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

[TruthSeeker1234]

To James "Amazing Randi" Randi

Dear Mr. Randi,

It is with great disappointment that I see you embracing paranormal explanations for real-world events. Specifically I refer to the twin tower "collapses" of 9/11, in which two 110-story skyscrapers are alleged to have disintegrated under their own weight.

I was a teenager during the 1970's, my parents and I used to love your appearances on talk shows. I enjoyed your debunking of fakes like Uri Gellar. You built a successful and well-deserved career on reassuring us that claims of paranormal abilities are, in fact, tricks. Objects that "disappear" are actually slid up the sleeve, or under the false bottom. No laws of physics are violated, but clever illusionists create the impression that they are.

Taking my lesson from you, I learned that whenever something appears to violate the laws of physics, it must be a trick. The so-called "official" explanation of 9/11 asks us to believe something physically impossible.

It is a "theory" fundamentally at odds with itself, for it requires both very high resistance, and very low resistance, at the same time. On the one hand, we are supposed to believe that the undamaged, intact structure below the impact zone offered so little resistance to the falling mass from above, that the roof came down to earth in just over free-fall time. On the other hand, we are supposed to believe that the intact structure offered so much resistance that almost the whole building and everything in it were systematically crushed into fine powder.

Having a falling mass pulverize macroscopic objects below into powder positively requires that the falling mass encounters stout resistance. Whatever is in between the falling mass and the stout resistance can be pulverized. If the falling mass does not encounter stout resistance, impacted mass will not pulverize. A hammer requires an anvil. A mortar requires a pestle.

We shall see that a building cannot fall anywhere near free fall speed and still have enough energy left over to pulverize much of anything. This is the principle of conservation of energy. The energy for this problem comes from Gravitational Potential Energy, GPE. This one source of energy must account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.

The first work is simply accelerating the mass of the building downwards. If the entire building had come down in free-fall time, there would have been zero energy left to explain anything else. The total collapse times were slightly longer than free-fall, but not much. Thus we are beginning with some small fraction of the total GPE.

This small fraction of total GPE must then account for the shredding of the steel superstructure into small pieces, and pulverizing 99% of the non-metallic mass of those buildings into fine powder, (including 100,000 tons of steel reinforced concrete), then systematically ejecting the shredded steel and powder sideways with great force, enough to hurl hundred-ton chunks up to 600 feet laterally, then rapidly expand the dust cloud many times the volume of the intact towers, forming a flow which greatly resembled the pyroclastic flows of a volcano, and finally forming a strong gas chimney with mushroom top where the building had just stood. All of these phenomena require large energy inputs.

Various independent scientists have done energy balance sheets and come up short every which way from Sunday. Simply put, there is not nearly enough GPE present to explain the observed work, therefore some other source of energy must have been present. That means explosives of some kind.

The official government reports, like NIST, do not find evidence of explosives, but then again, they didn't test for them. Having mentioned NIST, it would be a good time to mention that NIST did not even attempt to model the behavior of the towers during the so-called "collapses". Thus the most mysterious and interesting aspects of this event remain officially unstudied. Could this be because a correct twin tower model will show that a local collapse of the upper 12 stories (of any etiology) will arrest itself and not lead to a total progressive collapse? Even if progressive collapse is induced somehow, surely this would not lead to the systematic shredding of the core structure, nor would it lead to the near-total disintegration of all the non-metallic mass.

To believe that a building (or anything else), has the ability to crush and obliterate itself under its own weight, and throw off a mushroom cloud just for good measure, this is to believe in the paranormal. It defies all experience with the world as we know it, and I cannot understand how anyone accepts it.

When two objects collide, one of three things can happen:

1. A remains intact and destroys B
2. B remains intact and destroys A
3. Something between these two extremes.

It is imperative to understand that the amount of damage that A can inflict on B is reciprocally related to the amount of damaged suffered by A. The more damage sustained by A, the less damage to B, and vice versa. A and B do not annihilate one another. The hammer crushes the ice cube on the floor, but the hammer does not shatter, nor does the floor. If the floor is made of thin glass, then the floor shatters, but the ice cube doesn't. Do you see the relationship?

The official story of the twin towers has it that the upper part of the building fell down like a sledgehammer through the floors below. In the case of WTC2, this is about 30 stories. But what happens to that 30 story sledgehammer? Where does it go? Where are the 220 acre-sized steel floor pans full of concrete? Why does falling steel appear to be evaporating into dust as it falls?

It looked as though two 110 story buildings almost totally disappeared, but, that would appear to be magic, and to violate the laws of physics, so we know it must be a trick. We know because you, Mr. Randi, taught us how to spot the tricksters (sometimes they use a lot of smoke to obscure things, for instance).

In reality, the top parts of the buildings were shattered before they ever started falling down through the lower structure, as all the photos and videos reveal. Look at the video of WTC1. The top part of the building compresses to half its size before the lower part ever moves one inch. By the time the "collapse" is half-over, the top of the building has completely disintegrated. Look closely Mr. Randi, the illusionists used a lot of smoke.

There are a litany of other specific observations which are at odds with the official government paranormal narrative, perhaps we can discuss those in the future if you are interested.

Mr. Randi, you may have thought that even the most clever sleight-of-hand artist would never be able to pull one over on you, but sir, you've been had.

Sincerely,

TruthSeeker1234

[Dazed]

Various independent scientists have done energy balance sheets and come up short every which way from Sunday.

Name one.
(Ones who believe the WTC was destroyed by a laser from space don't count)

[Oliver]

Oh God

[CptColumbo]

Mr. Randi, you may have thought that even the most clever sleight-of-hand artist would never be able to pull one over on you, but sir, you've been had.

Wow, I'm sure he's never heard a phrase like that before.

Was it in "The Adventure of the Speckled Band," that someone told Sherlock Holmes not to "cross him?" And Holmes replied:

"So many have said, and yet here I remain."

[Pardalis]

TS, get ready to get your ass spanked.

[defaultdotxbe]

When two objects collide, one of three things can happen:

1. A remains intact and destroys B
2. B remains intact and destroys A
3. Something between these two extremes.

you forgot 4. Both A and B are destroyed

this often happens when A and B are of similar size, weight, and strength, such as the 85th and the 84th floors of the WTC

[Oliver]

Is Randi familiar with 9/11 conspiracy-theories at all? :confused:

[gumboot]

TS, you're nothing if not entertaining.

God bless.

-Gumboot

[defaultdotxbe]

Is Randi familiar with 9/11 conspiracy-theories at all? :confused:
well remember TerminalServices1234 thinks that any and all members of this forum are authorized legal representatives of the James Randi Educational Foundation, so if we believe something he must too

[fsol]

To James "Amazing Randi" Randi

Dear Mr. Randi,

It is with great disappointment that I see you embracing paranormal explanations for real-world events. Specifically I refer to ...<snip>... artist would never be able to pull one over on you, but sir, you've been had.

Sincerely,

TruthSeeker1234

Oh my. That's what you belive?

[qarnos]

Is Randi familiar with 9/11 conspiracy-theories at all? :confused:

It's not the kind of thing he normally gets into.

He deals with psychics, astrologers, dowsers, etc.

But, to him, it's probably a case of seen one nut, seem them all.

[Jack]

all I really can say is...dude

[Pardalis]

Is this you Truthseeker?

http://www.myspace.com/truthseeker69

[Oliver]

well remember TerminalServices1234 thinks that any and all members of this forum are authorized legal representatives of the James Randi Educational Foundation, so if we believe something he must too

ARGHH! :mad: :D

[CFLarsen]

Is Randi familiar with 9/11 conspiracy-theories at all? :confused:

Yes.

[Oliver]

Yes.

Hello Randi. Nice to meet you. :)

[CFLarsen]

Hello Randi. Nice to meet you. :)

;) :p

[Ersby]

And not once in the OP does TS1234 offer his theory as to what happened.

[Oliver]

By the way - does Randi have an account at the board? :confused:

ETA: He has:
http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=3

[DanKirby]

well remember TerminalServices1234 thinks that any and all members of this forum are authorized legal representatives of the James Randi Educational Foundation, so if we believe something he must too

Add that to being secret operatives of the CIA, the FBI, the NWO, etc...the members here must all be pretty busy, with all these jobs to juggle.

[Lothian]

And not once in the OP does TS1234 offer his theory as to what happened.I think it is quite clear.

Objects that "disappear" are actually slid up the sleeve, or under the false bottom. No laws of physics are violated, but clever illusionists create the impression that they are…..

To believe that a building (or anything else), has the ability to crush and obliterate itself under its own weight, ……

But what happens to that 30 story …. Where does it go? ...

two 110 story buildings almost totally disappeared.....



When you pick out the pertinent paras the explanation is quite clear. There is only one way towers can collapse with such a huge loss of matter. I bet you are kicking yourself now for not spotting it. But for those that miss the point. The ‘matter’ was not there in the first place.

Prior to 9/11 the whole stunt was set up. Most of the twin towers were dismantled prior to 9/11.

Under the auspices of painting the towers the magicians covered the buildings in paper mache then the building inside was removed so you were looking at two hollow shells. That is with the exception of the top few floors which were left intact. Everyone know how strong a tube of paper is when you try to crush it lengthways. It can easily hold up the top 20 or so floors. You then fly a plane into the side of the paper mache tower. Again, people will know how weak a tube is on the side. That then weakened the tube enough. The weight of the top floors then took over and they fell taking the paper mache towers with them. The firemen then sprayed the building with water which dissolves the paper mache leaving an impossibly small residue from 110 story buildings. Easy.


edited to add.

I have made a model of this with a marble and a paper tube and it worked fine.

[Skibum]

I think it is quite clear.

...

Easy.

So it was all a David Copperfield trick?
Awesome.

[Gravy]

To James "Amazing Randi" Randi

Dear Mr. Randi,

It is with great disappointment that I see you embracing paranormal explanations for real-world events. Specifically I refer to the twin tower "collapses" of 9/11, in which two 110-story skyscrapers are alleged to have disintegrated under their own weight. Are you aware of Mr. Randi making a statement about the cause of the tower collapses? :confused:

[Oliver]

Does anyone understand the intention of this open letter?

Randi did 45 Posts in here since 11th April 2001. Why and how should he read or even see this??? :confused:

[CFLarsen]

Does anyone understand the intention of this open letter?

Randi did 45 Posts in here since 11th April 2001. Why and how should he read or even see this??? :confused:

That's not the point of either sending the email, or opening this thread.

The point is to get attention.

"Look, I'm saying something, and a lot of people - some of them famous - are paying attention to me!"

They feel special when people merely talk to them. What a sad life to lead.

[qarnos]

Does anyone understand the intention of this open letter?

Randi did 45 Posts in here since 11th April 2001. Why and how should he read or even see this??? :confused:

I believe BS1234 actually emailed that letter to Randi.

[Oliver]

That's not the point of either sending the email, or opening this thread.

The point is to get attention.

"Look, I'm saying something, and a lot of people - some of them famous - are paying attention to me!"

They feel special when people merely talk to them. What a sad life to lead.

Does this mean he probably will not see it because he don´t watch the board very often?

[Oliver]

I believe BS1234 actually emailed that letter to Randi.

OH GOD ... and he started a thread anyway. :boggled:

[maccy]

From the "Blown to Kingdom Come" Thread

Been lurking way too much. I've read hundreds of messages in the past months and have noticed something.

TS1234s arguments seem similar to the ones used by IDers, i.e. if it looks LIKE a CD then it IS a CD. If it looks like it was designed then it was designed. hmmm.

May seem off-topic and apologize but, TS1234, are You a creationist/IDer?

Total science buff here. I accept evolution as having overwhelming evidence to support it. Indeed, spontaneously self-organizing systems can appear designed to the casual observer, but actually, it is the exceedingly complex systems, such as biology, which cannot have been designed "top-down", but only spontaneous order can explain them. For the most part, ID's fail to appreciate the anthropic principle, or natural selection, or the time-scales involved.

I don't believe astrology, talking to the dead, or any so-called paranormal powers. 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.

You, sir, have come to the absolute best place in the universe to prove that contention! Just email Randi, explain your position about 9/11, and post his reply here.

That is my challenge to you. Agreed? If not, why?


Note that Gravy didn't say "start a new thread that will confuse anybody not reading this thread".

[CFLarsen]

Does this mean he probably will not see it because he don´t watch the board very often?

Randi most likely won't see it here. TS wants people to know - and talk about - that he has sent an email to someone famous.

Hence my comment on attention.

Rather pathetic, hm?

[twinstead]

I hope Randi does read the letter and the thread. He's had it tough the last couple years and could probably use a laugh.

[The_Fire]

IF he indeed send that email.......Well, I know where MY bet is and it's not with BSSprouter 1234........


Anyone seen the popcorn?

[Horatius]

I counted about 30 errors in that first post, although some of them could be argued to be duplicates. Anyone else want to take a shot at counting them?

[MRC_Hans]

I counted about 30 errors in that first post, although some of them could be argued to be duplicates. Anyone else want to take a shot at counting them?Not counting spelling errors, I trust?

Hans

[Oliver]

Spellcheck dot net didn´t find any spelling errors.

http://www.spellcheck.net/

[Skibum]

I counted about 30 errors in that first post, although some of them could be argued to be duplicates. Anyone else want to take a shot at counting them?


Sorry, that would require me to actually give a flying flip about what he posts.

[Oliver]

Sorry, that would require me to actually give a flying flip about what he posts.

Check it backwards... :D

[Hutch]

Having met Mr. Randi in person (as has CF Larsen), he is aware of what goes on at the Forums in a general way, but only posts on major topics or to give his view on how the board should be operating. The man does not have the time to spend hours here like we do.

That said, I am sure he is aware of the Conspiracy sub-forum and the 9-11 discussions here. As mentioned above, Mr. Randi is not an engineer or a demolitions expert, but I imagine he knows a few to ask questions of.

Considering that his right-hand lady (Linda) just had an emergency appendectomy and he is about 10 months recovered from heart surgery, I would not expect a quick reply to TS missive. Which he will undoubltedly use
as "evidence".

One last thing; Mr. Randi can be among the funniest and most charming people you can ever meet; but he does not suffer fools gladly. If TS gets his answer, he probably will not enjoy it.

[CFLarsen]

.....nope.

[Calcas]

Is this you Truthseeker?

http://www.myspace.com/truthseeker69

Yep, that's TS.

"Nick" from Cleveland. He should change it to "nuts" from Cleveland.

http://myspace-534.vo.llnwd.net/01266/43/53/1266023534_l.jpg

[Stitch]

When two objects collide, one of three things can happen:

1. A remains intact and destroys B
2. B remains intact and destroys A
3. Something between these two extremes.


you forgot 4. Both A and B are destroyed

this often happens when A and B are of similar size, weight, and strength, such as the 85th and the 84th floors of the WTC

And 5. - they are both undamaged, like pool / snooker balls.

[Horatius]

And 5. - they are both undamaged, like pool / snooker balls.

Okay, so make that 31......

[chipmunk stew]

And 5. - they are both undamaged, like pool / snooker balls.
Isn't that Judy Wood's argument?

[realitybites]

When two objects collide, one of three things can happen:

1. A remains intact and destroys B
2. B remains intact and destroys A
3. Something between these two extremes.
Exactly right. I remember reading reports of when Billy Joel would drive into houses, he would simply throw his car into reverse and move on to the next one.

[fuelair]

TS, get ready to get your ass spanked.

By which I must guess you mean the little......gentleman........is going to have his entire body hit on - since he is a donkey entire, , a buttock complete , an a whole.

[fuelair]

TS, you're nothing if not entertaining.

God bless.

-Gumboot


Don't forget completely free of the knowledge of science and the scientific method!!

[CurtC]

What about "B gets destroyed while partially destroying A, then the rubble from B and the partial A fall upon the remainder of A, destroying it as well"?

So is this what BS1234's argument boils down to? This one misunderstanding of physics?

And I'll put in my application for the JREF million with this prediction: BS1234 will receive a terse, gruff response from Randi.

[Darth Rotor]

What about "B gets destroyed while partially destroying A, then the rubble from B and the partial A fall upon the remainder of A, destroying it as well"?

So is this what BS1234's argument boils down to? This one misunderstanding of physics?

And I'll put in my application for the JREF million with this prediction: BS1234 will receive a terse, gruff response from Randi.
My bet is on Randi ignoring his punk arse.

DR

[DarkMagician]

Yep, that's TS.

"Nick" from Cleveland. He should change it to "nuts" from Cleveland.

http://myspace-534.vo.llnwd.net/01266/43/53/1266023534_l.jpg

Screech exists?

[CurtC]

Maybe we should start a poll.

[CptColumbo]

My bet is on Randi ignoring his punk arse.

DR

That would be my guess as well. Randi, I'm willing to put money on, probably, gets many e-mails that are roughly along the same lines as TS's (on varying subjects) and he actually has a life. If he does respond, it will probably be along the lines of the Chomskey letter.

[simonmaal]

In reality, the top parts of the buildings were shattered before they ever started falling down through the lower structure, as all the photos and videos reveal. Look at the video of WTC1. The top part of the building compresses to half its size before the lower part ever moves one inch. By the time the "collapse" is half-over, the top of the building has completely disintegrated. Look closely Mr. Randi, the illusionists used a lot of smoke.


Er...um...OK then..nod, nod (Simon smiles politely and backs away very slowly).

[RandFan]

I have made a model of this with a marble and a paper tube and it worked fine.:D

[RandFan]

Yep, that's TS.

"Nick" from Cleveland. He should change it to "nuts" from Cleveland.

http://myspace-534.vo.llnwd.net/01266/43/53/1266023534_l.jpg God what a crappy myspace page. The background is rather cool though.

TS, less is more.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Having met Mr. Randi in person (as has CF Larsen), he is aware of what goes on at the Forums in a general way, but only posts on major topics or to give his view on how the board should be operating. The man does not have the time to spend hours here like we do.

That said, I am sure he is aware of the Conspiracy sub-forum and the 9-11 discussions here. As mentioned above, Mr. Randi is not an engineer or a demolitions expert, but I imagine he knows a few to ask questions of.

Considering that his right-hand lady (Linda) just had an emergency appendectomy and he is about 10 months recovered from heart surgery, I would not expect a quick reply to TS missive. Which he will undoubltedly use
as "evidence".

One last thing; Mr. Randi can be among the funniest and most charming people you can ever meet; but he does not suffer fools gladly. If TS gets his answer, he probably will not enjoy it.

Most celebrities get thier share of fan mail from whack-jobs. Wich they usually toss out (or have thier people toss out for them) unless it appeals to thier own prefferred whack-jobbery (you should've sent this to Charlie Sheen, TS$1.98). Mr. Randi, because of his specific focus and carreer (and that 1,000,000$) probably gets a thousand times the amount of crank-mail that other celebs get.

My guess is, he'll probably circular file TS$1.98's letter after the first two paragraphs.

[H'ethetheth]

Yep, that's TS.

"Nick" from Cleveland. He should change it to "nuts" from Cleveland.

http://myspace-534.vo.llnwd.net/01266/43/53/1266023534_l.jpgThe OP states TS1234 was a teenager in the seventies. As a fellow 27 year old of this Nick from Cleveland, my experiences are that I wasn't.

[CurtC]

New sock-puppet theory: BS1234 is actually Carlos.

[TruthSeeker1234]

God what a crappy myspace page. The background is rather cool though.

TS, less is more.

This myspace page is most certainly not me.

[TruthSeeker1234]

The idea of writing to Randi was brought up by other members, Gravy in particular, if I remember right. They challenged me to do it, and posted his email address several times.

[Christophera]

Taking my lesson from you, I learned that whenever something appears to violate the laws of physics, it must be a trick. The so-called "official" explanation of 9/11 asks us to believe something physically impossible.

<snip>

Having a falling mass pulverize macroscopic objects below into powder positively requires that the falling mass encounters stout resistance. Whatever is in between the falling mass and the stout resistance can be pulverized. If the falling mass does not encounter stout resistance, impacted mass will not pulverize. A hammer requires an anvil. A mortar requires a pestle.


Excellent compilation of obvious logic. The fact that the opposition does not quote you often shows that your reasoning cannot be defeated.

Personally I think they are convinced. They know it was a demolition but cannot bring themselves to oppose the parental figures of government. Without them they would have nothing, no guidence to the future.

Controlled by fear there is no ability to communicate with their fellow country person to establish priorities of needs relating to; rights, freedoms and justice, so must support illogical nonsense to fend off the fearful darkness of the unkown.

[delphi_ote]

The idea of writing to Randi was brought up by other members, Gravy in particular, if I remember right. They challenged me to do it, and posted his email address several times.
Do let us know how he responds. I'm sure he'll have something interesting to say.

And thanks for running some spell check and writing so clearly. At least I can understand what I disagree with in all that. While I don't appreciate your message, I do appreciate the effort.

[uk_dave]

Controlled by fear there is no ability to communicate with their fellow country person to establish priorities of needs relating to; rights, freedoms and justice, so must support illogical nonsense to fend off the fearful darkness of the unkown.

Right back atcha!

[DavidJames]

Excellent compilation of obvious logic. The fact that the opposition does not quote you often shows that your reasoning cannot be defeated.

Personally I think they are convinced. They know it was a demolition but cannot bring themselves to oppose the parental figures of government. Without them they would have nothing, no guidence to the future.

Controlled by fear there is no ability to communicate with their fellow country person to establish priorities of needs relating to; rights, freedoms and justice, so must support illogical nonsense to fend off the fearful darkness of the unkown.
Christophera & Christophera1234 - such a cute couple

[delphi_ote]

Personally I think they are convinced.
Ah, I see. If you can't win an argument, pretend you have. Interesting strategy. Do you mind if we do the same? That should lead to some interesting conversations.

[TruthSeeker1234]

What about "B gets destroyed while partially destroying A, then the rubble from B and the partial A fall upon the remainder of A, destroying it as well"?



You are missing the reciprocal nature. Of course what I said is highly simplified and stylized to make the needed point. Curt, you are trying to use the same energy over and over again, and it doesn't work that way. There is only one store of energy in this problem.

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.

Yes, elastic collisions can occur. This complicates the problem, and is further proof that the "collpase" theory of 9/11 is false. Any elastic collision will not pulverize material either.

For instance, hundred ton chunks of steel were thrown sideways 600 feet. It's plausible that this could have come from GPE, but would require a bounce. That is, an elastic collision. Again, this requires great resistance from something. What? If all of the lateral motion is the result of elastic collisions, what is providing the resistance?

How can this tower demonstrate such high resistance, and such low resistance at the same time?

[chipmunk stew]

Excellent compilation of obvious logic.
TruthinessSeeker, I would be very, very concerned by this endorsement if I were you.

[CFLarsen]

The idea of writing to Randi was brought up by other members, Gravy in particular, if I remember right. They challenged me to do it, and posted his email address several times.

Why post it here?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Why post it here?

I was challenged to. And challenged to post Randi's response.

[delphi_ote]

TruthinessSeeker, I would be very, very concerned by this endorsement if I were you.
Let's not judge TS1234 by Christophera's psychosis. Christopheria agrees with anyone supporting his delusions.

TS1234 wrote a polite letter that he clearly put some thought and effort into. While I completely disagree with him, he is being civil here and trying to apply logic.

[chipmunk stew]

Let's not judge TS1234 by Christophera's psychosis. Christopheria agrees with anyone supporting his delusions.

TS1234 wrote a polite letter that he clearly put some thought and effort into. While I completely disagree with him, he is being civil here and trying to apply logic.
You're right. I'll try to resist the temptation in the future.

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

You are missing the reciprocal nature. Of course what I said is highly simplified and stylized to make the needed point. Curt, you are trying to use the same energy over and over again, and it doesn't work that way.
Nonsense. Energy never dissipates.
There is only one store of energy in this problem.

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.
It doesn't have to "turn around".

If a moving object is demolished, it still has momentum (unless the resistance it encountered slowed it to a stop). And in the case of an accelerating object, like a falling object, its momentum continues to increase, even if it's been demolished.

By your logic, a meteorite that breaks up during entry can cause no damage.

Yes, elastic collisions can occur. This complicates the problem, and is further proof that the "collpase" theory of 9/11 is false. Any elastic collision will not pulverize material either.

For instance, hundred ton chunks of steel were thrown sideways 600 feet.
And at the same time fell vertically. If it were expelled horizontally at the same velocity but at a much greater height, it might have landed a mile from the site. The 600 foot figure is meaningless if we don't know its starting height.

It's plausible that this could have come from GPE, but would require a bounce. That is, an elastic collision. Again, this requires great resistance from something. What? If all of the lateral motion is the result of elastic collisions, what is providing the resistance?

How can this tower demonstrate such high resistance, and such low resistance at the same time?

[delphi_ote]

You are missing the reciprocal nature. Of course what I said is highly simplified and stylized to make the needed point. Curt, you are trying to use the same energy over and over again, and it doesn't work that way. There is only one store of energy in this problem.

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.

Yes, elastic collisions can occur. This complicates the problem, and is further proof that the "collpase" theory of 9/11 is false. Any elastic collision will not pulverize material either.

For instance, hundred ton chunks of steel were thrown sideways 600 feet. It's plausible that this could have come from GPE, but would require a bounce. That is, an elastic collision. Again, this requires great resistance from something. What? If all of the lateral motion is the result of elastic collisions, what is providing the resistance?

How can this tower demonstrate such high resistance, and such low resistance at the same time?
Clearly we are talking about inelastic collisions. Elastic collisions imply both objects bounce off each other. Nobody imagines that happened.

In an inelastic collision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision), the kenetic energy is not conserved. Momentum is. Some of the energy translated into the matter of the colliding objects.

Take two balls of clay. Throw one into the other. They will both be deformed by the imact. That is an inelastic collision. That is the type of collision you want to talk about.

[maccy]

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.


So if I balance a book on a beercan and then roll a tennis ball onto it so that it destabilises it and the book falls on the beercan and the ball, is the only damage to the beercan and the ball from the collision between the beercan and the ball?

Alternatively, if prop a book up on five beer cans (one on each corner and one in the middle), then soak it in petrol and set light to it and roll it though one of the corner beercans (so that the book doesn't fall) and against the centre can wich then buckles from the heat of the burnng ball, causing the book to fall.

Does the damage to all five beercans result entirely from the collision between the ball and 2 of the beercans?

NB Beercans are empty for this thought experiment.

[beachnut]

To James "Amazing Randi" Randi

Dear Mr. Randi,

It is with great disappointment that I see

I was a teenager

I ... violate the laws of physics

The energy for this problem comes from Gravitational Potential Energy, GPE. This one source of energy must account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.

TruthSeeker1234

I am just a poor boy though my parents wanted me to go to school, unlike TS. I had to take physics

I found that the PE in one WTC tower was equal to what was it - 1,000,000,000,000 joules?

The real question is how can anyone break a law of physics since we live in a physical world? Answer is you would have to live in the dolt world of CT land where you can break the laws of physics and ignore 1,000,000,000,000 joules of PE in a tower of the WTC.

TS, that is equal to 248 tons of TNT = 1,000,000,000,000 joules

the question is: is that enough energy when converted to KE, to destroy the WTC as seen on 9/11?

funny the proof, or result, was presented to us visually on 9/11!

was the energy, the PE in the WTC, enough, was the energy of 1000 500 pound bombs like from a B-52 raining down on the towers enough to destroy it?

TS both towers had the energy while the fell after failing of 2000 500 pound bombs!

Can anyone tell me is that enough energy to do what we saw on 9/11 after the aircraft impact and the fires made the WTC towers fail?

Is the combined energy stored in each tower of 1,000,000,000,000 joules enough to do it?

Yes or No will do

TS next time go to school instead of watching TV

TS are you incapable of calculating the GPE?

Anybody? Ferris?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

4 x 10^11 joules per tower, per NIST estimate.

[chipmunk stew]

4 x 10^11 joules per tower, per NIST estimate.
What's a mere 600 billion joules between friends?

[beachnut]

Excellent compilation of obvious logic. The fact that the opposition does not quote you often shows that your reasoning cannot be defeated.

Personally I think they are convinced. They know it was a demolition but cannot bring themselves to oppose the parental figures of government. Without them they would have nothing, no guidence to the future.

Controlled by fear there is no ability to communicate with their fellow country person to establish priorities of needs relating to; rights, freedoms and justice, so must support illogical nonsense to fend off the fearful darkness of the unkown.

you forgot to calculate his GPE, are you trying to be a dolt, how can you agree if you have a concrete core brain? You should calculate the GPE he talks about before you jump on his sunk ship of BS ideas.

Calculate the energy first and then see if you have something more than talk. Can you calculate energy? Did you flunk physics? Did you take physics?

Is this the same guy who said the posters at Randi are too smart to fall for the false statements of the CT with no real evidence?

I read your post on that other site, how you are just here so you can write cute stuff about this forum. Is this correct?

Are you just posting to get your next post on how no one falls for your false statements?

[CFLarsen]

I was challenged to. And challenged to post Randi's response.

Why are you arguing your points with people here?

Just sit back and wait for Randi's response.

Sheeesh....don't be such an attention seeker...

[aggle-rithm]

Why are you arguing your points with people here?

Just sit back and wait for Randi's response.

Sheeesh....don't be such an attention seeker...

I'm guessing his response will be something like, "Who are you, and what are you babbling about?"

[beachnut]

4 x 10^11 joules per tower, per NIST estimate.


96 tons of TNT vs 248 tons of TNT

B-52 drops 96 tons of TNT, about like, 400 500 pound bombs
or
B-52 drops 248 tons of TNT, about like, 1000 500 pound bombs

not sure if I could tell a difference unless i was counting

I calculated it floor by floor and by 1/2 total estimate of mass, etc

I still get 1x10^12, could NIST be wrong? Could I be wrong?

yes, yes

but like you guys can see, after the first 100 bombs who cares

I am sure if you gave me 96 tons of TNT I can do a lot of damage

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What's a mere 600 billion joules between friends?

iirc, their estimates were based off of the construction. No idea how much energy was added over the years through office equipment, upgrades, est.

[CurtC]

Who let Christophera out of the "Realistice" thread?

[Darth Rotor]

Who let Christophera out of the "Realistice" thread?
"Who
Who
Who let the dorque out?" :p

DR

[chipmunk stew]

Who let Christophera out of the "Realistice" thread?
I guess he realized his chains were only an illusion. Now if only he could do the same for his other ones...

[PerryLogan]

I must say this forum is very humbling for me, intelligence-wise. I'll probably never make full membership.

My point would be that Truthseeker's "physical-impossibility theory" makes no sense on the face of it--for the simple fact that no one would deliberately insert miracles into their cover story.

At least you'll have to explain to me how they could do such a stupid thing--and somehow fool everyone in the world but these clever conspiracy guys.

Let's imagine the 9/11 conspirators sitting round the table, planning the whole thing.

"One thing before we start," the leader says. "Let's try to make our cover story sound convincing. For example, I suggest we not put out an official story that contains violations of the laws of physics. If we did that, we would be sure to get caught."

[CurtC]

The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.

????

You're saying that two objects in a collision can't both be demolished? Or what?

When the top 14 floors of WTC1 fell onto the lower part, that top section was annihilated approximately while the next 14 floors of the remainder were. Then you had 28 floors worth of rubble, weighing around 250 million pounds, come crashing onto the remaining 80 stories, already moving at a high speed. You don't think this would finish the building off?

[RandFan]

Personally I think they are convinced. They know it was a demolition but cannot bring themselves to oppose the parental figures of government. Without them they would have nothing, no guidence to the future.Right, which is why most of the people here give Bush and his administration ***** every day in the politics sections.

[Horatius]

There is only one store of energy in this problem.

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.


You're assuming that a falling object can only have enough energy in it to "demolish"* itself, or the other object. What happens when it has more energy than just the bare minimum to demolish itself? Does it damage the other, or does it continue to move, or some combination of the two?

Consider a setup of two large slabs of concrete, which we can position one above the other, with any given separation. If we drop one on the other, what happens? If the separation is small, probably not much. As it increases, more and more damage is done to one or both. Do you really contend that there is no amount of separation from which the dropped slab will demolish both slabs?



*We still need to establish exactly what you mean by demolish. Remember, no one else here (except maybe Christophera) believes that the Towers were entirely turned to dust.

[beachnut]

iirc, their estimates were based off of the construction. No idea how much energy was added over the years through office equipment, upgrades, est.

i used 4,636,000 kg per floor, and 1/2 height of each floor in increments for the 110 floors for the height of the WTC.

you can do a quick check with the total weight and half the height, or you could take the expected velocity of each piece and then figure the KE as it hits the ground, etc

I know some people use NIST and say it could not crush all the stuff, I think I have seen estimates as high as my calculation. It was this CT junk that got me to calcualte it, I was seeing if I could understand the collapse starting and destroying the WTC as it did, since it did, yet some idiots said it could not happen.

Found out there is a lot of energy there, and I know that the wall board in the WTC, the tons of wall board were a big reason for the dust after destroying and remodeling houses. There was more wall board in the WTC due to it being used to cover the steel of the core, two layers 3/4 inch each.

physics, not sure the ct guys understand it

[MarkyX]

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/3366/911garfieldvh5.jpg

[Horatius]

When the top 14 floors of WTC1 fell onto the lower part, that top section was annihilated approximately while the next 14 floors of the remainder were. Then you had 28 floors worth of rubble, weighing around 250 million pounds, come crashing onto the remaining 80 stories, already moving at a high speed. You don't think this would finish the building off?

Right there is the problem. He seems to belive there was no rubble, that it all turned to dust. We've tried to show him otherwise, but he won't budge.

[Jack]

You are missing the reciprocal nature. Of course what I said is highly simplified and stylized to make the needed point. Curt, you are trying to use the same energy over and over again, and it doesn't work that way. There is only one store of energy in this problem.

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage. The total amount of damage is given by the energy directed toward it. The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.


Have you ever heard of a chain reaction? From what I remember from my science class if what you are saying about energy not being able to be used again, than a chain reaction would never work.

[kalen]

We shall see that a building cannot fall anywhere near free fall speed and still have enough energy left over to pulverize much of anything. This is the principle of conservation of energy. The energy for this problem comes from Gravitational Potential Energy, GPE. This one source of energy must account for all of the work that we observe to have been done.

The first work is simply accelerating the mass of the building downwards. If the entire building had come down in free-fall time, there would have been zero energy left to explain anything else.

You are seriously misinformed about basic physics so why would anybody believe you?

[CurtC]

Right there is the problem. He seems to belive there was no rubble, that it all turned to dust. We've tried to show him otherwise, but he won't budge.
Hell, even the steel that he admits wasn't turned to dust would be enough to finish off the rest of the building.

[Jack]

When the top 14 floors of WTC1 fell onto the lower part, that top section was annihilated approximately while the next 14 floors of the remainder were. Then you had 28 floors worth of rubble, weighing around 250 million pounds, come crashing onto the remaining 80 stories, already moving at a high speed. You don't think this would finish the building off?


Which is what kids? the next link in a chain reaction.

BTW, TS1234 are you a goverment agent you'r self? just spreading these theories so the goverment can look more powerfull?

[einsteen]

I've not much time for the forum, working long days etc. I think the most important questions are

- the initial moment
- the energy to break a floor.

Whether the block (or the part where the block falls onto) integrates during the fall does not really matter as long as the mass goes in the same directory, here we have to assume

- it all stays above the footprint
- the terminal velocity is never reached (i.e the dust goes as fast as the solid mass and gets no resistance from air and itself)
- the energy to break each storey is much lower than the kinetic energy of the bulk above, at that moment

In that case all gravitational energy is used for the collapse.

Further perfect symmetry should be assumed, the toppling south tower in fact disproves it, the north tower is more symmetric, but you see the antenna rotating aftter a couple of stories.

The 1,000,000,000,000 Joule/whatever is a lot of course but irrelevant by the assumption of a stepwise/traveling effect. It will also happen for a 20 storeys building if you remove floor 10 completely (and assume no material in order to get its kinetic energy)

Since pressure is only dependent on the height (like in water) you can in fact think of a similar building as high as the wtc but not having the same area, maybe 1 feet times 1 feet, if you remove the 3.8 meter high part at floor 96 then mr Eager will say it falls through the whole building. If you place 1000 x 1000 of those models next to each other and they go at the same time you have the same energy picture as the wtc.

Yes the energy picture is completely valid, but that is not a proof that the theory is also right.

[chipmunk stew]

I must say this forum is very humbling for me, intelligence-wise. I'll probably never make full membership.
I think most of us feel that way at one time or another.

[CFLarsen]

I must say this forum is very humbling for me, intelligence-wise. I'll probably never make full membership.

Øeh...what do you mean? You're a poster, like everyone else.

[defaultdotxbe]

The damage can be shared between the two objects, but cannot be increased by imagining that one object is demolished, then turns around and demolishes the other one.
i suspect you play too much magic: the gathering

real life is not turn-based, an object will not inflict damage to another object and remain unharmed, then wait around for the other object to inflict what damage it can on the first object, they will damage and potentially destroy each other simultaneously

[Garb]

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact.

Fine, the tower fell into the Earth, and the Earth stayed relatively intact.


What is your point?

[delphi_ote]

i suspect you play too much magic: the gathering real life is not turn-based
Oh man. Too funny.
an object will not inflict damage to another object and remain unharmed, then wait around for the other object to inflict what damage it can on the first object, they will damage and potentially destroy each other simultaneously
As per my clay balls analogy. Throw one clay ball at another one and watch the result if you don't believe us, TS1234. You can experiment here. If we're wrong, you can prove it to yourself with a test (the downside being that if you're wrong, the test will show that instead.)

Also, here is a pictorial argument against your hypothesis:
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/01.jpg
(image from http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/geneva05/sirion/bigimg/safety/img/01.jpg)

[Horatius]

Whether the block (or the part where the block falls onto) integrates during the fall does not really matter as long as the mass goes in the same directory, here we have to assume

- it all stays above the footprint

We don't need it all to stay above the footprint, just enough to overcome the next floor. What that amount would be is unclear, but it is certainly less than "all", based on the observed collapse.


- the terminal velocity is never reached (i.e the dust goes as fast as the solid mass and gets no resistance from air and itself)

I'm not sure what you mean here - some dust will be left behind, and there may be a spread in the velocites of the overall mass of the falling parts, but again, so long as the mass that impacts is enough, the lower floors will break.


- the energy to break each storey is much lower than the kinetic energy of the bulk above, at that moment


And this is pretty much it. No CTist has ever shown any calculations as to how much energy it would take to actually break each storey. They've made some wild claims based on the complete disintegration of the floors, which simply did not happen. Everything else they show consists merely of handwaving about conservaton of energy, with no serious attempts at truly accounting for all the available energy.

[Horatius]

Also, here is a pictorial argument against your hypothesis:]
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i133/delphi_ote/01.jpg

Oh come now, that white car has clearly not undergone any significant damage! And don't you give me any guff about "points of view" and "right front offset collisions"!


Shill!

ETA: And the "people" in the cars are so clearly dummies! How could dummies drive a car, let alone two of them? I can't believe you fell for that!

[DavidJames]

How could dummies drive a car, let alone two of them? I can't believe you fell for that!I don't know, two dummies driving cars and running into one another. Happens around here all the time. :)

[Johnny Pixels]

When two objects collide, one of three things can happen:

1. A remains intact and destroys B
2. B remains intact and destroys A
3. Something between these two extremes.


When I sit down too quickly, sometimes my chair breaks, sometimes my ass esplodes.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Your ass exploding was adding new energy into the system.

[Horatius]

Your ass exploding was adding new energy into the system.

You know what? That was actually funny. There might be hope for you yet.

[chran]

Yep, that's TS.

"Nick" from Cleveland. He should change it to "nuts" from Cleveland.

http://myspace-534.vo.llnwd.net/01266/43/53/1266023534_l.jpg

"Purjury" - hehehe, too funny! :D

[TruthSeeker1234]

You guys keep suggesting that the mass of the towers keeps within the footprint and keeps accumulating. Where is the evidence for this? What becomes of this mass next? Where did it all go?

I see no evidence that any more than a tiny fraction of those two towers stayed within the footprint. All evidence indicates that 99+% of the non-metallic mass, and a large percentage of the steel was first disintegrated then forced outside the footprint in a very violent manner. Thus we observe the inches deep powder that covered lower Manhattan "from river to river".

Where is the evidence for remaining mass within the footprint? The hi res hunt is the best. Everyone should do it.

[ImaginalDisc]

Where is the evidence for remaining mass within the footprint? The hi res hunt is the best. Everyone should do it.

Looking at pretty pictures is no substitute for measuring real things. The mass of the rubble pile the two towers left is, I'll wager a six pack of beer sight unseen, higher than 1% of the mass of the towers.

[chipmunk stew]

You guys keep suggesting that the mass of the towers keeps within the footprint and keeps accumulating. Where is the evidence for this? What becomes of this mass next? Where did it all go?

I see no evidence that any more than a tiny fraction of those two towers stayed within the footprint. All evidence indicates that 99+% of the non-metallic mass, and a large percentage of the steel was first disintegrated then forced outside the footprint in a very violent manner. Thus we observe the inches deep powder that covered lower Manhattan "from river to river".

Where is the evidence for remaining mass within the footprint? The hi res hunt is the best. Everyone should do it.
How about the tall heap of debris, the peak of which was inside the footprint?

[Horatius]

I see no evidence that any more than a tiny fraction of those two towers stayed within the footprint. All evidence indicates that 99+% of the non-metallic mass, and a large percentage of the steel was first disintegrated then forced outside the footprint in a very violent manner. Thus we observe the inches deep powder that covered lower Manhattan "from river to river".

So once again I must remind you that only about 3.5%-7.6% (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1996822#post1996822)of the original mass turned to dust.

[uk_dave]

I must say this forum is very humbling for me, intelligence-wise. I'll probably never make full membership.



Perry,

Don't put yourself down....there's plenty on youtube that'll do that for you!
;)

You are the perfect antidote to alex jones...in fact i even used your website on another forum to counter an 'infowars' and 'prisonplanet' acolyte.

But I held back from the vids. :p

[bob_kark]

You guys keep suggesting that the mass of the towers keeps within the footprint and keeps accumulating. Where is the evidence for this? What becomes of this mass next? Where did it all go?

I see no evidence that any more than a tiny fraction of those two towers stayed within the footprint. All evidence indicates that 99+% of the non-metallic mass, and a large percentage of the steel was first disintegrated then forced outside the footprint in a very violent manner. Thus we observe the inches deep powder that covered lower Manhattan "from river to river".

Where is the evidence for remaining mass within the footprint? The hi res hunt is the best. Everyone should do it.
I don't see what the dust has to do with anything. Dust can travel for miles in the air. Even when it reaches the ground, it can continue to shift. Also, what evidence do you have to support your claim that any steel was "disintegrated?" I'd be very interested in seeing that, unless you think that's what the dust is composed of. Please, don't believe the dust is made of steel.

[CurtC]

BS1234, you've been shown numerous pictures of macroscopic concrete rubble at the towers. If you think this was <<1% of the amount of concrete in the towers, please show exactly how you arrive at that number.

[delphi_ote]

You guys keep...
As my mom used to say, "No desert until you've eaten your vegetables, young man." You didn't finish talking about the collisions. Let's take one subject at a time.

[Spindrift]

You guys keep suggesting that the mass of the towers keeps within the footprint and keeps accumulating. Where is the evidence for this? What becomes of this mass next? Where did it all go?

I see no evidence that any more than a tiny fraction of those two towers stayed within the footprint. All evidence indicates that 99+% of the non-metallic mass, and a large percentage of the steel was first disintegrated then forced outside the footprint in a very violent manner. Thus we observe the inches deep powder that covered lower Manhattan "from river to river".

Where is the evidence for remaining mass within the footprint? The hi res hunt is the best. Everyone should do it.

What were you expecting, a mound of rubble 500 feet high?

Do you realize that the towers were mostly filled with AIR?

And when the towers fell all the material compacted down into a very visible pile.

Build a tower of playing cards with 3 or 4 levels. Then knock it down. Amazing how small the pile is, isn't it?

[delphi_ote]

What were you expecting, a mound of rubble 500 feet high?

Do you realize that the towers were mostly filled with AIR?

And when the towers fell all the material compacted down into a very visible pile.

Build a tower of playing cards with 3 or 4 levels. Then knock it down. Amazing how small the pile is, isn't it?
(And don't forget the six story basement.)

[LostAngeles]

*reads post. Head Splodes.*

Least I have a valid excuse for the paper not getting done, now.

"I read a CTer's post about 9/11 and my head exploded."

[bob_kark]

*reads post. Head Splodes.*

Least I have a valid excuse for the paper not getting done, now.

"I read a CTer's post about 9/11 and my head exploded."
If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times! Make sure you wear a helmet when you read these threads!

[Redtail]

Or at least wrap your head in Duck Tape!

[TruthSeeker1234]

So once again I must remind you that only about 3.5%-7.6% (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1996822#post1996822)of the original mass turned to dust.

Then where is the rest of it? Where are the 220 non-dust floor assemblies?

[Garb]

Then where is the rest of it? Where are the 220 non-dust floor assemblies?

In the pile. Duh.

[Bell]

Does BSer101 ever look at all the pictures that are posted for him or what?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Then where is the rest of it? Where are the 220 non-dust floor assemblies?

False choice fallacy. It is unreasonable to assume it could only take one of two states; dust or entire floor assemblies.

[delphi_ote]

Then where is the rest of it? Where are the 220 non-dust floor assemblies?
Where is the rest of your discussion on inelastic collisions? Can such a collision damage both bodies, or do you stand by your original hypothesis that it was impossible?

[Rassilon]

We shall see that a building cannot fall anywhere near free fall speed and still have enough energy left over to pulverize much of anything. This is the principle of conservation of energy.

I thought we had to use conservation of momentum for inelastic collisions (as some energy is lost to heat and sound).

I admit the collapse of a building is probably very hard to model (ie, I haven't tried) and as such one cannot simply say: oh, the top of the building is a point mass that interacts inelasticly with the bottom (another point mass that is at rest).

[Wowbagger]

I have not read every post on this thread, but...

Did anyone else notice that TS's letter completely fails to offer an any details as to how the "trick" was done?

He states that the collapses caught by lots of cameras could not have happened, as they violate the laws of physics.

If that is what you believe, than what is your answer to how the trick was done, besides a vague mention of "explosives"? Can you offer more details on how explosives can pull off collapses like that, and not just jets filled with fuel?

[Horatius]

Then where is the rest of it? Where are the 220 non-dust floor assemblies?

As others have said, they're in the pile, that goes several stories deep and about 6 stories high, as smaller, but non-dust sized, chunks, covered in some dust and dirt, a lot of steel, and other debris.

How big would you expect the chunks to be after such a fall? "Acre sized" doesn't cut it.

Now, turn your question around. I've shown you the numbers that indicate that if all the concrete was turned to dust, we'd have a layer between 18 and 24 inches thick over an area of about 800m in radius. Show me this layer. Show me anything that even approximates this layer.

[Roger_Harris]

Then where is the rest of it? Where are the 220 non-dust floor assemblies?

Since the contractors who removed the debris from the site were paid by the weight, fairly accurate records were made of that: It was about 1.7 million tons. But that included all 7 buildings; a reasonable estimate of how much of that debris was from the towers would be something in the vacinity of 400,000 tons each, which is in pretty good agreement with the other estimates of the weight based on structural elements and contents -- close enough that there just isn't any "Mystery of the Missing Buildings" here that needs to be solved.

Something that CTers ignore about the concrete, BTW, is that it was NOT reinforced like a reinforced concrete structure, nor was it the type of high-compression concrete used for that type of construction. It was just "lightweight" concrete poured on corrugated steel decks, only 4" thick for the office floors and 5" thick in the core. Lightweight concrete has a specific meaning in construction: it is made from Portland cement and lightweight aggregates like pumice and expanded clay, and it's easily crushed compared to the high-compression stuff used for reinforced concrete structures. I don't know if this is the case (I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere), but that type of thin slab on metal decks usually only has a single layer of wire mess for reinforcement, not thick rebars like reinforced concrete.

I really had to laugh at your OP, when you went on about the "conservation of energy" then described situation after situation that demonstrated you have no idea what that means. According to your "theory," if you drop a big rock on your toe, is all of the potential energy used up in accelerating the rock, so there isn't any left to do any damage to your toe?

As for the "weight" of the building being enough to cause the collapse, you're ignoring the effects of momentum. Any given level of the building was designed to carry (let's be generous) five times the weight of the levels above. I dare say that you could carefully place a five-pound rock on the top of your head without doing any damage, but what would do you think would happen if someone drops a one-pound rock on your head from a height of 12 feet?

You're also incorrectly stating that the momentum is "used up" in crushing stuff, so there shouldn't be any left over to do any more damage. Some of the kinetic energy would be converted to heat, but most of it would remain as kinetic energy in the crushed pieces.

To make your "theory" more convincing, you also keep implying that all the crushing took place during the initial impact of one floor against another, when in fact it would continue all the way down, in a grinding action with the steel pieces.

As for the amount of energy available during the collapse, the easiest way to get at least a qualitative feel for how much energy was released just in the INITIAL stage it to imaging how much energy it would take to lift those top floors up 12 feet. That's precisely the amount of energy that was available to cause the next floor to fail, and it's estimated to be nearly an order of magnitude more than the amount required -- lots of energy left over to crush lightweight concrete and drywall. That's the reason why structural engineers aren't impressed with CTer "no way!" hand-waving on this issue.

As for material being ejected out the sides of the building, when structural components fail, they do so "explosively" because a lot of the internal stresses they have been carrying are converted to kinetic energy, rather suddenly. I've always been amused at the CTers who yammer on and on about "Watch the videos! It looks just like demolition with explosives!" No it doesn't (and not just because it collapses from the top); specifically, the material is ejected sideways at much slower speeds than would be expected from explosives. If you watch a video of a controlled demolition carefully (which CTers have apparently never done), you will first see a large cloud of smoke and dust from the explosions, which reach their full size in just a frame or two, and then the building starts to fall. By comparison, the smoke and dust from the tower collapses "rolls" out of the building, exactly as would be expected in a structural failure.

[Gravy]

Welcome to the forums, Roger. [ETA: Oh, I see you've been here since June '05. Don't be such a stranger!]

TS1234 recently stated that he expected to see entire intact floor slabs from the towers, stacked up, like a doughnut with a hole in the center.

As an experiment, and for dinner, I made crepes. I measured some of them and came up with an average thickness-to-width ratio of 1:60. The thickness-to-width ratio of the 4" thick concrete in most of the WTC tower floors was 1:624.

The concrete in the floors was 10 times thinner in relation to its width than a crepe, much less a pancake.

I don't like the food analogy, but I think it's an effective visual image. The fact that most of it was lightweight concrete, as you mention, means it would fracture all the more easily.

Any traffic on the road to Christopheraville, TS1234?

As for the "squibs," I measured the most prominent one, near the top of the north tower, and calculated its average speed as 35 mph. I'd like to see a high explosive that can accomplish that.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Since the contractors who removed the debris from the site were paid by the weight, fairly accurate records were made of that: It was about 1.7 million tons. But that included all 7 buildings; a reasonable estimate of how much of that debris was from the towers would be something in the vacinity of 400,000 tons each, which is in pretty good agreement with the other estimates of the weight based on structural elements and contents -- close enough that there just isn't any "Mystery of the Missing Buildings" here that needs to be solved.

Something that CTers ignore about the concrete, BTW, is that it was NOT reinforced like a reinforced concrete structure, nor was it the type of high-compression concrete used for that type of construction. It was just "lightweight" concrete poured on corrugated steel decks, only 4" thick for the office floors and 5" thick in the core. Lightweight concrete has a specific meaning in construction: it is made from Portland cement and lightweight aggregates like pumice and expanded clay, and it's easily crushed compared to the high-compression stuff used for reinforced concrete structures. I don't know if this is the case (I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere), but that type of thin slab on metal decks usually only has a single layer of wire mess for reinforcement, not thick rebars like reinforced concrete.

I really had to laugh at your OP, when you went on about the "conservation of energy" then described situation after situation that demonstrated you have no idea what that means. According to your "theory," if you drop a big rock on your toe, is all of the potential energy used up in accelerating the rock, so there isn't any left to do any damage to your toe?

As for the "weight" of the building being enough to cause the collapse, you're ignoring the effects of momentum. Any given level of the building was designed to carry (let's be generous) five times the weight of the levels above. I dare say that you could carefully place a five-pound rock on the top of your head without doing any damage, but what would do you think would happen if someone drops a one-pound rock on your head from a height of 12 feet?

You're also incorrectly stating that the momentum is "used up" in crushing stuff, so there shouldn't be any left over to do any more damage. Some of the kinetic energy would be converted to heat, but most of it would remain as kinetic energy in the crushed pieces.

To make your "theory" more convincing, you also keep implying that all the crushing took place during the initial impact of one floor against another, when in fact it would continue all the way down, in a grinding action with the steel pieces.

As for the amount of energy available during the collapse, the easiest way to get at least a qualitative feel for how much energy was released just in the INITIAL stage it to imaging how much energy it would take to lift those top floors up 12 feet. That's precisely the amount of energy that was available to cause the next floor to fail, and it's estimated to be nearly an order of magnitude more than the amount required -- lots of energy left over to crush lightweight concrete and drywall. That's the reason why structural engineers aren't impressed with CTer "no way!" hand-waving on this issue.

As for material being ejected out the sides of the building, when structural components fail, they do so "explosively" because a lot of the internal stresses they have been carrying are converted to kinetic energy, rather suddenly. I've always been amused at the CTers who yammer on and on about "Watch the videos! It looks just like demolition with explosives!" No it doesn't (and not just because it collapses from the top); specifically, the material is ejected sideways at much slower speeds than would be expected from explosives. If you watch a video of a controlled demolition carefully (which CTers have apparently never done), you will first see a large cloud of smoke and dust from the explosions, which reach their full size in just a frame or two, and then the building starts to fall. By comparison, the smoke and dust from the tower collapses "rolls" out of the building, exactly as would be expected in a structural failure.


You utterly misstate what I was saying. Of course a cinder block dropped will injure your toe, it cannot injure anything on the way down. To the extent that the cinder block damages anything else on the way down, that energy must indeed be subtracted from available GPE, thus slowing the acceleration and adding to the fall time. Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict.

You imagine collapsing floors stacking up and accumulating mass and momentum. This bears no resemblence to any observations that are made.

You imagine steel floor pans full of concrete falling all the way to the ground and then pulverizing. This is evocative, but there is no evidence for this. None. Every picture and every video show the floors turning into powder, systematically.

All of your ideas about the collapse are evocative, but they do not match what we observe. At all.

Roger, suppose you explain to me what happened with the top 12 floors of WTC1. So 98 fails and the top 12 floors fall down one to 97, right? Then what? Does 97 break and the whole thing falls down another level to 96? Is that what you think? What do we observe Roger?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Does BSer101 ever look at all the pictures that are posted for him or what?

Yes, I'm downloading them and collecting them for a piece I'm doing called "Hunt the Rubble". It's kind of a sequel to Hunt the Boeing and Hunt the Boeing II.

[gumboot]

Roger, suppose you explain to me what happened with the top 12 floors of WTC1. So 98 fails and the top 12 floors fall down one to 97, right? Then what? Does 97 break and the whole thing falls down another level to 96? Is that what you think? What do we observe Roger?



There's pretty good evidence that the floors in and above the impact area had well and truely failed well before global collapse. It wasn't the floors that failed. It was the exterior columns.

-Gumboot

[simonmaal]

Yes, I'm downloading them and collecting them for a piece I'm doing called "Hunt the Rubble". It's kind of a sequel to Hunt the Boeing and Hunt the Boeing II.

:boggled: What is it about this message board and nutters? :jaw-dropp

[Zep]

You utterly misstate what I was saying. Of course a cinder block dropped will injure your toe, it cannot injure anything on the way down. To the extent that the cinder block damages anything else on the way down, that energy must indeed be subtracted from available GPE, thus slowing the acceleration and adding to the fall time. Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict.

You imagine collapsing floors stacking up and accumulating mass and momentum. This bears no resemblence to any observations that are made.

You imagine steel floor pans full of concrete falling all the way to the ground and then pulverizing. This is evocative, but there is no evidence for this. None. Every picture and every video show the floors turning into powder, systematically.

All of your ideas about the collapse are evocative, but they do not match what we observe. At all.

Roger, suppose you explain to me what happened with the top 12 floors of WTC1. So 98 fails and the top 12 floors fall down one to 97, right? Then what? Does 97 break and the whole thing falls down another level to 96? Is that what you think? What do we observe Roger?

I hope you are only pulling our collective legs with this sort of thing, TS... ;)

OK, I'll bite, though.

What DID we observe? Perhaps you can tell us. Reference to video of the collapse would be nice, as a visual aide.

Looky here, for example. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2oYdXWQ) If you keep your eye on the TV tower on top, you can see that the top of the building does indeed "ride" down as the layers beneath collapse. So do you care to deny the obvious conclusion of what happens to it when it hits the ground going at that speed?

[beachnut]

Yes, I'm downloading them and collecting them for a piece I'm doing called "Hunt the Rubble". It's kind of a sequel to Hunt the Boeing and Hunt the Boeing II.

but there was a 757 that hit the pentagon

so now you are wasting your time hunting the missiing weight?

what a dolt

sorry but you are nuts

the GPE was?

how much energy do you need for your ct dream to come true?

name the amount of explosive force you need to have to make your ct dream come true?

are you capable of rational thought and able to give up the number of joules of energy you need to account for the missing mass?

or are you incapable of calcualting your way out of a paper bag, let alone able to grasp a number of joules you need to do what you say happened?

the number and stop making this so painful, please give us a number to work with?

use numbers or you have no idea what you are talking about, and you can not recieve help on your ideas

estimate of time to complete your calculation on the energy you need?

hope you do not say bunches, please hurry

[beachnut]

did this guy miss the fact the energy in the tower, each tower by it self is 248 tons of TNT

like 1,000,000,000,000 but yes some said NIST used 4x10^11

but give me 96 tons of TNT, it will do what TS needs

all in the building itself, darn, what real CD guys use the building itself to break the building up into little pieces and dust, not the explosives that do the destruction, it is the building, the explosives set it up

but there were just aircraft impacts like a a ton of TNT and fires to beat all fires, and the failing buildings did the rest

maybe he will post an energy he needs to make it happen

does he understand that wall board was used in the WTC and it does not require much energy to dust up the area? am I wrong on the fact I have observed lots of dust from just banging wallboard with a hammer???

darn there was an 1.5 inch (2 3/4 inch) of wall board all over the WTC core

[beachnut]

joules left out joules, 1x10^12 joules in each tower

TS you can look up joules on line, it is not messed up like a search for WTC cause most CT guys do not understand energy

late good night

[apathoid]

Yep, that's TS.

"Nick" from Cleveland. He should change it to "nuts" from Cleveland.

http://myspace-534.vo.llnwd.net/01266/43/53/1266023534_l.jpg

Eerie. That looks like almost exactly like somebody I once knew - from Cleveland! Not kidding!

I have him on ignore; has he confirmed that's him?

Truthseeker, did you spend some time in Denver between 99 and 01?

[Bell]

This myspace page is most certainly not me.

Quoted for Apathoid.

Note that it is physical impossible for a human being to be a myspace page.

[Belz...]

Personally I think they are convinced. They know it was a demolition but cannot bring themselves to oppose the parental figures of government.

Even those who live in different countries ? You've never answered this, chris.

Without them they would have nothing, no guidence to the future.


I don't rely on my government to guide me to the future. I rely on them to collect taxes and give me reasonably-competent health care.

Controlled by fear there is no ability to communicate with their fellow country person to establish priorities of needs relating to; rights, freedoms and justice, so must support illogical nonsense to fend off the fearful darkness of the unkown.

You're not an expert on psychology just because you're a patient.

[Horatius]

You utterly misstate what I was saying. Of course a cinder block dropped will injure your toe, it cannot injure anything on the way down.

Unless there's something else in the way - like another foot. Or a floor structure.



To the extent that the cinder block damages anything else on the way down, that energy must indeed be subtracted from available GPE, thus slowing the acceleration and adding to the fall time. Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict.

And that's exactly what happened. People have shown many time that the collapse wasn't a freefall. And again, as long as the energy in the falling mass is more than that needed to collapse the next floor, the collapse will continue.


You imagine collapsing floors stacking up and accumulating mass and momentum. This bears no resemblence to any observations that are made.

No, that's something you imagined. None of us have ever suggested the floors "stacked up" as they fell. We have said that the rubble of the floors accumulated in a large, largely undifferentiated mass. While some was ejected over the sides, a large enough fraction remained to destroy the lower parts of the tower. Totally different thing.


You imagine steel floor pans full of concrete falling all the way to the ground and then pulverizing. This is evocative, but there is no evidence for this. None. Every picture and every video show the floors turning into powder, systematically.

Again, no. That's what you claim would have happened without explosives, not us.

Can we nominate this for a strawman award?

[Bell]

I don't rely on my government to guide me to the future. I rely on them to collect taxes and give me reasonably-competent health care.

Seems they failed in Christophera's case ;)

[Belz...]

If a bullet cuts a clean hole through a wall, the bullet stays relatively intact. If the soft bullet splatters on the wall, the wall stays relatively intact. There is a reciprocal nature to collision damage.

We're talking about bullets, now ?

Yes, elastic collisions can occur. This complicates the problem, and is further proof that the "collpase" theory of 9/11 is false. Any elastic collision will not pulverize material either.

Pulverise ?

Oh, that's right. You guys think all 110 floors should have piled up like a gigantic pancake.

What? If all of the lateral motion is the result of elastic collisions, what is providing the resistance?

Er... the building ?

How can this tower demonstrate such high resistance, and such low resistance at the same time?

You might want to check the videos of the collapse, again. The tower itself collapsed far slower than the falling debris.

[Belz...]

Seems they failed in Christophera's case ;)

In Canada, we get what we get for paying a fixed amount per year. :(

[alfaniner]

I don't get that Garfield cartoon.

[Belz...]

All evidence indicates that 99+% of the non-metallic mass, and a large percentage of the steel was first disintegrated then forced outside the footprint in a very violent manner.

Desintegrated steel ? 99+% ? What's this evidence of which you speak ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Desintegrated steel ? 99+% ? What's this evidence of which you speak ?

And wouldn't that, coupled with the available aluminum and fires, have turned the debris pile into one giant thermite reaction?

[Belz...]

I don't like the food analogy, but I think it's an effective visual image.

Come, now, Gravy. Food analogies are ALWAYS good.

... now I'm hungry. Thanks.

[Belz...]

Of course a cinder block dropped will injure your toe, it cannot injure anything on the way down. To the extent that the cinder block damages anything else on the way down, that energy must indeed be subtracted from available GPE, thus slowing the acceleration and adding to the fall time.

Depending on the relative strength of whatever it encounters, that "slowing down" might not be significant. Agreed ?

You imagine collapsing floors stacking up and accumulating mass and momentum. This bears no resemblence to any observations that are made.

I'm sure you're aware that 50,000,000 tons of dust weighs the same as 50,000,000 tons of building.

You imagine steel floor pans full of concrete falling all the way to the ground and then pulverizing. This is evocative, but there is no evidence for this. None. Every picture and every video show the floors turning into powder, systematically.

As you'd expect...

Roger, suppose you explain to me what happened with the top 12 floors of WTC1. So 98 fails and the top 12 floors fall down one to 97, right? Then what? Does 97 break and the whole thing falls down breaks apart and falls another level to 96? Is that what you think? What do we observe Roger?

Corrected that for you.

[Roger_Harris]

You utterly misstate what I was saying. Of course a cinder block dropped will injure your toe, it cannot injure anything on the way down. To the extent that the cinder block damages anything else on the way down, that energy must indeed be subtracted from available GPE, thus slowing the acceleration and adding to the fall time. Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict.

If a falling object hits something on the way down, it will slow down in exact proportion to amount of kinetic energy that's converted to heat, which might be all of the energy, most of it, or just some of it, depending on the circumstances. Look at this example: Two cars of the same weight moving at the same speed crash head-on and come to a stop where they collided. Both cars stop moving because all of the kinetic energy is converted to heat. On the other hand, if a line of cars is stopped and then another car crashes into the rear car, some of the kinetic energy is converted to heat, some of it is transferred as momentum to the car that was hit, sending it crashing into the car in front of it, and some of it remains in the car that caused the accident, so it continues moving forward with the car that was hit, so the momentum of BOTH cars is available to do damage to the third car. If the rear car was moving fast enough, that process can continue in a chain reaction through several more cars until all of the kinetic energy has been converted to heat. Figuring out precisely how the energy got divided up in that situation is extremely complicated, but the conservation law simply tells us that none of the energy disappeared.

Now, the biggest difference between that situation and the collapse of the towers is that gravity kept feeding that process as the supporting structure failed.

You imagine collapsing floors stacking up and accumulating mass and momentum. This bears no resemblance to any observations that are made.

On the contrary; that's exactly what I see happening in the videos, except that there's no rational reason to think that the floors should be either neatly stacked up or completely pulverized. The most rational expectation would be something in between -- pulverized stuff and big pieces all falling together.

You imagine steel floor pans full of concrete falling all the way to the ground and then pulverizing.

Nope, as I said, I would imagine some of it being pulverized immediately, some of it being pulverized on the way down as the moving mass crashed through the standing structure, and some of being pulverized when the whole mass hit the ground and all of the remaining kinetic energy was converted to heat.

This is evocative, but there is no evidence for this. None. Every picture and every video show the floors turning into powder, systematically. All of your ideas about the collapse are evocative, but they do not match what we observe. At all.

Sorry, but that's total baloney, and I see that you've been called on that before. What the videos show is that both powder and big chunks are being ejected in the cloud you can see, and there's no way to tell from the videos what percentage of each is present in the cloud, much less what's going on inside the building, at any given point. You're the one making totally unsupported assertions here.

Roger, suppose you explain to me what happened with the top 12 floors of WTC1. So 98 fails and the top 12 floors fall down one to 97, right? Then what? Does 97 break and the whole thing falls down another level to 96? Is that what you think? What do we observe Roger?

I have no idea what you're getting at. The videos show the top sections of each tower crashing through the next floor, as would be expected if the momentum greatly exceeded the carrying capacity. It's clear that the resistance of the towers is slowing the fall, somewhat: The debris that's falling away from the towers is obviously falling faster than the towers are collapsing. The fact that the falling mass isn't slowed very much is simply an indication that its momentum greatly exceeds the carrying capacity, precisely as predicted by calculations. It's absurd to suggest, as Judy Wood has, that the mass should come to a stop, then the next floor would "break free," then begin accelerating at G. As more and more mass gets moving faster and faster, the carrying capacity becomes a smaller and smaller fraction of the momentum present, so the falling mass is slowed less and less as the collapse progresses, until it's crashing through the remaining structure at "near" freefall speeds. But no matter how many times CTers demand an explanation for the "freefall" speed of the collapse, there's no need to explain things that obviously didn't happen. If you and Judy Wood want to convince people that the towers fell "too fast," based on absolutely nothing but your own assertions, you really need to start by convincing people that you have some minimal understanding of the physics involved. When you start off by demonstrating that you don't, your argument is dead in the water.

[apathoid]

Quoted for Apathoid.

Note that it is physical impossible for a human being to be a myspace page.

Thanks Bell, its not who I was thinking anyways(thank heavens). His myspace page says he's 5'6" and my ex-coworker is about my height, 6'1", or better. It is odd, because "Nick" is a dead ringer for Jay(also from Cleveland). He even wore the same type of shades!

[jskowron]

TS1234 recently stated that he expected to see entire intact floor slabs from the towers, stacked up, like a doughnut with a hole in the center.

As an experiment, and for dinner, I made crepes.....

As an experiment, this morning I bought and ate 2 donuts (1 pumpkin spice and 1 coconut). My conclusion: donuts are delicious. I suggest independent replication, perhaps confirming my results with other donut varieties.

Sadly, my experiment will have as much of an impact on TS et al. as yours, gravy.

[rwguinn]

Right there is the problem. He seems to belive there was no rubble, that it all turned to dust. We've tried to show him otherwise, but he won't budge.

N0o. no, NO!
IT used all its PE up by turning into KE.
It's like the salad bar--you get 1 trip only!

Now, I have some really prime beach property in New Mexico I can let you have for a really, really good price....

[rwguinn]

If a falling object hits something on the way down, it will slow down in exact proportion to amount of kinetic energy that's converted to heat, which might be all of the energy, most of it, or just some of it, depending on the circumstances. <<Lsnipped stuff that a high-school graduate understands but a CT'er with a Master's in Physics finds incomprehensible>>.

But Roger (other roger--I'm senior here, by golly!)
According to CT theory, if you interject your head between the falling block and your toe, the block cannot hurt your head
It is my considered opinion (that's opinion, CT'ers)
Too many experiments of this type have taken place by CT'ers, with total obliviousness to the result being the major contributing factor to their worldview...

[Horatius]

N0o. no, NO!
IT used all its PE up by turning into KE.
It's like the salad bar--you get 1 trip only!

No, it's more like an "all you can eat" buffet, where they keep force feeding you till you burst!


Now, I have some really prime beach property in New Mexico I can let you have for a really, really good price....

Oooh! Tell me more! It's almost winter here, and I need a nice desert beach to escape to!

[Horatius]

if you interject your head between the falling block and your toe, the block cannot hurt your head


Unless we were to disintegrate your head with a Star Wars Beam Weapon, just before the impact. Then you'd be fine.

[defaultdotxbe]

TS1234 seems to think if you breakup or powderize the concrete it cant hurt anything

so, which weighs more (and thus is capable of exerting more force at a given acceleration) a pound of solid concrete, a pound of concrete rubble, or a pound of concrete powder?

[Horatius]

TS1234 seems to think if you breakup or powderize the concrete it cant hurt anything

so, which weighs more (and thus is capable of exerting more force at a given acceleration) a pound of solid concrete, a pound of concrete rubble, or a pound of concrete powder?

That's a trick question! We all know it's either all solid or all powder, there's no rubble!

And you thought I'd fall for that!

[tsig]

Excellent compilation of obvious logic. The fact that the opposition does not quote you often shows that your reasoning cannot be defeated.

Personally I think they are convinced. They know it was a demolition but cannot bring themselves to oppose the parental figures of government. Without them they would have nothing, no guidence to the future.

Controlled by fear there is no ability to communicate with their fellow country person to establish priorities of needs relating to; rights, freedoms and justice, so must support illogical nonsense to fend off the fearful darkness of the unkown.

You know, you wax damn near poetic with that post.

I miss them so
I knew they were unreal
but that just makes the absence hurt more.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Welcome to the forums, Roger. [ETA: Oh, I see you've been here since June '05. Don't be such a stranger!]

As for the "squibs," I measured the most prominent one, near the top of the north tower, and calculated its average speed as 35 mph. I'd like to see a high explosive that can accomplish that.

Suppose a shaped charge was in the core section. How fast would we expect the air to be moving by the time it was at the perimeter? Could thermobarics behave this way?

How else do we explain these tightly focused jets of smoke and debris? Let me see if I have this right. A separate collapse front of falling floor assemblies is proceeding 10-30 floors below the main collapse front. It impacts drywall and crushes it into powder, then expells it out the sideways. It acts like a piston, or the plunger in a syringe.

I'm imagining that I am inside the tower looking across the floor towards the many windows. I'm trying to imagine that if I was a flat floor, how would I focus the dust into a tight jet pattern and get it to go out the center window. I need help with this.

[Horatius]

I'm imagining that I am inside the tower looking across the floor towards the many windows. I'm trying to imagine that if I was a flat floor, how would I focus the dust into a tight jet pattern and get it to go out the center window. I need help with this.

Have you ever heard the adage, "A chain is only as strong as its weakest link"? One of the windows was likely not set as strongly into its frame as the others, and it failed first. After that, the pressure on the other windows would drop, as air is being expelled through the first window. Since the pressure is dropping, the other windows are no longer near their failure point.

Until the rest of the building hits them, of course.

[hellaeon]

d o n t f e e d t h e t r o l l s

[defaultdotxbe]

d o n t f e e d t h e t r o l l s
why not? i got them eating out of my hand ;)

[Horatius]

d o n t f e e d t h e t r o l l s

I'm not sure that TS1234 really counts as a troll. He's a bit too fixated on his pet theories and estimates, but it doesn't seem like he's posting just to get a rise out of us. I still have hopes that we can bring him around.

[hellaeon]

ahhh I know, im just...uhhh over the style of CTists this morning

post a question, block your ears, post a question, block your ears....repeat indefinately until one day, a dormant brain cell awakes and logic exists.

Carry on :)

[Horatius]

ahhh I know, im just...uhhh over the style of CTists this morning

post a question, block your ears, post a question, block your ears....repeat indefinately until one day, a dormant brain cell awakes and logic exists.

Carry on :)

Hey, if it was easy, everybody'd be doing it!

[Mancman]

Suppose a shaped charge was in the core section. How fast would we expect the air to be moving by the time it was at the perimeter? Could thermobarics behave this way?

How else do we explain these tightly focused jets of smoke and debris? Let me see if I have this right. A separate collapse front of falling floor assemblies is proceeding 10-30 floors below the main collapse front. It impacts drywall and crushes it into powder, then expells it out the sideways. It acts like a piston, or the plunger in a syringe.

I'm imagining that I am inside the tower looking across the floor towards the many windows. I'm trying to imagine that if I was a flat floor, how would I focus the dust into a tight jet pattern and get it to go out the center window. I need help with this.


Air pressure. Not seperate collapses.

[Gravy]

I'm imagining that I am inside the tower looking across the floor towards the many windows. I'm trying to imagine that if I was a flat floor, how would I focus the dust into a tight jet pattern and get it to go out the center window. I need help with this.Yes you do. Repeat your thought experiment, but with the center window open and the others closed. Describe what you would expect to see when the air pressure rapidly rises inside the building as the smoke- and debris-filled upper section falls.

Likewise, imagine that you're a mechanical floor, with vents all around directly to the exterior! Describe what you would expect to see when the air pressure rapidly rises inside the building as the smoke- and debris-filled upper section falls.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Yep, that's TS.

"Nick" from Cleveland. He should change it to "nuts" from Cleveland.

http://myspace-534.vo.llnwd.net/01266/43/53/1266023534_l.jpg

"Purjury"

:dl:

[Elizabeth I]

Truthseeker1-4: You utterly misstate what I was saying. Of course a cinder block dropped will injure your toe, it cannot injure anything on the way down.

Unless there's something else in the way - like another foot. Or a floor structure.

:wave1
Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you for saying that. I screamed and pulled my own hair when I read "...it cannot injure anything on the way down."
:bunpan

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'm not sure that TS1234 really counts as a troll. He's a bit too fixated on his pet theories and estimates, but it doesn't seem like he's posting just to get a rise out of us. I still have hopes that we can bring him around.

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

[Garb]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

The truth was exposed when Osama confessed. Duh.

And you do realize how ridiculous your theory is right?

[beachnut]

has there been a return email on this alleged email to of the famous "You've Been Had! TS1234 Email to Randi "

did we miss the reply, or could this be a ct of the missing email?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Truthseeker1-4: You utterly misstate what I was saying. Of course a cinder block dropped will injure your toe, it cannot injure anything on the way down.


:wave1
Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you for saying that. I screamed and pulled my own hair when I read "...it cannot injure anything on the way down."
:bunpan

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.

[firecoins]

Truthseeker1234....you bend the truth better than Geller bent spoons. :hypnotize

[firecoins]

double post

[Garb]

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. Your are trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It just at odds with itself.

Well the fact that you said it fell in freefall time says a lot. It didn't. And yes it did damage everything, but a lot was left of the building. How many times have we told you how big the basement was?

Your explosive theory is on the basis of "too much dust" and a picture of a pile of debris that you say "is all microscopic" yet it isn't.

Lets see how silly your theory is: Our government wanted to go to Iraq by creating this whole 9/11 scheme. Yet the highjackers were from a group called Al Quaida, which has little or no connection with Saddam. We crash a missle into the Pentagon, blow up a plane in Shanksville, and crash two planes into a large building. But no, there is more. We rig up wtc 7 for no reason, and decide to blow up every little thing of the wtc with both silent and invisible explosives that cannot be detected.

What a power our government is...

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mr. Randi has replied to my letter. Here it is. You are wrong. It is you who have been “taken,” not I…

I do not discuss conspiracy theories.

James Randi.

[realitybites]

A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.
You could always try, oh I don't know... voting.

... Just a thought.

[Garb]

Mr. Randi has replied to my letter. Here it is.

Good and blunt.

[beachnut]

the real conspiracy is the simple one, have surprise!

learn to fly jets, (these guys are idiots, most Americans could fly the jets without training better and have the sense not to hit the ground moving fast, translation any kid off the street in American can out fly a terrorist!) foreign students always come to America to learn, and as always we hope they do their flying as far away as possible! (beware Norwegian pilots are damn good, (dead insect to you too))

learn to cut throats, no pilot will let you have his jets pilots do not share, the easiest way to get a pilot out of the seat is to kill him, I know this is a fact ask a pilot why. (however, no one has ever used this idea for real until 9/11, we usually just beat them to the jet)

Calculate the impact energy of an aircraft speeding = close to a ton of TNT

Calculate the reaction of killing all the passengers into a symbol of the US and the World

Calculate the reaction of hitting the pentagon (personally it killed all the jokes you could make up on the subject, but now is bad humor)

Calculate the reaction of hitting the White House!

11, surprise, 175 surprise, we are now armed yet not ready 77 not yet ready, 93 ready and volunteers took action,,, we won after we had the rule book in the fourth quarter!!!!!

Not a lot of steps to do this, a lot more simple than any CT plot on the truth side!

You guys were not around when we had a lot of hijackings in the 60s?

Never did the hijackers fly the plane and kill the pilot, new ideas are called surprises.

Is anyone behind you right now wanting you computer, could you friend be the next terrorist to get you and steal your computer?

[stateofgrace]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Yet you are more than willing to believe your fellow countrymen would actively plan, participate in and cover up mass murder of their fellow countrymen.

Maybe you need to grow up.

[firecoins]

Mr Randi wastes no time with B.S.

[rwguinn]

I'm not sure that TS1234 really counts as a troll. He's a bit too fixated on his pet theories and estimates, but it doesn't seem like he's posting just to get a rise out of us. I still have hopes that we can bring him around.
Typical Costal Wimpy liberal answer!:)
Failed policys don't deter you guys! Ha! :D
This guy is worse than my kid at refusing to let go of a subject that dead, dead, dead!

Edit: Ok--you're Canadian. Why did yopu guys have to go and model yourselves after our left/lefter coast liberals? Dadgum!

[Augustine]

That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down.

The rest of the post is just plain wrong, but right here: gravity accelerates the falling mass. The only way for gravity not to accelerate the falling mass is if the kinetic energy of the falling mass is less than the structure's ability to plastically deform. In the WTC, kinetic energy was 8 times greater than the energy required to fail the columns at the start of the collapse. The collapse was going to accelerate, period.

[Horatius]

Typical Costal Wimpy liberal answer!:)
Failed policys don't deter you guys! Ha! :D
This guy is worse than my kid at refusing to let go of a subject that dead, dead, dead!

Edit: Ok--you're Canadian. Why did yopu guys have to go and model yourselves after our left/lefter coast liberals? Dadgum!

Well, it's Canada. We could have had the Govenment of England, the industry of the US and the culture of France. Instead we ended up with the industry of England, the government of France and the culture of the US.

[Horatius]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Well, you may get that police state anyways, as part of the overreaction to the threat of terrorism, combined with your usual progress in the war on drugs and all that.

If you want to avoid this, stop wasting your time on this garbage, and work for real change. There's an election coming up - get people out to vote for someone who'll stand up against this stuff in Congress. They're out there, but they don't have enough support.

Really, the only way to show that Bush&Company aren't the Ultimate Masters of Everything is to vote for the Throw the Bastids Out Party. I vote that way pretty much every election.

[Zep]

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.

Answer me this: Did you do physics at school? Honestly, now...no fibbing, OK?

[fuelair]

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.
Please get help.

[CurtC]

Mr. Randi has replied to my letter. Here it is.
Wow. Randi was feeling verbose today - you got about ten more words out of him than I figured you would.

[CurtC]

A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.
I'm with you so far. The thing you don't realize is that even slowing down by 15 or 20 percent (which is what we see with the towers) means that a huge amount of energy was available for being dissipated on the way down, by breaking stuff.

[Bell]

Mr. Randi has replied to my letter. Here it is.

lol, who would have thought?

Good of you to post it, btw.

[Gravy]

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.I strongly encourage you not to bring this philosophy to avalanche country.

[defaultdotxbe]

I'm with you so far. The thing you don't realize is that even slowing down by 15 or 20 percent (which is what we see with the towers) means that a huge amount of energy was available for being dissipated on the way down, by breaking stuff.
yeah, ive noticed this with alot of CTers "how can the little bit on top crush the entire bottom" arguments

they fail to reailze that when 50,000+ tons is falling, even a tiny amount of KE being bled off is a HUGE amount of force, more than enough to push the next floor to its failure point

and if the mass of the top 20 stories is enough to push the floor below it to the failure point after accelerating the distance of 1 floor, then the falling mass will gain enough KE in falling the next 12-15 feet to destroy the next floor, and so on and so force until it hits the ground

[R.Mackey]

I'm with you so far. The thing you don't realize is that even slowing down by 15 or 20 percent (which is what we see with the towers) means that a huge amount of energy was available for being dissipated on the way down, by breaking stuff.

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%.

[roger]

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.I'm intrigued. The math, please.

[delphi_ote]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.
If you believe this, find the evidence. Show proof. Not image stills and a thousand logical fallacies. Own up to your mistakes. Admit when you are mistaken. If you're right, you'll have our full support if you show us the proof. Evidence - not vapid propaganda - changes minds.

Earlier in this thread, you claimed that inelastic collisions could not damage both objects. That is false. Why won't you admit that you made a mistake? Are you so afraid of admitting that you're wrong about something so trivial? If you're that afraid of something so minor, how are you going to act in the face of evidence proving something more important to you wrong?

[LashL]

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%.

TS1234 doesn't do math.

Or science.

Or logic.

Or critical thinking.

Or sanity.

Etc.

[LashL]

I'm intrigued. The math, please.

See above.

TS1234 doesn't do math..... etc.

[defaultdotxbe]

A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.
and the best way to do THAT of course is to hang around internet forums and post videos to youtube, right?

[The_Fire]

and the best way to do THAT of course is to hang around internet forums and post videos to youtube, right?

Can't help but wonder what the average age of the Toother movement is......How many of them are actually of age to vote and why haven't they done so in the past? How many of them were actually above 16 at the time of the Twin Towers attack? How many of them were there? How many of them actually knows the difference between speculation and evidence?

[firecoins]

In February 2001, I was on the 89thn floor of the South Tower. I am sure there were explosives in the building...:rolleyes:

[defaultdotxbe]

Can't help but wonder what the average age of the Toother movement is......How many of them are actually of age to vote and why haven't they done so in the past? How many of them were actually above 16 at the time of the Twin Towers attack? How many of them were there? How many of them actually knows the difference between speculation and evidence?
i wonder if any of them have a grasp of how big the towers were

ive never been to NY, but i liv ein chicago, so ive been to the sears tower, which in terms to floor area, is actually just a little a bit smaller than one of the towers, to rig the sears tower with explosives would be a MASSIVE understaking, and there were 2 of the twin towers that had to be done

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.Argument from personal incredulity.

Next.

[uk_dave]

You utterly misstate what I was saying. Of course a cinder block dropped will injure your toe, it cannot injure anything on the way down. To the extent that the cinder block damages anything else on the way down, that energy must indeed be subtracted from available GPE, thus slowing the acceleration and adding to the fall time. Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict.

You imagine collapsing floors stacking up and accumulating mass and momentum. This bears no resemblence to any observations that are made.

You imagine steel floor pans full of concrete falling all the way to the ground and then pulverizing. This is evocative, but there is no evidence for this. None. Every picture and every video show the floors turning into powder, systematically.

All of your ideas about the collapse are evocative, but they do not match what we observe. At all.

Roger, suppose you explain to me what happened with the top 12 floors of WTC1. So 98 fails and the top 12 floors fall down one to 97, right? Then what? Does 97 break and the whole thing falls down another level to 96? Is that what you think? What do we observe Roger?

Ok, now use your imagination and consider a tower of cinder blocks. The blocks are spaced at 0.5m centres, one above the other and each block weighs 1kg, but each block can only support 0.25kg.

Let's now imagine that the block at the very top of the tower is allowed to fall.

When it hits the block below it, that fall will be slowed by the resistance it encounters, but since it's weight and momentum are greater than the loading capacity of the block it has hit, that block will also fall, and so now we have two blocks falling with a combined weight of 2kg onto the block below which provides even less resistance against this falling debris and so this block fails even faster and now 3kg of weight is falling and the collapse is steadily gaining in speed and the falling debris far outweighs the ability of the blocks to resist it.

Now consider this scenario whereby the top 4 or 5 blocks fall as one onto the blocks below, and then you start to get a collapse occuring with little or no resistance from the remaining structure.

[Christophera]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Spoken like a human being with a heart and mind that is aligned.

Your question about the premature detonations (http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg) (erroneously termed "squibs" at times) is answered by cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) built into the floors. The image linked above shows the interior box columns ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)) being cut on WTC 2 to get the top started falling eastward.

The full demolition scenario is detailed here (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).

[defaultdotxbe]

Spoken like a human being with a heart and mind that is aligned.

Your question about the premature detonations (http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0069b_3_towerexplo1_explosion_below.jpg) (erroneously termed "squibs" at times) is answered by cutting charges (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/steelbeamcuttingfloors.gif) built into the floors. The image linked above shows the interior box columns ("MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg)) being cut on WTC 2 to get the top started falling eastward.

The full demolition scenario is detailed here (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html).
box columns? do we have a steel core now?

[qarnos]

i wonder if any of them have a grasp of how big the towers were

ive never been to NY, but i liv ein chicago, so ive been to the sears tower, which in terms to floor area, is actually just a little a bit smaller than one of the towers, to rig the sears tower with explosives would be a MASSIVE understaking, and there were 2 of the twin towers that had to be done

Has there ever been any effort made by the Troofers to ascertain where these explosives came from?

I mean, surely someone, somewhere, is wondering "where are those several hundred tons of explosives I had before 9/11"? Not to mention the unimaginable miles of detonation cord.

[Christophera]

Has there ever been any effort made by the Troofers to ascertain where these explosives came from?

I mean, surely someone, somewhere, is wondering "where are those several hundred tons of explosives I had before 9/11"? Not to mention the unimaginable miles of detonation cord.

There is actually a site that explains where the explosives were located and how they got there.

Demolition (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

[qarnos]

There is actually a site that explains where the explosives were located and how they got there.

Demolition (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)

I asked if anyone has done any work to find out where they came from - someone must be missing them.

Your site only contains misinformed speculation and does not answer my question.

[beachnut]

A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Who is us? Who are the growing number of us, any real people? How can we gage who the growing number is, and if this is true there is a serous problem of education you guys have failed to learn how to reason and use judgment. You are being mislead by politically biased liars.

Dr Jones? If you could find some facts and explain them, that will be the day. I even checked out the web site of Dr Jones from BYU, oops hold that he was retired/fired cause he is nut case and put his stuff on the school's web site. Do you like his paper of no facts on 9/11, as he continues to change the paper and tries to prove his pre ordained conclusion?

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/ (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/)

At this site you find Jones journal of what I think is a conspiracy of lies because he has a specific political agenda and does not mind being a liar to further his own goals. (not exactly a pure why to get you to go find false perpetrators is it, but go to it and lynch some innocent people and become what you are against!!!)

At the journal is a paper you have failed to use and help us understand your CT movement. We know Jones's goal but under the veil of 9/11 truth you have fallen in with the liars. How, even if you agree with Jones' politically stand, can you sell your mind to the liars? This paper is http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf (http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf)Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Collapse of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1 by Gordon Ross

In the paper, Ross says WTC1 comes up 390Mj short of the energy needed for the 16 top stories to break thru the first resists it meets when the top fails. Notice right away these dolts agree the top failed as you saw. They just say it was short 390,000,000 joules of breaking through for global destruction of WTC1.

WOW, why have you hidden this from us you know how much TNT that would be? The shorted amount of energy is, hold your breath. ---- 186 pounds of TNT Given the fact they say the top falling would create the energy, as it hit the first resistance, of 2.01GJ, which is the energy of 1006 pounds of TNT. Could they of made a 10 percent error. You know I calculated the energy of the top 16 floor and I came up with 2.7GJ and that would be 1286 pound of TNT energy!!!

10 percent more energy left over as the building proceeds to self destruct! And you know, WTC1 did self destruct, therefore Ross made a mistake, he was 20 percent or more off from me, and thus he could be wrong, and the visual I witnessed live on TV on 9/11 as I watch, confirms my numbers, using his methods. I would not trust the CT guys with your life!! Why do you???

Are all the papers on Jones' tin foil hat Journal wrong? Quick check, the paper I just reviewed and think is wrong looks like real academic work (my calculation show they are wrong, who can you trust, remember the WTC1 did fall, and it proceeded at what looks like the energy as I found! Maybe they forgot the water, the people the desks, the paper, and all the other things on the top 16 floors, 200 people would be close to 4 tons! But bet you do not know that would be trivial), the rest seem to border on the weird and absurd, but I have not finished a review, and do not have time in the near future to debunk the crap put out by idiots who do not even check there work properly. When your engineering papers are peered reviewed by poets and theologians you have bigger problems than credibility, you border on fraud, and risk being label a kook/nut case tin foil hat fringe group.

Why can you not present this paper and defend it?

Do you personally lack the ability to calculate energy?

You talk about people showing you! No you need to show us your numbers.

Got any numbers? Have any proof? Are you just saying what you find on the CT web sites, and you have no capability to seek out both sides?

How can you not do what I just did, seek out the other side and check it? I did it and found that paper very close, but 10 percent, and I found it 10 percent over! The towers fell, why does that make my numbers better? It may not, I could be wrong, and that would make their paper wrong in another area, their assumption of only one floor being destroyed to allow the collapse to start.

This paper infers that the tops did fail, they just think it should not of precipitated the overall collapse and they are basing this on 10 percent!

If you had these number and trusted them you are a fool. If I had these numbers I would leave the building quickly, 10 percent is just too close to call!!!

I saw the WTC1 fall, heard no RDX going off, I guess my numbers are better.

Do you have anything better?

[beachnut]

There is actually a site that explains where the explosives were located and how they got there.


Demolition (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html)


This web site is psychotic, thermite does not cut horizontally, it flows with gravity!

Thermite is not capable of cutting in the horizontal you need to put it on top of something. Like your car, it will go thru the engine block, it does not explode, it burns and will flow with gravity, down, not sideways, in the WTC it would flow down to the floor and burn the concrete some, and burn out! Sorry to break the news but even Dr Jones now uses RDX in his new CT papers!

You are mr concrete core man, no concrete core in the WTC on 9/11 or ever, and if concrete was in the core then thermite is useless.

Having a concrete core would negate the use of thermite even more than gravity alone!

So do you want thermite?

Or do you want concrete core?

There was not molten steel found, no proof.

There are no concrete sheer walls! Error!

Radio wave detonators? What kept them from going off accidentally over the year? Who makes up this junk? It would take years to secretly set up a CD in the WTC, the inspectors would find it, and the individual firms had independent security who would see the idiots working on the secret explosives over the year! You have holes in this web site you could fly a WTC tower thru!!

This web site is debunked on all points, and the concrete core junk proves you to be a liar on concrete core.

[qarnos]

Radio wave detonators? What kept them from going off accidentally over the year?

Chris believes that the explosives were planted during construction of the towers - therefore the detonators would have to not go off accidentally for almost 30 years.

[tsig]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

Just were will we do the perp walk?

[tsig]

Maybe if I speak slowly you guys can get this. A falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.

Thus the scenario you all want to imagine is trying to have it both ways. You're trying to say that falling mass damages everything, so much so that very little is even left of the whole building, yet damaged so little that it was able to arrive in just over free-fall time.

It's just at odds with itself.



from your physics we should still have the buildings collapsing etrnally.

[Belz...]

Suppose a shaped charge was in the core section. How fast would we expect the air to be moving by the time it was at the perimeter?

It wouldn't get there.

How else do we explain these tightly focused jets of smoke and debris?

Tightly focused ? You need to look at that video again.

Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier.

Why ? What's so hard to believe when these people declared war on the free world ?

falling cinder block can injure any number of things on the way down, but every time it does, it subtracts energy from the equation. Each collision is an energy sink. That energy is spent doing the work of breaking something, thus it is not available for accelerating the falling mass downward, therefore the falling mass will slow down. The more things that are broken, the longer it will take.

Did you not read what I said ? If whatever it hits is too weak to make much of a difference, it won't. Gravity is relentless, and it continues to add energy to the falling mass. Plus, the fact that it's falling gives it a whole lot more energy than when it was stationary, so it's easy to imagine that the lower floors failed rather rapidly. Plus, you can CLEARLY see the debris falling much faster than the rest. Do you get that ?

[Belz...]

Spoken like a human being with a heart and mind that is aligned.

OH NO!! Christophera's SPREADING!

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Mr. Randi has replied to my letter. Here it is.

pwned

[chipmunk stew]

I strongly encourage you not to bring this philosophy to avalanche country.
This gives me an idea. Every time someone mentions "pyroclastic flow", I'm going to counter with "avalanche". If they get to use geological terms liberally, then so should we.

[Indolent Wretch]

Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict.


This statement as is seems to be fair.

Logically a tower with significant internal structure should take longer to collapse to it's final height than would a ball falling beside it, obviously once one has taken into account wind resistence, etc.

You are of course also stating that this ISN'T what happened. You are stating that the towers did collapse at free fall speeds.

Given the seriousness of these allegations I hope you have something to back them up.

Q1: By your calculations how long should it have taken the top most floor of the tower to reach it's final height?

Q2: By your observations how long did it actually take?

Your answers please. Not somebody elses.

One proviso, In my mind (possibly erroneously) I can see that if the slowing down of the collapse due to internal collisions had a small enough effect so that the point of collision inside the building never reached as high as the falling top most floor then that top most floor probably would have approached near free fall speeds.

Maybe you could construct a simple computer model so that we can check this?

I would do it myself, but I'm pretty clear in my thoughts on what happened that day.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

... Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict...

No. Objects can not continue falling at terminal velocity and inflict damage to other objects.

[defaultdotxbe]

Chris believes that the explosives were planted during construction of the towers - therefore the detonators would have to not go off accidentally for almost 30 years.
i think chris mentioned once the detonators were not in place all the time, i seem to recall him saying they were placed during the alleged 36 hour powerdown of one half of one tower (how the other 75% were placed i dont know)

[delphi_ote]

Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down.
Oh, I see. So you still believe the tired old debunked-a-million-times idea that the towers fell at just over free fall. That's sad. You don't even have the small amount of intellectual honesty it takes to modify your opinion when you are proven wrong with evidence. Like with your idea bout inelastic collisions not causing damage to two bodies, you refuse to admit that you're wrong on this so you can recycle the same story over and over again without ever checking it against the facts.

It seems there's really no hope of changing your mind. Despite all physical evidence to the contrary, you still insist on holding on to your belief in this bit of dogma. Like Catholics with transubstantiation, your religion requires an unwavering faith in the patently false.

[Belz...]

i think chris mentioned once the detonators were not in place all the time, i seem to recall him saying they were placed during the alleged 36 hour powerdown of one half of one tower (how the other 75% were placed i dont know)

I see you've been hypnotised, too.

That's the good thing about living in Saguenay.

[rwguinn]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2043312#post2043312)
Put the other way around, if falling mass arrives to the ground in free-fall time, then it did not injure anything on the way down. If falling mass arrives to the ground in just over free-fall time, then it did not injure very much of anything on the way down. Oh, I see. So you still believe the tired old debunked-a-million-times idea that the towers fell at just over free fall. That's sad. You don't even have the small amount of intellectual honesty it takes to modify your opinion when you are proven wrong with evidence. Like with your idea bout inelastic collisions not causing damage to two bodies, you refuse to admit that you're wrong on this so you can recycle the same story over and over again without ever checking it against the facts.

It seems there's really no hope of changing your mind. Despite all physical evidence to the contrary, you still insist on holding on to your belief in this bit of dogma. Like Catholics with transubstantiation, your religion requires an unwavering faith in the patently false.

Ok, 1 more time, for the record:
IF we consider g=9.807 m/sec^2, and the fall distance as 1360 feet,
we get the following times for the fall
Free-fall 9.195 sec
90% FF 9.692 sec
80% FF 10.28 sec
70% FF 10.99 sec
50% FF 13.0 sec

Amazing stuff, physics. so, at 50% of free-fall acceleration, it only takes 40% longer to fall...but 50% of the KE has somewhere else to go...and it will go there...

[Christophera]

i think chris mentioned once the detonators were not in place all the time, i seem to recall him saying they were placed during the alleged 36 hour powerdown of one half of one tower (how the other 75% were placed i dont know)

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. The thick core walls required considerable time to burrow through the parafin plugs cast over the exposed rebar at the bottom of the inspection holes and the was a desire to avoid those long periods of downtime immdiately before 9-11 meaning the lower core detonators were set then. Becase they were a different detonator not subject to inadvertant initiation by radio waves they were also not as predictable in time with their intitiation, meaning this image (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) only exists because of the added delay of that secondary intitation system. The floors were one detonation system and the core was another. Explosions of floors did not disturb the initiation system of the core because it was inside the core protected from the floor blasts outside by the thick concrete walls.

[Christophera]

... Objects cannot remain in gravitational free-fall and inflict damage to other objects. Falling objects slow down in exact proportion to the amount of damage they inflict...

No. Objects can not continue falling at terminal velocity and inflict damage to other objects.

Thank you for confirming what Truthseeker has said. Now we are starting to make some sense around here.

[delphi_ote]

Now we are starting to make some sense around here.
No "we" are not.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Thank you for confirming what Truthseeker has said. Now we are starting to make some sense around here.

Erm, I was correcting Truthseeker's terminology; not necessarily agreeing with his assesments.

Since further clarification appears to be necessary:
per m-w.com:
free fall
One entry found for free fall.


Main Entry: free fall
Function: noun
1 : the condition of unrestrained motion in a gravitational field; also : such motion
2 a : the part of a parachute jump before the parachute opens b : a rapid and continuing drop or decline <a free fall in stock prices>
- free-fall intransitive verb


per wiki:
Terminal velocity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Terminal velocity (disambiguation).
The terminal velocity of an object falling towards the ground, in non-vacuum, is the speed at which the gravitational force pushing it downwards is equal and opposite to the atmospheric drag (also called air resistance) pulling it upwards. At this speed, the object ceases to accelerate downwards and falls at constant speed. An object moving downwards at greater than terminal velocity (for example because it previously used power to descend, it fell from a thinner part of the atmosphere or it changed shape) will slow until it reaches terminal velocity.

[defaultdotxbe]

the real question is, did any part of the debris reach TV?

i suppose some of the lighter bits like paper and dust could have

[rwguinn]

Erm, I was correcting Truthseeker's terminology; not necessarily agreeing with his assesments.

Since further clarification appears to be necessary:
per m-w.com:
free fall
One entry found for free fall.


Main Entry: free fall
Function: noun
1 : the condition of unrestrained motion in a gravitational field; also : such motion
2 a : the part of a parachute jump before the parachute opens b : a rapid and continuing drop or decline <a free fall in stock prices>
- free-fall intransitive verb


per wiki:
Terminal velocity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Terminal velocity (disambiguation).
The terminal velocity of an object falling towards the ground, in non-vacuum, is the speed at which the gravitational force pushing it downwards is equal and opposite to the atmospheric drag (also called air resistance) pulling it upwards. At this speed, the object ceases to accelerate downwards and falls at constant speed. An object moving downwards at greater than terminal velocity (for example because it previously used power to descend, it fell from a thinner part of the atmosphere or it changed shape) will slow until it reaches terminal velocity.

I have cristanoid on ignore, but from what you write:
Terminal velocity for a chunk of steel and/or concrete is going to be considerably higher than for a human bean.
And skydivers can hit close to 200mh in a properly configured dive (or 120mph spread-eagled.)
200mph=293 ft/sec
velocity in a vacuum of an object falling (under 1 g) 1360 feet: 295.8 ft/sec.
Air resistance is a non-player in this instance.
Air resistance (drag) has no effect
Drag does not affect the fall time
you can ignore air resistance and drag by fluid medium (air)
does that help, Bullstuff1234 and gullible?

[defaultdotxbe]

I have cristanoid on ignore, but from what you write:
Terminal velocity for a chunk of steel and/or concrete is going to be considerably higher than for a human bean.
And skydivers can hit close to 200mh in a properly configured dive (or 120mph spread-eagled.)
200mph=293 ft/sec
velocity in a vacuum of an object falling (under 1 g) 1360 feet: 295.8 ft/sec.
Air resistance is a non-player in this instance.
Air resistance (drag) has no effect
Drag does not affect the fall time
you can ignore air resistance and drag by fluid medium (air)
does that help, Bullstuff1234 and gullible?
well my question with regard to termianl velocity is, how long would it take to reach TV as sea-level air pressure, and did the debris have enough time to reach it?

is there an atmospheric equlivent to free-fall? because free-fall implies unimpeded acceleration, terminal velocity is, well, a velocity, not acceleration

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.Spoken like a human being with a heart and mind that is aligned...Swoon, swoon! (http://www.flubu.com/comics/Bizarro-cantresist.gif)

[rwguinn]

well my question with regard to termianl velocity is, how long would it take to reach TV as sea-level air pressure, and did the debris have enough time to reach it?

is there an atmospheric equlivent to free-fall? because free-fall implies unimpeded acceleration, terminal velocity is, well, a velocity, not acceleration

no.
ft/sec is a velocity.

Terminal velocity for a chunk of steel and/or concrete is going to be considerably higher than for a human bean.
And skydivers can hit close to 200mh in a properly configured dive (or 120mph spread-eagled.)
200mph=293 ft/sec
velocity in a vacuum of an object falling (under 1 g) 1360 feet: 295.8 ft/sec.
Air resistance is a non-player in this instance.
Air resistance (drag) has no effect
Drag does not affect the fall time
you can ignore air resistance and drag by fluid medium (air)

edited to add:
295.8 ft/sec is very close to 293 ft/sec, which is terminal velocity for a skydivern a head-down dive. Concrete and steel chunks will have a faster terminal velocity than a human, due to better ballistic coefficient.

[defaultdotxbe]

no.
ft/sec is a velocity.

Terminal velocity for a chunk of steel and/or concrete is going to be considerably higher than for a human bean.
And skydivers can hit close to 200mh in a properly configured dive (or 120mph spread-eagled.)
200mph=293 ft/sec
velocity in a vacuum of an object falling (under 1 g) 1360 feet: 295.8 ft/sec.
Air resistance is a non-player in this instance.
Air resistance (drag) has no effect
Drag does not affect the fall time
you can ignore air resistance and drag by fluid medium (air)

edited to add:
295.8 ft/sec is very close to 293 ft/sec, which is terminal velocity for a skydivern a head-down dive. Concrete and steel chunks will have a faster terminal velocity than a human, due to better ballistic coefficient.
i understand ft/s as the maximum speed attainable through free fall, however my question is that due to atmospheric resistance, will the object still be accelerated at 9.8m/s_2, or will acceleration be lower in an atmostphere?

[Belz...]

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. The thick core walls required considerable time to burrow through the parafin plugs cast over the exposed rebar at the bottom of the inspection holes and the was a desire to avoid those long periods of downtime immdiately before 9-11 meaning the lower core detonators were set then. Becase they were a different detonator not subject to inadvertant initiation by radio waves they were also not as predictable in time with their intitiation, meaning this image (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) only exists because of the added delay of that secondary intitation system. The floors were one detonation system and the core was another. Explosions of floors did not disturb the initiation system of the core because it was inside the core protected from the floor blasts outside by the thick concrete walls.


Gosh, it seems like so much fun, making this stuff up as you go. Can I do it too ?

[rwguinn]

i understand ft/s as the maximum speed attainable through free fall, however my question is that due to atmospheric resistance, will the object still be accelerated at 9.8m/s_2, or will acceleration be lower in an atmostphere?for a human, spread-eagled, or a feather, or a cloud of dust, or similar such things, yes, the acceleration will be lower.
It takes the same distance to reach Terminal Velocity--but it takes a longer time to get there.
For a rock, chunk of I-beam, or other equally high density/low area things,
the difference matters only to a pedant. (or physics professor on a graded paper)

[juryjone]

Yes, bring me around. Please. If I could only believe in this ridiculous fairy tale of Osama and the 19 kamakazees, my life would be so much easier. If it was just me, I wouldn't care so much, but I have two kids. They need to grow up in a U.S. without a police state. A growing number of us think that the only way to prevent police state is to expose 9/11 truth and bring the perpetrators to justice.

The truth was exposed when Osama confessed. Duh.

And you do realize how ridiculous your theory is right?

Garb, you give TS too much credit by saying he has a theory. If it's one thing he's proved, it's that he doesn't have a clue, much less a theory.

A theory isn't necessary - only questions.

[beachnut]

Ok, 1 more time, for the record:
IF we consider g=9.807 m/sec^2, and the fall distance as 1360 feet,
we get the following times for the fall
Free-fall 9.195 sec
90% FF 9.692 sec
80% FF 10.28 sec
70% FF 10.99 sec
50% FF 13.0 sec

Amazing stuff, physics. so, at 50% of free-fall acceleration, it only takes 40% longer to fall...but 50% of the KE has somewhere else to go...and it will go there...

Plus it took 30 seconds for WTC 1 to finish falling

Did you see the 70 or 80 story thin column remant of the core?

That means there is more energy to do what happened since there remains a damaged core.

I am still wondering where the broken laws of physics would apply in any case?

[fuelair]

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%.

Before reading any further (I promise - but obviously can't prove it) I said to myself, "Self, I have been reading Truthfaker for months now and I predict he will not believe this, and will either not respond or will argue using CT site with no evidence of actual knowledge. I also predict he does not have the skills necessary to dicks his own potatoes.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Christophera]

Before reading any further (I promise - but obviously can't prove it) I said to myself, "Self, I have been reading Truthfaker for months now and I predict he will not believe this,

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

[Christophera]

box columns? do we have a steel core now?

No, as always we have "MASSIVE BOX COLUMNS" (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/interiorboxcolumnsarrow.jpg) surrounding the concrete core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif).

[NickUK]

I'm starting to have nightmares where I get attacked by rampaging blue underlined words....

...always either 'box columns' or 'concrete core'

[Christophera]

This web site is psychotic, thermite does not cut horizontally, it flows with gravity!

Thermite is not capable of cutting in the horizontal you need to put it on top of something. Like your car, it will go thru the engine block, it does not explode, it burns and will flow with gravity, down, not sideways, in the WTC it would flow down to the floor and burn the concrete some, and burn out! Sorry to break the news but even Dr Jones now uses RDX in his new CT papers!

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 are mr concrete core man, no concrete core in the WTC on 9/11 or ever, and if concrete was in the core then thermite is useless.

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)

Having a concrete core would negate the use of thermite even more than gravity alone!

So do you want thermite?

Or do you want concrete core?

There was not molten steel found, no proof.

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

There are no concrete sheer walls! Error!

If this is not a concrete shear wall (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corewallspirearrows.gif) what is it holding up the interior box column forming the spire.

Radio wave detonators? What kept them from going off accidentally over the year?

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.

Who makes up this junk? It would take years to secretly set up a CD in the WTC, the inspectors would find it, and the individual firms had independent security who would see the idiots working on the secret explosives over the year! You have holes in this web site you could fly a WTC tower thru!!

It took years to buid the Twin towers and the security was intense just to keep people from learning about wht was being built. And now the WTC documents have been taken by the ex NYC mayor.

http://www.nyclu.org/g_archive020602.html

This web site (http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html) is debunked on all points, and the concrete core (http://amanzafar.no-ip.com/WTC/wtc41.JPG) junk proves you to be a liar on concrete core. (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

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

[Bell]

Dear Christophera,

Keep this paranoid nonsense in your own thread.

Much appreciated,
Bell

[Moochie]

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.

From all of your posts, I gather you are an illiterate moron.

M.

[Moochie]

My point in saying this is that, if you wish to convince me, and others like me, you will have to become far more literate. And that's only the beginning.

Next, you'll need to present cogent arguments for your views, and real evidence to support those views.

I don't like your chances.

M.

[einsteen]

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.

[defaultdotxbe]

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