Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

[R.Mackey]

Evidence please. I have looked and looked, and found essentially no evidence for the existence of the floor assemblies.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/HTRHome.html

When you say "no evidence," you of course mean "you found some arial (sic) photographs in which it's impossible to find anything conclusive," but then you make a conclusion anyway, namely that the thousands of people who walked on, dismantled, and sorted the Pile are all liars.

You're a very special person, Ace.

The most telling example on your stupid, disrespectful "game" website is here (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/CraterRim.html):

Being generous, let's say their is about 100 tons of broken concrete here. This would be about 1/1000th of the total. We must keep hunting.

For starters, this picture is just the top of one corner of the pile. But... 100 tons? How did you get to that figure?

How big is 100,000 tons of concrete? Well, concrete has a density of roughly 2400 kg/m3 (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml), call it 2.4 tons per cubic meter. The total volume you're looking for would therefore be about 41,700 cubic meters. This is a cube of concrete only 34.7 meters on a side.

In your picture, you've blurred out the edges, like the disingenuous sort that you are. You've also added no scale nor shown any estimates you may have made in order to reach your answer. So I'll make some. The people standing in that picture are just under 2m tall, so I'm going to eyeball the picture at 20m x 20m. I'll be really generous and ignore the fact that it looks to be in perspective, and it's probably a lot longer than that. Furthermore, I'll assume the pile shown here is only about 3m deep, though given the six-story basement, it could be far more than that.

How much concrete do I estimate is in your photograph? 1200 m3 of it, or 2880 tons. Just in that cropped picture alone, lowballing it severely. Almost 30 times your estimate!

How on earth did you get 100 tons?

Oh, right, the same way you get all of your other estimates. You pull a number out of thin air, using your highly relevant skills as a musician, and then claim -- on that basis alone -- that the work of thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, and professors, who actually were on site rather than trying to eyeball it from a handful of newspaper photos, are all either complete idiots or the most evil of men. Every single one of them.

Your misapprehension of science is so comprehensive that education seems to be impossible, but let me try one last time. Here's another faulty comparison (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/Pakistan.html) you make on your site, claiming, on the basis of an earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan, that the rubble should have been more intact:

How could the WTC type of structure, which is substantially more resistant to progressive collapse, somehow be less resistant to self disintegration?

Isn't a twin tower at least 11 times taller and four times the footprint of the Pakistani building? At least. That would mean we should expect at least 88 times the amount of intact concrete. Yet we don't find anything like that in any of the pictures of ground zero.

Here's the problem, Ace. As you note the WTC towers were 11 times taller.

That means, approximately speaking, the WTC towers contained 11 squared times as much energy for a given footprint -- 121 times as much. Potential energy = m g h, right? Well, m is 11 times greater because there are 11 times as many floors, and h is also 11 times greater, because the average floor is 11 times as high off the ground.

To make a fair comparison, you'd have to take the collapsed structure in Pakistan, pick up the pieces to their original height, and then drop them on top of themselves ten more times.

Any wonder why the rubble looks more intact?

Finding out what really happened is the sincerest form of respect, and that search must encompass detailed observation. I have discovered that the only way some people can bear to study 9/11 is through games or music. If HTR can stimulate people to wonder and ask important questions, it has served its purpose.
Now that I've answered your questions for you, by performing a more detailed observation than you apparently are capable of, I've shown you what really happened. What a relief, huh?

Now please fix your site, Ace. Thanks.

[T.A.M.]

I can almost hear the glee in your words ACE. I guess you figure you're a "Biggie" in the microcosm of the truth movement, eh? Some fame and popularity where you havent had any perhaps.

Poor Ron, nothing better to do so you throw the old dog a bone, eh, by "allowing" him the "privelege" of hosting your "grand debate". I am sure if he can't sell it to his producers, he will not lose any sleep over it...I can guarantee it.

Bring it back down to reality, your last name isn't Frehley...

TAM:)

[TruthSeeker1234]

When you say "no evidence," you of course mean "you found some arial (sic) photographs in which it's impossible to find anything conclusive," but then you make a conclusion anyway, namely that the thousands of people who walked on, dismantled, and sorted the Pile are all liars.

You're a very special person, Ace.

The most telling example on your stupid, disrespectful "game" website is here (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/CraterRim.html):


For starters, this picture is just the top of one corner of the pile. But... 100 tons? How did you get to that figure?

How big is 100,000 tons of concrete? Well, concrete has a density of roughly 2400 kg/m3 (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/KatrinaJones.shtml), call it 2.4 tons per cubic meter. The total volume you're looking for would therefore be about 41,700 cubic meters. This is a cube of concrete only 34.7 meters on a side.

In your picture, you've blurred out the edges, like the disingenuous sort that you are. You've also added no scale nor shown any estimates you may have made in order to reach your answer. So I'll make some. The people standing in that picture are just under 2m tall, so I'm going to eyeball the picture at 20m x 20m. I'll be really generous and ignore the fact that it looks to be in perspective, and it's probably a lot longer than that. Furthermore, I'll assume the pile shown here is only about 3m deep, though given the six-story basement, it could be far more than that.

How much concrete do I estimate is in your photograph? 1200 m3 of it, or 2880 tons. Just in that cropped picture alone, lowballing it severely. Almost 30 times your estimate!

How on earth did you get 100 tons?

Oh, right, the same way you get all of your other estimates. You pull a number out of thin air, using your highly relevant skills as a musician, and then claim -- on that basis alone -- that the work of thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, and professors, who actually were on site rather than trying to eyeball it from a handful of newspaper photos, are all either complete idiots or the most evil of men. Every single one of them.

Your misapprehension of science is so comprehensive that education seems to be impossible, but let me try one last time. Here's another faulty comparison (http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/Pakistan.html) you make on your site, claiming, on the basis of an earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan, that the rubble should have been more intact:



Here's the problem, Ace. As you note the WTC towers were 11 times taller.

That means, approximately speaking, the WTC towers contained 11 squared times as much energy for a given footprint -- 121 times as much. Potential energy = m g h, right? Well, m is 11 times greater because there are 11 times as many floors, and h is also 11 times greater, because the average floor is 11 times as high off the ground.

To make a fair comparison, you'd have to take the collapsed structure in Pakistan, pick up the pieces to their original height, and then drop them on top of themselves ten more times.

Any wonder why the rubble looks more intact?


Now that I've answered your questions for you, by performing a more detailed observation than you apparently are capable of, I've shown you what really happened. What a relief, huh?

Now please fix your site, Ace. Thanks.

The first thing people should notice about the crater rim picture, is that people are standing on the rim of a huge smoldering crater. Think.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/CraterRim.html

R, yes, there is would be 121 times the potential energy in a twin tower, which is why it would be built with 121 times the strength, at least. In fact, the twin towers were about the strongest structures ever built.

I do not agree with your approach of assuming the whole pile these people are standing on is macroscopic concrete. It sure doesn't look like it. And I most assuredly do not agree with any assertion that floor slabs pulverized upon hitting the ground. Clearly, whatever broke up the floor assemblies did so in mid air. All of the video and photos support this, and I have yet to see one shred of evidence to support the notion that floors fell all the way down. Not a shred.

I'll clarify the crater rim page of HTR with your help. I was considering the slab that appears on the right side of the picture. That looks like part of a floor slab, the "holy grail" of HTR. There are several of what appear to be concrete pillars. Are they? I didn't think the twin towers had any concrete support beams. In any case, they don't look like floor slabs. What are those?

Thanks. With your input, I will update that page and clarify any concrete tonnage estimates. And if I misspelled "Aerial" I'll try to fix that too.

[R.Mackey]

The first thing people should notice about the crater rim picture, is that people are standing on the rim of a huge smoldering crater. Think.
I Think you're nuts. I'm looking at that picture, and I don't see it smouldering or being crater-shaped. It's a jumble, no more than that.

R, yes, there is would be 121 times the potential energy in a twin tower, which is why it would be built with 121 times the strength, at least. In fact, the twin towers were about the strongest structures ever built.
Complete crap. The strength of a building doesn't scale with its energy, it scales with its load. The two are not linearly related.

The WTC towers were "about the strongest structures ever built?" What on earth are you smoking?

I do not agree with your approach of assuming the whole pile these people are standing on is macroscopic concrete. It sure doesn't look like it.
Maybe not, but you made no assumptions of your own. You just pulled a conclusion out of thin air.

Whatever that rubble is, it's probably of comparable density. Or even much higher, if there's a large fraction of steel underneath.

And I most assuredly do not agree with any assertion that floor slabs pulverized upon hitting the ground. Clearly, whatever broke up the floor assemblies did so in mid air. All of the video and photos support this, and I have yet to see one shred of evidence to support the notion that floors fell all the way down. Not a shred.
Who said they fell all the way down intact? They got hammered by the upper floors. That broke them apart. The building wouldn't have fallen in the first place if there wasn't damage inflicted while it was still standing.

I'll clarify the crater rim page of HTR with your help. I was considering the slab that appears on the right side of the picture. That looks like part of a floor slab, the "holy grail" of HTR. There are several of what appear to be concrete pillars. Are they? I didn't think the twin towers had any concrete support beams. In any case, they don't look like floor slabs. What are those?
The WTC towers didn't have any concrete pillars. If we're looking at the same things, I think those are steel columns, the ones you claim all "turned to dust," that are the same color as the concrete / other rubble because they're covered in dust.

You can't estimate composition by color alone, Ace. I've explained this to you before.

Thanks. With your input, I will update that page and clarify any concrete tonnage estimates. And if I misspelled "Aerial" I'll try to fix that too.
How about you stop making stuff up while you're at it? You do that way too much.

[pomeroo]

Where does NIST say that?




In its ten thousand pages of graphs, charts, illustrations, calculations, analysis, and commentary. You missed it; we get the idea.



Not on Hardfire.




But elsewhere perhaps? Maybe there is a demolition specialist--one demolition specialist--somewhere in the country who thinks that "pull it" means "blow it up"? What about it, Ace? Does such a person exist? Is this staggeringly silly canard ready for the scrap heap or not? Did Larry Silverstein really ask the FIRE DEPARTMENT to blow up his building? Do you suppose he would ask his mail carrier to fix the leak under his sink?
Why not?





Shhhhhh. Ron, we said we weren't going to talk about that. I can't help it if the plane videos depict impossible physics, and that the nosecone accidentally popped out of the other side on the one live shot. I agreed to your terms of not discussing the "planes".




But it isn't totally deranged idiocy that has been debunked a thousand times. Maybe there's something to it, huh?



Dr. Greening has already agreed to debate me on video. This occured prior to your being invited to moderate. Greening asked about a moderator, and I suggested you. Greening liked the idea of you, he contacted you, Greening then told me you had agreed to moderate.

After you became involved, Dr. Greening and I exchanged a few emails as an "evidence hearing" and we have agreed on which pictures and videos I'm allowed to show. I'll have one interpretation of the pictures, and Greening will have another, both in the context of Greening's theory. What's the fear? I'm going to say the buildings were blown up, you and Greening are going to say they fell down. What's the big deal?




The big deal is that you have provided abundant evidence that you are not a serious person. You have no background in science, and your understanding of its principles and methods is shockingly poor. You seem unable to process any information that highly-qualified people who post on this forum present to you. Thirty minutes of Greening explaining the science and you failing to comprehend a word he says doesn't sound like much of a show.



If you don't want to be involved, or if you can't sell the idea to Hardfire's producer, that's OK. Greening and I will try to make other arrangements, diappointed though I may be. I am so looking forward to having a nice conversation with you.


You have ducked almost all of the pertinent questions directed at you. Try this one: Why are you impervious to everything real scientists say to you? Are they attempting to deceive you, or are they simply misinformed?

What do you know that they don't? What is it that makes your fabrications more valuable than their knowledge of the relevant science?

[gumboot]

NIST said:

Had they only meant to refer to collapse initiation, they would have said that. Besides, since when did NIST study the events after collapse initiation?



Do you even read what you write?

Right here you are claiming that, in their statement regarding their research, they are talking about the ENTIRE collapse, not collapse initiation. And then, in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you claim they only studied collapse initiation.

Un-fing-believable.

-Gumboot

[A W Smith]

Ace i will give the slab thickness another inch making them five inches thick. 110 of them IF they fell intact to the ground would stack up to just over 45 feet in height. Are you claiming that the basement levels combined are less than this total height? And should have stacked up above gound for seven or more stories?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace i will give the slab thickness another inch making them five inches thick. 110 of them IF they fell intact to the ground would stack up to just over 45 feet in height. Are you claiming that the basement levels combined are less than this total height? And should have stacked up above gound for seven or more stories?

I don't want to get into such falsely-premised hypotheticals. The fact is, the floors did not fall intact to the ground. Something made them turn into powder, and shoot sideways in all directions.

I've seen several photos that show basement areas clear, with guys walking around in there.

I've seen no photos of any stacked up floor pans.


If you can show me evidence of pancaking, or stacked up floor assemblies, (in any condition), or debris crashing through the ground level and piling up in the basement, I'll have a look.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't want to get into such falsely-premised hypotheticals. The fact is, the floors did not fall intact to the ground. Something made them turn into powder, and shoot sideways in all directions.
Pop quiz: What other materials within the towers could be turned into dust through twisting/crushing/grinding action and then be expelled outward due to air compression?

[Babbylonian]

I don't want to get into such falsely-premised hypotheticals.
You mean the sort that you and the rest of the CTers bring here all the ******* time?

I'm going to give you a golf clap for that one...Well played!

[TruthSeeker1234]

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2435496#post2435496)
Where does NIST say that [the floors pancaked]?



Originally Posted by Pomeroo


In its ten thousand pages of graphs, charts, illustrations, calculations, analysis, and commentary. You missed it; we get the idea.

You "get the idea" that NIST says the floors pancaked, despite the fact that NIST says their conclusions don't support the pancake theory of collapse?

You "get the idea" from ten thousand pages of graphs, charts, illustrations, calculations, analysis, and commentary, despite the fact that NIST says that they did not study the "collapse", only the events leading up to "initiation"?

Ron, wake up. They didn't study the "collapse". It's that 12 seconds AFTER "initiation" that is so darn interesting.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
Not on Hardfire [do I wish to talk about "pull it"].




But elsewhere perhaps? Maybe there is a demolition specialist--one demolition specialist--somewhere in the country who thinks that "pull it" means "blow it up"? What about it, Ace? Does such a person exist? Is this staggeringly silly canard ready for the scrap heap or not? Did Larry Silverstein really ask the FIRE DEPARTMENT to blow up his building? Do you suppose he would ask his mail carrier to fix the leak under his sink?
Why not?


I certainly don't think Silverstein said "pull it" by accident. I think it was an effective disinfo tool, incriminating to truthers, but vague enough to be deniable. Remember, just to make sure we didn't miss it, the very same PBS show had the guy say, "We're gettin' ready to pull buildin' six.".

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
Shhhhhh. Ron, we said we weren't going to talk about [no planes]. I can't help it if the plane videos depict impossible physics, and that the nosecone accidentally popped out of the other side on the one live shot. I agreed to your terms of not discussing the "planes".





But it isn't totally deranged idiocy that has been debunked a thousand times. Maybe there's something to it, huh?


I spent two years plane-hugging. Then I studied the evidence.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
Dr. Greening has already agreed to debate me on video. This occured prior to your being invited to moderate. Greening asked about a moderator, and I suggested you. Greening liked the idea of you, he contacted you, Greening then told me you had agreed to moderate.

After you became involved, Dr. Greening and I exchanged a few emails as an "evidence hearing" and we have agreed on which pictures and videos I'm allowed to show. I'll have one interpretation of the pictures, and Greening will have another, both in the context of Greening's theory. What's the fear? I'm going to say the buildings were blown up, you and Greening are going to say they fell down. What's the big deal?




The big deal is that you have provided abundant evidence that you are not a serious person. You have no background in science, and your understanding of its principles and methods is shockingly poor. You seem unable to process any information that highly-qualified people who post on this forum present to you. Thirty minutes of Greening explaining the science and you failing to comprehend a word he says doesn't sound like much of a show.


Oh, it'll be a great show. Sounds to me like you're scared to death of me, for fear that I will show compelling evidence, and explain concisely why the data cannot be explained by gravity collapse.

I understand the principles of science quite well, thank you. For example, one important hallmark of the scientific method is repeatability. I'll ask again: Shouldn't NIST release their input values, so that others could try to repeat their results? Even better, shouldn't the Port Authority release the structural drawings of the towers, so that others could build a model using AnSys? Until they do, it ain't science.

Another important hallmark of science is testing an hypothesis with experimentation. I have proposed a simple, yet very important experiment. I ask for input on the experimental design. See below.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
If you don't want to be involved, or if you can't sell the idea to Hardfire's producer, that's OK. Greening and I will try to make other arrangements, diappointed though I may be. I am so looking forward to having a nice conversation with you.






You have ducked almost all of the pertinent questions directed at you. Try this one: Why are you impervious to everything real scientists say to you? Are they attempting to deceive you, or are they simply misinformed?

What do you know that they don't? What is it that makes your fabrications more valuable than their knowledge of the relevant science?


No, actually you OCTs have ducked my important questions.

Let's try again. Greening and many others have said the stuff coming out of the falling steel beams is crushed drywall, and/or concrete, and/or fireproofing, and that it is drafting behind the steel sections. I say that is impossible, because the stuff comes out far too long, there's too much of it, it's too dense, it behaves too energetically, etc.

The scientific thing to do is experiment. If it is really so obvious that drafting drywall can cause this effect, then we should be able to recreate it. I propose getting a steel beam, or other hard dense object, and attaching some dust to it, then throwing it over a cliff.

Please, everyone, tell me what materials and methods to use that would give the best chance of reproducing the effect seen so often on 9/11. Should I just pile the dust on, or glue it, or wedge chunks of drywall into the beam, or what?

And please answer my questions about releasing the drawings, and the input values.

Thank You.



Last edited by pomeroo : Yesterday at 10:08 PM.

[Brainache]

Dear Ace,
You are to ignorance what Mozart was to music.

You are to music what Mozart was to weight lifting.

[R.Mackey]

I certainly don't think Silverstein said "pull it" by accident. I think it was an effective disinfo tool, incriminating to truthers, but vague enough to be deniable. Remember, just to make sure we didn't miss it, the very same PBS show had the guy say, "We're gettin' ready to pull buildin' six."
Holy bad formatting, Batman!

OK, let me get this straight... Silverstein set you up? By using a word that only a yokel like yourself would interpret, incorrectly I might add, as meaning "controlled demolition," something that was not only useless but totally impossible, not captured on film, and insane? This is his fault?

What, pray tell, does it mean when he has an onion bagel for lunch instead of his regular? That's the fake secret sign designed to trap Troothers into thinking today is FEMA Camp day?

Give the poor (well, rich, but unfairly vilified) man a break already.


I spent two years plane-hugging. Then I studied the evidence.

There were planes, Ace. Several people saw the first one, and thousands of people saw the second one. Some of those people were inside. Many people who saw them are posters here. If you can't deal with that, you're not ready for life. Sorry, that's just how it is.

Oh, it'll be a great show. Sounds to me like you're scared to death of me, for fear that I will show compelling evidence, and explain concisely why the data cannot be explained by gravity collapse.
Seeing as how you've burned almost 1,000 posts and haven't shown compelling evidence of anything, including your own ability to read, I daresay Ron isn't "scared to death" in the least.


Please, everyone, tell me what materials and methods to use that would give the best chance of reproducing the effect seen so often on 9/11. Should I just pile the dust on, or glue it, or wedge chunks of drywall into the beam, or what?
I was tempted to say "jump after it to get a good look," but that would be impolite, not to mention too obvious.

Here's a real answer. If you're so fascinated by the study of entrainment, then find yourself a wind tunnel. There are lots of them in the area. I used to teach with a small one at Caltech, the so-called Student Tunnel, and chances are they'd let you use it under the right circumstances. Give the Aeronautics Department a call. Jerry Landry used to be the lord of wind tunnels, if he hasn't retired yet. (ETA: Now that I think about it, I believe Chris Krok has authority over the tunnels now. Say "hi" to him for me.) I believe there's also one at USC, and you can build your own following plans on the 'net.

The simplest way to test it is to run the wind tunnel with a fixed object suspended in the air stream, a so-called "bluff body." The Caltech Student Tunnel is all ready to go in this respect. You can then stick a smoke wand into the airflow and deposit smoke behind the structure, and watch it persist, watch it illustrate the streaklines behind the object, etc. If it works for smoke, it will work for dust, because more massive particles will have an additional gravity force component pulling them towards the leading bluff body, so they should be even more prone to entrainment.

Large chunks in a wind tunnel are a no-no, though. Too hard to clean. But you can run a "chunk" experiment on a city street with a leaf blower. Set up a cinder block, pour grit of a known granularity behind it, hit it with the leaf blower, and measure how long it takes it to disappear, or remaining weight as a function of time. Back the leaf blower off to several distances to simulate different falling speeds. Very simple, very cheap, very effective.

If you still want to throw something off a cliff, go right ahead. But please be considerate of the environment.


And please answer my questions about releasing the drawings, and the input values.

I answered you here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2435584#post2435584) Ace, yesterday. See why abandoning threads is a bad idea?

-----

Now, then, Ace, I'm afraid you're starting to give me some concern. Your fixation on throwing stuff off cliffs is troublesome. So too is your inability to read the NIST FAQ or to properly interpret pictures on your own site. You're looking right at them, but what you see, only you see. These are possible hallmarks of obsession, paranoia, maybe even more severe mental problems.

I am not a doctor, and I would not presume to make a diagnosis. However, I also have run out of patience. It is quite clear that not even the best education is helping here, perhaps because you thrive on the adversarial relationships you forge everywhere you go. So, in your best interests, I will therefore ignore you, completely and evermore, effective at the end of this post. There are plenty more Troothers where you came from, and some of them may benefit more from discussion.

In other words, Congratulations! You have joined the ranks of such storied individuals as geggy, david carmichael, and Christopher7 in the hallowed halls of what I will call, in order of its founder and First Citizen, ChristopheraVille.

I hereby award you the Key to the City:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_919345fe2970a3476.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4661)
You will note the Key does not unlock the padded walls around the City. This is by design. We wouldn't want you to get lost or anything.

Furthermore, as you once did for your hero Judy Wood, I will now do for you -- I have composed a song in your honor. I'm not a professional musician, and I don't claim that it's very good, but perhaps you'll get a chuckle out of it nonetheless:

Ace spent a lifetime seeking the Truth
Billiard balls and tower free-falls, not much use
Posting on JREF, hoping to win
Typing out nonsense and losing again

He was looking for steel in all the wrong places
Looking for columns and outer faces
Searching the Pile and finding no traces
Of girders on the ground
Hopin' to find debris from the Towers
Ace sees only falling powder
You can't keep a Truther down

Ace keeps insisting, "No steel in sight
It all got dustified somehow, the pictures prove I'm right"
He don't know how it happened, space beams or some nukes
He turns to the "Scholars," his fellow kooks

He was looking for steel in all the wrong places
YouTube and Google, Jones's embraces
Nobody eyes are sharper than Ace's
The steel just can't be found
He'll never ask the folks at Fresh Kills
They're all just government shills
Just look how fast the dust fell down

Judy Wood says rays blew out the core
It's everything Ace was hoping for

No more looking for steel in all the wrong places
Safe in the madness that logic erases
Rational thinking, the sci-fi replaces
It's all that he'd dreamed of
Now that he's got his pet crackpot story
Someday we'll crown him with glory
Ace, and the loonies he loves


Farewell, Ace. I hope someday you do in fact find the truth about Sept. 11th. Stay safe.

[tsig]

I don't want to get into such falsely-premised hypotheticals. The fact is, the floors did not fall intact to the ground. Something made them turn into powder, and shoot sideways in all directions.

I've seen several photos that show basement areas clear, with guys walking around in there.

I've seen no photos of any stacked up floor pans.


If you can show me evidence of pancaking, or stacked up floor assemblies, (in any condition), or debris crashing through the ground level and piling up in the basement, I'll have a look.

No one has any obligation to show you anything.

[stilicho]

I looked at your site just now. Are you postulating that there was no rubble at Ground Zero? What were they removing over the course of several months after 9/11?

A helpful hint: You need better frames of reference (scale, distance, direction) in your images if you intend to use them for instruction.

[JimBenArm]

In other words, Congratulations! You have joined the ranks of such storied individuals as geggy, david carmichael, and Christopher7 in the hallowed halls of what I will call, in order of its founder and First Citizen, ChristopheraVille.



Wastin' away again in ChristopheraVille
Lookin' for that lost concrete core
Some people say I'm Batcrap insane
But I know I'm just a great big bore!

[pomeroo]

Probably I should get some sleep before writing anything about the despicable villains who claim that no planes hit the Twin Towers. I just watched a Discovery Times documentary on Flight 175 and I'm a bit agitated. Normally, I'm not the sort of person who wears his emotions on his sleeve. I appreciate reasoned arguments. But I have spent an hour watching people recall their last conversations with their spouses and children. When I look at the faces of the victims and hear the voices of the devastated people they left behind, I want to spit in the faces of the psychotic morons who would call them liars. Again, I'm not a violent man and hate is not a feeling easily aroused in me.

The liars and fools who promote these nonsensical and baseless conspiracy theories are contemptible fools, but I am willing to continue seeking them out to expose their wrong-headedness. The ones who deny the reality of the planes that thousands of horrified New Yorkers observed crashing into the World Trade Center are a special breed. The foulest pit of Hell is too good for them. Their insanity does not excuse their evil. I realize that I don't sound too rational at the moment, but these creeps deserve to be mocked, discredited, and scorned to the end of their days.

[pomeroo]

You "get the idea" that NIST says the floors pancaked, despite the fact that NIST says their conclusions don't support the pancake theory of collapse?

You "get the idea" from ten thousand pages of graphs, charts, illustrations, calculations, analysis, and commentary, despite the fact that NIST says that they did not study the "collapse", only the events leading up to "initiation"?

Ron, wake up. They didn't study the "collapse". It's that 12 seconds AFTER "initiation" that is so darn interesting.





I have spoken with Mike Newman of NIST five or six times. Contrary to your nonsense, there is NOTHING interesting after the initiation of collapse. Will it ever register with you that PANCAKING DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE COLLAPSE, BUT OCCURRED AFTER THE COLLAPSE WAS INITIATED? How often do you need to hear this?



Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
Not on Hardfire [do I wish to talk about "pull it"].




[quote]
I certainly don't think Silverstein said "pull it" by accident. I think it was an effective disinfo tool, incriminating to truthers, but vague enough to be deniable. Remember, just to make sure we didn't miss it, the very same PBS show had the guy say, "We're gettin' ready to pull buildin' six.".

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Quote:
Shhhhhh. Ron, we said we weren't going to talk about [no planes]. I can't help it if the plane videos depict impossible physics, and that the nosecone accidentally popped out of the other side on the one live shot. I agreed to your terms of not discussing the "planes".




To "pull" means, to a demolition specialist, to attach cables and literally pull a small structure off its center of gravity. Again, will this ever sink in? They tried to pull building 6, but although it was much smaller than building 7, it was still too big.


There is absolutely nothing impossible about the physics of the planes that crashed into the WTC. You are insane.



I spent two years plane-hugging. Then I studied the evidence.




I repeat that I have concluded that you are insane. I mean this in two senses: 1) the nonsense you are promoting is mad and vile beyond my powers of description; 2) to believe this idiocy, you must be clinically insane.





I understand the principles of science quite well, thank you. For example, one important hallmark of the scientific method is repeatability. I'll ask again: Shouldn't NIST release their input values, so that others could try to repeat their results? Even better, shouldn't the Port Authority release the structural drawings of the towers, so that others could build a model using AnSys? Until they do, it ain't science.




You are an ignoramus who has ignored everything genuine scientists have attempted to explain to you. You are impervious to reason and evidence.





No, actually you OCTs have ducked my important questions.




You have been answered over and over. You are insane.

[Horatius]

Nominated! (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2438745#post2438745)


Holy bad formatting, Batman!

OK, let me get this straight... Silverstein set you up? By using a word that only a yokel like yourself would interpret, incorrectly I might add, as meaning "controlled demolition," something that was not only useless but totally impossible, not captured on film, and insane? This is his fault?

What, pray tell, does it mean when he has an onion bagel for lunch instead of his regular? That's the fake secret sign designed to trap Troothers into thinking today is FEMA Camp day?

Give the poor (well, rich, but unfairly vilified) man a break already.


There were planes, Ace. Several people saw the first one, and thousands of people saw the second one. Some of those people were inside. Many people who saw them are posters here. If you can't deal with that, you're not ready for life. Sorry, that's just how it is.


Seeing as how you've burned almost 1,000 posts and haven't shown compelling evidence of anything, including your own ability to read, I daresay Ron isn't "scared to death" in the least.


I was tempted to say "jump after it to get a good look," but that would be impolite, not to mention too obvious.

Here's a real answer. If you're so fascinated by the study of entrainment, then find yourself a wind tunnel. There are lots of them in the area. I used to teach with a small one at Caltech, the so-called Student Tunnel, and chances are they'd let you use it under the right circumstances. Give the Aeronautics Department a call. Jerry Landry used to be the lord of wind tunnels, if he hasn't retired yet. (ETA: Now that I think about it, I believe Chris Krok has authority over the tunnels now. Say "hi" to him for me.) I believe there's also one at USC, and you can build your own following plans on the 'net.

The simplest way to test it is to run the wind tunnel with a fixed object suspended in the air stream, a so-called "bluff body." The Caltech Student Tunnel is all ready to go in this respect. You can then stick a smoke wand into the airflow and deposit smoke behind the structure, and watch it persist, watch it illustrate the streaklines behind the object, etc. If it works for smoke, it will work for dust, because more massive particles will have an additional gravity force component pulling them towards the leading bluff body, so they should be even more prone to entrainment.

Large chunks in a wind tunnel are a no-no, though. Too hard to clean. But you can run a "chunk" experiment on a city street with a leaf blower. Set up a cinder block, pour grit of a known granularity behind it, hit it with the leaf blower, and measure how long it takes it to disappear, or remaining weight as a function of time. Back the leaf blower off to several distances to simulate different falling speeds. Very simple, very cheap, very effective.

If you still want to throw something off a cliff, go right ahead. But please be considerate of the environment.


I answered you here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2435584#post2435584) Ace, yesterday. See why abandoning threads is a bad idea?

-----

Now, then, Ace, I'm afraid you're starting to give me some concern. Your fixation on throwing stuff off cliffs is troublesome. So too is your inability to read the NIST FAQ or to properly interpret pictures on your own site. You're looking right at them, but what you see, only you see. These are possible hallmarks of obsession, paranoia, maybe even more severe mental problems.

I am not a doctor, and I would not presume to make a diagnosis. However, I also have run out of patience. It is quite clear that not even the best education is helping here, perhaps because you thrive on the adversarial relationships you forge everywhere you go. So, in your best interests, I will therefore ignore you, completely and evermore, effective at the end of this post. There are plenty more Troothers where you came from, and some of them may benefit more from discussion.

In other words, Congratulations! You have joined the ranks of such storied individuals as geggy, david carmichael, and Christopher7 in the hallowed halls of what I will call, in order of its founder and First Citizen, ChristopheraVille.

I hereby award you the Key to the City:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_919345fe2970a3476.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4661)
You will note the Key does not unlock the padded walls around the City. This is by design. We wouldn't want you to get lost or anything.

Furthermore, as you once did for your hero Judy Wood, I will now do for you -- I have composed a song in your honor. I'm not a professional musician, and I don't claim that it's very good, but perhaps you'll get a chuckle out of it nonetheless:



Farewell, Ace. I hope someday you do in fact find the truth about Sept. 11th. Stay safe.

[Belz...]

It is the overall density of the fluid that I am speaking of. The combination of the dust and air, that fell rapidly, and behaved as a fluid, as a distinct phase.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045fd3d3d0d455.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4646) noted.

I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall.

Steel desintegrating into dust. Yes, contrary to the laws of physics, I'm sure. Pray tell, what's desintegrating them ? Oh, no. Let me guess ? The DEATH STAR ?

I arrived at this estimate because the stuff falls rapidly, more rapidly than raindrops, certainly.

How the hell did you make THAT calculation ?

Obviously the government reports are written to agree with the government story.

Circular reasoning.

To repeat, my statement that the dust-fluid is very dense is based on its fall time. It falls nearly as fast as solid steel

Yet faster than rain...

and the notion of this being related to "drafting" is nonsense.

So drafting doesn't exist ?

We're looking at fusion, and Directed Energy.

No, YOU're looking at those things. But just because it dawned on you that reality may not be as it seems... DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING'S AMISS.

The vast majority of engineers and scientists will not speak about 9/11 at all.

That's right. Lest the EVIL konspirators get to them.

We observe that something made steel disintegrate.

No, we don't. You're just as delusional as Christophera.

Best ideas are Directed Energy Weapons, or micro nuclear fusion. I'm open to other ideas, should they emerge.

Brain surgery.

[Belz...]

Those articles simply echo the official line. There is no proof of the quantity of steel or concrete. None. The best evidence we have is the photographic record from ground zero, and clearly, sir, you gotta lotta steel missing. Like 80% of it.

And how did you make that estimate if you only looked at pictures ??

The falling dust-fluid on 9/11 was a distinct state of matter, as evidenced by the distinct boundries that it maintained against the air, that I keep harping on. It behaved as a fluid, and was a separate phase.

:boggled:

[Pardalis]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045fd3d3d0d455.jpg noted.

:dl:

[Horatius]

:dl:


We should all save a copy of that one. Now If I could just edit it to replace the guys with cats, it'd be perfect!

[T.A.M.]

Mackey:

That poem is one of the greatest I have ever read...and I have read quite alot. However, my opinion is bias.

TAM:)

[Belz...]

I might point out, at this time, that iron is among the most stable of nuclei.

That might be why you can't use it as fuel for fusion, which in turn explains supernovae.

[Belz...]

I expect to see a pile of perimeter sections north of the north face of the north tower. There would be about 600 of the 3x3 sections. We see about 10 of them. That's quite a discreapancy.

Funny, I see a whole lot more.

If my science knowledge is so lacking, this will be quite clear to your audience

I wish it would be so clear to you, as well.

Even NIST has abandoned the pancake theory. If the floors had pancaked, they quite possibly would have penetrated the ground floor and piled up in the basement. The core would have remained standing, and there would be something like a 104 layer sandwich:

Sure thing, Seeker. Whatever you say.

So, get to the part where NIST endorses the pancake theory. And why do they say that their findings don't support the pancake theory of collapse?

:rolleyes:

[Belz...]

The first thing people should notice about the crater rim picture, is that people are standing on the rim of a huge smoldering crater. Think.

Well, gee darn. Two huge towers collapsed there.

R, yes, there is would be 121 times the potential energy in a twin tower, which is why it would be built with 121 times the strength, at least.

Incredible.

1) Your contention that it would be built with 121 times the strength is based on nothing more than "common sense". Not calculations, not expertise, just armchair analyses, as usual.

2) This wouldn't change the fact that the materials would be SUBJECT to 121 times the force during the collapse, once said collapse was initiated, which of course means your entire point is irrelevant to the discussion.

3) Your addition of the words "at least" is dishonest, because you're trying to make the towers appear even sturdier than your common sense estimate, for no reason other than, I can only assume, giving it the appearance of bolstering your claim.

In fact, the twin towers were about the strongest structures ever built.

And here you are at it again. How would you know ?

I do not agree with your approach of assuming the whole pile these people are standing on is macroscopic concrete. It sure doesn't look like it.

And looks are all that matters for you. This is why you're so detached from reality: you're fat too enamoured to your subjective fantasy to let go.

And I most assuredly do not agree with any assertion that floor slabs pulverized upon hitting the ground.

Isn't that: during the collapse ?

Clearly, whatever broke up the floor assemblies did so in mid air.

Clearly.

All of the video and photos support this, and I have yet to see one shred of evidence to support the notion that floors fell all the way down. Not a shred.

Well, that is one of the most inane logical inconsistencies I've seen this year. Obviously, since the WHOLE TOWERS were destroyed in the collapse, SOMETHING made its way to the ground.

[Belz...]

I don't want to get into such falsely-premised hypotheticals. The fact is, the floors did not fall intact to the ground. Something made them turn into powder, and shoot sideways in all directions.

Well, that's fine. I'm going to provide you with the answer you've been looking for the last 5 years:

It's called gravity.

Ron, wake up. They didn't study the "collapse". It's that 12 seconds AFTER "initiation" that is so darn interesting.

No, it isn't. Once the thing began to collapse, no force could possibly stop it, and this is the most important fact that the Twoof movement fails to acknowledge.

I certainly don't think Silverstein said "pull it" by accident. I think it was an effective disinfo tool, incriminating to truthers, but vague enough to be deniable.

Then you are certainly making stuff up, because it doesn't make one bit of sense.

I understand the principles of science quite well, thank you.

You missed the important FIRST step, mate.

For example, one important hallmark of the scientific method is repeatability.

Yes. Gravity is one of the most repeatable things around.

The scientific thing to do is experiment.

No need, because your theory is ridiculous, impossible and laughable to anyone with either half a brain or half an education.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey:

That poem is one of the greatest I have ever read...and I have read quite alot. However, my opinion is bias.

TAM:)

I think Mackey's poem is quite good also. I disagree with the message, obviously, but it does a pretty good job of nailing me, and has nice meter.

Is there a melody?

[TruthSeeker1234]

RMackey advised:

Here's a real answer. If you're so fascinated by the study of entrainment, then find yourself a wind tunnel. There are lots of them in the area. I used to teach with a small one at Caltech, the so-called Student Tunnel, and chances are they'd let you use it under the right circumstances. Give the Aeronautics Department a call. Jerry Landry used to be the lord of wind tunnels, if he hasn't retired yet. (ETA: Now that I think about it, I believe Chris Krok has authority over the tunnels now. Say "hi" to him for me.) I believe there's also one at USC, and you can build your own following plans on the 'net.

The simplest way to test it is to run the wind tunnel with a fixed object suspended in the air stream, a so-called "bluff body." The Caltech Student Tunnel is all ready to go in this respect. You can then stick a smoke wand into the airflow and deposit smoke behind the structure, and watch it persist, watch it illustrate the streaklines behind the object, etc. If it works for smoke, it will work for dust, because more massive particles will have an additional gravity force component pulling them towards the leading bluff body, so they should be even more prone to entrainment.

Large chunks in a wind tunnel are a no-no, though. Too hard to clean. But you can run a "chunk" experiment on a city street with a leaf blower. Set up a cinder block, pour grit of a known granularity behind it, hit it with the leaf blower, and measure how long it takes it to disappear, or remaining weight as a function of time. Back the leaf blower off to several distances to simulate different falling speeds. Very simple, very cheap, very effective.

If you still want to throw something off a cliff, go right ahead. But please be considerate of the environment.



I'm not interested in entrainment per se. I'm interested in attempting to replicate the 9/11 effect which you, Greening, and several others say is easily explainable. That is, that the falling steel members which appear to me to be disintegrating into dust, are actually only shedding pulverized drywall and/or concrete and/or fireproofing.

I will ask again, for the umteenth time. How shall I attach the dust, and what sorts of dust, in order to have the best chance of replicating the effect seen so often on 9/11?

Anybody else want to chime in on the Drafting Drywall experiment?

Currently I think you are all scared to death of this experiment, because you all know perfectly well that it will look nothing like the 9/11 fizzies.

[Horatius]

I will ask again, for the umteenth time. How shall I attach the dust, and what sorts of dust, in order to have the best chance of replicating the effect seen so often on 9/11?

Anybody else want to chime in on the Drafting Drywall experiment?

Currently I think you are all scared to death of this experiment, because you all know perfectly well that it will look nothing like the 9/11 fizzies.




What we know perfectly well is that the scale of the 9/11 events is a factor you can't possibly reproduce - and it's that scale that's a big part of what made the collapses look so odd to some people.

What we also know is, any differences that appear between the results of your experiment and the videos of the collapses will be latched onto, and held up as "proof" of your theory, regardless of how the scale issues might have affected things.

Seriously - you want us to give you some recipe of dust and material to use, when in reality, the mixture was so complicated, that we simply can't know for sure what it was composed of at the time of collapse. We can't know exactly how much of it there was, and how much was attached to the steel, versus being suspended in the air, or how that mixture evolved over time. The mix at the start of the collapse would likely be different than the mix later on.

You're asking us to try and create an experiment with almost no idea what our parameters should be, and that isn't science.

If you're so keen to try something, why don't you just do it? Create a series of mixtures, of many different materials, with particle sizes ranging from dust up to blocks, and see what happens? You don't need our permission.

[Brainache]

I'm not scared of your experiment Ace.

Why don't you buy a big bag of plain flour and empty it all over a short length of steel or even a piece of 2 X 4 wood. Then drop it from a balcony or a garage roof or something. Let us know what it looks like.

Instead of flour, you might try using a bag of cement mix or chalk dust. Make sure you have a long enough drop to be able to observe what happens.

If it doesn't look like those "Fizzies" you keep mentioning, I for one will be quite surprised.

If it does look exactly like what was observed at the WTC, what does it prove? Probably nothing to someone like you.

Oh and it might be good to not try it if it's raining.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'm not scared of your experiment Ace.

Why don't you buy a big bag of plain flour and empty it all over a short length of steel or even a piece of 2 X 4 wood. Then drop it from a balcony or a garage roof or something. Let us know what it looks like.

Instead of flour, you might try using a bag of cement mix or chalk dust. Make sure you have a long enough drop to be able to observe what happens.

If it doesn't look like those "Fizzies" you keep mentioning, I for one will be quite surprised.

If it does look exactly like what was observed at the WTC, what does it prove? Probably nothing to someone like you.

Oh and it might be good to not try it if it's raining.

That's certainly doable. Unlike you, I will be surprised if it looks anything like the 9/11 fizzies.

[MRC_Hans]

That's certainly doable. Unlike you, I will be surprised if it looks anything like the 9/11 fizzies.

Ehr, what exactly do you suggest that the "9/11 fizzies" are? What we can all see is large, heavy structural elements, apparantly mainly steel members, falling freely, trailing something that looks like dust. Kindly explain:

1) Do you disagree with this description? If yes, explain what you think we are observing.

2) If you agree, then explain how this, in your opinion, is incompatible with a gravity collapse scenario.

...It is so much easier to discuss if we know what we are discussing.

Hans

[Belz...]

I'm not interested in entrainment per se. I'm interested in attempting to replicate the 9/11 effect which you, Greening, and several others say is easily explainable.

There should be an obvious reason to you why knowledgeable people think it's easily explanable and laypeople find it hard to understand.

What should be that reason, Seeker ?

[Belz...]

That's certainly doable. Unlike you, I will be surprised if it looks anything like the 9/11 fizzies.

Then build a full-sized tower and pilot a jet through it.

[Mancman]

Please observe the photos which ought to show the existence of the north wall of WTC1. It's not down in WTC6, it's not in Vessy street.

Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking.

This photo was posted by scooby in another thread. Down in the WTC6 hole, there are many pieces of WTC1's northern wall scattered around.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252460001c617f1a.jpg

[Unfit4Command]

This photo was posted by scooby in another thread. Down in the WTC6 hole, there are many pieces of WTC1's northern wall scattered around.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10252460001c617f1a.jpg


I'll answer this picture for ya TruthSeeker!:)

But the whole wall from WTC 1 isn't visible in that photo, therefore all of those wall pieces were planted just to give the image of the North wall causing that hole. The real wall was actually destroyed by a giant laser beam from outerspace. That's clearly the most logical explaination for the whole wall not being visible.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ehr, what exactly do you suggest that the "9/11 fizzies" are? What we can all see is large, heavy structural elements, apparantly mainly steel members, falling freely, trailing something that looks like dust. Kindly explain:

1) Do you disagree with this description? If yes, explain what you think we are observing.

2) If you agree, then explain how this, in your opinion, is incompatible with a gravity collapse scenario.

...It is so much easier to discuss if we know what we are discussing.

Hans

Observations to replicate:

1. Quantity. Relative to the size of the piece, the falling steel emits huge quantities of opaque dust.
2. Continuity. The phenomenon continues for the entire drop.
3. Locality. The dust appears to come from specific locations, or a specific side, on the steel.
4. Fall Time. After leaving the steel, the dust falls rapidly down.
5. Overall appearance. The phenomenon bears a striking resemblance to the nuclear test in Nevada.

In the second photo below, note the many fizzies. I'd like to try to replicat the look of just one of those.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/26_nuke1.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/27_mushroom_site1061.jpg

[Horatius]

Observations to replicate:

1. Quantity. Relative to the size of the piece, the falling steel emits huge quantities of opaque dust.
2. Continuity. The phenomenon continues for the entire drop.
3. Locality. The dust appears to come from specific locations, or a specific side, on the steel.
4. Fall Time. After leaving the steel, the dust falls rapidly down.
5. Overall appearance. The phenomenon bears a striking resemblance to the nuclear test in Nevada.





And you want to do all of that on the scale of something that a person could "throw off a cliff"?

And you expect to get some sort of useful result from this?

Oh, yes, I forgot: useful to you. Because we all know, any discrepancies between your cliff adventures and your perceptions of the pictures of the collapses will be hailed as proof of your theories, regardless.

[Belz...]

1. Quantity. Relative to the size of the piece, the falling steel emits huge quantities of opaque dust.

Yes, there was lots of stuff in the buildings.

2. Continuity. The phenomenon continues for the entire drop.

Yes, otherwise it WOULD be suspicious.

3. Locality. The dust appears to come from specific locations, or a specific side, on the steel.

Yes, steel had stuff on it.

4. Fall Time. After leaving the steel, the dust falls rapidly down.

Yes, we call it gravity.

5. Overall appearance. The phenomenon bears a striking resemblance to the nuclear test in Nevada.

Yes, things that go up, then down tend to do it pretty much in the same way.

In the second photo below, note the many fizzies. I'd like to try to replicat the look of just one of those.

Throw a bouncing ball on the ground.

[Unfit4Command]

Observations to replicate:

1. Quantity. Relative to the size of the piece, the falling steel emits huge quantities of opaque dust.
2. Continuity. The phenomenon continues for the entire drop.
3. Locality. The dust appears to come from specific locations, or a specific side, on the steel.
4. Fall Time. After leaving the steel, the dust falls rapidly down.
5. Overall appearance. The phenomenon bears a striking resemblance to the nuclear test in Nevada.

In the second photo below, note the many fizzies. I'd like to try to replicat the look of just one of those.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/26_nuke1.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/trouble/27_mushroom_site1061.jpg

How much nuclear fallout came from the World Trade Centers?

[GlennB]

Observations to replicate:

1. Quantity. Relative to the size of the piece, the falling steel emits huge quantities of opaque dust.
2. Continuity. The phenomenon continues for the entire drop.
3. Locality. The dust appears to come from specific locations, or a specific side, on the steel.
4. Fall Time. After leaving the steel, the dust falls rapidly down.
5. Overall appearance. The phenomenon bears a striking resemblance to the nuclear test in Nevada.

In the second photo below, note the many fizzies. I'd like to try to replicat the look of just one of those.



On item 3 - yes stuff would tend to come from one side of the metal :


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/partitionwallsystem.jpg
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/TTwallstructure.jpg


(both from NIST reports, sorry I don't have the exact link now)

Drywalling attached to one side of both exterior and interior columns. A section of smashed exterior wall - especially - could certainly be expected to be trailing a cloud of gypsum.

[TruthSeeker1234]

On item 3 - yes stuff would tend to come from one side of the metal :


http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/partitionwallsystem.jpg
http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l131/Ignatz_CT/TTwallstructure.jpg


(both from NIST reports, sorry I don't have the exact link now)

Drywalling attached to one side of both exterior and interior columns. A section of smashed exterior wall - especially - could certainly be expected to be trailing a cloud of gypsum.


Yes, but would it look anything like the 9/11 fizzies? Do you think we can get a falling piece of steel with dust to look anything like the 9/11 fizzies?

Your input would be appreciated.

[Unfit4Command]

Yes, but would it look anything like the 9/11 fizzies? Do you think we can get a falling piece of steel with dust to look anything like the 9/11 fizzies?

Your input would be appreciated.

So what theory do you believe? Mini-nukes or the laser beam theories? Or are you still in the research phase, and deciding on which theory makes more sense, laser beams, or mini-nukes?

I found out some crazy evidence you might be interested in, TS. I was looking at some collapse photo's of the World Trade Centers, and I found some crazy similarities between the collapses and volcanic eruptions.

Look at this lava flow:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/arenal-volcano-observatory-.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/fig9-75.jpg

Look similar?!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/fig9-75.jpg

That's not thermite, or molten aluminum along with other materials in the building, it's lava. Just look at t3h pictures!

Also, I remember you always talking about the califlowering of the dust cloud, take a look at this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/information.jpg

Volcanoes destroyed the World Trade Centers, these photographs prove it. :jaw-dropp

[GlennB]

Do you think we can get a falling piece of steel with dust to look anything like the 9/11 fizzies?

Your input would be appreciated.

If you can arrange to have many thousands of tons of plasterboard-lined steel building to get smashed to pieces in a massive collapse 1000' up, then I'm sure you'll get a similar effect.

[MRC_Hans]

Observations to replicate:

1. Quantity. Relative to the size of the piece, the falling steel emits huge quantities of opaque dust.
2. Continuity. The phenomenon continues for the entire drop.
3. Locality. The dust appears to come from specific locations, or a specific side, on the steel.
4. Fall Time. After leaving the steel, the dust falls rapidly down.
5. Overall appearance. The phenomenon bears a striking resemblance to the nuclear test in Nevada.



I see we have a new term here: Fizzies :rolleyes:.

1: Any reason it shouldn't? Seing the relative fall times, what would you suggest the weight of the dust is, compared to that of the steel?

2: Any reason it shouldn't? There is a certain amount of dust-generating sticking to the steel parts. It gets blown off by the airstream. As the part falls, there is less to blow off, but the airstream gets faster, tending to blow off more. If the fall was indefinite, it would stop at some point, of course.

3: You wouldn't expect it to blow against the airstream, would you? The airstream is strong at certain places in the falling beam.

4: So what? It falls according to its density. Which density do you think it should have?

5: No. At a certain time there is some superficial resemblance. As a sequence, the whole event looks nothing like a nuclear blast. Nothing at all.

You know, you are just shooting stuff out. We don't need to explain to you why things behave like they do, instead of how you think they should do. If you have a specific theory, state it. Along lines like this:

- Phenomenon X could be expected to behave like ______ for _____ reason.

- Instead it behaves like _____ , which indicates ________

Especially the second part is important: As long as you cannot provide an alternative thesis, the fact that we observe things happening in a certain way is evidence against your idea that they should happen in another way.

Hans

[Hokulele]

I see we have a new term here: Fizzies :rolleyes:.


Well, I will say this in TruthSeeker1234's defense, he has stopped using "mushroom cloud" and "pyroclastic flow". He has learned the proper meaning of these terms and is willing to let them go. I do not agree with him on pretty much anything else he has posted, but I do thank him for this much at least. Thank you TS!

Now if Scooby would just stop being condescending to me every time I offer information he has requested . . . *sigh*

[MRC_Hans]

Well, he stopped using them last time we had a similar discussion, too. Only to revive them later. But I don't mind the term fizzies. I just think they were better applied to other things in the CT world ;).

Hans

[Hokulele]

But I don't mind the term fizzies. I just think they were better applied to other things in the CT world ;).


:D

[Horatius]

Well, I will say this in TruthSeeker1234's defense, he has stopped using "mushroom cloud" and "pyroclastic flow". He has learned the proper meaning of these terms and is willing to let them go.



Yeah ... that's temporary. There was a short while where he stopped referring to the pile of debris from the towers as a crater, but now he's back to that. Any improvement he makes is purely temporary, and cosmetic.

[Hokulele]

Yeah ... that's temporary. There was a short while where he stopped referring to the pile of debris from the towers as a crater, but now he's back to that. Any improvement he makes is purely temporary, and cosmetic.

Thanks for the head's up. I will keep my volcano detection sensor turned up to "High".

[TruthSeeker1234]

Well, he stopped using them last time we had a similar discussion, too. Only to revive them later. But I don't mind the term fizzies. I just think they were better applied to other things in the CT world ;).

Hans

No, Hans. "Fizzies" is something different from the pyroclastic flow, which is something different from the mushroom cloud. I began this thread because so many posters were conflating the mushroom cloud with the pyroclastic flows. Now you're conflating the fizzies. I use fizzies to refer to the dustifying pieces of steel.

The current "official" definition of "pyroclastic flow" typically specifies a volcanic origin, so the 9/11 events would be excluded by this definition. However, prior to 9/11, this phenomenon had never been observed, except in volcanoes. 9/11 changed that. The reason that the dust-fluid flow from the twin tower events looked like a pyroclastic flow, is that the same factors were at play: A source of solid material, and a tremendous amount of heat energy to render it into a cloud of fine, dense powder, and expand that cloud into characteristic cauliflower shapes that flow downhill rapidly while continuing to expand.

Another poster suggested the term "density flow". Perhaps.

Mushroom cloud refers to what happens to the smoke. It is above the tower. During the "collapse", it begins expanding and rising.

Fizzies are the steel pieces that trail dust, and appear to be disintegrating into dust,while behaving very energetically. They look like rockets. They are hard to miss. This dust material becomes the pyroclastic flow, but fizzies refers specifically to the dustifying steel.

Hope that clears it up.

[Mr. Skinny]

Hope that clears it up.
In a word, no.

Maybe once I understand how steel is "dustified" and how "pyroclastic flow", which had never been observed prior to 9/11, already had a name and a definition, among other things, I'll be "clear".

[Hokulele]

No, Hans. "Fizzies" is something different from the pyroclastic flow, which is something different from the mushroom cloud. I began this thread because so many posters were conflating the mushroom cloud with the pyroclastic flows. Now you're conflating the fizzies. I use fizzies to refer to the dustifying pieces of steel.

The current "official" definition of "pyroclastic flow" typically specifies a volcanic origin, so the 9/11 events would be excluded by this definition. However, prior to 9/11, this phenomenon had never been observed, except in volcanoes. 9/11 changed that. The reason that the dust-fluid flow from the twin tower events looked like a pyroclastic flow, is that the same factors were at play: A source of solid material, and a tremendous amount of heat energy to render it into a cloud of fine, dense powder, and expand that cloud into characteristic cauliflower shapes that flow downhill rapidly while continuing to expand.

Another poster suggested the term "density flow". Perhaps.

Mushroom cloud refers to what happens to the smoke. It is above the tower. During the "collapse", it begins expanding and rising.

Fizzies are the steel pieces that trail dust, and appear to be disintegrating into dust,while behaving very energetically. They look like rockets. They are hard to miss. This dust material becomes the pyroclastic flow, but fizzies refers specifically to the dustifying steel.

Hope that clears it up.


Grrrr. Pyroclastic flow is characterised by extremely hot gases (500-1000 C). This was not observed in New York.

Mushroom has nothing to do with expansion, but everything to do with rotation and other distribution patterns. This was not observed in New York.

I had complimented you earlier for apparently understanding this. I may be forced to take that back. Stop using these terms inappropriately.

[eryn]

No, Hans. "Fizzies" is something different from the pyroclastic flow, which is something different from the mushroom cloud. I began this thread because so many posters were conflating the mushroom cloud with the pyroclastic flows. Now you're conflating the fizzies. I use fizzies to refer to the dustifying pieces of steel.

The current "official" definition of "pyroclastic flow" typically specifies a volcanic origin, so the 9/11 events would be excluded by this definition. However, prior to 9/11, this phenomenon had never been observed, except in volcanoes. 9/11 changed that. The reason that the dust-fluid flow from the twin tower events looked like a pyroclastic flow, is that the same factors were at play: A source of solid material, and a tremendous amount of heat energy to render it into a cloud of fine, dense powder, and expand that cloud into characteristic cauliflower shapes that flow downhill rapidly while continuing to expand.

Another poster suggested the term "density flow". Perhaps.

Mushroom cloud refers to what happens to the smoke. It is above the tower. During the "collapse", it begins expanding and rising.

Fizzies are the steel pieces that trail dust, and appear to be disintegrating into dust,while behaving very energetically. They look like rockets. They are hard to miss. This dust material becomes the pyroclastic flow, but fizzies refers specifically to the dustifying steel.

Hope that clears it up.

It is not a pyroclastic flow. A pyroclastic flow, as has been pointed out numerous times, is characteristic of volcanoes and volcanoes only. Even if it was a pyroclastic flow (Which is a ridiculous notion in the first place) what exactly would that prove?

That the towers were taken out by a volcano? Do the powers that be now control natural disasters? Come on man.

[Horatius]

... the pyroclastic flow... the mushroom cloud. ... the mushroom cloud ... the pyroclastic flows. ... "pyroclastic flow" ... a pyroclastic flow,...Mushroom cloud ... the pyroclastic flow,

Hope that clears it up.


Oh yes, I'm sure it does.



I had complimented you earlier for apparently understanding this. I may be forced to take that back. Stop using these terms inappropriately.



I did warn you. Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of TS1234. Sisyphus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus) sends his greetings.

[Hokulele]

I did warn you. Welcome to the wonderful wacky world of TS1234. Sisyphus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus) sends his greetings.


Sigh, I had better get my rock-rolling gloves on. :(

[Horatius]

Sigh, I had better get my rock-rolling gloves on. :(



Whatever works for you. I go another way (http://www.rollingrock.com/AgeGate.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fdefault.aspx).


:)

[Redtail]

Dustify?:confused:

[Hokulele]

Whatever works for you. I go another way (http://www.rollingrock.com/AgeGate.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2fdefault.aspx).


:)


Too little flavor. Try this one (http://www.konabrewersfestival.com/Contest.html). :D

[Horatius]

Too little flavor. Try this one (http://www.konabrewersfestival.com/Contest.html). :D



Too bad I missed it! Maybe next year!

[Belz...]

Truthseeker's theory has just dustified.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
Fizzies are the steel pieces that trail dust, and appear to be disintegrating into dust,while behaving very energetically. They look like rockets. They are hard to miss. This dust material becomes the pyroclastic flow, but fizzies refers specifically to the dustifying steel.

Hope that clears it up.

Please describe the process/algorithm whereby a neutral third-party, who is completely unfamiliar with the material in question, could recognize your "fizzies". In doing so, please make sure to include the characterists that are unique to "fizzies" and could not be the result of other sources.

[Pipirr]

snippity

Fizzies are the steel pieces that trail dust, and appear to be disintegrating into dust,while behaving very energetically. They look like rockets. They are hard to miss. This dust material becomes the pyroclastic flow, but fizzies refers specifically to the dustifying steel.

Hope that clears it up.


TS, thanks for this post. It did clear things up somewhat for me, and it helps to know just what threads like this are all about. Appreciated.

[pomeroo]

"Dustifying steel." Yup, I'm going to put this on the air. It's going to follow the slot featuring the guy who runs naked through supermarkets flapping his arms and screaming "Fire!"

[Horatius]

....the slot featuring the guy who runs naked through supermarkets flapping his arms and screaming "Fire!"




Sounds like a good episode!

[Unfit4Command]

"Dustifying steel." Yup, I'm going to put this on the air. It's going to follow the slot featuring the guy who runs naked through supermarkets flapping his arms and screaming "Fire!"

Not only does the steel "dustify", it also disapears completely and hides completely from dust samplings at Ground Zero.

[GlennB]

I've said it before and I'll say it again -

The only answer to the 'dustifying steel' conundrum is nano grinding-wheels. Billions of 'em.

Micro 'nano grinding-wheel' manufacturing plants could easily have been slipped into the core structure. Built from the building's own materials, the nano grinders could be left to accumulate till given the signal to get to work.

(I'd post this at LCF to see how it would run, but I'm banned. If anyone fancies it, feel free)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Please describe the process/algorithm whereby a neutral third-party, who is completely unfamiliar with the material in question, could recognize your "fizzies". In doing so, please make sure to include the characterists that are unique to "fizzies" and could not be the result of other sources.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/Fizzy1.gif

Fizzies are individual pieces of falling debris which trail voluminous quantities of opaque dust behind them. The trailing dust does not cease. Rather, it continues to be produced from the falling piece of debris throughout its journey to the ground.

[Horatius]

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/Fizzy1.gif

The trailing dust does not cease. Rather, it continues to be produced from the falling piece of debris throughout its journey to the ground.


Or throughout its journey as far as we see it - which in your gif is about halfway to the ground. Also note, the piece you highlight comes out of the huge dust cloud in the middle, which would be almost perfect conditions for drafting lots of dust and smoke.


Not that you believe in drafting, of course.


One question: If all this dust is "steel" being "dustified", and it is "dustified" to such an extent that we cannot find 80%+ of the steel afterwards, why isn't the piece you highlight getting smaller as it falls?

[Mr.D]

Fizzies are individual pieces of falling debris which trail voluminous quantities of opaque dust behind them. The trailing dust does not cease. Rather, it continues to be produced from the falling piece of debris throughout its journey to the ground.


Holdonwaitjustaminute.

You are claiming that these "fizzies" you see are the dust trails of debris "dustifying" as they fall. Amongst them are large steel beams.

... 'dustifying'

... as

... they

... fall.

We need a whole new category of smiley for this one.

[pomeroo]

This just gets better and better.

[Belz...]

Fizzies are individual pieces of falling debris which trail voluminous quantities of opaque dust behind them. The trailing dust does not cease. Rather, it continues to be produced from the falling piece of debris throughout its journey to the ground.

Hint: this only means that something attached to the steal is beign knocked off it.

[Horatius]

... 'dustifying'

... as

... they

... fall.

We need a whole new category of smiley for this one.



I'll try to get video of my cat throwing up a hair ball.

[Belz...]

What is it with that cat, anyway ?

[Horatius]

What is it with that cat, anyway ?



I like cats more than I like twoofers.


He's got more personality, and he's more useful too. Has a twoofer ever caught a mouse for you?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Fizzies are individual pieces of falling debris which trail voluminous quantities of opaque dust behind them. The trailing dust does not cease. Rather, it continues to be produced from the falling piece of debris throughout its journey to the ground.
Thank you for your definition. However, I feel some further clarification is needed. Because as it stands your definition of "fizzies" is:
Debris falling from any source, through any medium, under any conditions; made up of any material; giving off a dust trail of any shape, color, and size; that is opaque in nature; and continues to give off the trail until coming to rest.

Does the source of the falling debris matter?
Does the composition of the falling debris matter?
Is "voluminous" a measurement relative to the debris' size? If so, what is the factor, or formula, that describes it?
Does the composition of the dust matter?
Must the dust trail be opaque in nature, or can it be translucent? If translucent, what percentage of light penetration is acceptable?
Must the "continuous" production of the dust trail be uniform in quantity, volume, opaque/translucent/transparent-cy?
Does "produced" in your definition mean that the dust trail is the result of a chemical reaction, a physical action, or both?
Once the debris strikes the ground, is any further product of the chemical and/or physical (re)actions occuring with the debris become moot?

[Unfit4Command]

I seriously don't understand why you wouldn't want this guy on Hardfire! It would be a great way to introduce some people to the "extreme Truth" or whatever you want to call it.

Actually...nvm, I can see more than ever why it would be a bad idea.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Thank you for your definition. However, I feel some further clarification is needed. Because as it stands your definition of "fizzies" is:
Debris falling from any source, through any medium, under any conditions; made up of any material; giving off a dust trail of any shape, color, and size; that is opaque in nature; and continues to give off the trail until coming to rest.
Does the source of the falling debris matter?
Does the composition of the falling debris matter?
Is "voluminous" a measurement relative to the debris' size? If so, what is the factor, or formula, that describes it?
Does the composition of the dust matter?
Must the dust trail be opaque in nature, or can it be translucent? If translucent, what percentage of light penetration is acceptable?
Must the "continuous" production of the dust trail be uniform in quantity, volume, opaque/translucent/transparent-cy?
Does "produced" in your definition mean that the dust trail is the result of a chemical reaction, a physical action, or both?
Once the debris strikes the ground, is any further product of the chemical and/or physical (re)actions occuring with the debris become moot?

You have the cart before the horse. Fizzies refers to a phenomenon observed on 9/11. We'd like to find out what it is. Judy Wood said that it looks like steel disintegrating. Steven Jones has said it looks like thermite. Frank Greening and several others have said it looks like drafting drywall.

If it is possible that crushed building materials falling off of a piece of steel can produce this effect, it ought to be possible to recrete it.

For now, the definition is specific to 9/11. When we have established what actually produced these effects, perhaps we can then give a more general defintion, or some better term.

[Unfit4Command]

How long does the steel "dustify" before the laser beam in outerspace quits focusing on it? Because I was looking at a few pictures and noticed this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/dustifyingsteelAHHH.jpg

Looks like the "fizzie" is about to stop and guess what?! The steel is still there!! Who would have thought that would happen?

[Horatius]

How long does the steel "dustify" before the laser beam in outerspace quits focusing on it? Because I was looking at a few pictures and noticed this:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/dustifyingsteelAHHH.jpg

Looks like the "fizzie" is about to stop and guess what?! The steel is still there!! Who would have thought that would happen?



Sorry, no true fizzie wear underwear under their kilt......or something.......

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You have the cart before the horse. Fizzies refers to a phenomenon observed on 9/11. We'd like to find out what it is. Judy Wood said that it looks like steel disintegrating. Steven Jones has said it looks like thermite. Frank Greening and several others have said it looks like drafting drywall.

If it is possible that crushed building materials falling off of a piece of steel can produce this effect, it ought to be possible to recrete it.

For now, the definition is specific to 9/11. When we have established what actually produced these effects, perhaps we can then give a more general defintion, or some better term.
I most certainly do not have the cart before the horse. What I have, is you providing an overly vague definition. At the moment, your definition of "fizzies" is akin to you asking me to define "dog" and me telling you it is furry and has four legs. If "fizzies" are to be recognizable by someone that is neutral, and unfamiliar with the discussion, then the definition must be detailed enough, and descrete enough, for them to be able to identify them accurately, and within mistaken other things that are not "fizzies" for being "fizzies".

Look at my questions again, I think you are reading too much in to them. I'm not asking you to tell me what the composition of the falling debris is; I'm only asking if its makeup matters when defining/recognizing "fizzies". etc.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I most certainly do not have the cart before the horse. What I have, is you providing an overly vague definition. At the moment, your definition of "fizzies" is akin to you asking me to define "dog" and me telling you it is furry and has four legs. If "fizzies" are to be recognizable by someone that is neutral, and unfamiliar with the discussion, then the definition must be detailed enough, and descrete enough, for them to be able to identify them accurately, and within mistaken other things that are not "fizzies" for being "fizzies".

Look at my questions again, I think you are reading too much in to them. I'm not asking you to tell me what the composition of the falling debris is; I'm only asking if its makeup matters when defining/recognizing "fizzies". etc.

Arkan, for crying out loud. The twin towers exploded into dust. Many, many chunks of building, from huge to small, were propelled sideways, and fell down. These chunks had dust trails. Huge dust trails. Opaque dust trails. Thick, dense dust trails. The dust then fell, almost as rapidly as the aforementioned chunks of building.

If there is a chunk of building falling, and it is giving off a huge trail of dense dust which falls rapidly, it is a fizzy. If you have a questionable chunk, post a video, and I will examine it.

Goodness gracious you folks are great at missing the point.

The point is: Steel turned to dust. Below is not a fizzie. Below is something even more astonishing.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/dustspire.gif

If you think the fizzies can be explained by something innocent, like drafting drywall, then let's have an experiment. If it is drafting drywall, we should be able to recreate a small fizzy.

[Brainache]

I suggested an experiment for you before Ace. How did that work out?

Here's another one:

Take a sheet of Gyprock(plasterboard, wallboard, sheetrock whatever you guys call it) The type that has thick paper on either side of gypsum, lay it on a flat surface and bash it with a hammer so that the gypsum is shattered, but the paper remains intact. Then attach this to a beam of some sort(metal or wood, not laser) and throw it off your roof(watch out below!). Tell me it won't leave a trail of dust as it falls.

[MRC_Hans]

Goodness gracious you folks are great at missing the point.

The point is: Steel turned to dust. Below is not a fizzie. Below is something even more astonishing.

No, you are missing the point. Or, I suspect, you are carfully ignoring the point: We have better methods of determining the composition of the dust than watching videos and speculating. We have better methods of determining the composition of the dust than throwing things down.

We can, or rather could, examine the dust itself. This was done, and it consisted of gypsum, some concrete and a number of other ingredients that have already been listed in detail in this thread. There was no steel powder. There were no chemical derivatives of steel powder. There were no mystical components at all in that dust. It contained just the range of easily crushable, fairly light parts that that you would expect the dust from a collapsing skyscraper to contain.

Hans

[Belz...]

You have the cart before the horse. Fizzies refers to a phenomenon observed on 9/11.

And ONLY to this phenomenon ?

We'd like to find out what it is.

No, you already "know" what it is.

Judy Wood said that it looks like steel disintegrating. Steven Jones has said it looks like thermite. Frank Greening and several others have said it looks like drafting drywall.

Now, which one seems more credible, considering what's happening ?

Arkan, for crying out loud. The twin towers exploded into dust. Many, many chunks of building, from huge to small, were propelled sideways, and fell down. These chunks had dust trails. Huge dust trails. Opaque dust trails. Thick, dense dust trails. The dust then fell, almost as rapidly as the aforementioned chunks of building.

The problem, Seeker, is that you're comparing it to actual building demolitions, in which the drywall and other non-structural elements have been removed prior to collapse, so you'll find very few instances of this happening.

The point is: Steel turned to dust.

No, it didn't, since we find LOTS of steel in the debris after the collapse. And by "lots" I mean "all of it".

Below is not a fizzie. Below is something even more astonishing.

What's astonishing ?

[JimBenArm]

Below is not a fizzie. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_127934603bdb659338.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4740)]

Yeah, this is a Fizzie!

[The Doc]

You know...

I am pretty sure a column of steel that just had 110 stories of building collapse around it would be literally coated in dust after something like that.

[Brainache]

I sincerely hope Ace decides to try the experiments I suggested. I also hope he gets someone, maybe one of his kids to video it for us.

I have a vision of Ace wearing overalls and safety goggles flinging bits of steel coated in self raising flour from the roof of his garage while we listen to his kid saying: "That's my dad on the garage roof throwing stuff around to prove that a laser beam destroyed the world trade center".

It would be the funniest CT scenario since Spooked destroyed the rabbit cage.

[pomeroo]

[quote=TruthSeeker1234;2451204]Arkan, for crying out loud. The twin towers exploded into dust. Many, many chunks of building, from huge to small, were propelled sideways, and fell down. These chunks had dust trails. Huge dust trails. Opaque dust trails. Thick, dense dust trails. The dust then fell, almost as rapidly as the aforementioned chunks of building.

If there is a chunk of building falling, and it is giving off a huge trail of dense dust which falls rapidly, it is a fizzy. If you have a questionable chunk, post a video, and I will examine it.

Goodness gracious you folks are great at missing the point.

The point is: Steel turned to dust. Below is not a fizzie. Below is something even more astonishing.




http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/dustspire.gif

If you think the fizzies can be explained by something innocent, like drafting drywall, then let's have an experiment. If it is drafting drywall, we should be able to recreate a small fizzy.



Absolutely NO steel turned to dust.

There is no such thing as a "fizzy."

You are insane.

[T.A.M.]

Ron;

I am now beginning to wonder if you shouldn't have ACE on the show...

RON: Hi, and welcome to Hardfire. Today we have as our guest, ACE BAKER. He is a musician. Today he is here to explain how the steel in the twin towers turned to dust when the buildings collapsed.

ACE: Thanks Ron.

RON: So ACE, please tell us.

ACE: Ok. So the USA secretly developed these enormously powerful High energy beam weapons. These weapons, in space, sent down to earth very powerful beams of energy which caused the collapses of the towers. As a result, as the steel fell to the earth, it created "FIZZIES" which are the dustified trails created by steel as it turns to dust.

RON: okie dokie. (turns to producer) Can we go to commercial?

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

Ron;

I am now beginning to wonder if you shouldn't have ACE on the show...

RON: Hi, and welcome to Hardfire. Today we have as our guest, ACE BAKER. He is a musician. Today he is here to explain how the steel in the twin towers turned to dust when the buildings collapsed.

ACE: Thanks Ron.

RON: So ACE, please tell us.

ACE: Ok. So the USA secretly developed these enormously powerful High energy beam weapons. These weapons, in space, sent down to earth very powerful beams of energy which caused the collapses of the towers. As a result, as the steel fell to the earth, it created "FIZZIES" which are the dustified trails created by steel as it turns to dust.

RON: okie dokie. (turns to producer) Can we go to commercial?

TAM:)



TAM, this is precisely why I pulled the plug. As soon as he opens his mouth, he establishes beyond dispute that he is mad. The two other people present become superfluous. I'm left to explain to the producer and angry letter-writers why I felt this drivel was worth airing. It would be a half-hour of Ace conjuring up fantastic interpretations of the video being shown, Greening patiently trying to explain why Ace's fantasies are nonsense, and yours truly repeatedly asking Ace if anything is sinking in. A freak show, pure and simple.

[TruthSeeker1234]

TAM, this is precisely why I pulled the plug. As soon as he opens his mouth, he establishes beyond dispute that he is mad. The two other people present become superfluous. I'm left to explain to the producer and angry letter-writers why I felt this drivel was worth airing. It would be a half-hour of Ace conjuring up fantastic interpretations of the video being shown, Greening patiently trying to explain why Ace's fantasies are nonsense, and yours truly repeatedly asking Ace if anything is sinking in. A freak show, pure and simple.


Not quite. You're assuming I was there to present a postive case, and Greening was there to debunk it. Not so. Greening was to be there to present his positive case for a gravity collapse, and I was there to debunk it.

It would have been a half hour of Greening claiming that a top block crushed down through the undamaged structure, and me showing video that clearly shows the top block becoming half its height before the lower structure moves an inch. Greening claiming only 10-20 percent of the mass landed outside the footprint, I show video of the towers exploding, and photos of the footprint afterwards. Etc.

Wieck backed out because he is an intelligent man.

[The Doc]

Not quite. You're assuming I was there to present a postive case, and Greening was there to debunk it. Not so. Greening was to be there to present his positive case for a gravity collapse, and I was there to debunk it.

It would have been a half hour of Greening claiming that a top block crushed down through the undamaged structure, and me showing video that clearly shows the top block becoming half its height before the lower structure moves an inch. Greening claiming only 10-20 percent of the mass landed outside the footprint, I show video of the towers exploding, and photos of the footprint afterwards. Etc.

Wieck backed out because he is an intelligent man.

.... HHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Damn dude!

[T.A.M.]

TAM, this is precisely why I pulled the plug. As soon as he opens his mouth, he establishes beyond dispute that he is mad. The two other people present become superfluous. I'm left to explain to the producer and angry letter-writers why I felt this drivel was worth airing. It would be a half-hour of Ace conjuring up fantastic interpretations of the video being shown, Greening patiently trying to explain why Ace's fantasies are nonsense, and yours truly repeatedly asking Ace if anything is sinking in. A freak show, pure and simple.

Yes. I guess I had my focus on allowing the CTers to discredit themselves on TV. I hadn't thought, as I should have, that your viewers are actually articulate watchers who would actually like to see a valid debate on the issue. Given this is the case, I am glad you "pulled it". Perhaps Greening vs Jones (stephen) or Greening vs Ross (Gordon) then, at some point...hopefully.

TAM:)

[cloudshipsrule]

The point is: Steel turned to dust. Below is not a fizzie. Below is something even more astonishing.

You are an ABSOLUTE IDIOT.

[Horatius]

It would have been a half hour of Greening claiming that a top block crushed down through the undamaged structure, and me showing video that clearly shows the top block becoming half its height before the lower structure moves an inch.



Still don't get the concept of "model", huh?

Hey, pomeroo, has Dr. Greening been able to sign up here yet? I'd really, really, like him to put TS straight on his "beliefs" about the top block. So far, I haven't been able to get it across. Big surprise, I know....

[babazaroni]

Still don't get the concept of "model", huh?

Hey, pomeroo, has Dr. Greening been able to sign up here yet? I'd really, really, like him to put TS straight on his "beliefs" about the top block. So far, I haven't been able to get it across. Big surprise, I know....

Somehow, I don't think Greening will have much success either.

[pomeroo]

Not quite. You're assuming I was there to present a postive case, and Greening was there to debunk it. Not so. Greening was to be there to present his positive case for a gravity collapse, and I was there to debunk it.

It would have been a half hour of Greening claiming that a top block crushed down through the undamaged structure, and me showing video that clearly shows the top block becoming half its height before the lower structure moves an inch. Greening claiming only 10-20 percent of the mass landed outside the footprint, I show video of the towers exploding, and photos of the footprint afterwards. Etc.

Wieck backed out because he is an intelligent man.



You are a raving lunatic and a complete ignoramus, but you stumbled on a great truth in your last sentence.

[TruthSeeker1234]

For those interested in Greening's discussion, he is NEU-FONZE on

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1620

Says Greening:


The [NIST] fire models cannot explain the formation of vaporized zinc or the molten iron!

Dr. Greening has informed me quite clearly that he does not support the government theory of 9/11, that he is an "independent thinker". Currently he is ripping the NIST report to shreds.

[pomeroo]

For those interested in Greening's discussion, he is NEU-FONZE on

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1620

Says Greening:



Dr. Greening has informed me quite clearly that he does not support the government theory of 9/11, that he is an "independent thinker". Currently he is ripping the NIST report to shreds.



No, he is pointing out minor discrepancies. But, then, that would be an accurate statement and we are well-acquainted with your attitude toward accuracy.

[T.A.M.]

Good TS. Maybe you can convert him into a "No Planer"...lol

We will see what happens with Dr. Greening. Don't get your hopes up.

TAM:)

[Unfit4Command]

For those interested in Greening's discussion, he is NEU-FONZE on

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1620

Says Greening:



Dr. Greening has informed me quite clearly that he does not support the government theory of 9/11, that he is an "independent thinker". Currently he is ripping the NIST report to shreds.

Does Greening support the laser beam theory, no plane theory, or the explosive demolition theory?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Does Greening support the laser beam theory, no plane theory, or the explosive demolition theory?

He supports his gravity collapse theory.

[TruthSeeker1234]

He calls the NIST report a joke. Greening:

Look at the temperatures quoted in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F, which are different to NIST NCSTAR 1-5G, which are different to NIST NCSTAR 1-5, which are different to the paper by S. K. Choi...

The joke is ALL THESE MODELLED TEMPERATURES IGNORE THE FLOOR PAN COMPLETELY!

They ASSUME it simply wasn't there.....

(Perhaps they too think it was VAPORIZED!!!!)

So Arthur, and all you NIST APOLOGISTS, pick a number, any number will do, then tell me that was the temperature of the floor pans on floors, 92, 93, 94, 95 96, 97, 98 and 99 in WTC 1 and on floors 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 in WTC 2.

Tell me it was 900, or 911, or 950, or 1050 deg C.....

You HAVE TO ADMIT these are all guesses - wild guesses - with different assumptions that may or may not be valid. Choi ASSUMES a completely unprotected composite truss. I doubt if all the insulation was blasted off.

Arthur says there was NO thermal insulation on the floor pans - complete and utter BS!

Simply put:

The fire models cannot explain the formation of vaporized zinc or the molten iron!

NF



Ignoring vaporized zinc, molten iron, ignoring the steel floor pans (which disappeared by the way), these are minor discrepancies? Would a serious scientist such as Dr. Greening call NIST a "joke" based on minor discrepancies?

[WildCat]

For those interested in Greening's discussion, he is NEU-FONZE
How do you know this?

[TruthSeeker1234]

How do you know this?

Because I know Dr. Greening. He has been very generous to me with his time, as we discussed 9/11 matters on the physorg board, and in emails.

[A W Smith]

well now your just flaunting your stupidity Ace. The example of yours in the little gif animation clearly show steel more apparent to be intact as it "dustifies in fizzies" the closer it gets to the ground!!! You know these exterior box columns had spray on fireproofing on three of their four sides correct? and that it had the consistency of thirty year old wedding cake?

[Belz...]

He supports his gravity collapse theory.

Yes, gravity had something to do with it.

Are you going to answer this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2452204&postcount=337)anytime soon, Seeker ?

[stateofgrace]

Because I know Dr. Greening. He has been very generous to me with his time, as we discussed 9/11 matters on the physorg board, and in emails.

Ace are you sure,that Dr.Greening is posting under the name of NEU-FONZE?

I would like some proof of this please.

[T.A.M.]

Ron Weick posted a letter here some time ago with Greenings user name over there. it was Neu-Fonze a play on 9/11 (french).

TS, most of us see through your feeble, childish attempt to make us upset because someone YOU consider one of us is daring to challenge elements of the NIST.

Why don't you ask Dr. Greening what his stance is on how the WTCs collapsed, how WTC7 collapsed, and who was behind the 9/11 attacks. You know why you wont mention it, because you know he likely is nothing close to the dimwit you appear to be.

I applaud Dr. Greening, if through legitimate science he is critiquing the NIST reports. Good for him.. Lets see where it ends up before either of us hail him as another scientist in either court.

TAM:)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77214&page=3&highlight=neu-fonze

[Belz...]

Anytime you're ready, Seeker.

[Mancman]

We observe nothing of the sort in the photos you cite as evidence because the 'sandwich' was underground.

Evidence please. I have looked and looked, and found essentially no evidence for the existence of the floor assemblies.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/HTRHome.html


Evidence that the floorplates piled up in the basement: http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/nov01/NNwtc.html

The primary challenge facing workers below ground is how to remove debris from the WTC's 16-acre basement without tipping over the Center's slurry wall. The three-foot thick slurry wall surrounds the periphery of the basin of the site and extends down roughly 60 or 70 feet, where it is socketed into rock - mica schist. The slabs of the basement's six floors provided the lateral support for the wall, which keeps the Hudson River and surrounding sediments from entering the foundation and basement. When the twin towers of the World Trade Center crashed down, so too crumbled the six supporting floors, "so the slabs are not there, the floors are not there, but the debris is doing what the floors used to do"