Randi - You've Been Had! TS1234 Email to Randi

[Christophera]

Dear Christophera,

Keep this paranoid nonsense in your own thread.

Much appreciated,
Bell

Just facts supported with evidence. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) Put your labeling some place where it will do good.

[delphi_ote]

Just facts supported with evidence. (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) Put your labeling some place where it will do good.
You need a hobby or a girlfriend, Christophera... or medication.

Seriously. Chill. Out. You're making conversation impossible with all this spam.

[R.Mackey]

If the first floor that falls on the next floor takes 1.3 seconds to fall then with high-school physics you can prove that a global collapse is impossible even with the most favourable model.

It doesn't, einsteen. Not unless those floors are 16 meters apart. We've been over this.

[Christophera]

If the first floor that falls on the next floor takes 1.3 seconds to fall then with high-school physics you can prove that a global collapse is impossible even with the most favourable model.

then prove it

einsteen's statement doesn't need proof. It is common knowledge and common sense. After the first collapse the upper floor slows and no longer has the energy to crush what is below.

It is basically illogical to consider that this event (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) is a collapse of any kind.

[Grounded]

einsteen's statement doesn't need proof. It is common knowledge and common sense. After the first collpase the upper floor slows and no longer has the energy to crush what is below.



Baloney. The collapsed upper floor has plenty of energy available: gravity still acts on the mass of debris/dust/powder/whatever. After it collapses you think it can be removed from the equation. That's not conservation of energy.

I still don't understand the purpose behind the drive here. What's the point? If it was a conspiracy and you think the U.S. government is that evil, move.

[twinstead]

einsteen's statement doesn't need proof. It is common knowledge and common sense. After the first collpase the upper floor slows and no longer has the energy to crush what is below.


Oh. Well I see. CHRIS said it doesn't need proof, that it's 'common knowledge and common sense'.

Well I guess that settles it, huh? :boggled:

[Christophera]

Oh. Well I see. CHRIS said it doesn't need proof, that it's 'common knowledge and common sense'.

Well I guess that settles it, huh? :boggled:

What? Now you don't even need to post common sense? Is was one thing that you've been posting quasi logic with no evidence, but now you expect to post total. vacuous nonsense with no evidence?

[defaultdotxbe]

What? Now you don't even need to post common sense? Is was one thing that you've been posting quasi logic with no evidence, but now you expect to post total. vacuous nonsense with no evidence?
no evidence? you just said einsteens statement doesnt need proof, so it sounds liek your the ones without evidence

[twinstead]

What? Now you don't even need to post common sense? Is was one thing that you've been posting quasi logic with no evidence, but now you expect to post total. vacuous nonsense with no evidence?

What I was saying, Chris, is that just because YOU think no evidence is needed, or that something is just common sense, doesn't make it true.

You can't just make up whatever rules of debate you want. You have a history of ignoring or handwaiving away pretty compelling evidence contrary to your position.

Frankly, when YOU suggest something is obvious, or is a matter of common sense, most here are even more dubious than before.

[Gravy]

einsteen's statement doesn't need proof. It is common knowledge and common sense. After the first collapse the upper floor slows and no longer has the energy to crush what is below.

It is basically illogical to consider that this event (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) is a collapse of any kind.Christophera, do progressive collapses of buildings occur? Yes or no?

ETA: You've been posting here for a long time. Do you know what NIST says are the probable causes of collapse of the towers?

[Christophera]

Christophera, do progressive collapses of buildings occur? Yes or no?

ETA: You've been posting here for a long time. Do you know what NIST says are the probable causes of collapse of the towers?

No, they do not with these type buildings under these conditions.

[rwguinn]

If the first floor that falls on the next floor takes 1.3 seconds to fall then with high-school physics you can prove that a global collapse is impossible even with the most favourable model.
Show us your d@#n equations, variables, and answers, then, or shut up and go home.
IF anyone can do it, SHOW US!
Personally, I think you are the south end of a northbound horse, and picked up your "diploma" at a pawn shop.

[Christophera]

Show us your d@#n equations, variables, and answers, then, or shut up and go home.
IF anyone can do it, SHOW US!
Personally, I think you are the south end of a northbound horse, and picked up your "diploma" at a pawn shop.


Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.

Intuition tells anyone with experience in construction/engineering that only the tops ofthe towers would collapse. Then, they would fall off or topple and that would be the end of the damage.

What about the fact WTC 1 was hit on the north side but the top fell to the south.

How about you answer a question for a change?

[Gravy]

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.

Intuition tells anyone with experience in construction/engineering that only the tops ofthe towers would collapse. Then, they would fall off or topple and that would be the end of the damage.

What about the fact WTC 1 was hit on the north side but the top fell to the south.

How about you answer a question for a change?Christophera, I hate to bring this up yet again, but you don't even know which tower was which at Ground Zero. Shouldn't you do some studying before you start demanding that others answer your questions.

[fuelair]

Truthseeker already logically dispensed with your phoney calculations pages back. You have posted typical denier spam.

No offense but they aren't my calculations - you missed (like so many CTers) that I was quoting another and then pointing what Notruthhere would do. Pay attention, play nice.

[fuelair]

Are TS and Chrissie playing tag team wrestling? Do I care? (nevermind........)

[Christophera]

Christophera, I hate to bring this up yet again, but you don't even know which tower was which at Ground Zero. Shouldn't you do some studying before you start demanding that others answer your questions.

There is only one image I'm unsure of those I use. It is the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and it does not matter which tower it was. We have a concrete wall there with an interior box column outside of it.

The fact that you've never come up with a reason for not steel core columns penetrating the stairwell or why none are seen to the right of it and inthe foreground glares more brightly than my inability to tell you which tower it is.

[delphi_ote]

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.
Equations are the devil's sentences. The worst one is that quadratic equation; an infernal salad of letters, numbers, and symbols.
Stephen Colbert feels your pain, Cristophera.

[Gravy]

There is only one image I'm unsure of those I use. It is the core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg) and it does not matter which tower it was. We have a concrete wall there with an interior box column outside of it.False. I posted many images in your wacky thread, and every time you stated which tower was which – whether they were standing or in ruins – you got it wrong.

The fact that you've never come up with a reason for not steel core columns penetrating the stairwell or why none are seen to the right of it and inthe foreground glares more brightly than my inability to tell you which tower it is.Shame that this is too long to use as my sig.

You avoided my questions, Chris. What does NIST say about the cause of the tower collapses?

[gumboot]

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.


That's one of the most awesome things I have ever read.

-Gumboot

[Skibum]

That's one of the most awesome things I have ever read.

-Gumboot


What else do you expect from someone with Awesome as a middle name.

[einsteen]

Show us your d@#n equations, variables, and answers, then, or shut up and go home.
IF anyone can do it, SHOW US!
Personally, I think you are the south end of a northbound horse, and picked up your "diploma" at a pawn shop.


If that is the case then it is true, but I have to convince myself first it is 1.3 seconds. The math is trivial, but I will write it down for you in general mass distribution, soon I have some family matters to solve first.

[rwguinn]

If that is the case then it is true, but I have to convince myself first it is 1.3 seconds. The math is trivial, but I will write it down for you in general mass distribution, soon I have some family matters to solve first.

Why do I have trouble believing any of this?

[delphi_ote]

The math is trivial, but I will write it down for you in general mass distribution, soon I have some family matters to solve first.
Hmm... I disagree.
trivial - simple, transparent, or immediately evident

[Curnir]

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.

Intuition tells anyone with experience in construction/engineering that only the tops ofthe towers would collapse. Then, they would fall off or topple and that would be the end of the damage.

What about the fact WTC 1 was hit on the north side but the top fell to the south.

How about you answer a question for a change?

Intuition eh?

Well to quote Monty Python:

Given the premise that
1. Mackrell are fish.
and
2. Fish live underwater.
My wife will conclude, not that mackrell live underwater, but that if she buys kippers it will not rain or that trout live in trees or even that I do not love her anymore.
This she calls "using her intuition"... I call it crap.

[Belz...]

einsteen's statement doesn't need proof. It is common knowledge and common sense.

You've been shown before that common sense is not a good tool for evaluating proof. Do you have memory problems as well ?

After the first collapse the upper floor slows and no longer has the energy to crush what is below.

Again, the math has been shown before. You are ignoring any and all evidence that contradict your claim. Your credibility is in question.

Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive

"The Earth is a spheroid" is a counter-intuitive statement.

Intuition tells anyone with experience in construction/engineering that only the tops ofthe towers would collapse. Then, they would fall off or topple and that would be the end of the damage.

You've forgetting a very important source of additional momentum during the collapse, chris.

What about the fact WTC 1 was hit on the north side but the top fell to the south.

Yes. So ? Can you think of a reason ?

There is only one image I'm unsure of those I use. It is the core wall at its base and it does not matter which tower it was.

It matters for two reasons:

1) If you cannot tell which tower it was, every other claim you make about specific knowledge of this and that can be called into question.

2) You state, specifically, that both towers had a different core design. This means that that structure will not be the same for both towers.

[RandFan]

Intuition eh?

Well to quote Monty Python:

Given the premise that
1. Mackrell are fish.
and
2. Fish live underwater.
My wife will conclude, not that mackrell live underwater, but that if she buys kippers it will not rain or that trout live in trees or even that I do not love her anymore.
This she calls "using her intuition"... I call it crap.:) Argument via Monty Python. Non better.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Yup.

Here's some simple math for you, TruthSeeker1234. Each tower had on the order of 1012 Joules of energy. Suppose we model it as all kinetic energy, e.g. m v2.

In the "Free Fall" case, we know it takes about 10 seconds to totally collapse.

In what actually happened, it took about 15 seconds. So the velocity here is 10 seconds / 15 seconds = roughly 66% of what it would have been in freefall. Mass stays the same, and we have a lower velocity.

Using these new numbers, the undissipated kinetic energy of the real case is m (66% v)2 or 0.44 x m v2. That leaves 0.56 x m v2 available for deformation, or 56%.

That is to say, by slowing it down just five seconds, we have expended OVER HALF of the energy on the way down. That's 5 x 1011 Joules. Or, in layman's terms, a metric crapload of energy.

Now do you get it? The "near freefall" thing is just a canard. Delaying only a slight amount means dissipation of tremendous amounts of energy, giving rise to precisely what we all saw.

Disclaimer: This analysis is overly simplistic, but you get the point. In actual fact the 10 second freefall is too high, since the tower was not a point mass suspended at the top. Thus the fraction of energy available for destruction is, in reality, even higher than 56%.

Huh? Walk me through this Mackey.

First, free-fall time in a vacuum is 9.2 sec, but air resistance adds to that, in relation to the ratio of surface area to mass. As the building disintegrated, different parts would assume different surface-to-mass ratios, and would fall at different rates. Thus, saying that "the tower" came down in "15 seconds" is meaningless. There was no "tower" to come down. All of it fell to the earth eventually, of course. Some parts were steel members which likely reached the ground in around 12 seconds. Other parts were dust which were suspended in the air for days. Great amounts of dust came down very rapidly, only slightly behind steel members. This is testimony to how dense the dust was, another clue to determine how much of the building was, in fact, turned into dust.

Using these new numbers, the undissipated kinetic energy of the real case is m (66% v)2 or 0.44 x m v2. That leaves 0.56 x m v2 available for deformation, or 56%.

That is to say, by slowing it down just five seconds, we have expended OVER HALF of the energy on the way down. That's 5 x 1011 Joules. Or, in layman's terms, a metric crapload of energy.


You have this backwards. If free-fall is 66% of actual fall time, then 33% is left for deformation, not 66%. If you adjust your free fall time to be 12 seconds (more reasonable considering air), then you have 3/15 or 1/5 or 20% of PE available.

Here's some simple math for you, TruthSeeker1234. Each tower had on the order of 1012 Joules of energy. Suppose we model it as all kinetic energy, e.g. m v2.

This is imagining that the entire PE of the building is going to be directed toward the work. Thus you are imagining an entire tower on top of the actual tower, the "trash compactor" model of LARED, debunked by Wood.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49321&mesg_id=50155

[TruthSeeker1234]

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities. – Voltaire, via J. RandiI wholeheartedly agree with this Voltaire/Randi quote.

Witness the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00025.htm

[ImaginalDisc]

Huh? Walk me through this Mackey.

First, free-fall time in a vacuum is 9.2 sec, but air resistance adds to that,

Are you daft? It SUBTRACTS.

in relation to the ratio of surface area to mass. As the building disintegrated, different parts would assume different surface-to-mass ratios, and would fall at different rates. Falling rocks aren't slowed terribly by drag. By your logic, avalanches aren't dangerous.

[R.Mackey]

Huh? Walk me through this Mackey.
Glad to. Thank you for entering an actual discussion. This way, we can both learn something.

First, free-fall time in a vacuum is 9.2 sec, but air resistance adds to that, in relation to the ratio of surface area to mass.
Air resistance adds very little to that. As I have noted here dozens of times, the tower is not falling in a free-stream of still air. The only air drag on falling objects is on the sides.

Even if it was, air drag creates a drag force proportional to the square of the falling object's velocity. Because this is a non-linear relationship, the drag will be a minor correction until the velocity becomes reasonably close to the terminal velocity of the object falling. A steel girder will have a terminal velocity in excess of 110 meters per second. Free-fall in vacuum for 9.2 seconds only gets you to 90 meters per second. So even at worst, air drag is minor.

But remember that we are concerned with an object that falls on itself and accelerates, not one that falls at "free-fall" speeds. If we assume the top of the tower hits ground in 15 seconds, and accelerates at a constant rate, then its speed at impact is only 56 meters per second. Again, even if it fell in a free stream of air which it didn't, this means the drag force is at most only a quarter that of gravity. And remember, this is for the very top which moves the fastest. The overwhelming majority of the tower never gets to those speeds. When we also take into account the fact that it didn't fall in a free-stream, we may safely neglect drag entirely.


You have this backwards. If free-fall is 66% of actual fall time, then 33% is left for deformation, not 66%. If you adjust your free fall time to be 12 seconds (more reasonable considering air), then you have 3/15 or 1/5 or 20% of PE available.
No, I don't. You see, the fact that it slows down 33% means that 1 - (0.66)2 = 54% is left for deformation.

Likewise, slowing to 12 seconds (a 25% slow down), not supported by the video but let's do it anyway, leaves 1 - (0.75)2 = 43% available for deformation. Plenty.

Think of it this way. How long does it take you to stop your car when you're driving 50 kph? Now try it from 100 kph. Is the stopping distance the same, or longer? Why is this? (It's because energy scales with the square of velocity.)



This is imagining that the entire PE of the building is going to be directed toward the work. Thus you are imagining an entire tower on top of the actual tower, the "trash compactor" model of LARED, debunked by Wood.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49321&mesg_id=50155
Wood is severely out of her depth.

The "lost" energy is all going towards deformation. Where else can it go?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Are you daft? It SUBTRACTS.

Falling rocks aren't slowed terribly by drag. By your logic, avalanches aren't dangerous.

Air resistance SUBTRACTS from fall time???????

[rwguinn]

Glad to. Thank you for entering an actual discussion. This way, we can both learn something.


Air resistance adds very little to that. As I have noted here dozens of times, the tower is not falling in a free-stream of still air. The only air drag on falling objects is on the sides.

Even if it was, air drag creates a drag force proportional to the square of the falling object's velocity. Because this is a non-linear relationship, the drag will be a minor correction until the velocity becomes reasonably close to the terminal velocity of the object falling. A steel girder will have a terminal velocity in excess of 110 meters per second. Free-fall in vacuum for 9.2 seconds only gets you to 90 meters per second. So even at worst, air drag is minor.
forgiddaboudit, RM
These guys are convinced that velocity in air of a steel bar= velocity in air of pulverized concrete=velocity in air of a feather.
After all, didn't Gallelio prove....
sigh.


But remember that we are concerned with an object that falls on itself and accelerates, not one that falls at "free-fall" speeds. If we assume the top of the tower hits ground in 15 seconds, and accelerates at a constant rate, then its speed at impact is only 56 meters per second. Again, even if it fell in a free stream of air which it didn't, this means the drag force is at most only a quarter that of gravity. And remember, this is for the very top which moves the fastest. The overwhelming majority of the tower never gets to those speeds. When we also take into account the fact that it didn't fall in a free-stream, we may safely neglect drag entirely.


No, I don't. You see, the fact that it slows down 33% means that 1 - (0.66)2 = 54% is left for deformation.

Likewise, slowing to 12 seconds (a 25% slow down), not supported by the video but let's do it anyway, leaves 1 - (0.75)2 = 43% available for deformation. Plenty.

Think of it this way. How long does it take you to stop your car when you're driving 50 kph? Now try it from 100 kph. Is the stopping distance the same, or longer? Why is this? (It's because energy scales with the square of velocity.)but...but...but
you can't use that liitle ^2 there, can you? it is obvious via common sense that a semi and a motorcycle will stop in the same distance from the same speed, idn't it?




Wood is severely out of her depth.

The "lost" energy is all going towards deformation. Where else can it go?no kiddin'
sigh...
To paraphrase Robert A. Heinlein --an individual who cannot deal with math is a best a sub-human beast who might possibly be trusted to learn not to soil himself...

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey -

the fact that it slows down 33% means that 1 - (0.66)2 = 54% is left for deformation.


OK, so then with my numbers, 1 - (0.80)2 = .36 = 36% left for deformation.

Next we have to subtract the percentage of mass which landed outside the footprint. As mentioned, the "dust" which "puffed" out of the towers in all directions was very dense, falling nearly as rapidly as steel. Could we not estimate the density of this "dust" from its fall time? Could we not estimate its volume in comparison to the intact tower? Considering density and volume, could we not estimate the mass which landed outside the footprint?

[R.Mackey]

OK, so then with my numbers, 1 - (0.80)2 = .36 = 36% left for deformation.
Fair enough, except your numbers imply a collapse time from the top of 11.5 seconds. I'm not sure that number is supported by the video.

Another thing to consider is that we're consider comparison vs. "free fall" from the top of the structure, not the middle where it was hit. And given the huge clouds of dust and smoke, it's quite difficult to estimate when the timer should be stopped.

My only point with this argument is to show that "near free fall" is a specious argument. Slowing down the collapse even by two or three seconds means that an enormous release of energy took place as it fell -- 35% to over 50% of the total collapse energy. Thus, any argument based on it happening "too fast" is bunk.


Next we have to subtract the percentage of mass which landed outside the footprint. As mentioned, the "dust" which "puffed" out of the towers in all directions was very dense, falling nearly as rapidly as steel. Could we not estimate the density of this "dust" from its fall time? Could we not estimate its volume in comparison to the intact tower? Considering density and volume, could we not estimate the mass which landed outside the footprint?
Much of that dust is going to be fine drywall, relatively light. Also the size of the cloud does not indicate how dense the cloud is. Given that the dust is opaque, I don't think you can make a valid estimate -- there are just too many variables.

Furthermore, we similarly have a hard time estimating just how much damage was caused during the collapse versus after the pieces hit the ground. We just don't have enough visibility into the collapse. Regardless, as my simple math shows, the amount of energy expended during collapse is huge -- greater than 3 x 1011 Joules per tower -- and thus the phenomenon seen is entirely credible.

Likewise, if this isn't enough energy, then you need to find an absolutely enormous source of energy other than gravity, and one that leaves no telltale signatures. Explosives would have been heard, shattered windows, killed people standing nearby and been so large as to have been utterly impractical in the first place. I can't think of any other candidates.

[Roger_Harris]

The "lost" energy is all going towards deformation. Where else can it go?

Correct, I believe, and I think analyzing the collapse time vs. free-fall time in terms of "lost" energy is not the proper analysis. The thing that would slow the collapse is the transfer of momentum from the falling section to the next impacted floor (and somewhat to floors below that, through the columns): Since the original mass is increased by the mass of the impacted floor, the velocity must decrease in accordance with the momentum conservation law. But from the videos, that appears to be exactly what's happening in the early stages of the collapse, since it's clear that the debris falling outside the building is falling faster than the collapse is proceeding. What happens, though, is that more and more mass gets to moving faster and faster as the collapse proceeds, until the momentum that's being transferred is too small a percentage of the total momentum to slow the falling mass by any significant percentage -- "near" free-fall.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Fair enough, except your numbers imply a collapse time from the top of 11.5 seconds. I'm not sure that number is supported by the video.

I was using 15 second collapse time, and 12 seconds as free fall time with air resistance.



Another thing to consider is that we're consider comparison vs. "free fall" from the top of the structure, not the middle where it was hit. And given the huge clouds of dust and smoke, it's quite difficult to estimate when the timer should be stopped.

As I said, some of the building didn't hit the ground for days.



My only point with this argument is to show that "near free fall" is a specious argument. Slowing down the collapse even by two or three seconds means that an enormous release of energy took place as it fell -- 35% to over 50% of the total collapse energy. Thus, any argument based on it happening "too fast" is bunk.

No, that's not your only point.


Much of that dust is going to be fine drywall, relatively light. Also the size of the cloud does not indicate how dense the cloud is. Given that the dust is opaque, I don't think you can make a valid estimate -- there are just too many variables.

I was suggesting an approach which you did not acknowledge. I suggested that we estimate the density of the clouds based upon how fast they fell. Then we could estimate the volume based on the size of the buildings. From that, we could get a handle on how much mass went outside the tower.


Likewise, if this isn't enough energy, then you need to find an absolutely enormous source of energy other than gravity, and one that leaves no telltale signatures. Explosives would have been heard, shattered windows, killed people standing nearby and been so large as to have been utterly impractical in the first place. I can't think of any other candidates.

There were lots of broken windows on buildings which were not hit by rubble. There were windows blown out of firetrucks which were not hit by rubble.

Explosives heard? Plenty of them were heard at various times. The lack of a definitive "crack" at the beginning of the "collapse" may well be explained by high energy weapons, as suggested by Wood and Reynolds.

In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.

[beachnut]

I was using 15 second collapse time, and 12 seconds as free fall time with air resistance.

As I said, some of the building didn't hit the ground for days.

No, that's not your only point.


I was suggesting an approach which you did not acknowledge. I suggested that we estimate the density of the clouds based upon how fast they fell. Then we could estimate the volume based on the size of the buildings. From that, we could get a handle on how much mass went outside the tower.




There were lots of broken windows on buildings which was not hit by rubble. There were windows blown out of firetrucks which were not hit by rubble.

Explosives heard? Plenty of them were heard at various times. The lack of a definitive "crack" at the beginning of the "collapse" may well be explained by high energy weapons, as suggested by Wood and Reynolds.

In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.

the beam weapon is pure nuts, with no proof these two people are just plain nuts.

I did not say beam weapons do not exist, in I think there has been a test of an air borne laser weapon

But the gravity collapse of the WTC has plenty of energy, you only have to ask an engineer (me) or a CD expert. You will have to find the CD guy since you do not trust me as a EE.

They debunk Dr Jones, Morgan believes no planes hit anything.

So you hitch your wagon to two idiots, one with no planes, the other who messes up basic momentum using balls.

[R.Mackey]

I was using 15 second collapse time, and 12 seconds as free fall time with air resistance.
Nope. Your figure was 80%, meaning the collapse was slowed by 20% from its theoretical maximum of 9.2 seconds, which works back to exactly 11.5 seconds.

You can't compute free-fall time with air resistance without making more specific and very important assumptions.


As I said, some of the building didn't hit the ground for days.
Yes, there was quite a lot of dust created. Changes nothing... anything turned to dust has already participated in the crumbling, and has expended its energy. There is no significant loss.


No, that's not your only point.
I didn't realize you were a mindreader as well! Please, elucidate.


I was suggesting an approach which you did not acknowledge. I suggested that we estimate the density of the clouds based upon how fast they fell. Then we could estimate the volume based on the size of the buildings. From that, we could get a handle on how much mass went outside the tower.
I did acknowledge it. I also said it was foolish. I do not believe you can make a reasonable mass estimate of the cloud. We have dust samples and debris studies, but they were taken much later. We do not have a real-time estimate of the cloud composition, size, or density. Feel free to prove otherwise if you know of someone who thinks differently.

There were lots of broken windows on buildings which was not hit by rubble. There were windows blown out of firetrucks which were not hit by rubble.
You'll have to prove that. But that's not the point. All windows within a klick or so would have been blown out, if an explosive releasing over 3 x 1011 Joules was employed. Believe me, we'd know.


Explosives heard? Plenty of them were heard at various times. The lack of a definitive "crack" at the beginning of the "collapse" may well be explained by high energy weapons, as suggested by Wood and Reynolds.

In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.

Beam weapons are fantasy. The only thing even close to deployment is the Boeing ABL (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2004/q4/nr_041112s.html) (AirBorne Laser), which is a measly megawatt class weapon. It would require over 80 hours of continuous firing to generate the kinds of energies seen here.

Really, if you're going to retreat to your comic books, there's little point in this discussion.

[Gravy]

In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.Yes. Mainly it answers the question, "How can we tell a 9/11 crackpot from a garden-variety 9/11 denier."

TS, you never explained how you reconcile this statement

I am a skeptic in the tradition of the Amazing Randi. Randi became famous as a magician who explained how his tricks did not violate physics.

9/11 was a trick.

With this statement

You are wrong. It is you who have been “taken,” not I…

I do not discuss conspiracy theories.

James Randi.

Have you revised your opinion of yourself since Mr. Randi took you behind the woodshed?

[Roger_Harris]

In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.

Hint: If you need imaginary technology to answer the questions, your answers are raising more questions than they are answering.

Of course, the reason that conspiracy hucksters like Wood and Reynolds are pushing imaginary technology like beam weapons and mini fusion bombs is that the traditional explosives and/or thermite hypothesis just won't withstand scrutiny. Those "answers" are absurd, but nobody can prove they don't exist.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Let's see. Multiplying 200 ft x 200 ft x 1300 ft i get 52,000,000 cu ft for the total volume of a tower. If the tower is 90% air, this is 5,200,000 cu ft of solid stuff.

During the "collapse", the dust outside the tower looks to be at least as big as the tower. So the volume of the dust is 52,000,000 cu ft. If the dust is 10 percent as dense as steel, this means all of the mass was converted to dust. We see some steel left over at the end, so this can't be right. Especially considering that the "dust" fell almost as fast as the steel, indicating that it is very dense.

Perhaps the dust was only half the size of the whole tower, although it sure looks bigger. If the dust is half the size of the tower, and is has a density 16% that of steel, that would mean that 80% of the mass of the tower was converted to dust.

I think that matches our observations fairly well, that is, it looks like around 20% of the mass of the towers survived, mostly steel and aluminum.

[defaultdotxbe]

If the dust is 10 percent as dense as steel, this means all of the mass was converted to dust.
id be surprised if it was as high at 1%

Especially considering that the "dust" fell almost as fast as the steel, indicating that it is very dense.

what collapse were you watching? the dust took a heck of a lot longer to settle than the rest of the debris

[R.Mackey]

Let's see. Multiplying 200 ft x 200 ft x 1300 ft i get 52,000,000 cu ft for the total volume of a tower. If the tower is 90% air, this is 5,200,000 cu ft of solid stuff.

OK. 1.67 million cubic meters is the more accurate figure. Using your 90% hypothesis, that also gives you an average density of 3000 kg / m3 or 182 pounds per cubic foot of the solid stuff. Feels a tad high but pretty reasonable.


During the "collapse", the dust outside the tower looks to be at least as big as the tower. So the volume of the dust is 52,000,000 cu ft. If the dust is 10 percent as dense as steel, this means all of the mass was converted to dust. We see some steel left over at the end, so this can't be right. Especially considering that the "dust" fell almost as fast as the steel, indicating that it is very dense.
Problems here. I don't know how to eyeball the dust cloud. Saying it's comparable to the size of the intact tower is fair, but there's potential for at least a full order of magnitude of error here.

The dust on the ground is probably the same mass as the tower, or perhaps lighter, since it's made of the same stuff. The dust in air is going to be very hard to estimate.

I don't buy that the dust suspended in air is 10% as dense as steel, though. That would mean a dust density of 780 kg per cubic meter (assuming 10% of the density of A36 structural steel), which means each kilogram of air (density of air is about 1.27 kg / m3) would have to suspend 603 times its own weight in dust.

Not likely. I suggest you're definitely off by at least two full orders of magnitude, and probably three.

Perhaps the dust was only half the size of the whole tower, although it sure looks bigger. If the dust is half the size of the tower, and is has a density 16% that of steel, that would mean that 80% of the mass of the tower was converted to dust.
If I assume the dust cloud is the size of the tower, and use a more credible (but still high) estimate of 600 grams of dust for every kilogram of air in the cloud, that gives me almost exactly 1 million kilograms of dust. That's a mere 0.2% of the tower's mass.


I think that matches our observations fairly well, that is, it looks like around 20% of the mass of the towers survived, mostly steel and aluminum.
No, it doesn't. I also question, as I have from the first day you arrived here, the source of your "observation." I believe much, much more than 20% of the mass of the towers fell to the ground. By the estimate above, I would say more than 99% survived.

[defaultdotxbe]

Have you revised your opinion of yourself since Mr. Randi took you behind the woodshed?
unfortunately i think its more likely that he has revised his opinion of randi

[Gravy]

I think that matches our observations fairly well, that is, it looks like around 20% of the mass of the towers survived, mostly steel and aluminum.You and the six-foot-tall bunny? Good grief, TS, is none of this sinking in?

[Horatius]

If the tower is 90% air, this is 5,200,000 cu ft of solid stuff.
...

If the dust is 10 percent as dense as steel, this means all of the mass was converted to dust. We see some steel left over at the end, so this can't be right.
...

If the dust is half the size of the tower, and is has a density 16% that of steel, that would mean that 80% of the mass of the tower was converted to dust.

I think that matches our observations fairly well, that is, it looks like around 20% of the mass of the towers survived, mostly steel and aluminum.


And I think you've made your estimates with the answer you wanted to find in mind.

From this paper at Implosion World (http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf), they state (see page 5, discussion of Assertion #3) that typical human-inhabited buildings are about 30% structural elements and contents, so your 10% value is off by about a factor of 3.

Other people have discussed the density of the dust in the air. There are so many possible variables on this that there's no way, short of some serious reasearch in a lab perhaps, of getting a realistic estimate of this value. So once again, you're free to pull out any number you want to get the answer you're looking for.

So your calculation is basically worthless.

[Moochie]

Have you revised your opinion of yourself since Mr. Randi took you behind the woodshed?


When, exactly, did this occur, and how old was TS? :D

M.

[ImaginalDisc]

Air resistance SUBTRACTS from fall time???????

I can't believe what a ninny you are. It subtracts from the acceleration.

[CurtC]

...so this can't be right.
Hey - BS1234 said something that's correct!

Especially considering that the "dust" fell almost as fast as the steel, indicating that it is very dense.
It's clear now that you have no idea what "dense" means in relation to physics.

I think that matches our observations fairly well, that is, it looks like around 20% of the mass of the towers survived, mostly steel and aluminum.
I'm all for knowledgeable estimation when it makes sense. But in this case, you have cascaded multiple estimates, each with an error range of an order of magnitude or more. The final result you get from that process is meaningless. If you want to tighten up each of those estimates that build to the conclusion, that would be a good idea. You may want to start with figuring out exactly what you mean by "dense" when you're referring to a cloud of dust.

[tsig]

You are simply echoing what I say. The reason the 1993 bombing was conducted was to create an excuse for the remodel wherein thermite was applied to at least 15 vertical feet of any columns that were available. That was done because the thermite if applied in a narro strip would simply floe downwards without remaining on the vertical face of the columns long enough to sever them.

RDX was used in cutting charges in the upper floors and installed as a part of construction.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1233383

However trying to do that when you can only get to one face in the basement levels will not work. Hence the reason for thermite.



You apprently have to overgeneralize to think. The tower was concrete and steel. The concrete was dealt with by encapsulated RDX and the steel was dealt with by thermite (except for custom high performance cutting charges in the floors in upper floors)



There was molten steel. That is why the fires continued for a month.



Where did you get that nonsense?

I have stated that vibration detectors could be used to initiate the basement blasts.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1205439

Or proximal radio transmissions/receptions which would explain why Rodriguez states that the man he rescude emerged from a basement stiarway saying "explosions" just before impact. It is also shown that there were blasts on the opposite side of WTC 2 seconds before impact.



It appears as though you have just been debunked by evidence linked from your own words.

Do you want fries with that?

[Anti-sophist]

During the "collapse", the dust outside the tower looks to be at least as big as the tower. So the volume of the dust is 52,000,000 cu ft. If the dust is 10 percent as dense as steel, this means all of the mass was converted to dust. We see some steel left over at the end, so this can't be right. Especially considering that the "dust" fell almost as fast as the steel, indicating that it is very dense.


This thread has all the makings of an instant-headache generator.

Estimating turbulent heterogenous gas/solid mixtures acting as a liquid, and doing crude calculations like this... is a recipe for fun.

For a guy who doesn't really have a handle on Newton's three laws, I'm thinking this can't turn out well, Truthseeker.

[TruthSeeker1234]

If the dust isn't significantly dense, then why does it fall so fast? I observe large quantities of dust that falls almost as rapidly as does steel. I repeat my challenge. Can we not get a handle on the density of the dust via its fall time? Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.

[ImaginalDisc]

If the dust isn't significantly dense, then why does it fall so fast? I observe mass quantities of dust that falls almost as rapidly as does steel. I repeat my challenge. Can we not get a handle on the density of the dust via its fall time? Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.


Oh, NOW you grasp that concept?

Piles of small particles, the size of pebbles or sand, fall almost as fast as larger stones and look like dust from a distance.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Oh, NOW you grasp that concept?

Piles of small particles, the size of pebbles or sand, fall almost as fast as larger stones and look like dust from a distance.

Right. And a cubic meter of sand is around the same mass as a cubic meter of rock.

[CptColumbo]

Oh, NOW you grasp that concept?

Piles of small particles, the size of pebbles or sand, fall almost as fast as larger stones and look like dust from a distance.

Didn't Galileo cover this awhile ago?

5C5_dOEyAfk

[TruthSeeker1234]

Didn't Galileo cover this awhile ago?

5C5_dOEyAfk

Galileo was jailed because his observations conflicted with the official story.

[ImaginalDisc]

Didn't Galileo cover this awhile ago?

5C5_dOEyAfk

Yeah, but there's such a thing as drag.

[CptColumbo]

Galileo was jailed because his observations conflicted with the official story.

So...You think he was wrong?

[ImaginalDisc]

Galileo was jailed because his observations conflicted with the official story.

The primary difference between you and Galileo is that Galileo was right. He had clearly demonstrable evidence. You have jack.

[R.Mackey]

If the dust isn't significantly dense, then why does it fall so fast? I observe large quantities of dust that falls almost as rapidly as does steel. I repeat my challenge. Can we not get a handle on the density of the dust via its fall time? Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.
Yes, you can calculate the terminal velocity of a small object (e.g. dust particle) using Stokes' Theorem.

If your "dust" fell "almost as fast as steel," then the dust should all be lying on the ground after about 15 seconds, right? Strange definition of dust you're using.

Anyway, my estimate, using air that contained 60% dust by mass, is quite high, and even I don't believe it. You postulated dust that was denser than rolls of chainlink fence, or comparable to solid oak. This is not "dust," TruthSeeker1234.

But thank you for adding some detail. This makes is much easier to determine where the fault in your reasoning process lies. Now all we have to do is get you to understand it, and we've made real progress.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Estimating turbulent heterogenous gas/solid mixtures acting as a liquid, and doing crude calculations like this... is a recipe for fun.


The "dust" indeed behaved as a seperate phase, did it not? Is this not a further indication of its high density?

The stuff is expanding, so its density is not constant, still, I think we should work towards an estimate of the density.

[einsteen]

I was a little bit working on some calculations, last time I used that antenna of wtc1 to check the time it took to fall a distance of 3.8 meter.
It it is about 1.3 seconds. The story is that the block falls as a whole and then the collision on the next floor will domino the next floor and so on, I used that antenna because its very good visible in the beginning and no smoke and dust covers it. The strange thing is that if you look at the rest of the block you see absolutely no movement (virtualdub can be used for a frame per frame analysis). It almost looks like a kind of penthouse failure that wtc7 also has. That same movie also shows that about 10 seconds before the initial moment of movement of the antenna some debris falls away from the impacted floors, the camera that was fixed somewhere else also started shaking. There is no sound in the movie. I'm wondering if that fits with the thunder sounds in 911eyewitness, anyone noticed this ?

[CurtC]

Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.
Surface area to mass ratio ain't density. Please stop using that word.

[Anti-sophist]

The "dust" indeed behaved as a seperate phase, did it not? Is this not a further indication of its high density?

The stuff is expanding, so its density is not constant, still, I think we should work towards an estimate of the density.

Have you accounted for air currents and subtracted them out, yet? Air resistance is calculated with a velocity relative to the air, not the ground. If the air is moving downwards, then the dust will 'go with it' with no resistance.

Have you estimated the airflow and subtracted it out, yet?


ETA: Btw, you get +40 points on the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) for comparing yourself to Galileo
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

[beachnut]

Galileo was jailed because his observations conflicted with the official story.

That is why we started a free society. So real scientist would not be jailed by fools like those in the truth movement when real scientist publish the truth; the real story. I am sure the truth movement leaders would jail anyone, if the truth movement was in charge, who did not agree with their CT world.

But the truth movement is not in jail because we have a free society, and we like to have nut cases display their ideas in the open so we can spend more or less money on education.

We have decide to "pull it"; all future funding of your education. Further expenditures are futile in your case of the never ending CT story.

[twinstead]

I am sure the truth movement leaders would jail anyone, if the truth movement was in charge, who did not agree with their CT world.


I have no doubt of that. Imagine a world where people can be accused of the worst possible crimes on hearsay, conjecture, and rumor.

Like many revolutions, the "hang 'em high!" crowd's cure will be worse than the sickness. Sort of like replacing the corrupt Tsars of Russia with what would become in a few short years the nightmare of Stalin.

I wonder if the scientists who support the 'old order' will be the first to go.

[tsig]

If the dust isn't significantly dense, then why does it fall so fast? I observe large quantities of dust that falls almost as rapidly as does steel. I repeat my challenge. Can we not get a handle on the density of the dust via its fall time? Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.

Do you ever do any of your own work?

Have you ever had your handle on anything?

Just asking questions.

[einsteen]

I think that TS1234 means:

- the collapse is of course less than an object in vacuum or air as we see because the debris is falling faster than the demolition wave

- this means that the debris that falls has a high terminal velocity, i.e. it is no dust that hangs in the air and is dense mass.

is that true TS1234?

[Anti-sophist]

- this means that the debris that falls has a high terminal velocity

Relative to what? Terminal velocity is relative to the air, not the ground. I'm still awaiting his calculations to determine how the frame of reference defined by the air converts to the frame of reference of the ground. In other words, I'm still waiting to see his calculations for the movement of the air.

[chipmunk stew]

Can we not get a handle on the density of the dust via its fall time? Fall time in air is directly indicative of surface area-to-mass ratio.
Not when you're dealing with large area-to-mass ratios. That is, unless you're making the kinds of idealistic assumptions high school textbooks regularly make--like the air is uniformly dense and is not moving.

I think it's safe to assume that there was a great deal of turbulence as the buildings collapsed.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Christophera
Your requests are not reasonable as the official conclusons are counter intuitive wherein calculatons are largely subterfuge.

Originally Posted by Stephen Colbert
Equations are the devil's sentences. The worst one is that quadratic equation; an infernal salad of letters, numbers, and symbols.

Stephen Colbert feels your pain, Cristophera (delphi ote)

I have to admire people who have managed to realize that equations are just tricks of the elite to hold down the powerfulintuitionofthecommonmanTM!!

Oops, I was wrong, they are too ignorant to do the math so they claim intuition - which will mislead you to death if you trust it (hmmmmmm, let me think about that a second here.........)

[Belz...]

First, free-fall time in a vacuum is 9.2 sec, but air resistance adds to that, in relation to the ratio of surface area to mass. As the building disintegrated, different parts would assume different surface-to-mass ratios, and would fall at different rates. Thus, saying that "the tower" came down in "15 seconds" is meaningless.

That is, of course, assuming that NO object came in contact with any of those to impart additional momentum. Don't forget that the air caught within the structure also fell with it.

Witness the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your opponents can do no good, can they ?

I suggested that we estimate the density of the clouds based upon how fast they fell.

Huh ?

The lack of a definitive "crack" at the beginning of the "collapse" may well be explained by high energy weapons, as suggested by Wood and Reynolds.

You mean a superlaser ?

In fact, as I think about it, the star wars beam solution answers a number of questions.

Not the least of which is the CTers' fascination with fictitious theories.

[Jennie C.]

Galileo was jailed because his observations conflicted with the official story.

Actually, he was excommunicated rather than jailed wasn't he?

And that wasn't for the gravity experiments, it was because he said the sun was the center of the universe.

And they made him recant. And he recanted. And, according to legend, murmured, "The world revolves, all the same."

[/derail]

[TruthSeeker1234]

Btw, you get +40 points on the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) for comparing yourself to Galileo
40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

Actually, in my mind I was comparing Steven Jones to Galileo. It's from a song I was working on.

"You're a great American hero
And you show us the treasure that you found
Like a modern-day Galileo you go
Saying the world is round
But that's something they can't allow
So they'll just have to shut you down
They might break your bones
So watch out Dr. Jones"

is how the second chorus goes.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Actually, he was excommunicated rather than jailed wasn't he?

And that wasn't for the gravity experiments, it was because he said the sun was the center of the universe.

And they made him recant. And he recanted. And, according to legend, murmured, "The world revolves, all the same."

[/derail]

Yes, now Dr. Jones has been excommunicated as well.

[Skibum]

Yes, now Dr. Jones has been excommunicated as well.

Strange, I heard he retired.

[Gravy]

Actually, in my mind I was comparing Steven Jones to Galileo. It's from a song I was working on.

"You're a great American hero
And you show us the treasure that you found
Like a modern-day Galileo you go
Saying the world is round
But that's something they can't allow
So they'll just have to shut you down
They might break your bones
So watch out Dr. Jones"

is how the second chorus goes.

That is a joke, right? Right? I mean, you know that Jones is an academic fraud, right? We've pointed out to you specific examples of his wrongdoing. You can find more of them in my WTC 7 paper.

Please tell us you are joking.

[Pardalis]

"You're a great American hero

Isn't that the beginning of the "GI Joe" cartoon series theme song?

[Garb]

Isn't that the beginning of the "GI Joe" cartoon series theme song?

I believe the term is "Real American Hero."

[delphi_ote]

Actually, in my mind I was comparing Steven Jones to Galileo. It's from a song I was working on.

"You're a great American hero
And you show us the treasure that you found
Like a modern-day Galileo you go
Saying the world is round
But that's something they can't allow
So they'll just have to shut you down
They might break your bones
So watch out Dr. Jones"

is how the second chorus goes.
Treasure? Treasure?! You describe the ravings of a man describing an impending police state and mass murder as shiny trinkets of wealth?! The "evidence" he thinks point to mass murder brigthens your day?! The man you supposedly think is a prophet pointing out the corrosive belly of ultimate evil is bringing you treasure?! What is he, the ****ing Santa Claus of Doom?

This really is a game for all of you, isn't it?! Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. As far as I'm concerned, this poem is the low point of the "truth" movement.

[Earl The Tall]

Actually, in my mind I was comparing Steven Jones to Galileo. It's from a song I was working on.

"You're a great American hero
And you show us the treasure that you found
Like a modern-day Galileo you go
Saying the world is round
But that's something they can't allow
So they'll just have to shut you down
They might break your bones
So watch out Dr. Jones"

is how the second chorus goes.

Holy crap............I really don't know what to say to that......

[stateofgrace]

Holy crap............I really don't know what to say to that......

I think the word you may be looking for is appalling.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Actually, in my mind I was comparing Steven Jones to Galileo. It's from a song I was working on.

"You're a great American hero
And you show us the treasure that you found
Like a modern-day Galileo you go
Saying the world is round
But that's something they can't allow
So they'll just have to shut you down
They might break your bones
So watch out Dr. Jones"

is how the second chorus goes.

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan

[rwguinn]

But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan
who is it that has the sig line something like
"To claim the Galileo crown, it is not just that youn are persecuted for your stand.
You must also be right."

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes, now Dr. Jones has been excommunicated as well.
what is this, some sort of inverse argumentum ad populum?

no one belives X, therefore X is true

[R.Mackey]

I think the word you may be looking for is appalling.
Indeed.

Who is the greater human tragedy, the fool, or the one who idolizes him?

[Gravy]

If the dust isn't significantly dense, then why does it fall so fast? If the dust was significantly dense, why did so much of it wind up where I live, miles away? Why did huge clouds of it roll for blocks? Why did samples indicate a far greater percentage of gypsum dust than concrete, although there was much more concrete than gypsum in the towers?

Just asking questions and demanding answers.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Treasure? Treasure?! You describe the ravings of a man describing an impending police state and mass murder as shiny trinkets of wealth?! The "evidence" he thinks point to mass murder brigthens your day?! The man you supposedly think is a prophet pointing out the corrosive belly of ultimate evil is bringing you treasure?! What is he, the ****ing Santa Claus of Doom?

This really is a game for all of you, isn't it?! Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. As far as I'm concerned, this poem is the low point of the "truth" movement.

The term "brighten my day" is not in the lyric. Gee, if just the second chorus had this effect on you delphi, what might the whole song do?

[RandFan]

Actually, in my mind I was comparing Steven Jones to Galileo. It's from a song I was working on.

"You're a great American hero
And you show us the treasure that you found
Like a modern-day Galileo you go
Saying the world is round
But that's something they can't allow
So they'll just have to shut you down
They might break your bones
So watch out Dr. Jones"Right, yet somehow we all found out Iraq had no WMD. Damn, how did they allow that? They can blow up the WTC but they can't plant one lousy dirty-bomb. And how is it they allow the truth that Iraq is a mess to get out? Why don't they shut down those lousy shills otherwise known as reporters? Don't they know that they are only supposed to report things that are good for the administration?

The Stupidest Things President George W. Bush Has Ever Said (http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/georgewbush/a/top10bushisms.htm)

Stupid Bush Tricks (http://www.geocities.com/butchmaxwell/bush.html)

Holly cow Batman?!?!?

Something doesn't make sense TS.

And...why Arabs?

[TruthSeeker1234]

If the dust was significantly dense, why did so much of it wind up where I live, miles away? Why did huge clouds of it roll for blocks? Why did samples indicate a far greater percentage of gypsum dust than concrete, although there was much more concrete than gypsum in the towers?

Just asking questions and demanding answers.

No, you're avoiding my question. Sure some "dust" was suspended in the air and probably fell in the Atlantic Ocean days later. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the very dense material which is falling systematically around the tower at nearly the same rate as steel. How dense is that stuff, whatever you want to call it?

[Bell]

No, you're avoiding my question. Sure some "dust" was suspended in the air and probably fell in the Atlantic Ocean days later. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the very dense material which is falling systematically around the tower at nearly the same rate as steel. How dense is that stuff, whatever you want to call it?

I think that would be very hard to calculate. How much of the speed of that dust is due to the air rushing down, following the collapse of the towers?

ETA: Sorry, you are talking about the dust around the towers. I was thinking of the cloud that followed the towers falling down.

[Belz...]

No, you're avoiding my question. Sure some "dust" was suspended in the air and probably fell in the Atlantic Ocean days later. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the very dense material which is falling systematically around the tower at nearly the same rate as steel. How dense is that stuff, whatever you want to call it?

Probably not half of a quarter of a percent as dense as you think it is.

[chipmunk stew]

Actually, in my mind I was comparing Steven Jones to Galileo. It's from a song I was working on.

"You're a great American hero
And you show us the treasure that you found
Like a modern-day Galileo you go
Saying the world is round
But that's something they can't allow
So they'll just have to shut you down
They might break your bones
So watch out Dr. Jones"

is how the second chorus goes.
Holy cow, you're THE Ace Baker, aren't you?

You wrote "Judy Would (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/JudyWould.html)", right? Can I have your autograph!

[delphi_ote]

The term "brighten my day" is not in the lyric. Gee, if just the second chorus had this effect on you delphi, what might the whole song do?
How could the rest of the song be any worse than what you put up? Treasure?!

[Skibum]

Holy cow, you're THE Ace Baker, aren't you?

You wrote "Judy Would (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/JudyWood/JudyWould.html)", right? Can I have your autograph!

I'm not sure what to think about you knowing about that. I guess we know who TS is now though.

[Skibum]

OMFG, talk about coincidences!

http://www.acebaker.com/Pages/Films.html

The Barbie movie that Ace wrote music for has been playing damn near nonstop(seems like it has been anyways) for about 3 weeks at my house.
My 2 year old loves it. LOL

[chipmunk stew]

OMFG, talk about coincidences!

http://www.acebaker.com/Pages/Films.html

The Barbie movie that Ace wrote music for has been playing damn near nonstop(seems like it has been anyways) for about 3 weeks at my house.
My 2 year old loves it. LOL
No friggin' way! You mean, he's a real, honest-to-Ed song writer??? His Judy Wood song SUH-UH-UUUUCKS!

I guess that's why he's writing for Barbie videos...

(BTW, I only know about this master of the genre because Screw Loose Change had a blog entry with the Judy Wood song.)

[CurtC]

No, you're avoiding my question. Sure some "dust" was suspended in the air and probably fell in the Atlantic Ocean days later. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the very dense material which is falling systematically around the tower at nearly the same rate as steel. How dense is that stuff, whatever you want to call it?
Dammit, BS1234, the density of concrete is about 2300 kg/m3, whether it's still in slab form, or concrete dust. If this isn't what you're talking about, please stop using the word "density" and describe exactly what you mean.

[fuelair]

The term "brighten my day" is not in the lyric. Gee, if just the second chorus had this effect on you delphi, what might the whole song do?

Make him feel even more deeply how pathetic your life must be - he's kind and hates to see people with this kind of problem.:)

(Feels sorry for you.)







Though I could be wrong.

[firecoins]

for every genius who was laughed at, there were 1 million idiots also laughed at. Steven Jones is one of the idiots.

[RandFan]

for every genius who was laughed at, there were 1 million idiots also laughed at. Steven Jones is one of the idiots.Thank you, one of the worst fallacies ever. And they also laughed at the guy who put water in his car's gas tank. Being laughed at doesn't make you a genius. It doesn't make you an idiot either. In Jones case it's his stupid ideas that have been rejected by experts make him an idiot.

[Christophera]

Probably not half of a quarter of a percent as dense as you think it is.

We can safely say it is as dense as Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg).


http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=3876&stc=1&d=1162360576

[Belz...]

We can safely say it is as dense as Sand and gravel (http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg).

... So... you think that it's going to have the same density WHILE FALLING as it will have once it's done falling ???

You're not really in construction, are you ?

[RandFan]

... So... you think that it's going to have the same density WHILE FALLING as it will have once it's done falling ???

You're not really in construction, are you ?That and he clearly doesn't understand the relationship of increased surface area and density.

[CurtC]

People, please stop talking about "density" of concrete. Again, the density of concrete is about 2300 kg/m3 whether it's in slab form, gravel, or dust. You must be referring to some other property. Please figure out exactly what you're referring to, and then use the proper term.

[Bell]

People, please stop talking about "density" of concrete. Again, the density of concrete is about 2300 kg/m3 whether it's in slab form, gravel, or dust. You must be referring to some other property. Please figure out exactly what you're referring to, and then use the proper term.

"I'm your density."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e2/George_1955.JPG

[Regnad Kcin]

Good one, Bell! Hee-hee!

[CurtC]

I'm sorry, I don't get it. I don't recognize the guy in that picture. I get out a lot, but I don't catch many movies.

[Kent1]

I'm sorry, I don't get it. I don't recognize the guy in that picture. I get out a lot, but I don't catch many movies.

"Back to the Future" a classic.

[apathoid]

I'm sorry, I don't get it. I don't recognize the guy in that picture. I get out a lot, but I don't catch many movies.

"Hello. Anybody home McFly? Think McFly think!!"

Back to the Future

At some point in the movie when he said "I'm your density.....I mean...your destiny". Classic. :D

ETA - Rats. Kent1 beat me

[Crungy]

Immediately following the leasing of the towers there was extensive work done on the elevators serving the lower floors, or that is what nes casts said.


:jaw-dropp

Last year they replaced all the elevators in my 48 story building! It took months. Does that mean my building was really being rigged for explosives? Fox news resides on the bottom floor of my building......:boggled:

Cue spooky theremin music. :hypnotize

[beachnut]

Actually, in my mind I was comparing Steven Jones to Galileo. It's from a song I was working on.

"You're a great American hero
And you show us the treasure that you found
Like a modern-day Galileo you go
Saying the world is round
But that's something they can't allow
So they'll just have to shut you down
They might break your bones
So watch out Dr. Jones"

is how the second chorus goes.

Nut case found rust, al, and sulfur at the WTC.

Dr Thermite Jones - where the iron rust came from? Where did all the Al come from? could there be sulfur at the WTC?

WTC a steel building, clad in Al siding, with tons of wall board.

could an aluminum aircraft, hitting a steel building with wallboard in it, leave traces of a thermite reaction. Al2O3 and Fe

Anyone want to comment on all the trace elements found in the WTC and the possible CT ideas what they mean?

Here is point 6. on Dr Jones' first almost peer reviewed article in 05.

6. The observations of molten metal (I did not say molten steel!) in the basements of all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7 is consistent with the use of the extremely high-temperature thermite reaction: iron oxide + aluminum powder --> Al2O3 + molten iron. Falling buildings are not observed to generate melting of large quantities of molten metal -- this requires a concentrated heat source such as explosives. Even the government reports admit that the fires were insufficient to melt steel beams (they argue for heating and warping then failure of these beams) -- but these reports do not mention the observed molten metal in the basements of WTC1, 2 and 7. Again we have a glaring omission of critical data in the FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.

Your hero said this in an article posted 9.16.05. And he says Al2O3 Fe are due to thermite! This is his first appearance on the scene. It took him 5 years to wake up and study this.

Classic CT stuff here. Later our brain, Dr Jones has to add RDX to his pipe dream due to the fact thermite will not work to destroy the WTC, and his proof was a photo of a torch cut and not thermite. Not sure why he still uses thermite in his paper. I think he has concentrations of AL, O, and Fe in his head. Old Iron head Jones, with a touch of Al to set off his Alzheimer paper and on line journal! I remember when he was just a cold fusion physicist.

The stubborn iron headed CT guys would be drawn to the magnetic personality of Dr Thermite Jones. He is a very nice guy.