario -- the fuel fire, the slow weakening of the structure, and the horrific collapse of the building -- phenomena that the architects and the NY civil engineering approval committees never dreamed of.

 

Even as you righteously hate those men, you have to admire them for their genius.

 

Few officials or engineers have been surprised by this turn of events -- apparently everyone certified it for airplane collisions, but almost no one was surprised when both collisions caused utter catastrophes in both towers. In fact, their stutters and mumbles and circumlocutions would make a politician blush:

 

"Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination." ( http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.htm#why or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/usyd/wtc.htm#why )

 

In a hundred years of tall city buildings, this kind of collapse has never happened before. Never. It was not predicted by any of the experts involved when the WTC towers were built. But now that it has happened, everybody understands it perfectly and nobody is surprised.

 

Is this civil engineering in the Third Millennium -- a galloping case of perfect hindsight?

 

Scientific American, prestigious journal of cutting edge science, remarked:

 

Despite the expert panel's preliminary musings on the failure mechanisms responsible for the twin towers' fall, the definitive cause has yet to be determined. Reportedly, the National Science Foundation has funded eight research projects to probe the WTC catastrophe. The American Society of Civil Engineers is sponsoring several studies of the site. Meanwhile the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Structural Engineers has established an investigative team to analyze the disaster and learn from the failure ( http://www.sciam.com/explorations/2001/100901wtc or:

 

http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam )

 

Amazing: At least ten independent professional studies for an incident every professional seems already to understand. Notwithstanding the apparent lack of answers and all these studies not yet done, the very next paragraph is headed, "How the Towers Fell," and the reader is treated to a shotgun assortment of speculations, each delivered with the beard-stroking and pipe-puffing certainty that no explanation would ever be seriously challenged.

 

I have found only one expert candidly admitting his surprise. This was Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, MD:

 

Observing the collapses on television news, Loizeaux says the 1,362-ft-tall south tower, which was hit at about the 60th floor, failed much as one would like (sic) fell a tree. That is what was expected, says Loizeaux. But the 1,368-ft-tall north tower, similarly hit but at about the 90th floor, "telescoped," says Loizeaux. It failed vertically, he adds, rather than falling over. "I don't have a clue," says Loizeaux, regarding the cause of the telescoping. (http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc_enr.htm or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/USYDENR ).

 

There was one highly qualified engineer in New Mexico who thought the collapse could only happen with the help of demolition explosives, and he was foolish enough to make the statement publicly.

 

Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

 

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

 

Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

 

"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

 

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.

 

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech.

 

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said.

 

"It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.

 

The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said.

 

(Article originally at http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm , then was moved to http://www.abqjournal.com/news/aqvan09-11-01.htm but now back in the original location, or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/ABQjournal ).

 

But Romero recanted ten days later and admitted the whole thing was perfectly natural and unsurprising. I wonder what happened in those ten days to make him so smart on the subject so quickly. The retraction is now displayed above the original on the Albuquerque Journal web page.

 

And then, as though demonstrating how normal this "building collapsing" phenomenon is, WTC buildings Six and Seven "collapsed," too:

 

Other buildings -- including the 47-story Salomon Brothers building [WTC 7] -- caved in later, weakened by the earlier collapses, and more nearby buildings may still fall, say engineers. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm , or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/BBCNews ).

 

(These ruins are shown in aerial photo http://www.eionews.addr.com/images/wtc/numbersixafter.jpg , or: http://public-action.com/911/jmcm/numbersixafter.jpg ).

 

It seems no building in the area, regardless of design, is immune to galloping WTC collapse-itis. It never happened in the 20th Century, but welcome to the physical universe laws of the Third Millennium.

 

Pardon me, but this recitation has not given me the relief I hoped for. I must get back to work.

 

I believe in the President, the Flag, and the Statue of Liberty. I believe in the honesty of the FBI and the humility of military men. I believe in the network news anchor-persons, who strive to learn the truth, to know the truth, and to tell the truth to America.

 

And I believe all Americans are so well educated in the basic physics discussed above, they would rise up in fury if someone tried to pull a cheap Hollywood trick on them.

 

Hand me that remote, will you? I believe . I believe . I believe ...

 

--- J. McMichael

 

[email protected]

 

(Celsius/Fahrenheit conversion tool at http://www.vaxxine.com/mgdsite/celcon.htm )

 

See also Part 2 of this essay, below.

 

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

 

9/11 Terror

 

Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!

 

Part II

 

by J. McMichael

 

[email protected]

 

Originally published early in 1992, this second part was saved from extinction by Serendipity at http://www.serendipity.li/

 

Some people have written to me (or commented publicly) that the collapse of the World Trade Center was a perfectly normal event caused by the heat of the fire.

 

Let me recall a few details to the reader's attention before answering that statement.

 

Citing structural engineer Chris Wise, the BBC web page stated that steel supports in the WTC reached 1500 degrees Fahrenheit and melted (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm). That is of course not correct, and I provided a link to an on-line chemistry chart to show that steel melts closer to 2800 degrees F.

 

Note that the statement (that the WTC steel melted) is not mine: The statement comes from the BBC page, citing Chris Wise, and from others on television.

 

The critics have pointed out that steel does not MELT at 1500 F, but it does soften and lose its strength, enough to cause the towers to collapse. We are asked to believe, as one Australian put it, that steel supports turn to licorice when heated in a fire.

 

Corus Steel is a trans-national corporation that markets structural steel (http://www.corusconstruction.com/). One graph on their web page shows the diminishing strength of steel as it is heated. http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm

 

Note that structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures. This weakening of steel when heated is supposedly responsible for the catastrophic collapse of the towers. The statement generates three questions to be answered in order to determine whether this phenomenon could cause the collapse of the World Trade Center:

 

1. How much strength would the steel have to lose for the WTC to collapse?

 

2. What temperature would the steel have to reach to occasion this loss of strength?

 

3. What was the temperature of the fire in the WTC; i.e., did it reach the critically weakening temperature?

 

Question 1:

 

In the original article, I cited my own experience that a support device must be capable of bearing three times the maximum load that would ever be applied.

 

It turns out that this rule-of-thumb is applicable only to dynamic loads, not static (structural) loads of commercial buildings. Since then, I have been informed by a commercial structural engineer that the standard ratio for static loads is five, not three. That is, if a bridge is rated to carry 1 ton, it should be capable of bearing 5 tons without collapsing at the time the bridge is built.

 

Going back to the fire at the WTC, we can see that reducing the steel structure to 60% its rated strength should NOT have weakened it to catastrophic collapse, because at 60% it would still support three times the rated load. The steel structure would have to be reduced to 20% of its rated strength to collapse.

 

Thus, even if the fire had heated the steel to 550 degrees C (1022 F), that would not have been sufficient to cause the towers to collapse.

 

Question 2:

 

The Corus page on fire vs. steel supports (http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm) shows that the steel would have to be heated to about 720 degrees C (1320 F) to weaken the steel to 20% of its cool strength.

 

The text on that page discusses another change in the steel above 550 degrees C (1022 F): It looses elasticity and becomes plastic. Elasticity means that when the steel is bent, it returns to its original shape; it springs back. Plasticity means that the steel is permanently deformed and does not spring back to the original shape.

 

Springing back or not, our only concern with this page is to determine the point on the graph where the steel would be weakened to 20% its original strength, and that point is 720 degrees C (1320 F).

 

For steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F) is an important threshold, however, and we should not be glib with it. If a steel tower were heated to 550 C, loss of elasticity could mean that the tower would not spring back to the original shape after a gust of wind, and a series of buffets might cause the tower to fail -- if the strain exceeded the reduced strength of the hot steel.

 

Question 3:

 

Now let us make a guess on the actual heat of the fire.

 

Fortunately, a number of studies have been done under very similar conditions. In Europe, multi-storied "car parks" are often built of steel, and the possibility of vehicle fire is a distinct possibility. A parked vehicle, loaded with gasoline, diesel, tires, engine oil, engine tar, upholstery, hydraulic fluid, etc. can cause a fire that seems very hot. A number of other vehicles could be parked close to the burning one, and they too could catch fire, with a general conflagration. Any number of cars could contain almost any household items from shopping, etc.

 

These materials are similar to the materials we would expect in the burning offices of the WTC: jet fuel (which is a refined kerosene, very similar to the diesel used in some European cars), oil, upholstery, etc.

 

A summary of the results of these studies is published on the Corus page. Go to http://www.corusconstruction.com/ and click on "Fire". Individual articles are listed across the top of the window. The fourth article, "Fire in Car Parks," discusses the temperatures of "any fires that are likely to occur" in a car park (http://www.corusconstruction.com/carparks/cp006.htm).

 

Presumably, one car could catch fire and inflame other cars parked closely nearby. As explained below, "The maximum temperatures reached [in actual test fires] in open sided car parks in four countries" was 360 degrees C (680 F), and structural steel has "sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur."

 

Here is the relevant paragraph, complete: "Steel-framed car parks have been rigorously fire tested in a number of countries (Table 3). These tests demonstrate that most unprotected steel in open sided steel-framed car parks has sufficient inherent resistance to withstand the effects of any fires that are likely to occur. Table 3 lists the maximum temperatures reached in open sided car park tests in four countries. These can be compared with the characteristic failure temperatures for beams carrying insulating floor slabs and columns of 620 [degrees] C and 550 [degrees] C respectively."

 

Note that the description does not limit the duration of the fire. From this it does not appear to matter whether the fire burned all week or just for two hours. No mention is made, as some people have suggested (from erroneous interpretation of other graphs involving time), that prolonged heat brings about progressive weakening of steel.

 

Here is the data from Corus' Table 3 (beams are horizontal members, columns are vertical):

 

Full scale fire tests Maximum measured steel temperature

 

Country Beam Column

 

UK 275 C (527 F) 360 C (680 F)

 

Japan 245 C (473 F) 242 C (467 F)

 

USA 226 C (438 F) -

 

Australia 340 C (644 F) 320 C (608 F)

 

A fire in a steel car park is a very imprecise event, and the heating of the steel supports varied widely in the tests. The temperature of (horizontal) beams varied from 226 C in the USA to 340 C in Australia; and the temperature of (vertical) columns varied from 242 C in Japan to 360 C in the UK. None of the steel was protected with the thermal insulation that is commonly used in office buildings, including the WTC.

 

To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F).

 

Some may argue that there was much more fuel involved in the WTC events that in a car park. There was also much more steel involved, the support columns were more massive, and they were protected with insulation.

 

I think the case is made: The fire did not weaken the WTC structure sufficiently to cause the collapse of the towers.

 

— J. McMichael

 

Detailed information of the construction World Trade Center (with many photographs) can be found at http://www.GreatBuildings.com/buildings/World_Trade_Center.html

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOH man, i see both sides of both of your posts. but you all need to calm down.

 

we will never get the answers. no matter who has papers with big words on them or not.

 

the only safe thing either of you can say is this is what i know as the truth. but then say the truth to me.

 

i like learning things so any links either you would like to post i will try to read them. on less my brain melts.

 

so what i read in the first couple of posts. something is coming cover the sun? or the earth is going to move slightly and lava will move backwards? did i read that right?

 

the truth to me is bush knew, he set it up, there was charges. i based this on what i saw! like whats his name said you both could be right. and i agree. there are always 2 parts to a whole. so lets think of it this way. for bush to bring down the towers who did he have to go to? lets see...let me think....hmmmmmmm

 

people who would know how to bring those buidling down. what do you call those..damn the name just just disppeared from my brain.. oh yeah!

 

engineers i wonder why....hmmm they would know were to put the charges, they know what the effect of a plane crash would be. they would know the heat it would take to melt the metals.

 

but i still no expert, dont want to be, and i wont give link for you all read blah blag blag. know why?

 

because i am basing this off WHAT I SAW. neither of you can change what i saw. you can explain it all if you like and i would listen....i mean read....

 

but no one here is going to agree on the right side or the left side. so here what you both need to do. look in the middle. for something like this to happen and make it look like it did. you would need experts to lay the plan down....experts to go through the plan....experts to carrie out the plan....no tom ..dick..or harry would have been allow to carrie a plan out this huge. come on think about just for 5 minutes both of you. you both of layed down alot of informaton and i read it all.. now the brain is a little melted but i am fine.

 

all these experts did is get both of you. both sides would have to work together for a job this big.

 

so look at all the information you both posted..and let me know who are the experts...this is for me to learn who the top players are. and information me what reason these partys would have to work together. don't go off saying who is right and wrong its not about that. its about the players.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....There maybe common ground Darktimes...In fact I know rainmanTime Dislikes bush...I hate him so we got that....When it comes to 911 I stand from the point I know. And like I said I know I was in jail on 911 so I had alot of time to watch TV. The closest I get is through another persons camera lens. ..... I know your right. We should agree to disagree and accept our common ground of understanding and loathing of the ciminal organization of capitol hill.

 

What do you say RMT? Do you wanna make a friend or defeat an advesary? :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just consider this:

 

quoted:

 

"Please look at the information, images and data before dismissing this. You can easily verify this info to confirm its validity. Links to sources provided. The info shown on this site is courtesy NASA, USGS, NOAA, NWS, SOHO and your American Tax dollars which fund them."

 

spacer.png

 

Last Know EARTH'S AXIS Tilt

 

spacer.png

 

NOW EARTH'S AXIS TILT INCREASED BY 26 DEGREES

 

Then consider again the poem...

 

Get yours conclusions...

 

From:

 

http://www.divulgence.net/

 

--

 

Regards

 

http://spaceheroes.org/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recall,

 

Please look at the information, images and data before dismissing this. You can easily verify this info to confirm its validity. Links to sources provided. The info shown on this site is courtesy NASA, USGS, NOAA, NWS, SOHO and your American Tax dollars which fund them

If the axis of rotation of the Earth relative to the plane of the ecliptic doubled from 23.5 degrees to 49.5 degrees the last thing that one would be concerned with in North America would be global warming. The winters in North America, according to the graphics, would be so drastically cold that we would see temperatures equal to the Arctic continent...not to mention the acceleration physics involved in suddenly causing the rotational axis to change almost instantly. The Earth would be ripped apart by whatever caused such a violent change in the rotational axis. The author of the graphics wouldn't be here to post them nor would the site be here for the author to post them to.

The axis of rotation does incur nutational variations and over the next billion years it will change on a perminent basis. However, before the change becomes extreme the Sun will enter its death throw as it leaves the Main Sequence and become a red giant to consume Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars.

 

The angle of the axis of rotation, absent a cataclysmic encounter with a large mass that strikes our planet, will never change appreciably during the remaining time that our planet continues to be a habitable rock.

 

The source of your photos is, to put in mildly, whacked.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Darby,

 

The source of your photos is, to put in mildly, whacked.

I think he is also a bit confused about solar position geometry. One of his pages attempts to do some geometry of the rising and setting sun from his position in Texas. But the Tropic of Cancer is a line of latitude that is based on the local, noontime angle of the sun. His measurements of sunrise and sunset angles are using tangent-plane geometry on a sphere, meaning he needs to do a bit more geometry to correct for the fact that at his local sunrise the noontime sun is at a different point on the earth!

Beyond this, if what he was saying was actually true, the people who gather at Stonehenge and Chichen Itza (among other places) on June 21st would certainly have noticed that the sun did not align with the artifacts at those sights! ;)

 

RMT

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recall 15

 

You have to distinguish between two distinct interpretations (I have not looked at the source material).(A)which you use, conceives of the entire planet tilting with respect to the ecliptic, with the result that one has a new pole star location. To employ this interpretation,, one requires an external force to overcome the rotational inertia of the Earth.

 

But there is a better, easier, way (B). This is the interpretation put forth by Prof. Charles Hapgood, in which the entire crust of the Earth, as a unit, slips over the mantle and core. A good 98 to 99% of the Earth's mass is that of the mantle and core.But a 26 degree slip involves the problem of the equatorial bulge of the planet--the crust would break and deform, and require more force to accomplish. A second problem is the force required to cause the slippage. It may be that the crust is already unbalanced, but held in check by ice at the poles as a counterbalance. If the ice melts, slippage would occur.

 

I think that (B) does and has occured. It provides a mechanism for the ice ages, besides the preposterous 'encroaching glaciers' theory. If you lived in Wisconsin, as I do, and are aware that in the last ice age a sheet of ice a mile thick existed not far from where I write these words, the glacier theory is preposterous. The nearest mountains are about three or four hundred miles away in Canada. Can you imagine lateral pressure from a relative small incline pushing such a vast quantity of ice hundreds of miles? I cannot.

 

But with the crustal slippage theory, the ice pack is part of the former polar accumulation moved to a more southerly location. The ice age, thus, is the cool temperatures resulting from the ice melting.It also means that for tens of thousands of years, the ocean level of the planet would have been much lower.

 

As far as megalithic structures are concerned, it might be that they were built to study the new alignment of the stars after such a shift had occured. :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off: I am a civil engineer and I possess my EIT-Engineer In Training certificate, and I am only 3 years away from taking the PE test. Second: There's a lot of errors in what you have posted here. I'm only going to address the fallacy of structural steel and its weakening related to Young's Modulus.

 

"Corus Steel is a trans-national corporation that markets structural steel (http://www.corusconstruction.com/). One graph on their web page shows the diminishing strength of steel as it is heated. http://www.corusconstruction.com/fire/fr006.htm "

 

That page doesn't load. But here is a page that will show the rigidity (Young's Modulus) for various materials, including carbon steel:

 

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/young-modulus-d_773.html

 

The thing to note in this graph is the "knee" in the curve for carbon steel (dark blue line). It occurs at 600 Deg. F. I will mention why it is significant in a short while. First another quote:

 

"Note that structural steel at 550 degrees C (1022 F) has 60% of the strength of steel at normal temperatures. This weakening of steel when heated is supposedly responsible for the catastrophic collapse of the towers."

 

Yeah, that means it has lost 40% of its load-bearing strength by this temperature. But the second sentence is an icomplete statement. It was not only the weakening of the steel due to temperature that caused the collapse. It was also the additional loads that the remaining columns had to absorb when a great number of columns were severed by the aircraft impact. Every column that was severed essentially "gave its part of the load" to the columns that remained. This means that the remaining columns were under greater stresses than in a normal condition. The more columns that were severed, the greater the stresses in the columns that remained. So to correct the incomplete statement above, the collapse was due to:

 

a) Weakening of steel rigidity due to increased temps. AND

 

b) MUCH greater loads on the load-bearing steel columns that remained intact.

 

"To my mind, this is definitive answer: the maximum temperature in the unprotected steel supports in those test fires was 360 degrees C (680 F), and that is a long way from the first critical threshold in structural steel, 550 degrees C (1022 F). "

 

No, this is wrong, and looking at the chart I provided above shows it is wrong. The "knee" in the chart that I pointed out is the first critical threshold in structural steel (not 1022 F)because at that temperature the steel begins to lose rigidity at a much faster rate as the temperature increases. In other words, the slope of the line is greater. So while "in his mind" it may be the definitive answer, he doesn't know what he is talking about. In fact, 1022F is not even the second critical point! The second critical point can also be seen on the chart I referenced: It occurs at about 800F where the slope increases again. The 1022F number he is referring to is actually the THIRD critical point! Facts don't lie, but this guy did.

 

Another thing which this person writing this article never addressed in the enire article is something that my uncle brought up earlier in this thread: Euler column buckling. This is the primary failure mode of a pinned (stationary) column that is bearing a vertical load. It must be addressed and analyzed, and the two critical parameters that govern the onset of Euler column buckling are:

 

a) Young's Modulus

 

b) Column lateral (horizontal) deflection.

 

It is already well known that many columns were missing on one whole face of each WTC tower. That is not in dispute, and this pertains to the remaining columns having to share the total load as I described above. Now we add to this the significant descrease in load-bearing rigidity (Young's Modulus) that I have shown begins to decrease even more rapidly beyond temps of 600F. Finally, when you examine the diferential equation for column buckling you can see that the derivative (rate of change) of lateral deflection is positive. What this means is that as the deflection gets larger, the tendency to buckle increases. This is an unstable situation and is what directly leads to the ultimate, catastrophic buckling failure that was seen in the WTC columns.

 

You can argue with me and RMT all you want, Mr. Titorite, but the simple fact is you cannot adequately analyze or come to conclusions about the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 without addressing the points I have made above. And I have pointed out that your sources never discuss the physics of Euler column buckling, not to mention that their reading of the Young's Modulus chart for the first critical point in steel weakening is just plain wrong. I know you won't accept this, as I have seen your type of logic, but frankly I don't care. I am a civil engineer, you are not. I am confident that I am right, and the theory of controlled demolition has not been proven by any means.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

indazona,

 

Excellent job with your response. Outstanding.

 

a) Weakening of steel rigidity due to increased temps. AND

 

b) MUCH greater loads on the load-bearing steel columns that remained intact.

In addition to the increased loading on the remaining columns you also would now have new problems.

The stress vector (I know - technically a tensor ;) RMT and I had an old thread where we were discussing - and he was teaching - vector and tensor analysis)that was originally on the intact columns was"normal" to the column. But when columns were removed the normal force became a shearing force because the load was no longer distributed evenly. Depending on exactly which and how many of the columns were removed torque forces would have also been introduced on the remaining columns.

 

Add high heat, have the "critical" number of columns removed, add additional loading, shear and torque and the building will collapse.

 

I'll leave this one up to RMT because he has the data...

 

What was the approximate kinetic energy transferred from the aircraft to the buildings on impact?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Crust Tsunami isn` it?

 

hmmmm Wondering...

 

The Asteroid Impact Scenario Vid:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s2q5KkO10E To Darby:

A do it Yourself proof of Earth Axis....

 

1) Go to the below site (SkyViewCafe -- Java) and look at Polaris (be sure to set your State/City first).

 

http://www.skyviewcafe.com/skyview.php?version=4

 

2) Increment the time to watch the sunrise and sunset, and note that the location of Polaris in the North sky remains fixed.

 

3) Go outside this evening, look at Polaris in the North sky.

 

4) Is Polaris where SkyViewCafe suggests it should be?

 

5) If "YES" then Earth tilt is stil ~23.5 degrees.

 

6) If "NO" then how far off is Polaris?

 

7) Furthermore, continue to watch Polaris during the night, or wake up before dawn and look at it again.

 

8) Did Polaris remain fixed during the night?

 

9) If "YES" then Earth tilt is still ~23.5 degrees.

 

10) If "NO" then how much did it move?

 

If you answered "YES" to questions 5 and 9, then Earth tilt is still ~23.5 degrees.

 

--

 

http://spaceheroes.org

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Darby,

 

The stress vector (I know - technically a tensor RMT and I had an old thread where we were discussing - and he was teaching - vector and tensor analysis)that was originally on the intact columns was"normal" to the column. But when columns were removed the normal force became a shearing force because the load was no longer distributed evenly. Depending on exactly which and how many of the columns were removed torque forces would have also been introduced on the remaining columns.

Wow, you really know your stuff. Now I can see why Ray always says you are the smartest guy on this site. I was holding back discussing shear stress and torsion to see if Mr. Titorite was going to try and deny the truth of my statements. But you're quite correct in what you say, and those transverse loads that induce shear stress and torsion in the vertical columns only serve to increase the lateral deflections which eventually induce the column buckling failure mode. And it is the lateral deflections of the columns in the WTC towers that are the greatest evidence that column buckling was eventually going to bring them down. You can see it in so many photos, especially in the columns right below where the biggest fires were concentrated. Of course this only makes logical sense since this is where the heating effect was reducing the Young's Modulus of the steel columns in that area. I have yet to see a civil engineer, much less anyone else, write a technical paper wherein they attempted to show that Euler column buckling could not have been the failure mode.

 

I'll leave this one up to RMT because he has the data...

 

What was the approximate kinetic energy transferred from the aircraft to the buildings on impact?

I'm certain with your knowledge you know it's a simple (1/2)*Mass*Velocity-Sqaured calculation, but yeah, we'll let RMT present that analysis, seeing how he is the airplane yahoo in our family. Well, him and my dad, but my dad works mostly missile systems for Raytheon in Tucson. I've also got a cousin in San Diego who's an aero engineer, and his sister Molly is working to become a mechanical engineer back in Ohio. All in the family, I guess.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...