Truthseeker1234's Education/Degrees/Qualifications?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Anyone care to speculate what they are?

I've asked and he won't say. He just keeps droning on about what he claims the laws of physics will allow.

So if he won't cough it up... let's make it up! :D

[defaultdotxbe]

masters degree at least

http://www.crazyirving.com/history/CLOWN_COLLEGE.jpg

[Sword_Of_Truth]

If I were to make a serious guess, I'd say he tops out at a G.E.D.

Either that or he graduated from a vocational high school program.

[quixotecoyote]

Sometimes I wish I craved attention. Forums make it so easy to get.

[jamrat]

He's got twenty years of education... He went to the 10th grade twice!

[LashL]

Truthseeker1234's Education/Degrees/Qualifications?

My guess:

Minimal/None/Google-searching 101

[gumboot]

I think he said he worked in audio or something? I don't recall what he said exactly... some sort of audio technician?

-Andrew

[Bell]

I think he said he worked in audio or something? I don't recall what he said exactly... some sort of audio technician?

-Andrew

Record shop?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Yes, those droning laws of physics. Like conservation of energy. It's so annoying when trying to convince others of an impossible scenario. Like, a 110 story building crushes itself into shredded steel and fine powder, and ejects the steel up to 600 feel laterally, while the powder forms pyroclastic flows and rapidly expands to more than 3 times the volume of the intact building while remaining clearly defined and exhibiting a tell-tale "cauliflower" shape, a mushroom cloud forms where the building just was, giving the whole thing a distinct resemblance to a volacano, and when it's over, there is nothing much left but a smoldering crater of cut steel and molten metal. Then the 110 story building next door does the same thing.

Where does the energy come from to do all this work?

[Z]

If you had an education, you'd know.

[rwguinn]

Yes, those droning laws of physics. Like conservation of energy. It's so annoying when trying to convince others of an impossible scenario. Like, a 110 story building crushes itself into shredded steel and fine powder, and ejects the steel up to 600 feel laterally, while the powder forms pyroclastic flows and rapidly expands to more than 3 times the volume of the intact building while remaining clearly defined and exhibiting a tell-tale "cauliflower" shape, a mushroom cloud forms where the building just was, giving the whole thing a distinct resemblance to a volacano, and when it's over, there is nothing much left but a smoldering crater of cut steel and molten metal. Then the 110 story building next door does the same thing.

Where does the energy come from to do all this work?
The same place they come from in an actual CD...
E=mgh

[The Kilted Yaksman]

Blah, blah, blah.

Where does the energy come from to do all this work?
Gravity.

[Josh Redstone]

Well, since it was kenetic energy (there were no bombs) that we saw as it fell (that's where it was probably pulverized the most, right?), it was there in the first place as potential energy, because of the building's mass and gravity (like Kilted Yaksman said). So I guess this brings me to the question, do you have any education is physics that might be relevant to a building falling down? I don't, so someone please correct me if I've confused my energies :)

[Bell]

Where does the energy come from to do all this work?

a.) a silent truckbomb
b.) a silent nuclear bomb
c.) a volcano
d.) none of the above

First to answer correctly, get's a cookie.

[CptColumbo]

Normally I would suggest that we not engage in a "poison the well" style argument, as this is a favorite tactic of the CT crowd. We should just discuss the facts and judge their merit. However, since TS1234 has presented his expertise falsely (lied) on other sites (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64164), IMO it's a valid question.

[chipmunk stew]

a.) a silent truckbomb
b.) a silent nuclear bomb
c.) a volcano
d.) none of the above

First to answer correctly, get's a cookie.
d.
...it was an upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction.
...or possible an infrared beam weapon (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1139).

[Bell]

d.
...it was an upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction.
...or possible an infrared beam weapon (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1139).

I'm not gonna put up with reading that BS... but... is he for f@#ing real? :boggled:

[Sally]

Yes, those droning laws of physics. Like conservation of energy. It's so annoying when trying to convince others of an impossible scenario. Like, a 110 story building crushes itself into shredded steel and fine powder, and ejects the steel up to 600 feel laterally, while the powder forms pyroclastic flows and rapidly expands to more than 3 times the volume of the intact building while remaining clearly defined and exhibiting a tell-tale "cauliflower" shape, a mushroom cloud forms where the building just was, giving the whole thing a distinct resemblance to a volacano, and when it's over, there is nothing much left but a smoldering crater of cut steel and molten metal. Then the 110 story building next door does the same thing.

Where does the energy come from to do all this work?

I am assuming from these words you NEVER visited the towers site.

Wow unbelievable.

[einsteen]

It is assumed that potential energy is responsible for that, because we have seen how the state is an hour after the plane crashed in. And if you look mechanically to the situation there is no other energy, not much that can explain what happened.

The pulverization and all other things started when the block of N floors crashed with it's initial speed sqrt(2gh_floor) onto the next floor, with about 8.6 m/s.

The utter-absurdity of this is the following:

If you place your origin somewhere between the highest intact floor below the falling block and the block itself and you call it (x',y',z') with speed 4.3 m/s and it starts at t=t'=0 in the direction of the centre of the earth, then by the assumption of a domino effect you see in fact the following (rotated):


[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ----------> <---------- [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ------> <------ [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ---> <--- [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] -> <- [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] ?? [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Our eminent friend F.R.Greening will surely know what will happen and some high-school students also, maybe even some people that did only primary school, but he doesn't write it on paper, what happened with him when he wrote down his paper ? He assumes uniform mass, i.e. you can place a virtual wall. Of course the real situation is extremely complex, but if they allow him to make these simple assumptions we can also do that as ordinary people as long as we make no mistakes and know what we do step by step. The centre of gravity will however still go down with inelastic collisions but it's defenitely no pancaking as they assume. The collapse time cannot be explained.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Yes, those droning laws of physics. Like conservation of energy. It's so annoying when trying to convince others of an impossible scenario. Like, a 110 story building crushes itself into shredded steel and fine powder, and ejects the steel up to 600 feel laterally, while the powder forms pyroclastic flows and rapidly expands to more than 3 times the volume of the intact building while remaining clearly defined and exhibiting a tell-tale "cauliflower" shape, a mushroom cloud forms where the building just was, giving the whole thing a distinct resemblance to a volacano, and when it's over, there is nothing much left but a smoldering crater of cut steel and molten metal. Then the 110 story building next door does the same thing.

Where does the energy come from to do all this work?

Please, by all means, follow up on my suggestion of Howabout this, we do some real scientific analysis, some real scientific process; following the scientific methodology as it were. Pick one thing from Pickering's site, the thing you find most convincing. Start a thread to discuss that one thing and let's follow it all the way to its conclusion. In the new thread, stick to only talking about that one thing, and once resolution is achieved, drop that thread and start a new on on the next one thing to discuss. from here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1935154#post1935154)

[Pardalis]

But yet you believe a controlled demolition is not an absurd theory, Einsteen?

[uruk]

Yes, those droning laws of physics. Like conservation of energy. It's so annoying when trying to convince others of an impossible scenario. Like, a 110 story building crushes itself into shredded steel and fine powder, and ejects the steel up to 600 feel laterally, while the powder forms pyroclastic flows and rapidly expands to more than 3 times the volume of the intact building while remaining clearly defined and exhibiting a tell-tale "cauliflower" shape, a mushroom cloud forms where the building just was, giving the whole thing a distinct resemblance to a volacano, and when it's over, there is nothing much left but a smoldering crater of cut steel and molten metal. Then the 110 story building next door does the same thing.

Where does the energy come from to do all this work?

Gravity: An all attractive force which in this case pulls things down.

Potential energy: Energy an object or system has due to its postion or arrangement within the system. (ie. as in; the potential energy contained in tons of building material suspended hundreds of feet above a surface within a gravitational field.)

Kinetic energy: The energy of a body or a system with respect to the motion of the body or of the particles in the system. (i.e the kinetic energy within tons of building material that is moving toward the ground at ternimal velocity and colliding with each other)

Fluid Dynamics: The branch of applied science that is concerned with the movement of gases and liquids. (i.e. the fluid dynamics involved when tons of moving building materials disturb or impart energy into the air around it.)

[apathoid]

blah...blah...blah... fine powder.... blah...blah...blah...pyroclastic flows ...blah...blah...blah...mushroom cloud ....blah...blah...blah...volacano...blah...blah... blah...molten metal.

Where does the energy come from to do all this work?

:bwall

For the love of Pete, I implore you to either: engage your brain and start reading responses - really reading them, or better yet, get a proper education.

[uruk]

Oh and while your reading these post, How about answering these two questions:

How can a silent explosive generate a siesmic event?
And where is the siesmic event of the airplane impact 14 seconds after the explosion event?

[einsteen]

But yet you believe a controlled demolition is not an absurd theory, Einsteen?

I rejected that for 5 years and still can't believe it (I mention it sometimes of course because I got some of the "Ct virus") , maybe there are other explanations. And the word CD is by definition wrong, then it should be an UD

and centre of gravity is the wrong expression, I mean center of mass.

Why wouldn't the block damage in the same way as the 14 floors below, assuming the connecting parts have the same strength (and also weakenings), this end result of mess will of course have the same mass and go down.

[Loss Leader]

Where does the energy come from to do all this work?

Excellent question. The energy was, for the most part, imparted by hundreds of construction workers from 1966 to 1973 (and thousands more who brought in furniture and office supplies over a thirty year span). Every calorie of energy that the cranes exerted hauling I-beams up 1,000 feet in the air was cleverly stored in the towers until 9/11. Every bit of energy the Poland Springs guy spent hauling jugs of water up to the 87th floor the week before was trapped inside those water molecules.

It may be counter-intuitive to think of it this way because big monolithic towers don't appear to have any energy, but all of the energy that went into their construction was right there the whole time. It took seven years to add all of that energy during construction and it was all released in a matter of seconds.

Yeah, Truthseeker, you're an idiot.

[rikzilla]

d.
...it was an upward fusion flashlight beam of destruction.
...or possible an infrared beam weapon (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1139).


Does the background of that linked website say "Truth Sucker"??? I gotta clean my glasses.

Sheesh these guys wrap themselves in the word "truth" more often than a rightwingxtianfundy wraps himself in the flag! Each of these groups treats truth and flag like so much toiletpaper.

-z

[TruthSeeker1234]

No, sorry GPE is orders of magnitude to little to all this work. It' s not even close. See Hoffman. Trumpman. Ross. The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic88436.jpg

[defaultdotxbe]

It took seven years to add all of that energy during construction and it was all released in a matter of seconds.

very well put

its funny when CTs claim the laws of physics were violated, but they dont seem to understand that its just as possible their understanding of the laws of physics was violated

for expample:

a ball is released from 1m above the ground, it falls, hits the ground, and bounces 3m into the air. is this a possible scenario?









the obvious answer is no, a ball dropped from 1m would only have the energy to bounce 1m back up (assuming no energy is lost to entropy)

HOWEVER, i never stated the initial velocity of the ball, if it was greater than 0 this situation is entirely possible

so you see the laws of physics can seem to have been violated if you dont have all the information at your disposal

[defaultdotxbe]

No, sorry GPE is orders of magnitude to little to all this work. It' s not even close. See Hoffman. Trumpman. Ross. The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic88436.jpg
wanna cite some numbers instead of just throwing names out? and why is it that the vast majority of physicists dont see any issues with the notion of GPE releasing the energy to do this?



BTW wheres the bomb crater? same place as the mushroom cloud i suppose

[uruk]

These are bomb craters:
http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-23,GGLG:en&q=bomb%20craters&sa=N&tab=wi
None of which resemble the ground zero site.

Also CD does not leave craters. CD does not "blow up" a building. In knocks out key support structures so that gravity can bring the building down. In CD it is not the explosives that bring down the building, it is gravity and potential energy that brings the building down.

If it was the intention of bringing down the WTC in thier own foot print why use explosives that would throw a steel beam 600 feet from the site?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, sorry GPE is orders of magnitude to little to all this work. It' s not even close. See Hoffman. Trumpman. Ross. The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.
...


Truthseeker1234,

I am going to pose to you a yes/no question. Please answer it directly. Failure to answer will been taken as a "no" response.

Do you have sufficient understanding of the sites you link to, such as Ross, to discuss them in detail?


If you answer "no" to the above question, please explain on what grounds you accept their work as accurate and valid.

[Z]

No, sorry GPE is orders of magnitude to little to all this work. It' s not even close. See Hoffman. Trumpman. Ross. The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/pix3/pic88436.jpg

Silly boy. Have you ever seen a bomb crater? It doesn't look like that, at all.

Try again, Liar.

[Pythra]

These are bomb craters:
images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2006-23,GGLG:en&q=bomb%20craters&sa=N&tab=wi
None of which resemble the ground zero site.

Also CD does not leave craters. CD does not "blow up" a building. In knocks out key support structures so that gravity can bring the building down. In CD it is not the explosives that bring down the building, it is gravity and potential energy that brings the building down.

Wait. The CTers don't even know how controlled demolitions work, or what one looks like? Even though 'looks like' constitutes the majority of their so-called evidence? WHAT?

[DavidJames]

Wait. The CTers don't even know how controlled demolitions work, or what one looks like? Even though 'looks like' constitutes the majority of their so-called evidence? WHAT?Hang around and you will see convesations like this one.

CTist: The twin towers were a CD because it looked like one.
Skeptic: They looked nothing like a CD, here look at these links.
CTist: Exactly, they were designed to to not look like one.

Honest, that's happened.

[defaultdotxbe]

Hang around and you will see convesations like this one.

CTist: The twin towers were a CD because it looked like one.
Skeptic: They looked nothing like a CD, here look at these links.
CTist: Exactly, they were designed to to not look like one.

Honest, that's happened.
happened to me too, lol

[uruk]

Hang around and you will see convesations like this one.

CTist: The twin towers were a CD because it looked like one.
Skeptic: They looked nothing like a CD, here look at these links.
CTist: Exactly, they were designed to to not look like one.

Honest, that's happened.


I don't understand why they have to believe that WTC was the result of a unbelievably complex and convoluted conspiracy which included hundreds of people, agencies, organisations and companies sworn to secrecy; placing tons of explosives in a very busy office building; commandeering huge commercial aircraft with remote control from airports; all of this unoticed, and all of this was mastermind and executed by someone who can barley talk without making a fool of himself for the purpose of invading some small country in the middle east? It truely boggles.

I guess it is a psycological need to believe in a devil of somesort that is responsible for all the bad things that happens in this world. It's almost like a religeous belief.

[defaultdotxbe]

I guess it is a psycological need to believe in a devil of somesort that is responsible for all the bad things that happens in this world. It's almost like a religeous belief.
argumentum ad ignorantiam, they dont understand how it could have happened, so they invent some scheme by which it could happen, without having to admit that they were never really as safe as they thought they were pre-911

[JayT]

Anyone care to speculate what they are?

I've asked and he won't say. He just keeps droning on about what he claims the laws of physics will allow.

So if he won't cough it up... let's make it up! :D


The complexity of the physical sequence of events is such that it would take a computer to study all the myriad variables involved. And even then we couldn't be sure, only more statistically certain of some scenarios over others.

I seriously doubt that any one person can reason it all out alone with any certainty. Too many factors are still unknown to be so confident with justification. This is evidenced by the fact that even knowledgeable experts cannot agree.

The laws of physics can only be applied to whatever extent that we know the variables involved. In this case, a lot is missing from the equation.

Knowledge is consistent, theories can fly in all directions.

[Blue Mountain]

Truthseeker1234,

I am going to pose to you a yes/no question. Please answer it directly. Failure to answer will been taken as a "no" response.

Do you have sufficient understanding of the sites you link to, such as Ross, to discuss them in detail?


If you answer "no" to the above question, please explain on what grounds you accept their work as accurate and valid.
As for me, I don't have "sufficient understanding" of the NIST report, but that doesn't prevent me from accepting their work as accurate and valid.

Reason being these guys are the experts in this field and were commissioned to do the work.

Then again, I don't discuss the NIST report in detail, because I don't have a sufficient understanding of it.

[Arus808]

Hang around and you will see convesations like this one.

CTist: The twin towers were a CD because it looked like one.
Skeptic: They looked nothing like a CD, here look at these links.
CTist: Exactly, they were designed to to not look like one.

Honest, that's happened.


oh, on more than one forum I frequent, have i pointed this fallacy out.

[stateofgrace]

The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.


Really ?

Let me show you something.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/khobar/dhah1.gif

Here is the carter that this bomb caused

http://www.espionageinfo.com/images/eeis_02_img0616.jpg

This is what you think GZ looks like yes\no?

This was an eight story building called the Khobar Towers. It was attacked in 1996 and ended in the loss of 20 lives.

So why would I show you this?

Because this building was attacked with the equivalent of an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 pounds of TNT. Now I am no explosives expert but can imagine that when this amount of explosives goes off it would produce an almighty bang.

So the question is TS did you hear the almighty bang as explosives went off to produced the same effect on two 110 story buildings as with this 8 story building?

A simple yes or no is ok.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Arkan baited Do you have sufficient understanding of the sites you link to, such as Ross, to discuss them in detail?

yes

[rwguinn]

Arkan baited
Do you have sufficient understanding of the sites you link to, such as Ross, to discuss them in detail?
yes
How does it feel to Always be wrong?

[Josh Redstone]

yes


Do you know what a bomb going off, and two buildings collapsing because of extensive airplane impact and fire damage have in common? Loud noises.
So it's up to you if you wan't to make up a crazy theory that picks and chooses only evidence that fits it, or make up a reasonable theory based on all the evidence.

[R.Mackey]

No, sorry GPE is orders of magnitude to little to all this work. It' s not even close. See Hoffman. Trumpman. Ross. The reason this looks like a bomb crater is because it is.

How very amusing.

Since you said this, then you must have an estimate of how much GPE, that's Gravitational Potential Energy, there was in each tower.

How much?

I've done this calculation in this forum for another doubter like yourself, and I'll be glad to trot it out again. I want to see what your guess is, and how you came to that conclusion.

Once you have that number, then you'll know what "orders of magnitude more" e.g. at least ten times, really means. It may surprise you.

Your bluff is called. Show your work.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan baited

yes

Then, please do so here http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64257

[apathoid]

I've done this calculation in this forum for another doubter like yourself, and I'll be glad to trot it out again. I want to see what your guess is, and how you came to that conclusion.

Your bluff is called. Show your work.

Troooofseekers brain is orders of magnitude too little to all that work.

[Pythra]

How very amusing.

Since you said this, then you must have an estimate of how much GPE, that's Gravitational Potential Energy, there was in each tower.

How much?

I've done this calculation in this forum for another doubter like yourself, and I'll be glad to trot it out again. I want to see what your guess is, and how you came to that conclusion.

Once you have that number, then you'll know what "orders of magnitude more" e.g. at least ten times, really means. It may surprise you.

Your bluff is called. Show your work.

TruthSeeker1234 has been active on this board since you posted this. I guess he must have missed it! I would hate for him to miss the opportunity to demonstrate his understanding of the physics involved, so I'll bump this up for him.

[Bell]

TruthSeeker1234 has been active on this board since you posted this. I guess he must have missed it! I would hate for him to miss the opportunity to demonstrate his understanding of the physics involved, so I'll bump this up for him.

You could also say:

TruthSeeker1234! Answer de doggam question allready!!

[Regnad Kcin]

Where does the energy come from to do all this work? Excellent question. The energy was, for the most part, imparted by hundreds of construction workers from 1966 to 1973 (and thousands more who brought in furniture and office supplies over a thirty year span). Every calorie of energy that the cranes exerted hauling I-beams up 1,000 feet in the air was cleverly stored in the towers until 9/11. Every bit of energy the Poland Springs guy spent hauling jugs of water up to the 87th floor the week before was trapped inside those water molecules.

It may be counter-intuitive to think of it this way because big monolithic towers don't appear to have any energy, but all of the energy that went into their construction was right there the whole time. It took seven years to add all of that energy during construction and it was all released in a matter of seconds.Gravity: An all attractive force which in this case pulls things down.

Potential energy: Energy an object or system has due to its postion or arrangement within the system. (ie. as in; the potential energy contained in tons of building material suspended hundreds of feet above a surface within a gravitational field.)

Kinetic energy: The energy of a body or a system with respect to the motion of the body or of the particles in the system. (i.e the kinetic energy within tons of building material that is moving toward the ground at ternimal velocity and colliding with each other)

Fluid Dynamics: The branch of applied science that is concerned with the movement of gases and liquids. (i.e. the fluid dynamics involved when tons of moving building materials disturb or impart energy into the air around it.)Well, 1234? Care to comment? Something like, "I see. I was mistaken then. No need for me to drone any longer" would be marvy.

[einsteen]

There is nothing magical about the potential energy of the twin towers.
It's just the summation of the mass times height. For uniform distrubution the integral becomes trivial and you have in fact

P=(height center of mass wtc) * Mass_wtc

It is often mentioned that this huge and tremendous amount of mass is responsible for what happened. Of course the potential energy is proportional with the height, but the collapse process is not related with the total mass of the building. The implication of what happened is that for example a building of 20 floors with not much potential energy will also collapse in the same way if the same plane crashes at floor 10. That is very easy.

[tsig]

Oh and while your reading these post, How about answering these two questions:

How can a silent explosive generate a siesmic event?
And where is the siesmic event of the airplane impact 14 seconds after the explosion event?

It's called Hushaboom and it along with Invsicrete are the culprits.

3" rebar on 4' centrers. That's all you ccan know for now

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There is nothing magical about the potential energy of the twin towers.
It's just the summation of the mass times height. For uniform distrubution the integral becomes trivial and you have in fact

P=(height center of mass wtc) * Mass_wtc

It is often mentioned that this huge and tremendous amount of mass is responsible for what happened. Of course the potential energy is proportional with the height, but the collapse process is not related with the total mass of the building. The implication of what happened is that for example a building of 20 floors with not much potential energy will also collapse in the same way if the same plane crashes at floor 10. That is very easy.

PE of one tower = 95 tons of TNT.

ETA: And I disagree with your assertion that "the collapse process is not related with the total mass of the building". As structural support failed during collapse PE was converted to KE/heat/etc. All that needs to be shown is that the E at any point in the collapse was sufficient to cause structural failure to continue and for PE to continue to be converted to other forms.

[uruk]

Here is what 100 tons of TNT exploding looks like:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Trinity.html

[Bell]

Here is what 100 tons of TNT exploding looks like:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Trinity.html

3" rebar 4' centers !! (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Oppgrov2big.jpg) :eek:

[Oliver]

Anyone care to speculate what they are?

I've asked and he won't say. He just keeps droning on about what he claims the laws of physics will allow.

So if he won't cough it up... let's make it up! :D

I don´t care about his degrees or qualifications, but
he would be a good missinformation-agent. Everytime
i try to understand him, i end up in the thoughts he
tries to fool the people in here.

So, dear TRUTHSEEKER1234: Okay, you´re right - it was
a controlled demolition. So what? What now? What´s
next?

Did you ever thought about it? Even if every expert
would say this is a CD - so what? What now? What´s
next?

It´s a dead end. So stop kidding around.

PLEASE!

[FramerDave]

Here is what 100 tons of TNT exploding looks like:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Trinity.html

[don tinfoil hat] Well my gosh, I've seen lots of pictures of mushroom clouds, and that looks like a mushroom cloud. That's gotta be a nook! Well, I'm not actually saying that, I'm just askin' questions. Or maybe a volcano...yeah, a volcano... [doff tinfoil hat]

[tsig]

Arkan baited

yes

Hi Ts10

I have never seen anything that looked less like a CD than than the towers collapsing.

They looked to me just like buildings falling down under gravity after being hit by a plane and suffering fire damage.

Can you tell me the compression strength of a 4" I-beam?

Hint it varies with temp.

If the towers fell in thier own footprint, then they must have been elephants.

[einsteen]

PE of one tower = 95 tons of TNT.

ETA: And I disagree with your assertion that "the collapse process is not related with the total mass of the building". As structural support failed during collapse PE was converted to KE/heat/etc. All that needs to be shown is that the E at any point in the collapse was sufficient to cause structural failure to continue and for PE to continue to be converted to other forms.

Do you know what the potential energy of the ground you're standing up now is if you compare it with the area 400 meter lower. I disagree with you for 100%. Everyone always mentions it started from the top, well let's assume this progressive collapse. It should also happen with a building of 20 floors if structural supports fails at floor #10.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...It should also happen with a building of 20 floors if structural supports fails at floor #10.

Support this assertion.

[einsteen]

one minute

[einsteen]

http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/4arkan.jpg

[chipmunk stew]

Do you know what the potential energy of the ground you're standing up now is if you compare it with the area 400 meter lower. I disagree with you for 100%. Everyone always mentions it started from the top, well let's assume this progressive collapse. It should also happen with a building of 20 floors if structural supports fails at floor #10.
The key is whether or not the mass above the point of failure is sufficient to initiate the progressive collapse. If it is, the collapse will continue to the ground. Depending on the height of the point of failure, the top section (above the failure point) may or may not collapse completely after hitting the ground.

Total energy spent is entirely dependent on the building's height.

[einsteen]

Exactly Chipmunk, the energy released depends on the height, but the collapse process is independent on the mass. Furthermore by symmetry the block will pulverize also if it is able to pulverize the part below.

[Pardalis]

http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/4arkan.jpg

You mean giant flying scissors brought down the WTC?

:confused:

[einsteen]

For you Pardalis it is a giant scissor

[Pardalis]

What "is is" the point of your picture?

[einsteen]

Pardalis, That the initial process is in fact independent on the height/mass/whatever. Like a row of domino stones, whether you have 10 stones or 10000 stones the process will start independent of the amount. In the WTC case there is of course a minimum kind of block needed that is assumed to start the process. The child who has to topple the first domino stone must be strong enough to start the process, to use a kind of analogy.

This is in fact the official story but viewed from a different point, of course the gravity points in the direction of collapse, but it is still independent as long as N (starting amount of floors) is sufficient.

[chipmunk stew]

Exactly Chipmunk, the energy released depends on the height, but the collapse process is independent on the mass.
Independent of the total mass, sure. But dependent on the mass above the failure point.
Furthermore by symmetry the block will pulverize also if it is able to pulverize the part below.
Again, It's not actually a "block", though. Much of the structure failed without pulverizing the material the structure was made of (all the structural steel, for instance). And even after points in the structure failed, the material the structure was made of added to the downwardly accelerating mass.

Think of it as an enormous wad of debris that happens to be arranged in a way that keeps it stable. Instability is introduced by the energy of an impact which removes some of the debris and shifts some of it into less stable configurations combined with heat energy which weakens the molecular stability of the debris. At some point, the gravitational force of the wad of debris above this unstable zone overcomes the counteracting structural arrangement and its PE converts to KE. As the wad falls, some debris is thrown off, but more is collected from the wad below as its stability is interrupted by the energy of the falling mass.

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, That the initial process is in fact independent on the height/mass/whatever. Like a row of domino stones, whether you have 10 stones or 10000 stones the process will start independent of the amount. In the WTC case there is of course a minimum kind of block needed that is assumed to start the process. The child who has to topple the first domino stone must be strong enough to start the process, to use a kind of analogy.

This is in fact the official story but viewed from a different point, of course the gravity points in the direction of collapse, but it is still independent as long as N (starting amount of floors) is sufficient.

You are forgetting that the WTC were unique structures, you can't compare it to a 20 floor building.

I think the scissors theory is more plausible than your CD theory.

[einsteen]

You are forgetting that the WTC were unique structures, you can't compare it to a 20 floor building.

I think the scissors theory is more plausible than your CD theory.

Wrong, the 20 floor building is assumed to have the same unique structure as the WTC.

[Pardalis]

Wrong, the 20 floor building is assumed to have the same unique structure as the WTC.

Why would this hypothetical 20 floor building have the same structure than the WTC towers? Have you ever seen one?

[einsteen]

If they built the WTC 20 stories high with the same unique structure the same would happen after Osama crashed in with his plane. It's not the mass that matters but, as Chipmunk already explained, the initial falling "block" that matters

[Pardalis]

As far as I know, the WTC was built the way it was specifically because of its amazing size and mass.

And yes, I guess a plane hitting a 20 floor building at its 10th floor would cause it to collapse. What is your point exactly?

[Z]

If the 10th story of a 20 story building, designed as the upper portion of the WTC was designed, were to be hit by a 767 at similar speed, then I would precisely expect the ensuing collapse to look as it did on 9/11. Remember, the 'block' you keep harping on was already collapsing inside before the outer rigid support facing began to fall; hence, already a huge amount of gypsum dust from walls and ceiling tiles was pulverizing into an enormous cloud, and the heavier elements were already contributing to the destruction of the lower portions.

The only difference I would expect is a higher percentage of larger salvage in a shorter building, since the fall would be briefer and possess less energy.

As it is, even the collapse of the entire towers left behind large sections of in-tact debris (in spite of Toothshaker's continued assertions of 'total pulverization'). All we could expect is less damage overall in a shorter building.

(Another point for those not aware: the enormous cloud of dust seems unusual if you've seen controlled demolition collapses, unless you area aware that workers spend quite some time prior to demolition removing ceiling tiles and stripping out wall plaster, etc. This is done precisely to avoid potentially toxic dust clouds from enveloping huge areas during demolition.)

So... any other questions, Finklesteen?

[einsteen]

And yes, I guess a plane hitting a 20 floor building at its 10th floor would cause it to collapse. What is your point exactly?

The point is that I answered a question when Arkan asked something. But I'm glad that you understand everything already, but I don't understand everything that happened in this proces. And that's why I want to understand this proces completely and promised myself to go as deep as possible in this stuff, but I have to take it a little easier, there is time enough.

[einsteen]

If the 10th story of a 20 story building, designed as the upper portion of the WTC was designed, were to be hit by a 767 at similar speed, then I would precisely expect the ensuing collapse to look as it did on 9/11.

It's not relevant what one would expect, this must happen according to NIST.

[TruthSeeker1234]

My sources for the claim of insuffcient GPE to the work is Hoffman, Trumpman, and Ross. I have linked these papers. I'd glady post the whole paper, but they keep getting deleted. Each of these gentleman have provided calculations on one aspect of the "collapse". Each has run into energy deficit, while ignoring the other energy sinks, and while making assumptions favorable to collapse continuation.

Add this to the fact that NIST have not done these studies, and simply assert that "global collapse then ensued", then Hoffman, Trumpman and Ross stand as the last word, until some official source decides to tackle it.

Mackey, perhaps NIST will publish your calculations, since they seem reluctant to even look at the energy balance sheet.

Mackey, you and I need to debate on television. Game?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

My sources for the claim of insuffcient GPE to the work is Hoffman, Trumpman, and Ross. I have linked these papers. I'd glady post the whole paper, but they keep getting deleted. Each of these gentleman have provided calculations on one aspect of the "collapse". Each has run into energy deficit, while ignoring the other energy sinks, and while making assumptions favorable to collapse continuation.

Add this to the fact that NIST have not done these studies, and simply assert that "global collapse then ensued", then Hoffman, Trumpman and Ross stand as the last word, until some official source decides to tackle it.

Mackey, perhaps NIST will publish your calculations, since they seem reluctant to even look at the energy balance sheet.

Mackey, you and I need to debate on television. Game?

Are you planning on defending your assertion against the refutations that show Hoffman to be wrong? Or are you just going to keep citing him in hopes we forget about that?

[fuelair]

Anyone care to speculate what they are?

I've asked and he won't say. He just keeps droning on about what he claims the laws of physics will allow.

So if he won't cough it up... let's make it up! :D Doesn't really matter , he cannot - easily told by his writing - be trained/certified and degreed in all the fields he makes grievous errors in and/or accepts grievous errors in as truth. Unless he is acting for the NWO to catch those of us who can see through their manipulations. (joke!!!!!!)

[Bell]

<snip>

Mackey, you and I need to debate on television. Game?

*walks in*

How's about debating one on one with Mackey on here these boards? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63762)

*walks out*

[defaultdotxbe]

My sources for the claim of insuffcient GPE to the work is Hoffman, Trumpman, and Ross. I have linked these papers. I'd glady post the whole paper, but they keep getting deleted. Each of these gentleman have provided calculations on one aspect of the "collapse". Each has run into energy deficit, while ignoring the other energy sinks, and while making assumptions favorable to collapse continuation.
i have already asked you to post numbers, not names, show their calculations, and explain your thoughts on them

[jhunter1163]

I wouldn't debate Mackey about what I had for lunch yesterday. He's so good he'd convince me I had tuna salad when it was actually salami.

TS, debate him at your peril.

[DavidJames]

Based upon his reactions here, I would be interested in seeing when DoDo1234 is presented with genuine facts and evidence whether he literally gets up runs away or simply sits there with a dumb look on his face.

[chipmunk stew]

Based upon his reactions here, I would be interested in seeing when DoDo1234 is presented with genuine facts and evidence whether he literally gets up runs away or simply sits there with a dumb look on his face.
I think it just sounds like this in his head:
[see attachment]

[LashL]

Doesn't really matter , he cannot - easily told by his writing - be trained/certified and degreed in all the fields he makes grievous errors in and/or accepts grievous errors in as truth.

It is obvious that he has no training, certification or degrees in any of the relevant fields. It is equally obvious that he will never provide calculations or show his work, because he is wholly incapable of doing so.

[calebprime]

This is the only time I'm going to jump in. After all, the thread's about Truthseeker1234's education. The one time T sounded fairly sane, confident, and skeptical at any length was when (he?) was talking about being an audio professional who uses audio plug-ins. He hadn't heard of a plug-in yet that was capable of the amazingly life-like synthesis of the calls from the planes. But maybe the spooks at NSA have it.

How about it, T? To me, you sound a lot like the fairly bright but fairly ignorant kids I used to teach in Conservatory. Berklee? Dieter's School of Techno?

If you won't describe your education, how about telling me about your audio rig?

Cubase? Logic?

What are the hip plug-ins, in your opinion? Talk about something that you actually know something about!

[pchams]

What are the hip plug-ins, in your opinion? Talk about something that you actually know something about!

Why, UA-D1's of course.

Actually, I think a CTist might go more for bit-crusher type plugins. ;)