Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow [Archive]

TruthSeeker1234

13th March 2007, 10:29 PM

The mushroom cloud and the pyroclastic flow are two different, distinct features of the WTC events.

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cWph6gqGnU"]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cWph6gqGnU

Perhaps someone can teach me how to embed youtube.

Please observe the video linked above. There is dark smoke above the tower which is lazily wafting away before the demolition begins. As the tower explodes, the dark smoke expands and rises, an irrefutable proof of a large heat energy input. By the end of this video, the top of the plume is huge and towering, and displaying sharp cauliflower shaped boundries, as opposed to the diffused smoke that was present before the explosions began.

The pyroclastic flow is something else. The material from the building is being rapidly transformed into fine, dense powder. This is no ordinary dust from drywall or fireproofing. Such ordinary dust will mix with the air and fall very slowly. Because it is dense, it falls very rapidly to the ground. There is no other explanation for the rapid fall other than high density. The fall time of the dust is irrefutable proof that it is very dense.

This stuff behaved as a fluid. It fell rapidly and spread out along the ground, and expanded very rapidly, forming characteristic cauliflower shapes, maintaining distinct boundries with the air for some time. This is irrefutable proof that this fluid had higher pressure than the surrounding air. There is no other explanation for the expansion combined with the distinct boundries. It was pressurized, and thus was seeking to equalize pressure with the surrounding air.

http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc69_small.JPG

I hope this clears up the disinformation expressed by some members on other threads. The mushroom cloud does not go down, it goes up and expands. Whether you wish to call the dust behaviour a pyroclastic flow or not is irrelevant. Call it anything you wish, the dust was dense, it behaved as a fluid, and it was pressurized.

The Demon's Head

13th March 2007, 10:33 PM

What do you intend to prove with your fantasies?

Pardalis

13th March 2007, 10:39 PM

I'm vexed... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76857

:cry1

DavidJames

13th March 2007, 10:40 PM

What do you intend to do with this information?

Have you presented it to scientists, engineers or physicists, what did they say?

Why were you unable to find the thread created for you about this specific topic, on this same page?

I'm guessing the last two questions are intimately related.

~enigma~

13th March 2007, 10:40 PM

The pyroclastic flow is something else.Could you please tell us what the temperature and speed of the pyroclastic flow at the wtc was? Can you explain what the ptroclastic flow did to the people of Pompeii?

Maybe you should read this....

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/Pyroflows.html

or change your name on LCF to DisinfoMoron.

Redtail

13th March 2007, 10:49 PM

I'm vexed... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76857

:cry1

[Rev Lovejoy] There there... There there.[/rev lovejoy]

TruthSeeker1234

13th March 2007, 10:50 PM

The point is to get you JREFs to agree that:

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)
2. The dust that fell was very dense
3. The dust that fell behaved as a fluid, and was pressurized

~enigma~

13th March 2007, 10:54 PM

The point is to get you JREFs to agree that:

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)
2. The dust that fell was very dense
3. The dust the fell behaved as a fluid, and was pressurized
Then you should say that instead of claiming there was a pyroclastic flow which shows your scientific ignorance.

ETA - To ease your YouTube ignorance, check this link...

http://forums.randi.org/misc.php?do=bbcode

beachnut

13th March 2007, 11:00 PM

The pyroclastic flow is something else. The material from the building is being rapidly transformed into fine, dense powder. This is no ordinary dust from drywall or fireproofing.

Call it anything you wish, the dust was dense, it behaved as a fluid, and it was pressurized.

Why are you so challenged on this? Yes it is drywall, fireproofing, insulation, ceiling tiles and concrete. It is not the powder that is dense it is the researcher!

No the dust is not pressurized. You can not be pressurized in open air, you have to contain something to be pressurized. What are you talking about? Stop watching TV.

, and displaying sharp cauliflower shaped boundries, as opposed to the diffused smoke that was present before the explosions began.
And this means? What is your point? Clouds look like they have sharp cauliflower boundaries until you get close and then they are just water vapor. Same here, it is dust, lots of dust, get close and it is still dust, and the boundary is not so sharp.

Do you get random drug tested ever?

R.Mackey

13th March 2007, 11:06 PM

I'm not even going to respond to this. Y'all know how to reach me if you need me.

ETA: beachnut, you are in rare form tonight. Bullseye.

Pardalis

13th March 2007, 11:14 PM

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)

Seriously, how do you expect the smoke and the dust to behave when a building collapses?

Seriously.

Babbylonian

13th March 2007, 11:15 PM

~enigma~

13th March 2007, 11:19 PM

Here is a pyroclastic flow...

ciEUtv9HiIM

Up in smoke goes the "proof of a CD" bs...

babazaroni

13th March 2007, 11:29 PM

There is another possible explanation for those flows you see. At the front of the flows you see large heavy chunks of debris, followed by a stream of material.

In swimming and biking, it's a common tactic to draft behind someone in front of you to save you considerable energy as the leader must break through still water or air (even a headwind). Those behind encounter less resistance so they can sometimes even rest while the leader is working hard.

I think those large heavy objects are creating a lower resistance path behind them for the less dense debris to follow.

TruthSeeker1234

13th March 2007, 11:34 PM

Seriously, how do you expect the smoke and the dust to behave when a building collapses?

Seriously.

Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.

~enigma~

13th March 2007, 11:36 PM

Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.
Talk about giving a guy enough rope :)

Why are you guys even dignifying this woo with rational responses?

Zep

13th March 2007, 11:38 PM

Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.

:crazy:

You are not even tangentially impinging on reality, are you.

~enigma~

13th March 2007, 11:39 PM

Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down.
Deep...really deep...

:dl:

TruthSeeker1234

13th March 2007, 11:42 PM

Unfit4Command

13th March 2007, 11:46 PM

Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.

The source of the smoke also pancaked and forced all of the smoke out. Why would you expect it to continue to fall with the building once all of it is pushed out? It would begin rising just like all of the smoke did before.

Brainster

13th March 2007, 11:47 PM

realitybites

13th March 2007, 11:49 PM

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e.
I went camping last year. Dad made a campfire. The smoke rose and expanded. I made some smores. I ate the smores. Dad laughs. I ask dad why he laughs. He tells me he started the fire by setting off a thermonuclear device with thermite. I know have three tongues.

Conspiracy.

~enigma~

13th March 2007, 11:52 PM

I do get the feeling that these folks think that we should be able to pop up for them on YouTube some giant collapse that was not controlled demolition, where there are the "pyroclastic" flows. It's like "Hey, when have you seen a giant building collapse without being controlled demolition?" Uh, never except for 9-11. "You see?"

Let's turn it around; ask them to show us a giant collapse of a building that did not result in dust cauliflower clouds.
Didn't I post a YouTube video of a pyroclastic flow that was from a volcano and not a CD? The woo say a pyroclastic flow is proof positive of a CD. I say the woo have suffered a psychotic break.

Pardalis

13th March 2007, 11:56 PM

I say the woo have suffered a psychotic break.

Too much JAQing off does that.

Unfit4Command

14th March 2007, 12:00 AM

Didn't I post a YouTube video of a pyroclastic flow that was from a volcano and not a CD? The woo say a pyroclastic flow is proof positive of a CD. I say the woo have suffered a psychotic break.

If that cloud of dust really was a pyroclastic flow then it's amazing how anyone who couldn't outrun it survived, considering the fact that the gases are usually 500-1000 degrees Celsius inside the flow.

~enigma~

14th March 2007, 12:05 AM

If that cloud of dust really was a pyroclastic flow then it's amazing how anyone who couldn't outrun it survived, considering the fact that the gases are usually 500-1000 degrees Celsius inside the flow.
IOW a pyroclastic flow would kill you and sterilize you at the same time. As an aside, there was bacteria that actually survived Vesuvius' pyroclastic flow - not many though ;)

If there really was a pyroclastic flow in NYC can we even begin to comprehend the death toll there would have been. On the plus side, the NY truth group and alot of woos wouldn't be around :)

realitybites

14th March 2007, 12:06 AM

beachnut

14th March 2007, 01:47 AM

Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.

Yes, you are seriously challenged on the facts. I expect you have been with Judy and the dustified steel. It is sad you have been beamed by the coma woman. She lost her job, just after she exposed her insanity.

beachnut

14th March 2007, 01:59 AM

How would we test this "drywall and fireproofing" hypothesis? Could we not get a large steel beam, or some other heavy dense object representing a steel beam, and attach to it some drywall, and/or crushed drywall, and/or fireproofing, and/or crushed concrete and then throw it off a cliff or a building and try to recreate this phenomenon?

Suppose you 9/11 deniers suggest the ideal method, most favorable to recreate dust which falls as fast as steel, and continues to appear as though it is coming out of the steel the entire way down. I think if it is really just some pulverized drywall, this should be easy to recreate.

Since the entire building had tons of drywall attached to the steel columns I wonder how you missed the fact the is two pieces of drywall used as fire protection. That was 1.5 inches of drywall attached to most of the WTC steel. Just like a house that collapses and spews crushed wall board dust all over, so did the WTC. Now the WTC was big because of the energy of stored due to gravity in the building. EACH building had 248 TONS of TNT energy released to do what you saw on 9/11. No test needed, check out the favorite woo wootube video of house collaspe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRkdD35p-YQ

Dust! More dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6fgG9lMpiQ

Oops a pyroclasticplow, of dustified wood.

The Doc

14th March 2007, 02:41 AM

The dust cloud we saw on 9/11 was a density flow. A density flow is a mixture of debris particles (eg. dust) and air much denser than normal air. Density flows, whether in air or water, can maintain their identity for much longer.

A density flow will run out of momentum over time. Once they lose momentum, they stop moving. The denser parts of the flow will settle out and the lighter parts will mix with the surrounding medium.

Density flows can flow over water, or even in water.

So now we know what did occur within the dust cloud on 9/11, we'll now look at why a pyroclastic surge did not occur. First of all, we must note that Pyroclastic Surges are exclusive to volcanoes and only volcanoes.

The US Geological survey website provides us with a definition of a pyroclastic flow. Let's read it.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Products/Pglossary/PyroFlow.html

“A pyroclastic flow is a ground-hugging avalanche of hot ash, pumice, rock fragments, and volcanic gas that rushes down the side of a volcano as fast as 100 km/hour or more. The temperature within a pyroclastic flow may be greater than 500° C, sufficient to burn and carbonize wood. Once deposited, the ash, pumice, and rock fragments may deform (flatten) and weld together because of the intense heat and the weight of the overlying material.”
Emphasis Mine

So we are supposed to believe the cloud created by the collapse of both WTC's was moving over 100km/h and had temperatures sufficient to carbonize wood? We're talking a dust cloud that would have been over 500°C moving through New York City and causing no damage what-so-ever.

The dust cloud was described as hot, but that was by people in the middle of it. That rules out the 500°C option. Quite simply, no one anywhere near the World Trade Center complex would have survived a pyroclastic surge floating over them. But what about speed? The dust cloud was slowly moving. So that rules out the 100km/h option. Not looking good for the Pyroclastic Surge case at all is it?

MRC_Hans

14th March 2007, 03:45 AM

Not that this will make any difference for TS1+2=4, but for the proverbial lurkers, and just so he can't truthfully say nobody answered him:

The point is to get you JREFs to agree that:

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)

Smoke usually does. However, the distinct mushroom cloud just after the collapse is probably dust raising on the warm air, partly from the fires, partly from heat generated during the collapse.

2. The dust that fell was very dense

Depends on what you mean by dense. People were in there, breathing the stuff, and surviving it (we still don't know the long-term effects). It was dense enough that most the clouds settled within about 15 minutes.

3. The dust that fell behaved as a fluid,

A fluid? Show us one example of a fluid producing convection clouds in air. (Not an aerosol, a fluid).

and was pressurized

Obviously, there was an over-pressure. Otherwise, it would not have spread. DO I need to explain to you where the pressure came from? (hint: About 1.7 million cubic metres of air had just been expelled from the collapsing building)

Hans

MRC_Hans

14th March 2007, 03:50 AM

.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Haha. There are plenty of pictures with solid steel AND dust falling at the same time. Please how us one where the dust falls almost as rapidly as the steel.

Ordinary dust? Who says it was ordinary dust? How ordinary is the dust from a collapsing skyscraper?

Hans

gumboot

14th March 2007, 04:53 AM

The point is to get you JREFs to agree that:

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)

No it didn't. If it rose, moments after the collapse there would be a big mushroom cloud over New York. There wasn't.

2. The dust that fell was very dense

How do you define "very dense"? I would say it was less dense than water, which has a density of 1. Would you consider water very dense?

3. The dust that fell behaved as a fluid, and was pressurized

I don't know what you mean by "was pressurized" but dust clouds ARE a fluid, so it's really no surprise if that behave like one.

-Gumboot

The Doc

14th March 2007, 05:04 AM

TwoofSeeker1234
Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Twoofseeker1234
The point is to get you JREFs to agree that:

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)

The mushroom cloud does not go down, it goes up and expands.
See my point? :)

Belz...

14th March 2007, 08:13 AM

Summary: it looks like something, therefore it MUST be that thing.

Stellafane

14th March 2007, 08:59 AM

As usual, I have nothing of substance to add to this discussion. (Even at my best -- or most fevered -- I'd be hard pressed to compete with "cauliflower clouds.") But I thought I'd just check in to say that this may well be the single most insane thread I've seen in this forum. Which, considering the competition, is really saying something.

Belz...

14th March 2007, 10:03 AM

Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it.

...Er... No. No it wouldn't.

It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Like most dust clouds this size.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

So is it rising or falling ?

Seriously.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_608045f81cc027256.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=4571)

Belz...

14th March 2007, 10:04 AM

Pipirr

14th March 2007, 10:16 AM

I have no idea what this is about.

Something to do with gravity? Being turned off by a death ray?

Or a volcano?

Like in that one movie?

Horatius

14th March 2007, 10:46 AM

I have no idea what this is about.

I could try to explain it at the next Ottawa get together. We'll need beer. Lots of it. Take a cab :)

Pardalis

14th March 2007, 10:50 AM

I could try to explain it at the next Ottawa get together. We'll need beer. Lots of it. Take a cab :)

And get some Tylenol, on the way back.

ETA: Nah, forget about that, it wouldn't be too good with all that beer. But you'll get one major headache.

Pipirr

14th March 2007, 11:01 AM

I could try to explain it at the next Ottawa get together. We'll need beer. Lots of it. Take a cab :)

Sounds good. Do we need mentos and coke and soda volcanoes?

Horatius

14th March 2007, 11:12 AM

Sounds good. Do we need mentos and coke and soda volcanoes?

Well, I wouldn't say "need", but it would certainly be entertaining!

OMGturt1es

14th March 2007, 12:04 PM

WildCat

14th March 2007, 12:12 PM

i cannot fathom exactly how some of you (TS!), can continue, to this day, to incorrcetly refer to the dust form the WTC building collapses as pyroclastic flows.

a pyroclastic flow is EXCLUSIVELY a volcanic event. is there some part of this that you do not understand? if you had taken just a fraction of a second to research your own claims, you'd have avoided insulting volcanology.

once more, a pyroclastic flow can occur *ONLY* through volcanism, by definition. period.
Give TS1234's other idiotic beliefs I wouldn't doubt that he does believe the NWO created a volcano under the WTC.

Pipirr

14th March 2007, 12:29 PM

i cannot fathom exactly how some of you (TS!), can continue, to this day, to incorrcetly refer to the dust form the WTC building collapses as pyroclastic flows.

a pyroclastic flow is EXCLUSIVELY a volcanic event. is there some part of this that you do not understand? if you had taken just a fraction of a second to research your own claims, you'd have avoided insulting volcanology.

once more, a pyroclastic flow can occur *ONLY* through volcanism, by definition. period.

Give TS1234's other idiotic beliefs I wouldn't doubt that he does believe the NWO created a volcano under the WTC.

Well of course he must, as pyroclastic flows can only be volcanic, and there was a pyroclastic flow at the WTC.

Ergo, a volcano did it. A really evil volcano, that hates it's own people and paid off the FDNY.

Gravy

14th March 2007, 12:46 PM

TS, what are you doing indoors with only a few days left in rubble season?

T.A.M.

14th March 2007, 01:11 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL5VEzlYtgo

Pipirr

14th March 2007, 01:17 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL5VEzlYtgo

I saw cauliflower.

Unfit4Command

14th March 2007, 01:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL5VEzlYtgo

That building was clearly demolished with laser beams.

Pardalis

14th March 2007, 01:31 PM

I don't know about you guys, but I hear an helicopter... a black helicopter maybe?

:boxedin:

Unfit4Command

14th March 2007, 01:33 PM

I don't know about you guys, but I hear an helicopter... a black helicopter maybe?

:boxedin:

The helicopter had a hologram device on it that was faking the explosions, the laser beam in space did the rest.

Or the helicopter was firing missiles at the building the whole time and that's what brought it down. The government probably had some secret files in the building that they didn't want anyone to see, so they figured demolishing it would be the best way to hide them...even though a simple paper shredder would have probably worked just fine.

Horatius

14th March 2007, 02:29 PM

...even though a simple paper shredder would have probably worked just fine.

See, you just don't understand how government works. Clearly, this happened near the end of the fiscal year, and the MIB still had significant money left in their budget. They decided destroying the building was the best way to burn off this excess cash. As everybody knows, if you still have money left at the end of the year, they reduce your budget the following year, since clearly you didn't need such a large budget. Budget reductions are the kiss of death to such organizations, which leads to boondoggles like the building-implosion-as-file-reductions that we see every year.

Get a Government job - you'll see*.

*If you're really good at wasting tax dollars, they let you fire the Space Beam!

CHF

14th March 2007, 03:01 PM

i cannot fathom exactly how some of you (TS!), can continue, to this day, to incorrcetly refer to the dust form the WTC building collapses as pyroclastic flows.

a pyroclastic flow is EXCLUSIVELY a volcanic event. is there some part of this that you do not understand? if you had taken just a fraction of a second to research your own claims, you'd have avoided insulting volcanology.

once more, a pyroclastic flow can occur *ONLY* through volcanism, by definition. period.

Know what's really sad?

It's not just stupid kids on the internet who make claims like that.

The "respected" LEADERS of the twoof movement - grown adults who publish books! - say the same thing.

The WTC collapses were volcanic events. Un-friggin-believable :eek:

Surely these people are mentally disturbed.

Pipirr

14th March 2007, 03:36 PM

The WTC collapses were volcanic events. Un-friggin-believable :eek:
.

But they must have been: they were detected by seismology!

Why would a geologist be studying the seismology of 9/11 if it wasn't a volcanic event?

OMG did the geologist KNOW it was going to happen? OMG

I heard somewhere that there was a seismograph of the day and there were peaks on the graph so there must have been explosions so there must have been volcanoes. My dental hygenicist told me and she has no reason to lie. Now how do I get all this stupid out of my hair?

pvt1863

14th March 2007, 03:52 PM

Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

What are two terms the truth movement is attempting to redefine so that their arguments can arrive at a pre-determined conclusion?

Staying in the category, I'll now take language manipulation for $600.

gumboot

14th March 2007, 04:04 PM

Well of course he must, as pyroclastic flows can only be volcanic, and there was a pyroclastic flow at the WTC.

Ergo, a volcano did it. A really evil volcano, that hates it's own people and paid off the FDNY.

Maybe the NWO were planning on establishing it as their evil volcano lair, as a staging point for their invasion of the USA via the legions of UN forces marshalling in Iran.

However it all went terribly wrong because they accidentally formed an explosive volcano, and instead of forming a nice shield cone it blew itself into a caldera.

-Gumboot

A W Smith

14th March 2007, 04:24 PM

Please observe the video linked above. There is dark smoke above the tower which is lazily wafting away before the demolition begins. As the tower explodes, the dark smoke expands and rises, an irrefutable proof of a large heat energy input. By the end of this video, the top of the plume is huge and towering, and displaying sharp cauliflower shaped boundries, as opposed to the diffused smoke that was present before the explosions began

The entire top of the towers were filled with your dark smoke. When A volume of smoke in a cube an acre square by about 240 feet high is compressed during a collapse. Where do you suppose the smoke goes?

Cl1mh4224rd

14th March 2007, 05:16 PM

The entire top of the towers were filled with your dark smoke. When A volume of smoke in a cube an acre square by about 240 feet high is compressed during a collapse. Where do you suppose the smoke goes?
Also, and obviously, the air within would have been expelled. This air was heated by the fires within the tower, and we all know what happens to hot air and light objects (like smoke particles) caught in it...

It falls! :rolleyes:

TruthSeeker1234

14th March 2007, 05:24 PM

The entire top of the towers were filled with your dark smoke. When A volume of smoke in a cube an acre square by about 240 feet high is compressed during a collapse. Where do you suppose the smoke goes?

First of all, we are supposed to believe that the "cube" remained relatively intact and crushed down through the undamaged lowere structure. (see Greening). So if you believe that, then you don't have a compressing cube at all.

Ignoring that, it is the change in behavior of the smoke that you must consider. It goes from lazily drifting upwards and to the southeast, to mushrooming outwards in all directions and growing rapidly. This requires an energy input.

If the building is falling, then the floors are falling, and the fire is falling, and the source of the smoke is falling. This would tend to make it go down, not up. The space formerly occupied by the building will have low air pressure, thus pulling smoke down toward it, again down.

Clearly we observe something is creating great pressure sideways. I say it is massive explosions of some sort, you would say it is compression from falling mass, redirected sideways. In either case, this force moves sideways and expells huge amounts of material sideways, not up.

Other than a large source of new heat that was not present in the moments before the event, we have no explanation for the change in the behaviour of the smoke.

WildCat

14th March 2007, 05:37 PM

First of all, we are supposed to believe that the "cube" remained relatively intact and crushed down through the undamaged lowere structure. (see Greening). So if you believe that, then you don't have a compressing cube at all.
Why does it have to remain intact?

Ignoring that, it is the change in behavior of the smoke that you must consider. It goes from lazily drifting upwards and to the southeast, to mushrooming outwards in all directions and growing rapidly. This requires an energy input.
Perhaps that "energy input" was a 110 story building falling 1300 feet?

If the building is falling, then the floors are falling, and the fire is falling, and the source of the smoke is falling. This would tend to make it go down, not up. The space formerly occupied by the building will have low air pressure, thus pulling smoke down toward it, again down.
Smoke still goes up, the air filling the void comes from all sides, not just the point above.

Clearly we observe something is creating great pressure sideways. I say it is massive explosions of some sort,
Of course you would, because you are always 100% wrong.

you would say it is compression from falling mass, redirected sideways. In either case, this force moves sideways and expells huge amounts of material sideways, not up.
As the building falls air is compressed beneath it, forcing it to the side where it carries dust and smoke with it.

Other than a large source of new heat that was not present in the moments before the event, we have no explanation for the change in the behaviour of the smoke.
The smoke does not "change its behavior". Is this the basis for your claim of a "beam weapon"? Bizarre.

gumboot

14th March 2007, 05:45 PM

First of all, we are supposed to believe that the "cube" remained relatively intact and crushed down through the undamaged lowere structure. (see Greening). So if you believe that, then you don't have a compressing cube at all.

I'm pretty sure the "cube" fell apart.

Ignoring that, it is the change in behavior of the smoke that you must consider. It goes from lazily drifting upwards and to the southeast, to mushrooming outwards in all directions and growing rapidly. This requires an energy input.

Er... no. The smoke continued doing what it was. The DUST spread across NY's streets. The dust was created by the collapse (there's a clue for your energy input).

If the building is falling, then the floors are falling, and the fire is falling, and the source of the smoke is falling. This would tend to make it go down, not up. The space formerly occupied by the building will have low air pressure, thus pulling smoke down toward it, again down.

I take it you mean dust above, not smoke? It does precisely what you claim. The dust can be seen getting dragged down by the building during the collapse.

Clearly we observe something is creating great pressure sideways. I say it is massive explosions of some sort, you would say it is compression from falling mass, redirected sideways. In either case, this force moves sideways and expells huge amounts of material sideways, not up.

When the dust cloud hits the ground it cant go down anymore. So it goes sideways. Really quite simple.

Other than a large source of new heat that was not present in the moments before the event, we have no explanation for the change in the behaviour of the smoke.

Dust.

-Gumboot

Unfit4Command

14th March 2007, 05:54 PM

Of course you would, because you are always 100% wrong.

Come on now, he's not always 100% wrong. Just look at this:
"Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down." :)

JimBenArm

14th March 2007, 06:54 PM

Come on now, he's not always 100% wrong. Just look at this:
"Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down." :)
But if he says it, I really have to think twice before accepting it!

Horatius

14th March 2007, 07:38 PM

First of all, we are supposed to believe that the "cube" remained relatively intact and crushed down through the undamaged lowere structure. (see Greening). So if you believe that, then you don't have a compressing cube at all.

Why does it have to remain intact?

I'm pretty sure the "cube" fell apart.

Don't fret guys, that's just BS1234 pretending he hasn't already had the concept of simplifying approximations in a simplified model of the collapse explained to him multiple times.

He just wants to pretend that Greening's simplified model is the complete, official explanation of every detail, is all.

T.A.M.

14th March 2007, 09:34 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL5VEzlYtgo

In case you missed it TS. How does this look any different than the WTC in terms of the post collapse dust?

TAM:)

TruthSeeker1234

14th March 2007, 10:57 PM

The smoke does not "change its behavior". Is this the basis for your claim of a "beam weapon"? Bizarre.

Yes the smoke radically changes behavior, as explained. Watch the videos, including the one linked in the OP. Stop lying.

No, that is not the basis for the beam weapon hypothesis. Read the Wood Reynolds paper. The point of mentioning the mushroom cloud is that it requires a large energy input, one that is unavailable in a "collapse".

Redtail

14th March 2007, 11:08 PM

Yes the smoke radically changes behavior, as explained. Watch the videos, including the one linked in the OP. Stop lying.

No, that is not the basis for the beam weapon hypothesis. Read the Wood Reynolds paper. The point of mentioning the mushroom cloud is that it requires a large energy input, one that is unavailable in a "collapse".

Really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfISDqV3Vvg

A small Nuke?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LV_71C2Fg0

Massive amount of energy here.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-4m9uvyWZ0

TruthSeeker1234

14th March 2007, 11:23 PM

In case you missed it TS. How does this look any different than the WTC in terms of the post collapse dust?

TAM:)

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

The twin towers turned almost completely to dust from the top down. The landmark was not converted to dust, it was a standard controlled demolition from the bottom up, which generated some dust.

The twin towers had large quantities of dust that fell very rapidly, almost as fast as solid steel. The landmark dust was suspended in the air, as we expect dust to do, which took a long time to settle out of the air.

The dust from the twin towers maintained a distinct boundry with the air for much longer, during which time it expanded and formed cauliflower shapes. The landmark dust diffuses quickly, losing its distinct boundry much sooner.

The dust from the twin towers represented a significant percentage of the total mass of the towers, on the order of 70-80%. Nothing close to that with the landmark. Afterwards, it's all still there, just chopped up on the ground.

The twin tower dust carpeted and area of at least 2 sq miles, inches deep. Nothing close to that with landmark.

Other than that, they were similar, and thank you for at least using a demolition to compare to. Now trying comparing the twin towers to a building collapse.

http://www.greatdreams.com/pakistan-quake-2005.htm

Schmitt.

14th March 2007, 11:30 PM

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

The twin towers turned almost completely to dust from the top down. The landmark was not converted to dust, it was a standard controlled demolition from the bottom up, which generated some dust. My bold. I honestly have no idea how a person can hold two mutually exclusive ideas in their mind at the same time and selectively argue for both scenarios as being true depending on what ultimate conclusion they want to get to.

R.Mackey

15th March 2007, 12:10 AM

[Blah blah blah, dust, blah, magic, blah blah utter wackiness]

The dust from the twin towers represented a significant percentage of the total mass of the towers, on the order of 70-80%. Nothing close to that with the landmark. Afterwards, it's all still there, just chopped up on the ground.

The twin tower dust carpeted and area of at least 2 sq miles, inches deep. Nothing close to that with landmark.

No, Ace, no no no.

Over 35% of the tower mass was recovered as solid steel. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2375593#post2375593) That's just steel. That alone is enough to invaliate your "70-80% turned to dust" nonsense above.

You've been shown this before.

Everything else you wrote above, being dependent on this assertion, is also false.

Pardalis

15th March 2007, 12:16 AM

I honestly have no idea how a person can hold two mutually exclusive ideas in their mind at the same time and selectively argue for both scenarios as being true depending on what ultimate conclusion they want to get to.

Welcome to the conspiracy theorist mind my friend. ;)

And welcome to the forum BTW! :)

LashL

15th March 2007, 12:22 AM

Mr.D

15th March 2007, 12:47 AM

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

"probably?"

Just what was the density of the twin tower dust?

You did do the fluid mechanics calculations necessary to demonstrate the flow was fluid-like, right?

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 05:37 AM

"probably?"

Just what was the density of the twin tower dust?

You did do the fluid mechanics calculations necessary to demonstrate the flow was fluid-like, right?
Of course he did. And he'll be forwarding those to you just as soon as he can extract his finger from his left nostril. Just be patient!

Gravy

15th March 2007, 05:40 AM

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.Interesting. Please show us how you arrived at this estimate. I recall asking you a similar question when you claimed that the dust cloud was as dense as gravel (geez, I wonder why every building it touched wasn't crushed). You never replied. Please do so now.

The twin towers turned almost completely to dust from the top down.That's quite a claim. What comprised the 1.6 million tons of debris that was trucked from Ground Zero? Or is your estimate of the towers' mass much, much higher than anyone else's? Say...1,000 times higher? TS, approximately what was the total mass of the towers?

The dust from the twin towers represented a significant percentage of the total mass of the towers, on the order of 70-80%.This is your last chance to prove that you're merely severely misinformed, and not 100% kook. I believe you're just a kook, but I'm open to correction.

Show us how your estimates are derived. Show your grasp of the science. Show your math. If you're relying on someone else's analysis, give us the link and we'll point out the errors.

You won't do these things, but I thought I should point out once again that making wild claims isn't the same as providing evidence.

Oh, noes! Pyroclastic flows!
L0Sj2HcMd4o

Belz...

15th March 2007, 05:50 AM

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

Probably ?

The twin towers turned almost completely to dust from the top down.

Almost ?

The landmark was not converted to dust, it was a standard controlled demolition from the bottom up, which generated some dust.

The WTC was not "converted" to dust, unless you ignore all pictures from ground zero.

The twin towers had large quantities of dust that fell very rapidly, almost as fast as solid steel.

"Almost" ? And what would force it down so fast, pray tell ?

The dust from the twin towers maintained a distinct boundry with the air for much longer, during which time it expanded and formed cauliflower shapes. The landmark dust diffuses quickly, losing its distinct boundry much sooner.

You ARE aware, of course, that buildings that are demolished are first emptied of all non-structural content, right ?

Yes the smoke radically changes behavior, as explained.

No, no it didn't.

Belz...

15th March 2007, 05:52 AM

making wild claims isn't the same as providing evidence.

No, but it's a whole lot of fun.

gumboot

15th March 2007, 06:16 AM

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

Interestingly, water is a little less than 1000 times as dense as air.

Given that the Landmark dust settles, that means it's more dense than air. therefore, TS, in order for you to be correct, the WTC Dust would have to be more dense than water.

Let's look at that.

The dimension of each tower were 63m x 63m x 417m, giving a total volume of 1,655,073m3.

Based on the density of water at 20oC (998.2071kg/m3) that would give us a total mass of 1,652,105,619kg, or 1.6 million tonnes (1.8 million tons).

But how heavy WERE the towers?

Well, for that answer, I turned to an article (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso that appeared in JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11.

JOM is the monthly technical journal published by TMS - The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society - an International professional organisation for professional scientists and Engineers.

Thomas W. Eagar is the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso is a graduate research student, both at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT)

According to them each tower weighed roughly 500,000t. That would give the errect towers a density of 302kg/m3.

What this means is for your "1000x as dense" assertion to be true, the dust from the WTC collapses would have to be over THREE TIMES as dense as the standing towers were.

Even ignoring the rather blatantly obvious fact that the dust clouds had many magnitudes the volume of the standing towers, only a truely ignorant person would fail to see the absurdity of this notion. Thus, you are left with two options.

1) You 1000x as dense claim is utterly, irrefutably false, and more so incorrect by at least an order of magnitude

OR

2) During the collapse each of the towers accquired additional mass equating to multiple times its previous mass.

I would propose that one of these explanations indicates sanity, and one does not.

-Gumboot

Spektator

15th March 2007, 06:32 AM

snip....

I would propose that one of these explanations indicates sanity, and one does not.

-Gumboot

Ooh! Ooh! In that case, I know JUST which one TS will go for!

Horatius

15th March 2007, 07:51 AM

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 08:23 AM

gumboot

15th March 2007, 08:26 AM

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 08:33 AM

No, Ace, no no no.

Over 35% of the tower mass was recovered as solid steel. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2375593#post2375593) That's just steel. That alone is enough to invaliate your "70-80% turned to dust" nonsense above.

You've been shown this before.

Everything else you wrote above, being dependent on this assertion, is also false.

RMackey, I've explained this to you before, stop playing dumb, you're an intelligent man. Apart from numbers typed into a spreadsheet, there is no basis for your assertions. The photographic evidence indicates quite conclusively that only about 20-30% of the steel from the twin towers remained macroscopic. Only about 1% of the concrete, if that.

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.

The Almond

15th March 2007, 08:38 AM

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 08:40 AM

@Gumboot, et al -

No, when I said "smoke" I meant smoke, and when I said "dust" I meant dust.

The tower dust not turn to dust upon hitting the ground, as you imply. It does so in mid air, from the beginning. Please observe. The dust is ejected horizontally from the beginning.

Anyone who cannot observe the change in the behaviour of the smoke is visually impaired. Please review the video linked in the OP. Even Frank Greening has admitted this, and will no doubt be a topic in our televised debate.

gumboot

15th March 2007, 08:46 AM

The tower dust not turn to dust upon hitting the ground, as you imply. It does so in mid air, from the beginning. Please observe. The dust is ejected horizontally from the beginning.

Don't forget to mention it triples in volume.

-Gumboot

Horatius

15th March 2007, 08:54 AM

You're forgetting, that's all based on "reports", which BS doesn't believe. Just like the report that found almost no steel or iron in the layers of dust.

RMackey, I've explained this to you before, stop playing dumb, you're an intelligent man. Apart from numbers typed into a spreadsheet, there is no basis for your assertions. The photographic evidence indicates quite conclusively that only about 20-30% of the steel from the twin towers remained macroscopic. Only about 1% of the concrete, if that.
...

Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking.

See what I mean? All the testimony of the workers about how much material was removed, all the tracking that was done, all the samples examined by the engineers, all dismissed as "a spreadsheet", in favour of him looking at a few photos. Photos which we know he can't actually see correctly, as he on more that one occassion has referred to the pile of debris as a "crater". That is, a hole.....

We will never convince him otherwise.

Jennie C.

15th March 2007, 09:03 AM

See what I mean? All the testimony of the workers about how much material was removed, all the tracking that was done, all the samples examined by the engineers, all dismissed as "a spreadsheet", in favour of him looking at a few photos. Photos which we know he can't actually see correctly, as he on more that one occassion has referred to the pile of debris as a "crater". That is, a hole.....

We will never convince him otherwise.

Not to mention the photos' not showing the debris in the 6 basements

Horatius

15th March 2007, 09:11 AM

Not to mention the photos' not showing the debris in the 6 basements

Yeah, that too. One must wonder what TS1234 thinks the workers were doing there all those months. "Hey, guys, slow down! We don't want to clean this up too fast or it'll give the whole thing away! Take more coffee breaks or something!"

Or, maybe, every night, they'd truck back in the debris they had trucked out during the day! Yeah, that must be it!

DavidJames

15th March 2007, 09:12 AM

Apart from numbers typed into a spreadsheet, there is no basis for your assertions. The photographic evidence indicates quite conclusively that only about 20-30% of the steel from the twin towers remained macroscopic. Only about 1% of the concrete, if that....Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speakingThis really says it all, thanks BS1234. This shows you have no intellectual capability to understand math. All you can do is look at videos and play pretend, like the adolescent you really are.

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 09:13 AM

I've heard they have Mushroom Cloud & Pyroclastic Flow on special at Applebee's this week. $12.95, with Apple Thermite Turnovers!

Belz...

15th March 2007, 10:14 AM

Here we go again. Evidently, JREFs are not able to understand that fall time is an indication of density. Specifically, it is an indication of the ratio of mass to surface area. That stuff fell very fast.

If you cannot understand that the fall time is proof of high density, I cannot help you.

So... you don't see a problem with that, following Gumboot's post ???

The photographic evidence indicates quite conclusively that only about 20-30% of the steel from the twin towers remained macroscopic. Only about 1% of the concrete, if that.

I'd like to see a layman try to refute the findings of a forensic pathologist following an autopsy, by looking at bruises on pictures of the corpse...

Yea, CTers are odd.

Belz...

15th March 2007, 10:19 AM

The photographic evidence indicates quite conclusively that only about 20-30% of the steel from the twin towers remained macroscopic. Only about 1% of the concrete, if that.

"Let's see, now. I can spot about 673 pieces of metal in that picture... and er... I ... I just can't count the number of dust particles... so I'll just estimate about... 2700 of them... yeah that means 20-30%!!"

Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking.

And common sense trumps photographic evidence. And wishful thinking trumps common sense. And acid trips trump wishful thinking.

Anyone who cannot observe the change in the behaviour of the smoke is visually impaired.

And anyone who can't understand the scale of the towers, thinking that the huge, falling 30' columns are really, really tiny, are mentally impaired.

The tower dust not turn to dust

Thou dust not know!!

Belz...

15th March 2007, 10:21 AM

This really says it all, thanks BS1234. This shows you have no intellectual capability to understand math. All you can do is look at videos and play pretend, like the adolescent you really are.

Maybe he dresses like an adult, too!

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 10:52 AM

Interestingly, water is a little less than 1000 times as dense as air.

Given that the Landmark dust settles, that means it's more dense than air. therefore, TS, in order for you to be correct, the WTC Dust would have to be more dense than water.

Let's look at that.

The dimension of each tower were 63m x 63m x 417m, giving a total volume of 1,655,073m3.

Based on the density of water at 20oC (998.2071kg/m3) that would give us a total mass of 1,652,105,619kg, or 1.6 million tonnes (1.8 million tons).

But how heavy WERE the towers?

Well, for that answer, I turned to an article (http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html) by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso that appeared in JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11.

JOM is the monthly technical journal published by TMS - The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society - an International professional organisation for professional scientists and Engineers.

Thomas W. Eagar is the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso is a graduate research student, both at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT)

According to them each tower weighed roughly 500,000t. That would give the errect towers a density of 302kg/m3.

What this means is for your "1000x as dense" assertion to be true, the dust from the WTC collapses would have to be over THREE TIMES as dense as the standing towers were.

Even ignoring the rather blatantly obvious fact that the dust clouds had many magnitudes the volume of the standing towers, only a truely ignorant person would fail to see the absurdity of this notion. Thus, you are left with two options.

1) You 1000x as dense claim is utterly, irrefutably false, and more so incorrect by at least an order of magnitude

OR

2) During the collapse each of the towers accquired additional mass equating to multiple times its previous mass.

I would propose that one of these explanations indicates sanity, and one does not.

-Gumboot

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. This fluid fell about as fast as water would fall, if the water was poured in a large stream. Thus the notion that the falling dust-fluid had about the same density as water is well supported by the available observations.

The dust clouds do not become larger than the building until after they have spread out (i.e. become less dense). A truly correct analysis of the density of the dust-fluid would have to be a dynamic one, and would show the decreasing density over time. The point of my post is to point out what is truly obvious to any scientific observer of the twin tower events, that is that the dust that falls is very dense, in stark contradistinction to the landmark tower demolition.

Gumboot, what do you think the density of the dust-fluid is? If it's not very dense, why does it fall so fast?

Horatius

15th March 2007, 11:02 AM

Thus the notion that the falling dust-fluid had about the same density as water is well supported by the available observations.

In a strange way, it's almost comforting to see TS1234 has completely missed the point, once again.

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 11:14 AM

In a strange way, it's almost comforting to see TS1234 has completely missed the point, once again.
Which is freakin' amazing, since it's right on top of his head!

Pipirr

15th March 2007, 11:28 AM

The point of my post is to point out what is truly obvious to any scientific observer of the twin tower events, that is that the dust that falls is very dense, in stark contradistinction to the landmark tower demolition.

And again, what is the point of that? What does that get us?

babazaroni

15th March 2007, 11:42 AM

Horatius

15th March 2007, 12:06 PM

HeyLeroy

15th March 2007, 12:21 PM

c4ts

15th March 2007, 01:22 PM

http://www15.ocn.ne.jp/~oyakodon/newversion/yudayasensou.e.htm

It's all true!

Unfit4Command

15th March 2007, 02:41 PM

Horatius

15th March 2007, 03:27 PM

If that's the case then why doesn't steel show up in significant quantities in the dust samples from the WTC site following 9/11?

Like this one for example:
45.1% Fiberglass, rock wool (insulation, fireproofing)
31.8% Plaster (gypsum), concrete products (calcium sulfate, selenite, muscodite)
7.1% Charred wood and debris
2.1% Paper fibers
2.1% Mica flakes
2.0% Ceiling tiles (fiberglass component)
2.0% Synthetic fibers
1.4% Glass fragments
1.3% Human remains
1.4% Natural fibers
trace asbestos (it became illegal to use during the construction of the WTC)
Other trace elements: aluminum, paint pigments, blood, hair, glass wool with resin, and prescription drugs were found.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004194.html

There's always a chance I missed a few dust samples that show large amounts of steel, so if you've found any then please show me if you wouldn't mind.

-edit-

Oh yeah, I meant to ask you. Has that televised debate been confirmed yet? If so, when will it be shown?

Do you have a photo of this "dust", with arrows pointing out all these elements? Because if you don't he won't accept this as "scientific", it's just another spreadsheet.

I know from experience......

PhantomWolf

15th March 2007, 04:25 PM

Only about 1% of the concrete, if that.

Don't you love it when your "heroes" disagree with you?

Along with others, I examined the sample obtained by Janette MacKinlay at 113 Liberty Street, just across from the South Tower. The windows of her apartment were blown in during the collapse of this tower on 9/11/2001, and her apartment was filled with dust and debris. She collected a sample of this material in her own apartment in a plastic bag – which is good procedure – and the chain of custody went directly from her to me. (In the presence of other researchers, I collected more samples from her large plastic bag, while visiting in her home.)

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form.

A previously published study of the WTC dust noted: “The environmental science community has been slow to understand that the acute health effects were attributable to a complex mixture of gases and particles and that the particles in greatest abundance (mass) in the dust were the unregulated supercoarse (>10-ìmdiam) particles, not the fine (<2.5-ìm-diam) or coarse (2.5–10-ìmdiam) particles that are typically measured.”

http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i22/html/111506feature_lioy.html

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.
underlining mine.

Gravy

15th March 2007, 04:30 PM

Don't you love it when your "heroes" disagree with you?
underlining mine.Well done, sir!

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 04:31 PM

If you look closely at these falling flows, you will see they are preceded by large dense objects such as girder sections, which create a low pressure path behind them for less dense objects to follow.

Similar effect is a motorcycle drafting behind a large truck.

I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall. The notion that a perimeter section that is about 36 feet x 10 feet and has spaces between the columns, that this object could create "drafting" 500 feet, even 1000 feet above it, this is just laughable.

I repeat my request for input as to how we could create an experiment to test this idea of "drafting drywall". It would be practical to obtain a steel beam, or other large solid object, attach drywall or whatever, and throw it over a cliff. What materials/methods do you all suggest that would be most favorable to recreating the "drafting drywall dust" effect? I say it is impossible (absent explosives capable of dustifying concrete and steel).

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 04:34 PM

I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall. The notion that a perimeter section that is about 36 feet x 10 feet and has spaces between the columns, that this object could create "drafting" 500 feet, even 1000 feet above it, this is just laughable.

I repeat my request for input as to how we could create an experiment to test this idea of "drafting drywall". It would be practical to obtain a steel beam, or other large solid object, attach drywall or whatever, and throw it over a cliff. What materials/methods do you all suggest that would be most favorable to recreating the "drafting drywall dust" effect? I say it is impossible (absent explosives capable of dustifying concrete and steel).
You know, if you quit trying to look at these while receiving your electroshock therapy, you might be able to see them as they actually appear rather than how you want them to appear.
Just a suggestion.

beachnut

15th March 2007, 04:36 PM

Gravy

15th March 2007, 04:38 PM

What, multiple replies by TS1234, but my precious questions (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2427644&postcount=76) were snubbed?

What gives, "TruthSeeker?"

Cat got your tongue?

If you have me on ignore, please say so! ;)

Gravy

15th March 2007, 04:49 PM

I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall. Tell me about it! I've been hunting for that so-called "steel" for nigh on a year! I believe that you are a true TruthSeeker! Won't you join me in my quest for the mythical steel debris?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045f9cc8d52f90.jpg

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 04:51 PM

Tell me about it! I've been hunting for that so-called "steel" for nigh on a year! I believe that you are a true TruthSeeker! Won't you join me in my quest for the mythical steel debris?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045f9cc8d52f90.jpg

It's a pity they didn't get any pictures of the steel dust. You know it has to be there somewhere! TS says so!

Gravy

15th March 2007, 04:58 PM

It's a pity they didn't get any pictures of the steel dust. You know it has to be there somewhere! TS says so!I've heard tale of a flyover of a squadron of rare-earth-magnet pterodactyls. I haven't been able to confirm that yet, though. I hope TruthSeeker will join me in my quest...I'll provide the coconuts!

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 05:00 PM

Interesting. Please show us how you arrived at this estimate. I recall asking you a similar question when you claimed that the dust cloud was as dense as gravel (geez, I wonder why every building it touched wasn't crushed). You never replied. Please do so now.

I arrived at this estimate because the stuff falls rapidly, more rapidly than raindrops, certainly. I don't recall stating anything about gravel, but indeed the dust-fluid was very dense, and I doubt gravel would fall any faster.

That's quite a claim. What comprised the 1.6 million tons of debris that was trucked from Ground Zero? Or is your estimate of the towers' mass much, much higher than anyone else's? Say...1,000 times higher? TS, approximately what was the total mass of the towers?

I don't believe the government reports that state 1.6 million tons of debris were removed. Obviously the government reports are written to agree with the government story.

This is your last chance to prove that you're merely severely misinformed, and not 100% kook. I believe you're just a kook, but I'm open to correction.

Show us how your estimates are derived. Show your grasp of the science. Show your math. If you're relying on someone else's analysis, give us the link and we'll point out the errors.

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, and the notion of this being related to "drafting" is nonsense. I again repeat that we should experiment to see if there is any validity to the "drafitng drywall dust" hyposthesis. Please give me your calcualtions that support this idea.

You won't do these things, but I thought I should point out once again that making wild claims isn't the same as providing evidence.

The fall-time of the dust is evidence. Thus far the only other explanation for the rapid fall time of the dust is the "drafting drywall dust" hyposthesis. I see no support for this notion, but again, I'd be very interested in an experiment to look at it.

jsiv

15th March 2007, 05:01 PM

What kind of gravy is Gravy?

Gravy

15th March 2007, 05:05 PM

I arrived at this estimate because the stuff falls rapidly, more rapidly than raindrops, certainly. I don't recall stating anything about gravel, but indeed the dust-fluid was very dense, and I doubt gravel would fall any faster.

I don't believe the government reports that state 1.6 million tons of debris were removed. Obviously the government reports are written to agree with the government story.

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, and the notion of this being related to "drafting" is nonsense. I again repeat that we should experiment to see if there is any validity to the "drafitng drywall dust" hyposthesis. Please give me your calcualtions that support this idea.

The fall-time of the dust is evidence. Thus far the only other explanation for the rapid fall time of the dust is the "drafting drywall dust" hyposthesis. I see no support for this notion, but again, I'd be very interested in an experiment to look at it.Holy Mary, Mother of Suffering Jesus!

Look what you did to me, TS: you turned me Catholic!

:hb:

Okay, bye, bye, TS. I cannot tend to, or gaze upon, your sickness any longer. You have a serious problem with reality. Please, please, please seek professional mental health care. You can be helped. Really.

–Mark

babazaroni

15th March 2007, 05:09 PM

I have looked carefully at the falling flows. The steel sections all appear to be disintegrating into dust as they fall. The notion that a perimeter section that is about 36 feet x 10 feet and has spaces between the columns, that this object could create "drafting" 500 feet, even 1000 feet above it, this is just laughable.

I think we are making some progress here TS.

An object with spaces will still create a low pressure path behind it, just not as low a pressure as a solid object. As this path gets filled with lighter debris, this becomes a flow that more debris will follow. Also denser objects in this stream will move faster.

I've personally experienced this effect by being at the end of a bike pace line 50 riders long. Was I drafting the lead rider? No, I was drafting the rider right in front of me, who was drafting the rider in front of him.....

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 05:12 PM

Gravy

15th March 2007, 05:13 PM

What kind of gravy is Gravy?
Ol' Gravy? Why, he can be the lovin' kind...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045ce893b33556.jpg

...or the hurtin' kind.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045f9d290c31cc.png

peteweaver

15th March 2007, 05:14 PM

Hey 'Truth'seeker, ever thought of a career in stand up comedy ?
You're pretty funny lol.

Planes hit towers towers got damaged, towers caught fire, damage got exacerbated by the heat which weakened the steel, top parts of towers fell as damaged area could no longer support them, air got forced out, debris got ejected as building pancaked, debris hit WTC 7 causing structural damage and fire. Collapse of twin towers knocks out water mains.
Sprinkler systems in WTC 7 disabled, fire teams also have no water except that in their fire engines, so its like a very small water pistol against a very large bonfire, fire teams pulled out for their own safety, at 2 pm a bulge is noticed on the southwest corner of WTC 7 which is a sign that the building is structurally unstable and will collapse in time, Greenwich st evacuated because of fears WTC 7 will collapse, and three hours later it does just that collapsing diagonally backwards.

No explosive charges could have survived the blaze, RDX based explosives (commonly referred to as C4) ignite at 206 degrees C, fires were more than adequate to ignite any charges, and ignition would have either burned the charges away, or more likely have ignited the detonators and caused immediate detonation and the buildings would have collapsed much sooner.

As for the thermite theory, thermite burns but does not explode, this would not have caused any sounds of explosions and again, the buildings would have come down much sooner than they did.

Arabs did it. Simple as that.

gumboot

15th March 2007, 05:15 PM

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 05:19 PM

I think we are making some progress here TS.

An object with spaces will still create a low pressure path behind it, just not as low a pressure as a solid object. As this path gets filled with lighter debris, this becomes a flow that more debris will follow. Also denser objects in this stream will move faster.

I've personally experienced this effect by being at the end of a bike pace line 50 riders long. Was I drafting the lead rider? No, I was drafting the rider right in front of me, who was drafting the rider in front of him.....

So you're suggesting that the drywall dust creates its own draft? Again, let's design an experiment babazaroni. Please tell me what materials and methods we could use, and throw a large solid object over a cliff, and try to recreate the "drafting drywall dust" effect.

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 05:33 PM

Arabs did it. Simple as that.

Hey, Pete. Could you please explain what the Arabs did with the north wall of WTC1? I see about 10-20 stories of it standing, leaning out over WTC6. And I see a few sections scattered about, but, gosh darn it, I can't find about 600 of the 3x3 perimeter sections anywhere. Please tell we what became of it. Supply evidence please.

Thanks.

babazaroni

15th March 2007, 05:35 PM

So you're suggesting that the drywall dust creates its own draft? Again, let's design an experiment babazaroni. Please tell me what materials and methods we could use, and throw a large solid object over a cliff, and try to recreate the "drafting drywall dust" effect.

Why do you focus on drywall?

You know there was an acre of concrete 4 inches thick on each floor right?

WildCat

15th March 2007, 05:43 PM

babazaroni

15th March 2007, 05:47 PM

Why don't you tell us what you think happened?

I can't find them in this pic. Therefore they must have been disintegrated by an energy weapon.

jsiv

15th March 2007, 05:51 PM

I heard arabs flew a plane into 1 WTC.

Anyone else heard about this theory?

Cl1mh4224rd

15th March 2007, 05:52 PM

Err, uhh... Due to great respect for my sanity I'm avoiding going back to the beginning of this thread, but... what is TS1234 suggesting is the cause of this "steel disintegration during free-fall"? Don't tell me it's a giant laser beam...

A W Smith

15th March 2007, 06:04 PM

So you're suggesting that the drywall dust creates its own draft? Again, let's design an experiment babazaroni. Please tell me what materials and methods we could use, and throw a large solid object over a cliff, and try to recreate the "drafting drywall dust" effect.

Holy Ganole! you know what? I have already DONE that during demolitions! By actually shoveling bricks with plaster debris out two or three story windows with a flat shovel I have proven babazaroni correct!

The Demon's Head

15th March 2007, 06:11 PM

This thread is just about a mirror image of the Realistice thread.

peteweaver

15th March 2007, 06:18 PM

Hey, Pete. Could you please explain what the Arabs did with the north wall of WTC1? I see about 10-20 stories of it standing, leaning out over WTC6. And I see a few sections scattered about, but, gosh darn it, I can't find about 600 of the 3x3 perimeter sections anywhere. Please tell we what became of it. Supply evidence please.

Thanks.

The north wall of WTC 1?
What are you on about ?

The tower came down top down, debris showered off hitting other buildings, it tore a 90 foot hole in WTC 7.

Now bear in mind that a building collapsing uncontrolled in the middle of a city, is a pretty chaotic event. Theres only gonna be photographs of so much stuff on the internet.

What I have to go on is that I'm a trained engineer, I wasn't there, but I do know about explosives, and I do know about clockwise / anti clockwise bending moments, metallurgy, welding, construction, and what people who WERE there have to say about things... A man called Paul Beriff was there, his niece used to go to school with me, he was injured and almost killed by debris falling from WTC 2.

There were no explosives in the towers, there couldnt have been. Thousands of people worked in those buildings, and the sheer scale involved in rigging a building for demolition would have prevented any chance of a covert operation to rig the buildings. The largest demolition charges on the market can cut 3" thick steel with a blast velocity of 26,000 ft per second. The columns at the base of the twin towers were 14" thick, to cut them requires tailor made explosive charges, and the charges would be so heavy that forklifts would be required to carry them. And controlled demolitions involve imploding buildings bottom up, to prevent damage to their surroundings. The twin towers fell top down, consistant with the damage they sustained from crash -> fire.

T.A.M.

15th March 2007, 06:26 PM

I am done. You cannot argue with idiocy and hope to accomplish anything but accentuate that lingering migraine you've been trying to get rid of.

Hope you have fun argueing with yourself TS. You are like an artsy version of Christophera.

TAM:confused:

stateofgrace

15th March 2007, 06:39 PM

Sorry, i should have said "most" of the falling steel is disintegrating, not "all" of it.

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image335.jpg

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image42.jpg

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

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image120.gif

I am going to regret this I know. TS, it as occurred to you,I assume that virtually very single structural engineer on the planet has seen the photographs you have produced yes? They are not exclusive to just you. Yet for some reason and maybe you can explain it, they have not reached the same conclusion as you.

Don't you find it rather strange that virtually every engineer and scientist on the planet have not said they think the steel is disintegrating in mid air?They completly missed your blatant conclusion.

What, may I be as so bold, do you think is causing steel that is in mid air and falling to the earth, to disintegrate?

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 06:40 PM

The north wall of WTC 1?
What are you on about ?

What I have to go on is that I'm a trained engineer,

I'm glad you're an engineer, Pete. Can you please tell me what happened to the north wall of WTC1?

Can you please offer input on a simple experiment that would help confirm the "Drafting Drywall Dust" hypothesis, as requested?

WildCat

15th March 2007, 06:49 PM

I'm glad you're an engineer, Pete. Can you please tell me what happened to the north wall of WTC1?

Can you please offer input on a simple experiment that would help confirm the "Drafting Drywall Dust" hypothesis, as requested?
Can you please offer your explanationTS1234? Just for ***** and giggles?

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 06:54 PM

There were no explosives in the towers, there couldnt have been. Thousands of people worked in those buildings, and the sheer scale involved in rigging a building for demolition would have prevented any chance of a covert operation to rig the buildings. The largest demolition charges on the market can cut 3" thick steel with a blast velocity of 26,000 ft per second. The columns at the base of the twin towers were 14" thick, to cut them requires tailor made explosive charges, and the charges would be so heavy that forklifts would be required to carry them. And controlled demolitions involve imploding buildings bottom up, to prevent damage to their surroundings. The twin towers fell top down, consistant with the damage they sustained from crash -> fire.

You make fair points about conventional explosives. For these and other reasons, we suspect that exotic weapons must have been used. We're looking at fusion, and Directed Energy. Even forgetting the difficulties in remaining covert, conventional explosives are not able to explain the data. Of course, any gravity-driven theory cannot possibly explain the data. You are an engineer, I request that you review the Wood/Reynolds paper.

Your notion about "bottom up" being safer than "top down" is not correct. The idea with the twin towers was to render the tops into powder so that they didn't destroy the bathtub. They intentionally destroyed all 7 WTC buildings (Silverstein's holdings), while attempting to minimize damage to all else.

LashL

15th March 2007, 06:57 PM

Hey, TS1+2=4, is it true that you're "petgoat" on DU? This has been raised before but you've never answered.

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 07:04 PM

I am going to regret this I know. TS, it as occurred to you,I assume that virtually very single structural engineer on the planet has seen the photographs you have produced yes? They are not exclusive to just you. Yet for some reason and maybe you can explain it, they have not reached the same conclusion as you.

Don't you find it rather strange that virtually every engineer and scientist on the planet have not said they think the steel is disintegrating in mid air?They completly missed your blatant conclusion.

What, may I be as so bold, do you think is causing steel that is in mid air and falling to the earth, to disintegrate?

You cleverly say "virtually every engineer and scientist on the planet have not said they think the steel is disintegrating in mid air".

The vast majority of engineers and scientists will not speak about 9/11 at all. I'd be happy to talk to any engineer at all who will agree to be tape recorded and answer my questions over the phone. Thus far several have refused. Some including Jonathan Barnett initially agreed, then backed out. Currently Greening says he will do a televised debate, and I look forward to it.

We observe that something made steel disintegrate. The current lines of research involve directed energy weapons and small nuclear fusion devices. I certainly don't know what it was, but it requires an explanation. Just because we don't know what caused something doensn't mean it didn't happen. It happened.

LashL

15th March 2007, 07:11 PM

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

No, they just won't speak to you because you're just another loon with no credentials, no expertise, and no knowledge of the topics that you prattle on about.

LashL

15th March 2007, 07:12 PM

We observe that something made steel disintegrate.

Who is this "we" of whence you speak?

The current lines of research involve directed energy weapons and small nuclear fusion devices. I certainly don't know what it was, but it requires an explanation. Just because we don't know what caused something doensn't mean it didn't happen. It happened.

Whose research is this of whence you speak? Certainly not yours, since you have no knowledge, credentials or expertise in any relevant field. And again, who is this "we" of which you speak? Sounds like it's you, petgoat, Reynolds and Woods. Not good company you're keeping there.

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 07:13 PM

Who is this "we" of whence you speak?
His multiple personalities, and the mouse in his pocket.

stateofgrace

15th March 2007, 07:16 PM

It's false to say that "virtually every engineer and scientist on the planet have not said they think the steel is disintegrating in mid air".

The vast majority of engineers and scientists will not speak about 9/11 at all. I'd be happy to talk to any engineer at all who will agree to be tape recorded and answer my questions over the phone. Thus far several have refused. Some including Jonathan Barnett initially agreed, then backed out. Currently Greening says he will do a televised debate, and I look forward to it.

Ok for the sake of keeping you on track, let’s say they don't want to talk about it. Any reason why?

The actual question I was asking, by the way was what is causing, in your opinion, the steel to disintegrate?

Any ideas?

Ok you have now edited your post and directed me towards space beams and nukes. Now, in a reasonable and sane world, would you not agree that energy beams and mini nukes are quiet outrageous claims even by truthy standards?

So you reckon, I should entertain you further by wasting my time replying to somebody who is going to carp on and on about space beams, mini nukes and disintegrating steel?

Seriously?

A W Smith

15th March 2007, 07:16 PM

You keep saying 'we'. All three of you? Or nine of you if all have a mouse in each pants pocket? And if the steel was turned to powder what did the Chinese, Indians. battleship builder buy? Powdered steel? Just add water? You make it sound as if GZ could have been cleaned up with a few large shop vacs. Did you ever have a head injury? Or are you mentally handicapped since birth?

The Almond

15th March 2007, 07:31 PM

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

I like how you excluded all of the engineers, scientists and academics who reviewed, researched and wrote the NCSTAR in addition to the numerous engineers who published independent accounts including those working for the WTC 7 insurance companies. They were more than happy to speak out about the WTC collapse in a way that is contucive to scientific research, namely, reports in peer reviewed journals and presentations made a legitimate scientific conferences.

I'd be happy to talk to any engineer at all who will agree to be tape recorded and answer my questions over the phone.

Why would anyone want to talk to you, answer your questions, and give you full rights to edit, alter and abuse the footage so that you can further your goals? You have a motive that you've demonstrated numerous times on this forum. You seek to discredit or defame anyone who doesn't agree with your misguided opinions about 9/11, and you seek validation from any source about your beliefs.

Thus far several have refused. Some including Jonathan Barnett initially agreed, then backed out. Currently Greening says he will do a televised debate, and I look forward to it.

Me too, but then again, your showing here of late has been to sharpen your skills against him. Frankly, he doesn't have anything to worry about if your main argument involves volcanic flows and space microwaves.

We observe that something made steel disintegrate.

The rest of us, however, don't.

The current lines of research involve directed energy weapons and small nuclear fusion devices. I certainly don't know what it was, but it requires an explanation. Just because we don't know what caused something doensn't mean it didn't happen. It happened.

Here's a question for you: Why is it that the majority of truthers, including Steven Jones, rejects the directed energy space microwave as being utterly ridiculous? Why have so many truthers accused Judy Wood of being a government paid disinfo agent? Why are thermite and conventional explosives accepted as the leading alternative collapse hypotheses among conspiracy theorists?

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 07:42 PM

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 07:46 PM

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Ok for the sake of keeping you on track, let’s say they don't want to talk about it. Any reason why?

Yes, they are afraid of documented evidence that may land them in prison.

The actual question I was asking, by the way was what is causing, in your opinion, the steel to disintegrate?

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

Ok you have now edited your post and directed me towards space beams and nukes. Now, in a reasonable and sane world, would you not agree that energy beams and mini nukes are quiet outrageous claims even by truthy standards?

No, Energy weapons are science fact.

Redtail

15th March 2007, 07:56 PM

Yes, they are afraid of documented evidence that may land them in prison.

Even though they would make tens of millions of dollars and be hailed as national heroes once you release the information they gave you? Or did you want to take all of the credit?

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

Two very large planes, traveling at a high rate of speed.

No, Energy weapons are science fact.

Oh so you can show us a possible weapon? What is it? Oh and the source you got the specs from.

Pipirr

15th March 2007, 07:57 PM

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 07:57 PM

Yes, they are afraid of documented evidence that may land them in prison.

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

No, Energy weapons are science fact.
:dl:
you have at least 5 registered engineers here, and numerous other students, physicists, chemists, and other experts who have over the past few thousand posts, given you answers which you refuse to see.
Not a one of us are in jail, or even fearful of it.
buh bye.

A W Smith

15th March 2007, 08:01 PM

Does anyone have any answers for my questions?

What about the proposed experiment? If you all are so willing to believe in the "Drafting Drywall Dust" explanation, why not have a litte experiment? I strongly suspect the reason is that you all know that you are lying, and are quite afraid of such an experiment. Otherwise, help me design it. I'll do it.

Don't you have a shovel? I already proved it! OK if you don't have a shovel why not do something similar. Go to a home center and get a bag of some powdered joint compound. Now throw it onto something heavy and useless you possess. Oh I know.. Your Grand Piano!! your music sucks anyway. So open the bag of powdered joint compound and spread it evenly all over the top of your useless grand piano. Now nudge it out the third story balcony. You see that? The Powdered Joint compound if drafting the damn piano! Oops forgot to tell you to hold your ears while it hits the pavement below cause the piano is going to make a sound that sounds better than your last composition.

WildCat

15th March 2007, 08:07 PM

To rework an old joke, perfect pitch is defined as the sound of Ace Baker's piano hitting square in the middle of a dumpster from a 3rd floor balcony.

babazaroni

15th March 2007, 08:10 PM

What about the proposed experiment? If you all are so willing to believe in the "Drafting Drywall Dust" explanation, why not have a litte experiment? I strongly suspect the reason is that you all know that you are lying, and are quite afraid of such an experiment. Otherwise, help me design it. I'll do it.

"Drafting drywall" is pretty funny. It's got a ring to it.

I can see it on LCF, "those dumbf* jrefers think drywall drafted. Hahaha. They live in such a bizarre world. Hahaha, idiots. MiniNukes rule dude"

But what about the acre of concrete 4 inches thick on each floor?

Don't you think that constituted far more material then drywall?

BTW, A.W Smith has already performed this experiment by shoveling construction debris out a few floors up.

No one here is afraid of scaling this experiment up, but why do this for a Christophera wannabe?

LashL

15th March 2007, 08:10 PM

And now TAM goes away, embarrassed, without replying to my answer. TAM, if you can't see the difference in behaviour between the Landmark dust, and the twin tower dust, I feel very sorry for your patients.

As if. Nothing you have ever posted here embarrasses anyone but yourself. You need not worry your little tinhat covered head about TAM's patients, BS1+2=4. You have enough on your plate trying to get out from under your ridiculous, unsupported assertions and your lack of knowledge, credentials and expertise - which you have utterly failed to do on every single thread that you have ever posted on - that you need not worry about anyone else.

And you still haven't answered my posts above ~ does that mean that you are too embarrassed to do so?

The rest of your post is undeserving of response. Nobody here buys your nonsense for a moment. You really should stick to troofer sites and the DU dungeon where your fellow troofers will swallow anything.

LashL

15th March 2007, 08:13 PM

To rework an old joke, perfect pitch is defined as the sound of Ace Baker's piano hitting square in the middle of a dumpster from a 3rd floor balcony.

Boom tish.

(His music and vocals suck almost as badly as his nonsensical posts here, IMO.)

AZCat

15th March 2007, 08:13 PM

Hey, TS1+2=4, is it true that you're "petgoat" on DU? This has been raised before but you've never answered.

I don't know -they all start to sound the same after a while (with the exception of a few standouts - ChristopherA, for example, will never be mistaken for another).

The Almond

15th March 2007, 08:16 PM

And now TAM goes away, embarrassed, without replying to my answer. TAM, if you can't see the difference in behaviour between the Landmark dust, and the twin tower dust, I feel very sorry for your patients.
This is a very childish statement. Please consider arguing like an adult.

Does anyone have any answers for my questions?

What an astounding sentiment for a person whose participation in this forum for the last 3 months has been to come in, make wild, unsupported and irrational claims, and then leave before answering any of the rational questions or challenges to your arguments.

What about the proposed experiment? If you all are so willing to believe in the "Drafting Drywall Dust" explanation, why not have a litte experiment?

Your wording betrays your bias. Real scientists know that valid, global results do not come from "little experiments." Frankly, you have neither the experience, education, nor the resources to conduct an experiment on the scale that would replicate the crushing conditions of the WTC towers.

I strongly suspect the reason is that you all know that you are lying, and are quite afraid of such an experiment.

This is trolling behavior. Insulting the forum members and calling them cowards does nothing for your argument and is only intended to bring emotional responses into the thread. Please argue like an adult.

PhantomWolf

15th March 2007, 08:18 PM

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

Just in case you missed it last time (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf)*

*Disclaimer: While this paper debunks it's target well, it lacks the same critical thought to the author's own theory.

CHF

15th March 2007, 09:03 PM

Yes, they are afraid of documented evidence that may land them in prison.

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

No, Energy weapons are science fact.

So TS presents an "anomolly" and when asked for HIS theory he babbles on about beam weapons.

Asking twoofers for their theories (instead of letting them JAQ off) is a sure way to end the debate.

Their theories are always so stupid that all you can do is shake your head and thank God that so many of these people are glued to their PCs all day instead of out driving around.

Horatius

15th March 2007, 09:05 PM

I'll just quote TruthinessSeeker from an earlier discussion we had:

Models attempt to describe reality. They must be simpler than reality, but to be valid must capture some essential aspect of reality. Greening's model requires the mass to accumulate as the "collapse" proceeds. All of the evidence, I repeat, all of it indicates that this is not the case. We observe mass quantities of very dense stuff outside the footprint. When it's over, there is no pile. There is a smoldering crater.

Why don't you guys get to the part where you explain how all of the accumulating mass which stays inside the footprint, suddenly turns into a smoldering crater, as clearly shown in this picture?

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image129.jpg

Just so we all remember exactly how divorced from reality his perceptions actually are.

Thank you TS. And I mean that sincerely. Now I know what this thread is all about.

I did warn you about needing lots of beer, right?

Unfit4Command

15th March 2007, 09:08 PM

And, please, what happened to the steel from the north wall of WTC1?

Do you expect to be able to see EVERY SINGLE piece of steel from the buildings after they collapsed just from looking at pictures? btw, what pictures are you looking at to find the steel? I would love to see them all since you love pictorial evidence so much, I would LOVE to see the pictures you think prove that beam weapons (or whatever weapons you believe were used) destroyed the North Tower's north wall.

Thanks :)

Horatius

15th March 2007, 09:14 PM

Also, this is the theory he favours:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

A theory created by someone so well-versed in the details of 9/11, that she forgot there were two towers when tyring to figure out how much dust could be created:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam3.html#howmuch

As for his "Where's the wall?" question, this is what he's on about:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam4.html#MissingWall

So not only is BS1234 a complete loon, he's also a completely unoriginal loon who follows people who make glaringly obvious mistakes.

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 09:22 PM

"Drafting drywall" is pretty funny. It's got a ring to it.

But what about the acre of concrete 4 inches thick on each floor?

Don't you think that constituted far more material then drywall?

BTW, A.W Smith has already performed this experiment by shoveling construction debris out a few floors up.

No one here is afraid of scaling this experiment up, but why do this for a Christophera wannabe?

Yes, what about the 110 acre sized slabs of reinforced concrete in each tower, supported by steel trusses under steel floor pans? Those appear to have disintegrated completely. I have found less than 1% of this material. Yes, let's add concrete dust to the experiment.

Can you link me to a video of AW Smith's experiment? I'd like to see it.

I'm asking for any and all input on what you guys think will recreate what we see on 9/11. How do we make it look like the dust is coming from the end of a beam, for a long fall? Like this:

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image335.jpg

CHF

15th March 2007, 09:25 PM

Those appear to have disintegrated completely. I have found less than 1% of this material.

What education do you have, TS?

I mean specifically your science and engineering degrees.

PhantomWolf

15th March 2007, 09:28 PM

TruthSeeker, you are aware that people actually survived the collapses and were rescuded from inside the remians of the towers, right?

Unfit4Command

15th March 2007, 09:35 PM

TruthSeeker, you are aware that people actually survived the collapses and were rescuded from inside the remians of the towers, right?

The Star Wars Beam Weapon missed those people.

Babbylonian

15th March 2007, 09:38 PM

The Star Wars Beam Weapon missed those people.
No, it was simply tuned to a frequency that doesn't affect humans. Honestly, this is Super Space Beam 101, people!

babazaroni

15th March 2007, 10:07 PM

R.Mackey

15th March 2007, 10:12 PM

RMackey, I've explained this to you before, stop playing dumb, you're an intelligent man. Apart from numbers typed into a spreadsheet, there is no basis for your assertions. The photographic evidence indicates quite conclusively that only about 20-30% of the steel from the twin towers remained macroscopic. Only about 1% of the concrete, if that.
No, Ace.

My basis is articles such as this one (http://www.apwa.net/Publications/Reporter/ReporterOnline/index.asp?DISPLAY=ISSUE&ISSUE_DATE=032004&ARTICLE_NUMBER=770), or here (http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html) or even here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/16/national/main506272.shtml) if you prefer. I'm not going by some sinister "spreadsheet."

Photographic evidence trumps a spreadsheet, scientifically speaking.
That's false, but even if you insist on photographs, I can accommodate you. Try here (http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=34), for example, especially this one (http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=318&z=0). Yes, Ace, a whole freighter full of recovered steel, and more where that came from. Or this whole gallery (http://www.911digitalarchive.org/crr/images/CRRDB/World%20Trade%20Center/Debris%20Removal.htm) of images.

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.
Fluid is not a "phase," Ace. Both liquids and gases are fluids, and in some situations, solids can be treated as fluids as well. Your assertion is incoherent.

This fluid fell about as fast as water would fall, if the water was poured in a large stream. Thus the notion that the falling dust-fluid had about the same density as water is well supported by the available observations.
Absurd. Water that fell that far wouldn't hit the ground as a large stream. It would be subject to Plateau-Rayleigh instability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plateau-Rayleigh_instability) and impact as a volume of droplets, the volume -- and terminal velocity -- of each varying but averaging a diameter comparable to that of the initial volume. The speed of falling water has less to do with its density than it does with its initial shape. In other words, "as fast as water would fall" is a poorly defined quantity.

Regardless, measuring falling time is a poor way to estimate density. The best you can hope for is to measure ballistic coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient), and that is a strong function of shape. Unless you know the shape, you cannot extract density.

The dust clouds do not become larger than the building until after they have spread out (i.e. become less dense). A truly correct analysis of the density of the dust-fluid would have to be a dynamic one, and would show the decreasing density over time.
A "truly correct" analysis of the "dust-fluid" is impossible. The dust is opaque. You cannot estimate the fluid flow inside the dust cloud, and only roughly approximate the flow at its boundary. I've explained (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2058904#post2058904) this to you before, too.

Gumboot, what do you think the density of the dust-fluid is? If it's not very dense, why does it fall so fast?
It falls so fast because of a phenomenon known as entrainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrainment_%28hydrodynamics%29).

Elsewhere you claimed you could estimate the density of a particle if you measured its falling speed. That's true if you know its shape, its size, and can assume it falls through a steady stream of clean air. If you know all of these, you can work it out, using an estimated drag coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient) if the object is large, and using Stokes' Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes'_law) if the object is small.

The WTC case, however, allows none of these assumptions. Particles are all shapes, all sizes, many densities, and -- most importantly -- they are not falling through a clean airstream.

Watch any video of the collapse. I know you've got several of them ready to go. In front of those billowing dust clouds, without exception, are large chunks of solid structure. These chunks are quite massive, and thus fall with little regard to air resistance, their terminal velocity being perhaps 200 meters per second or more. And these pieces disturb the airflow.

Right behind these huge chunks, air follows behind them, creating a wide wake that moves downward at up to the same speed as the leading object. You interpret this as a "low pressure area," which is not quite accurate since the phenomenon is purely subsonic, but close enough. Air fills the space behind the object. Any dust that was captured in this wake would be towed along, regardless of that dust's size, shape, or density.

That's why it travels down so fast. And that's why trying to estimate its density from that picture is completely impossible.

There's no need to throw your piano off a cliff to prove or disprove this notion, it's remarkably simple.

You make fair points about conventional explosives. For these and other reasons, we suspect that exotic weapons must have been used. We're looking at fusion, and Directed Energy.

You can stop looking. I've already proven (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102) that "Directed Energy" of that magnitude is impossible, regardless of the technology behind it. You've been shown this several times, and never saw fit to comment.

Even forgetting the difficulties in remaining covert, conventional explosives are not able to explain the data. Of course, any gravity-driven theory cannot possibly explain the data. You are an engineer, I request that you review the Wood/Reynolds paper.
We've already reviewed (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70466) that paper, not to mention its companion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2064473#post2064473). They're flawed beyond any redeeming value. So flawed, indeed, that some people in the Idiot Movement consider author Judy Wood (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2306911#post2306911) (and, even yourself!) to be "COINTELPRO." (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2411511#post2411511)

It's hard to be more removed from reality than that. The poor woman needs help, and she's clearly not getting it.

Please, Ace, stop the madness. Even among your fellow Troothers, your claims are considered incredible.

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 10:15 PM

:dl:
you have at least 5 registered engineers here, and numerous other students, physicists, chemists, and other experts who have over the past few thousand posts, given you answers which you refuse to see.
Not a one of us are in jail, or even fearful of it.
buh bye.

Ok. Will you speak with me on the phone, on record, with real names, and answer some questions about 9/11?

babazaroni

15th March 2007, 10:26 PM

I'm asking for any and all input on what you guys think will recreate what we see on 9/11. How do we make it look like the dust is coming from the end of a beam, for a long fall? Like this:

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image335.jpg

First of all, as your photo shows, this 'dust' is not coming from just the ends. This material is being blasted away by the air flow (could be hundreds of miles per hour).

What material was attached to these girders sections?

Could it be spray on insulation coming off?

Could be drywall on the inside, could be plaster, but could also be another material.

You are going to have to do some research to show that this 'dust' is not just one of the construction materials.

ETA: In fact, you can see white material on the girder sections in the lower right part of your picture. Thats the stuff thats being air blasted off.

Mr.D

15th March 2007, 10:27 PM

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. This fluid fell about as fast as water would fall, if the water was poured in a large stream. Thus the notion that the falling dust-fluid had about the same density as water is well supported by the available observations.

I ask again,

Just what was the density of the twin tower dust? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2427282#post2427282)

Your assertation that the dust/fluid fell "about as fast as water would fall" means that "falling dust-fluid had about the same density as water" betrays an remarkable lack of knowledge and absence of both logical and observational skills.

First, you need to demonstrate that the flow rate of a large stream of poured water is indeed comparable to the "flow rate" of the dust/air mixture.

Fluids exist at an astounding range of densities from stellar atmospheres (10E-6 g/cm^3) to mercury (~13 g/cm^3) and density is not the only factor which determines how a liquid behaves. Viscocity (often very temperature dependant) and pressure are also important. In the case of aggregate or emulsion/suspension type fluids, the particle shape, size and materials distributions can contribute greatly to hydrodynamic behaviors.

In order to conclude anything about the density of your proposed dust/air fluid, you need to plausably model or measure in at least six degrees of phase space, and that doesn't even include temperature and pressure gradients and boundary conditions.

When you come up with all of that, then you can come back and try to argue what the behavior of the dust means.

Unfit4Command

15th March 2007, 10:36 PM

Yes, what about the 110 acre sized slabs of reinforced concrete in each tower, supported by steel trusses under steel floor pans? Those appear to have disintegrated completely. I have found less than 1% of this material. Yes, let's add concrete dust to the experiment.

Do you honestly believe that you will be able to find ALL of the floor trusses and steel plates after they were crushed by hundreds of tons of floors smashing down on them? Also, what's that "1%" number based on? Nothing?

Have you seen examples of the truss debris NIST has? They're not fully intact trusses that you for some reason expect to be laying all over ground zero, they're twisted metal heaps in most cases...

Like these for example:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/6-3_wtc1-column-truss.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/wtcsteel_homepage.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC-014_hires.jpg

It's not hard to find pieces of debris that look like the truss pieces above just by looking at photo's of Ground Zero. Even near the North wall of the North Tower! :jaw-dropp

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/possiblytrussmaterial.jpg

Now I'm not saying that all, or even any of this is truss material, but it sure does have resemblances to the truss material at NIST.

I'm asking for any and all input on what you guys think will recreate what we see on 9/11. How do we make it look like the dust is coming from the end of a beam, for a long fall? Like this:

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image335.jpg

I'm sure that if we fire a high power beam weapon down at a building it will create exactly what we saw on 9/11. The building will collapse to the ground, the steel will "dustify" and massive amounts of steel will be present in dust samples...wait, that didn't happen since I haven't seen a dust sampling with ANY steel present let alone massive amounts.

You have yet to provide any scientific proof of the steel "dustifying." it seems like someone who did a dust sample of ground zero would eventually find a large amount of steel in the dust and be like "uhhh...for some reason the steel turned to dust." But that has yet to happen...let me know when it does.

Solus

15th March 2007, 10:38 PM

You should learn to waste time with more productive things. This 9/11 is stuff is unhealthy, take a break from the "truth" movement for a while and go outside and breathe some fresh air..

Solus

15th March 2007, 10:39 PM

Do you honestly believe that you will be able to find ALL of the floor trusses and steel plates after they were crushed by hundreds of tons of floors smashing down on them? Also, what's that "1%" number based on? Nothing?

Have you seen examples of the truss debris NIST has? They're not fully intact trusses that you for some reason expect to be laying all over ground zero, they're twisted metal heaps in most cases...

Like these for example:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/6-3_wtc1-column-truss.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/wtcsteel_homepage.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC-014_hires.jpg

It's not hard to find pieces of debris that look like the truss pieces above just by looking at photo's of Ground Zero. Even near the North wall of the North Tower! :jaw-dropp

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/possiblytrussmaterial.jpg

Now I'm not saying that all, or even any of this is truss material, but it sure does have resemblances to the truss material at NIST.

I'm sure that if we fire a high power beam weapon down at a building it will create exactly what we saw on 9/11. The building will collapse to the ground, the steel will "dustify" and massive amounts of steel will be present in dust samples...wait, that didn't happen since I haven't seen a dust sampling with ANY steel present let alone massive amounts.

You have yet to provide any scientific proof of the steel "dustifying." it seems like someone who did a dust sample of ground zero would eventually find a large amount of steel in the dust and be like "uhhh...for some reason the steel turned to dust." But that has yet to happen...let me know when it does.

If you the believe in the 9/11 conspiracy, how could even trust this data? it comes from the government too... :boggled:

beachnut

15th March 2007, 10:39 PM

Ok. Will you speak with me on the phone, on record, with real names, and answer some questions about 9/11?
What is this phone fetish you truthers have?

Unfit4Command

15th March 2007, 11:03 PM

If you the believe in the 9/11 conspiracy, how could even trust this data? it comes from the government too... :boggled:

Sorry, I forgot. Government=lies :rolleyes: Judy Wood is a much much more reliable source than NIST, I think everyone here would agree.

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 11:11 PM

No, Ace.

My basis is articles such as this one (http://www.apwa.net/Publications/Reporter/ReporterOnline/index.asp?DISPLAY=ISSUE&ISSUE_DATE=032004&ARTICLE_NUMBER=770), or here (http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html) or even here (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/16/national/main506272.shtml) if you prefer. I'm not going by some sinister "spreadsheet."

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 you gotta lotta concrete missing too. Like, 99% of it. You gotta lotta building contents missing. Like 99% of it.

That's false, but even if you insist on photographs, I can accommodate you. Try here (http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=34), for example, especially this one (http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/supporting.asp?ID=318&z=0). Yes, Ace, a whole freighter full of recovered steel, and more where that came from. Or this whole gallery (http://www.911digitalarchive.org/crr/images/CRRDB/World%20Trade%20Center/Debris%20Removal.htm) of images.

How much steel do those photos show? Laid end to end, the core columns would be more than 20 miles. THere would be about 4800 of the 3X3 wheatchex. Do we see anything approaching that? I don't. If you do, where is it?

Fluid is not a "phase," Ace. Both liquids and gases are fluids, and in some situations, solids can be treated as fluids as well. Your assertion is incoherent.

I never said fluid and phase are synonymous, and you know it. Stop it.

Phase: (physical chemistry) a distinct state of matter in a system; matter that is identical in chemical composition and physical state and separated from other material by the phase boundary;

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.

Absurd. Water that fell that far wouldn't hit the ground as a large stream. It would be subject to Plateau-Rayleigh instability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plateau-Rayleigh_instability) and impact as a volume of droplets, the volume -- and terminal velocity -- of each varying but averaging a diameter comparable to that of the initial volume. The speed of falling water has less to do with its density than it does with its initial shape. In other words, "as fast as water would fall" is a poorly defined quantity.

OK. Let's use: Almost as fast as solid steel would fall.

Regardless, measuring falling time is a poor way to estimate density.

But its the best way we have, under the circumstances.

The best you can hope for is to measure ballistic coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_coefficient), and that is a strong function of shape. Unless you know the shape, you cannot extract density.

OK, we'll use worst case scenario. That is, shapes that are favorable to fast-falling, that is spheres.

A "truly correct" analysis of the "dust-fluid" is impossible. The dust is opaque. You cannot estimate the fluid flow inside the dust cloud, and only roughly approximate the flow at its boundary. I've explained (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2058904#post2058904) this to you before, too.

It falls so fast because of a phenomenon known as entrainment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrainment_%28hydrodynamics%29).

This is where one fluid pushes or pulls another one. Which other fluid was pushing or pulling the WTC dust-fluid?

Elsewhere you claimed you could estimate the density of a particle if you measured its falling speed. That's true if you know its shape, its size, and can assume it falls through a steady stream of clean air. If you know all of these, you can work it out, using an estimated drag coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient) if the object is large, and using Stokes' Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes'_law) if the object is small.

The WTC case, however, allows none of these assumptions. Particles are all shapes, all sizes, many densities, and -- most importantly -- they are not falling through a clean airstream.

Watch any video of the collapse. I know you've got several of them ready to go. In front of those billowing dust clouds, without exception, are large chunks of solid structure. These chunks are quite massive, and thus fall with little regard to air resistance, their terminal velocity being perhaps 200 meters per second or more. And these pieces disturb the airflow.

Right behind these huge chunks, air follows behind them, creating a wide wake that moves downward at up to the same speed as the leading object. You interpret this as a "low pressure area," which is not quite accurate since the phenomenon is purely subsonic, but close enough. Air fills the space behind the object. Any dust that was captured in this wake would be towed along, regardless of that dust's size, shape, or density.

That's why it travels down so fast. And that's why trying to estimate its density from that picture is completely impossible.

There's no need to throw your piano off a cliff to prove or disprove this notion, it's remarkably simple.

I'm not volunteering my piano. I am volunteering a piece of steel, or some piece of junk. I'd really like your input on how to recreate the effect we see over and over. You have to admit, it sure looks like the dust is coming directly out of the steel. How could we design an experiment where we could throw a heavy object off a cliff, with attached concrete/drywall/fireproofing/etc with the absolute most favorable possibility that it would recreate the phenomenon observed repeatedly on 9/11: Dust that flows continuously off of the steel, and falls rapidly.

You can stop looking. I've already proven (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2086102#post2086102) that "Directed Energy" of that magnitude is impossible, regardless of the technology behind it. You've been shown this several times, and never saw fit to comment.

NSA guy Greg Jenkins has written a paper on that. You guys are both wrong. You are ignoring the energy present in the material itself. A relatively small energy input, perhaps in the form of constructive interference patterns from two or more intersecting beams, could excite steel molecules in such a way that either the chemical bonding energy and /or nuclear energy is released. You know, E=Mc^2. Before Einstein, if I would have told you that a small bomb could level a city, you would have offered the same "insufficient energy" argument, and you would have been wrong.

In any case, you and Jenkins are proceeding scientifically backwards. You must start with understanding what happened (dustification), then try to explain figure out where the energy came from. You can say it's impossible all you want, the pictures are real. The spire disintegrated.

We've already reviewed (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70466) that paper, not to mention its companion (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2064473#post2064473). They're flawed beyond any redeeming value. So flawed, indeed, that some people in the Idiot Movement consider author Judy Wood (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2306911#post2306911) (and, even yourself!) to be "COINTELPRO." (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2411511#post2411511)

It's hard to be more removed from reality than that. The poor woman needs help, and she's clearly not getting it.

Please, Ace, stop the madness. Even among your fellow Troothers, your claims are considered incredible.

Any time you want to come out from behind your veil of anonymity, and go on record, Mr. NASA man, anytime, any day, any night . . . Come on over to my studio. We'll sit and have this conversation on video, you can make your energy requirement argument, and show the debris piles, and cite any studies, and whatever you want. I think the vast majority of people have never seen the real evidence, and when they do, I think the vast majority of people will believe me.

WildCat

15th March 2007, 11:17 PM

Ace, if you can find a dozen other people who believe what you do I'll be amazed.

babazaroni

15th March 2007, 11:23 PM

You have to admit, it sure looks like the dust is coming directly out of the steel. How could we design an experiment where we could throw a heavy object off a cliff, with attached concrete/drywall/fireproofing/etc with the absolute most favorable possibility that it would recreate the phenomenon observed repeatedly on 9/11: Dust that flows continuously off of the steel, and falls rapidly.

Why do you think the material that is being air blasted off the girder sections is falling as rapidly as the girders?

It looks like that air-blasted material is falling back into the stream.

As in any chaotic situation, several phenomena could be occurring at the same time.

Material can be air-blasted off the girders sections as well as these sections providing the leading edge of a stream behaving as Mackey described.

ETA: Mackey is hardly anonymous.

R.Mackey

15th March 2007, 11:28 PM

Those articles simply echo the official line. There is no proof of the quantity of steel or concrete. None.

... if you throw out all the proof, there is no proof, correct.

Hasn't it occurred to you how circular your reasoning is?
You know 9/11 was a Government hoax because the science doesn't add up
The science doesn't add up because the steel is missing
The steel is missing because all written records describing where it was are lies
All written records are lies because the Government hoaxed 9/11

Round and round and round you go, for months now.

How much steel do those photos show? Laid end to end, the core columns would be more than 20 miles. THere would be about 4800 of the 3X3 wheatchex. Do we see anything approaching that? I don't. If you do, where is it?
It covered over 100 acres at Fresh Kills, and it filled the holds of several freighters. Didn't you even bother to click my links?

I never said fluid and phase are synonymous, and you know it. Stop it.

Phase: (physical chemistry) a distinct state of matter in a system; matter that is identical in chemical composition and physical state and separated from other material by the phase boundary;
So... this means you're suggesting the WTC dust was all "identical in chemical composition?" That's even stupider.

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.
Hot and cold water in a bathtub will maintain distinct boundaries against each other, until you mix them up. Just hop in and feel for yourself if you don't believe me. Are they in "separate phases?"

This is where one fluid pushes or pulls another one. Which other fluid was pushing or pulling the WTC dust-fluid?
The fluid "pulling the WTC dust-fluid" is the fluid at the stagnation points (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagnation_point) of the large falling objects. By definition, this fluid travels at the same speed as those objects.

I'm not volunteering my piano. I am volunteering a piece of steel, or some piece of junk. I'd really like your input on how to recreate the effect we see over and over. You have to admit, it sure looks like the dust is coming directly out of the steel. How could we design an experiment where we could throw a heavy object off a cliff, with attached concrete/drywall/fireproofing/etc with the absolute most favorable possibility that it would recreate the phenomenon observed repeatedly on 9/11: Dust that flows continuously off of the steel, and falls rapidly.
Here's an easy one. Pile dust on top of your car, and then have a confederate drive it away. Simple.

NSA guy Greg Jenkins has written a paper on that. You guys are both wrong. You are ignoring the energy present in the material itself. A relatively small energy input, perhaps in the form of constructive interference patterns from two or more intersecting beams, could excite steel molecules in such a way that either the chemical bonding energy and /or nuclear energy is released. You know, E=Mc^2. Before Einstein, if I would have told you that a small bomb could level a city, you would have offered the same "insufficient energy" argument, and you would have been wrong.
You've got to be kidding me.

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

In any case, you and Jenkins are proceeding scientifically backwards. You must start with understanding what happened (dustification), then try to explain figure out where the energy came from. You can say it's impossible all you want, the pictures are real. The spire disintegrated.
No, it didn't. In order to reach that conclusion, you have to throw out every single record of what happened to the debris. Heck, even Steven Jones says you're nuts.

Any time you want to come out from behind your veil of anonymity, and go on record, Mr. NASA man, anytime, any day, any night . . . Come on over to my studio. We'll sit and have this conversation on video, you can make your energy requirement argument, and show the debris piles, and cite any studies, and whatever you want. I think the vast majority of people have never seen the real evidence, and when they do, I think the vast majority of people will believe me.
What veil of anonymity? My login is my real name.

You, on the other hand, are an admitted hoaxer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64164), and so nuts that other Troothers think you're a "disinfo agent." You've falsely accused me of being a liar (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2273987), and haven't apologized.

What makes you think your "offer" is worth anything other than laughter?

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 11:29 PM

Do you expect to be able to see EVERY SINGLE piece of steel from the buildings after they collapsed just from looking at pictures? btw, what pictures are you looking at to find the steel? I would love to see them all since you love pictorial evidence so much, I would LOVE to see the pictures you think prove that beam weapons (or whatever weapons you believe were used) destroyed the North Tower's north wall.

Thanks :)

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. We have photos from 9/11, after the twin tower events, but before the WTC7 event. There is no huge pile in Vesey street.

Here is a great resource for studying the situation. Enjoy.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

babazaroni

15th March 2007, 11:36 PM

Enjoy.

You mean like laugh at Judy?

TruthSeeker1234

15th March 2007, 11:40 PM

RMackey has suggested an experiment to duplicate the effects observed on 9/11.

He says

Here's an easy one. Pile dust on top of your car, and then have a confederate drive it away. Simple.

That is easy. But this would be horizontal, not vertical. I'd like to try to duplicate the effect seen on 9/11. I like the idea of throwing a heavy object over a cliff. How should I attach (or not attach) the dust, and what sort of combinations of dust should I use, in order to have the greatest chance of duplicating the effect observed multiple times on 9/11?

Thank You.

R.Mackey

15th March 2007, 11:43 PM

What difference does it being horizontal make? You'd have dust adjacent to a solid object, in a freestream of air. What's the problem?

babazaroni

15th March 2007, 11:44 PM

That is easy. But this would be horizontal, not vertical. I'd like to try to duplicate the effect seen on 9/11. I like the idea of throwing a heavy object over a cliff. How should I attach (or not attach) the dust, and what sort of combinations of dust should I use, in order to have the greatest chance of duplicating the effect observed multiple times on 9/11?

Thank You.

You are going to have to find out exactly what was on those girder sections.

Spray on insulation? Drywall? Plaster?

You have to prove your extraordinary claim to the public.

Get to it.

gumboot

15th March 2007, 11:45 PM

You should seek damages from the school system!

This is probably the best JREF come-back I have ever seen on these boards.

Had me laughing for a long time.

-Gumboot

Unfit4Command

16th March 2007, 12:18 AM

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. We have photos from 9/11, after the twin tower events, but before the WTC7 event. There is no huge pile in Vesey street.

Here is a great resource for studying the situation. Enjoy.

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html

How many CLEAR photo's are available of Vesey Street prior to the collapse of WTC 7? I've seen none, please show me your clear pictures. Perhaps some of the perimeter columns were covered by other falling debris, it's not like they were the last pieces of debris to strike the ground.

I have a question. Apparently some "Star Wars Beam Weapon" that NASA and every other country in the world doesn't know exists, managed to destroy, and partially "dustify" both WTC Towers in roughly 15-20 seconds each. But it fails to destroy these small pieces of steel before they reach the ground?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/Image335.jpg

It also fails to fire through and around these pieces of steel. It seems like WTC 3 would be disintegrating in this photo if that steel is really "dustifying" because of a star wars beam weapon, but of course, it's not.

There are a lot more explanations for the dust flying off the steel. Perhaps fire proofing or insulation breaking off while the steel is flying towards the ground at amazing speeds?

Just look at what makes up the largest amounts of the dust samples at Ground Zero:
45.1% Fiberglass, rock wool (insulation, fireproofing)
31.8% Plaster (gypsum), concrete products (calcium sulfate, selenite, muscodite)
7.1% Charred wood and debris
2.1% Paper fibers
2.1% Mica flakes
2.0% Ceiling tiles (fiberglass component)
2.0% Synthetic fibers
1.4% Glass fragments
1.3% Human remains
1.4% Natural fibers
trace asbestos (it became illegal to use during the construction of the WTC)
Other trace elements: aluminum, paint pigments, blood, hair, glass wool with resin, and prescription drugs were found.
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/004194.html

Sorry for using a scientific test to prove my point, I know that you're not a fan of science.

Fireproofing could definitely produce a large amount of dust. Notice how the dust flying off the steel has a similar color as the fireproofing used in the WTC's.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/fireproofing.jpg

If a different kind of fireproofing was used on the perimeter columns, please correct me.

Now look at the color of the falling steel. The piece towards the bottom is a red, why do I see no red in the dust clouds coming off of the red piece of steel? Seems like a beam weapon that's powerful enough to turn steel into dust wouldn't miss the redness of the steel. If a majority of the WTC's was "dustified" by a Star Wars Beam Weapon, the dust would be more than just the color of fireproofing, concrete, etc...things that you would expect to create dust during a collapse.

So this is what the star wars beam weapon does:
-It's capable of destroying two 110 storey buildings in about 15-20 seconds each, but not capable of destroying little pieces of falling steel before they strike the ground?
-It causes redish colored steel to disintegrate and form white dust. Only some of the steel though, ALL of the steel should be visible from ariel photo's of ground zero, it's not like some of it could possibly be covered up by other debris.
-It somehow missed some of the people who survived inside of the Towers when they collapsed.
-It can cause steel to disintegrate into dust, but the dust isn't present in dust samples from Ground Zero...Unless! Everyone who has ever done dust samples from Ground Zero is lying! :o

babazaroni

16th March 2007, 12:31 AM

Those girder sections also show panels on them. Those panels, or something on those panels, could be the source of the air-blasted material streaming away.

BTW, thanks Unfit4Command for those great pictures on this page.

MRC_Hans

16th March 2007, 05:27 AM

1.3% Human remains

Good data. I'd like to comment on the rather gruelling-looking figure above. It must be noted that much of this is probably not from the victims of that day. People had been working in those buildings for decades and a considerable portion of the dust in any well-used building will be idintifiable as "human remains", mainly dead skin cells, hair, nails, various things that you cough out.

Remember the old CRT monitors from before they introduced protection against electical fields? They always collected lots of dust on the screen (due to attraction from electrical fields generated by the high voltage driving the CRT). According to one investigation, 60% of that dust consisted of dead skin cells.

Hans

Horatius

16th March 2007, 06:16 AM

NSA guy Greg Jenkins has written a paper on that. You guys are both wrong. You are ignoring the energy present in the material itself. A relatively small energy input, perhaps in the form of constructive interference patterns from two or more intersecting beams, could excite steel molecules in such a way that either the chemical bonding energy and /or nuclear energy is released. You know, E=Mc^2. Before Einstein, if I would have told you that a small bomb could level a city, you would have offered the same "insufficient energy" argument, and you would have been wrong.

So, R.Mackey has another example for the Inflationary Theory of CT. Now we have TS1234 proposing some new, undiscovered by anyone but the conspirators, method of inducing nuclear reactions in steel, and from a distance, no less.

Oh, except, iron (the main component of steel, you'll recall) has one of the highest nuclear binding energies:

At the peak of binding energy, nickel-62 is the most tightly-bound nucleus, followed by iron-58 and iron-56.[1] (This is the basic reason why iron and nickel are very common metals in planetary cores, since they are produced profusely as end products in supernovae). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy#Nuclear_binding_energy_curve)

...meaning any nuclear reaction, fission or fusion, will result in a loss of energy, not a gain. Hell, even supernovae create iron, they don't destroy it! So you've got some new physics that is potentially more energetic than a supernovae! Better put a safety on that sucker!

Horatius

16th March 2007, 06:26 AM

Like these for example:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/6-3_wtc1-column-truss.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/wtcsteel_homepage.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/WTC-014_hires.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/possiblytrussmaterial.jpg

And while we're at it: if the Dustification Beam can dustify 80% of the steel in the building, why is it none of the pieces we do see show any signs of being partially dustified? Are we to believe that this process is an all-or-nothing deal? The individual steel components are either intact, or dustified?

Does that seem at all reasonable?

So, Truthy, can you show us any pictures of half-dustified steel?

Unfit4Command

16th March 2007, 06:37 AM

And while we're at it: if the Dustification Beam can dustify 80% of the steel in the building, why is it none of the pieces we do see show any signs of being partially dustified? Are we to believe that this process is an all-or-nothing deal? The individual steel components are either intact, or dustified?

Does that seem at all reasonable?

So, Truthy, can you show us any pictures of half-dustified steel?

I already looked all over the place for some partially dustified steel, can't seem to find any. I can't seem to find any dust samples with large amounts of steel present either, and I can't seem to find any evidence of a high powered beam weapon in outer space that destroyed two 110 storey buildings in only 15-20 seconds each, while some people still inside survived.

-edit-

Oh yeah, I have one more question. What kind of energy does this beam weapon release? Heat? If it is heat, then why would the steel "dustify" instead of melt? If it's not heat, then please tell me what kind of weapon we're dealing with here.

MRC_Hans

16th March 2007, 06:51 AM

Excuse me, but why are we using time at all "debating" with the source of this drivel:

A relatively small energy input, perhaps in the form of constructive interference patterns from two or more intersecting beams, could excite steel molecules in such a way that either the chemical bonding energy and /or nuclear energy is released. You know, E=Mc^2.

I mean, throw in a few spelling errors, and Kumar could have written it.

Dude, your credibility just went homeopathic..... Or rather, it went from 100C to 1M :roll:.

Hans

Pipirr

16th March 2007, 07:34 AM

What kind of energy does this beam weapon release? Heat? If it is heat, then why would the steel "dustify" instead of melt? If it's not heat, then please tell me what kind of weapon we're dealing with here.

May I propose the 'Dakara Superweapon' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakara_Superweapon) as a possibility here?

As I'm sure anyone familiar with even basic beam weapon technology is aware, once calibrated, the Dakara Superweapon is designed to reduce all matter within range to its basic atomic structure. It does this by propagating a disruptor wave that separates the atoms.

It was used with great effect against the replicators (http://www.answers.com/topic/reckoning-stargate-sg-1), in fact eliminating them completely and preserving life in the galaxy. Clearly if such as weapon were to have fallen into the wrong hands, the threat to a large office complex in Manhattan would be immense.

No other explanation for the missing wall, the lack of any steel dust, and the extra energy input as evidenced by the cauliflowers, has the simple elegance of this proposal.

Occam's razor, my friend. A phaser cannon would have been too messy.

Unfit4Command

16th March 2007, 07:47 AM

May I propose the 'Dakara Superweapon' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakara_Superweapon) as a possibility here?

As I'm sure anyone familiar with even basic beam weapon technology is aware, once calibrated, the Dakara Superweapon is designed to reduce all matter within range to its basic atomic structure. It does this by propagating a disruptor wave that separates the atoms.

It was used with great effect against the replicators (http://www.answers.com/topic/reckoning-stargate-sg-1), in fact eliminating them completely and preserving life in the galaxy. Clearly if such as weapon were to have fallen into the wrong hands, the threat to a large office complex in Manhattan would be immense.

No other explanation for the missing wall, the lack of any steel dust, and the extra energy input as evidenced by the cauliflowers, has the simple elegance of this proposal.

Occam's razor, my friend. A phaser cannon would have been too messy.

But there's a problem with the "Dakara Superweapon." Do you notice the great amounts of light being released when the "Dakara Superweapon" is activated and fired? No such thing can be seen anywhere near the Twin Towers on 9/11. So this beam weapon must have released no light what-so-ever.

Also, from wikipedia:
"While it is incapable of destroying an entire planet, the wave will wash over everything on a planet's surface and in the surrounding space."

Nothing would exist on the planet if this was used on 9/11. Nice find though, Judy Wood will probably use this as evidence for the existance of such a weapon.

Horatius

16th March 2007, 07:48 AM

May I propose the 'Dakara Superweapon' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakara_Superweapon) as a possibility here?

No, I'm sorry my friend, but the leading experts have clearly stated that it was a "Star Wars Beam Weapon (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html)", not a "StarGate Beam Weapon".

Please study the literature before embarassing yourself like this!

Dave Rogers

16th March 2007, 07:53 AM

May I propose the 'Dakara Superweapon' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakara_Superweapon) as a possibility here?

No need. A Slaver disintegrator beam, which suppresses the charge on the electron and hence reduces the binding energy between atoms to zero, would do the job silently and efficiently, hence explaining the absence of any audible explosions. Read your Larry Niven.

Dave

Pipirr

16th March 2007, 08:02 AM

But there's a problem with the "Dakara Superweapon." Do you notice the great amounts of light being released when the "Dakara Superweapon" is activated and fired? No such thing can be seen anywhere near the Twin Towers on 9/11. So this beam weapon must have released no light what-so-ever.

Also, from wikipedia:
"While it is incapable of destroying an entire planet, the wave will wash over everything on a planet's surface and in the surrounding space."

Nothing would exist on the planet if this was used on 9/11. Nice find though, Judy Wood will probably use this as evidence for the existance of such a weapon.

Ha. It could have been mounted on an Asgard ship and fired from orbit. It was a sunny day so nobody noticed the bright light. And it was calibrated for WTC steel, not anything else on the planet. And only some of the steel.

No, I'm sorry my friend, but the leading experts have clearly stated that it was a "Star Wars Beam Weapon (http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam1.html)", not a "StarGate Beam Weapon".

Please study the literature before embarassing yourself like this!

Star Wars? DISINFO.

I know who George Lucas works for.

No need. A Slaver disintegrator beam, which suppresses the charge on the electron and hence reduces the binding energy between atoms to zero, would do the job silently and efficiently, hence explaining the absence of any audible explosions. Read your Larry Niven.

Dave

Sounds a little far-fetched to me...

Dave Rogers

16th March 2007, 08:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2431030#post2431030)
No need. A Slaver disintegrator beam, which suppresses the charge on the electron and hence reduces the binding energy between atoms to zero, would do the job silently and efficiently, hence explaining the absence of any audible explosions. Read your Larry Niven.

Dave

Sounds a little far-fetched to me...

After posting this, I googled "Larry Niven" and "Star Wars", and found the following at http://www.farsector.com/quadrant/interview-larryniven.htm:

SF: What are you most proud of in your non-writing life?

LN: The Soviet Union was driven bankrupt by a story evolved at my house in Tarzana. There were about fifty of us involved, led by Jerry Pournelle, during the Reagan era. It came to be called Space Defense Initiative, or Star Wars if you didn’t like it. The crucial point was that the Soviets couldn’t afford to keep up.

The science fiction writers were crucial: we could translate for the other guys, astronauts and engineers and military and businessmen and a lawyer.

So there you are - Larry Niven and some friends dreamed up Star Wars for the Reagan administration, Bush senior was Reagan's VP and successor, his son wanted to start a war to avenge the assassination plot against his father, so to fire up public opinion the WTC towers were demolished by a weapon clearly described in Larry Niven's books. Looks like a smoking disintegrator to me.

Dave

Horatius

16th March 2007, 08:20 AM

So there you are - Larry Niven and some friends dreamed up Star Wars for the Reagan administration, Bush senior was Reagan's VP and successor, his son wanted to start a war to avenge the assassination plot against his father, so to fire up public opinion the WTC towers were demolished by a weapon clearly described in Larry Niven's books. Looks like a smoking disintegrator to me.

Dave

OMFG! It all makes sense now - Larry Niven was able to devote his life to writing SF in part because he inherited a lot of money - that his grandfather made in the OIL BUSINESS!

9/11 was a Larry Niven Story!
9/11 was a Larry Niven Story!
9/11 was a Larry Niven Story!
9/11 was a Larry Niven Story!

Get the word out! Before he catches on to us!

WildCat

16th March 2007, 09:27 AM

But it fails to destroy these small pieces of steel before they reach the ground?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v721/rhearhy/Image335.jpg

There's also a man falling among the debris in that pic. :(

R.Mackey

16th March 2007, 09:35 AM

Personally, my money was on the Slaver Disintegrator as well... even though Ace's description made it sound more like a Tnuctip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tnuctip) mass-energy conversion ray.

At this point, Ace is clearly knocking on the gates of Christopheraville.

Mancman

16th March 2007, 09:47 AM

pvt1863

16th March 2007, 10:48 AM

Nuclear reactions in Iron? That is rich. Go read a nuclear engineering textbook and maybe you'll learn something. Personally, I suggest this one (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201824981/ref=pd_luc_mri/002-9955482-2839258?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance). I studied it during school and found it to be very useful.

The whole mini-nuke idea is completely absurd. The use of this claim demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of nuclear reactions.

The disintegration of steel and other materials is not a property of nuclear reactions themselves. The temperature and the pressure waves generated by a bomb are what cause that effect. If you had enough conventional explosives (and packed them well enough) to mimic a nuclear bomb, the conventional explosion would do the same thing. There is nothing special about fission or fusion that causes the destruction of surrounding materials (materials not involved in the reactions themselves). They just simply are very good at generating enormous amounts of heat and very large pressure differentials in a short period of time with a minimal amount of material.

Think of it this way. If nuclear fission somehow "vaporized" or "dustified" nearby steel, then every commercial nuclear power plant in the world would fall apart instantly because the steel vessels containing the cores would disintegrate.

Knowing that the disintegration associated with a nuclear explosion is pressure and temperature based (and not a function of the nuclear reactions), one can rule out mini-nukes as the cause of the WTC collapse. If the power of a nuclear bomb were scaled down enough to go off unnoticed (which is not possible to begin with), it would not generate the conditions necessary to make steel disintegrate, dustify, vaporize, or any other buzz word that truthers like to use. A weapon that small might knock steel beams out of position and initiate a collapse, but the steel would still be there to be found (which goes against TS1234's "evidence").

Similarly, a weapon large enough to disintegrate steel would have wiped out most of Manhattan and incinerated anyone within many blocks of the towers. If the weapons generate temperatures and pressure waves sufficient enough to vaporize steel in the towers, then those temperatures and pressure waves are still going to be plenty large outside of the building.

The bottom line is that "nuclear" does not mean "magic," no matter how much truthers want it to.

T.A.M.

16th March 2007, 12:30 PM

And now TAM goes away, embarrassed, without replying to my answer. TAM, if you can't see the difference in behaviour between the Landmark dust, and the twin tower dust, I feel very sorry for your patients.

Does anyone have any answers for my questions?

What about the proposed experiment? If you all are so willing to believe in the "Drafting Drywall Dust" explanation, why not have a litte experiment? I strongly suspect the reason is that you all know that you are lying, and are quite afraid of such an experiment. Otherwise, help me design it. I'll do it.

And, please, what happened to the steel from the north wall of WTC1?

Well I originally had a large viscous spue of insults and anger ready to post in reply to this. However, that would only gratify your childish attempt to goad me down to your level ACE.

My ability as a physician is just fine. I have had no complaints, and in my 6 year of practice I have not had any complaints filed against me in a court or to my licencing body. I have qualifications in access of 60% of the physicians in my country. I have taught medical students and residents through our provincial university.

As for the dust/debris cloud appearance, I, unlike you, will acknowledge I am not an expert, and that my eye is not trained on it enough to make a scientific comment on it. My post of the Landmark tower was to show to all the other untrained fence sitters, that the clouds, to most peoples eyes, look nearly identical except in size and color.

Funny that those here trained in such things disagree with you as well ACE. Why is that?

TAM:)

Babbylonian

16th March 2007, 01:49 PM

[much good information about nuclear weapons]
And you don't even mention the secondary effects of the radiation that would be present for a long period of time, likely killing a large number (perhaps all) of the people who participated in the WTC cleanup - even assuming, of course, that said radiation was confined within the area, which it wouldn't be.

HeyLeroy

16th March 2007, 02:09 PM

http://s18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/ARG/Image42.jpg

This video (about 50 seconds in) shows nothing sinister, just hanging dust after the piece collapses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjwDv_IONgA

TRUTHSEEKER: I know there's a lot that goes on in any thread in which you participate, but coulds you tell me, is the person who said this As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble. a liar?

TruthSeeker1234

16th March 2007, 09:25 PM

Well I originally had a large viscous spue of insults and anger ready to post in reply to this. However, that would only gratify your childish attempt to goad me down to your level ACE.

My ability as a physician is just fine. I have had no complaints, and in my 6 year of practice I have not had any complaints filed against me in a court or to my licencing body. I have qualifications in access of 60% of the physicians in my country. I have taught medical students and residents through our provincial university.

As for the dust/debris cloud appearance, I, unlike you, will acknowledge I am not an expert, and that my eye is not trained on it enough to make a scientific comment on it. My post of the Landmark tower was to show to all the other untrained fence sitters, that the clouds, to most peoples eyes, look nearly identical except in size and color.

Funny that those here trained in such things disagree with you as well ACE. Why is that?

TAM:)

No, they haven't disagreed with the observations, that's the point. Many have certainly disagreed with the interpretations, but that was not the subject of your question.

You asked,

In case you missed it TS. How does [the landmark demolition] look any different than the WTC in terms of the post collapse dust?

1. Please observe. The landmark tower is a bottom up demolition. The twin towers turn to dust from the top down.

2. The landmark dust goes up into the air and is suspended, as we would expect regular dust to do. On 9/11, there is certainly much dust which gets suspended in the air as well. However, the huge dust-fluid flow that is so interesting falls very rapidly, in sharp contradistinction to the landmark dust.

3. The landmark dust diffuses very rapidly. The 9/11 dust-fluid maintains a distinct boundry with the air, and forms characteristic cauliflower shapes.

Now, TAM, there are three profound differences in the "look" of the twin tower "collapses". And again, it's very interesting that you need to supply video of a demolition to compare to the twin tower "collapses".

The same can be said of the black smoke above WTC1. Before "collapse", it is diffused and drifting up and to the southeast. As soon as "collapse" begins, its behaviour changes obviously. It begins to expand in all directions, (mushrooming), and begins to take on a characteristic cauliflower shape.

I suspect you are not visually impaired, and are quite intelligent, and that you can easily see these differences for yourself, and are playing dumb, and that your patients are in good hands. But taken at face value, you cannot see these differences, even when pointed out to you, thus your patients ought to fear you.

Hokulele

16th March 2007, 09:30 PM

[snip]

It begins to expand in all directions, (mushrooming), and begins to take on a characteristic cauliflower shape.

[snip]..

Expansion is not mushrooming. Mushroom cloud formations refer to a specific set of circumstances, which are not replicated here. Please stop misusing this term. You understood why the term "pyroclastic" was inappropriate, thank you. Please understand why this term is inappropriate as well (direction of rotation, etc).

pomeroo

16th March 2007, 09:34 PM

No, they haven't disagreed with the observations, that's the point. Many have certainly disagreed with the interpretations, but that was not the subject of your question.

You asked,

1. Please observe. The landmark tower is a bottom up demolition. The twin towers turn to dust from the top down.

2. The landmark dust goes up into the air and is suspended, as we would expect regular dust to do. On 9/11, there is certainly much dust which gets suspended in the air as well. However, the huge dust-fluid flow that is so interesting falls very rapidly, in sharp contradistinction to the landmark dust.

3. The landmark dust diffuses very rapidly. The 9/11 dust-fluid maintains a distinct boundry with the air, and forms characteristic cauliflower shapes.

Now, TAM, there are three profound differences in the "look" of the twin tower "collapses". And again, it's very interesting that you need to supply video of a demolition to compare to the twin tower "collapses".

The same can be said of the black smoke above WTC1. Before "collapse", it is diffused and drifting up and to the southeast. As soon as "collapse" begins, its behaviour changes obviously. It begins to expand in all directions, (mushrooming), and begins to take on a characteristic cauliflower shape.

I suspect you are not visually impaired, and are quite intelligent, and that you can easily see these differences for yourself, and are playing dumb, and that your patients are in good hands. But taken at face value, you cannot see these differences, even when pointed out to you, thus your patients ought to fear you.

Ace, Please don't interpret what I'm about to write as a personal insult. You've been polite in our exchanges, and I sincerely appreciate your civil tone. I ask you to consider that you are debating real scientists and you, it is painfully obvious, have no background in science. You are flogging your absurd thesis so hard that you simply can't process the information that is being placed under your nose. Back off for a moment. Try to read the explanations that contradict your fantasy as though you're coming to them with a clear head. You exhibit no capacity for absorbing the wealth of information that is being posted here. You simply can't keep raving about steel that has turned to dust. Your grand theory just doesn't fit the evidence.

I strongly urge you to check out the thread, "Ground level steel beam." The photos utterly destroy the conspiracy madness. Look at the slag that dripped outside the beams. Pause for a moment, Ace: Reason, logic, and evidence are not bad things. Try to recover your balance.

TruthSeeker1234

16th March 2007, 09:44 PM

This video (about 50 seconds in) shows nothing sinister, just hanging dust after the piece collapses:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjwDv_IONgA

TRUTHSEEKER: I know there's a lot that goes on in any thread in which you participate, but coulds you tell me, is the person who said this a liar?

Sounds like it might be Steve Jones or Greg Jenkins. Whoever said that was looking at a sample. What was the chain of custody? Was it representative of the whole mess? Are we to believe any of the published dust analyses? For all I know, the dust might have been 25% iron.

Based on that sample provided, the author might be telling the truth.

Unrelated to your post, I think it's pretty clear now that Jones and Jenkins are disinfo. They flat refuse to look at the data.

TruthSeeker1234

16th March 2007, 09:55 PM

Ace, Please don't interpret what I'm about to write as a personal insult. You've been polite in our exchanges, and I sincerely appreciate your civil tone. I ask you to consider that you are debating real scientists and you, it is painfully obvious, have no background in science. You are flogging your absurd thesis so hard that you simply can't process the information that is being placed under your nose. Back off for a moment. Try to read the explanations that contradict your fantasy as though you're coming to them with a clear head. You exhibit no capacity for absorbing the wealth of information that is being posted here. You simply can't keep raving about steel that has turned to dust. Your grand theory just doesn't fit the evidence.

I strongly urge you to check out the thread, "Ground level steel beam." The photos utterly destroy the conspiracy madness. Look at the slag that dripped outside the beams. Pause for a moment, Ace: Reason, logic, and evidence are not bad things. Try to recover your balance.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend you, Ron, for being the first person to agree to allow the 9/11 evidence to be presented on television, as I shall in my debate with Frank Greening. Hardfire is only local public access in New York, but it's great. You demonstrate courage where so many before you have not.

The subject of the debate will be Greening's crush-down crush-up theory. I have said before, and will say again, I don't know what caused the the twin towers to blow up. I do know, with certainty, that it was not a gravity-driven collapse.

I do indeed learn things on the forums, that is why I spend so much effort in "hostile" territory. If my science knowledge is so lacking, this will be quite clear to your audience, and the show will serve as a fine debunking document to spread far and wide.

CHF

16th March 2007, 10:00 PM

....my debate with Frank Greening

Remind me again what your education is.

WildCat

16th March 2007, 10:06 PM

Is Ace really going to debate Greening? :jaw-dropp

pomeroo

16th March 2007, 10:31 PM

Is Ace really going to debate Greening? :jaw-dropp

Ace made an extraordinarily generous offer to cover Dr. Greening's travel expenses to NYC. I think Greening deserves to be heard, even if Hardfire, with its tiny audience, is the only platform I can provide. This thread reveals my problem.

I have no wish to humiliate Ace, who, as I previously wrote, has conducted himself with civility in his exchanges with me. If, however, the debate turns into the Scientist vs. the Lunatic, I look ridiculous (or, as my detractors might have it, even more ridiculous). My producer wants to know why I think this confrontation is worth staging. I'd like to showcase Greening, but, frankly, that's not enough.

Many fantasists would love to parade their ignorance of science and their contempt for evidentiary reasoning in front of an audience, however small. I don't wish to sound unkind, but I'm having a tough time figuring out what Ace brings to the table. If this is an audition, it isn't going well.

CHF

16th March 2007, 10:34 PM

I have no wish to humiliate Ace

But apparently Ace does.

pomeroo

16th March 2007, 10:50 PM

But apparently Ace does.

I just had a thought (now, now, that's not nice!).

There are many super-bright people posting regularly here. They have taught me a great deal about the science behind debunking the loons. I put it to them: Should Ace Baker debate Dr. Greening on Hardfire? We all recognize the disadvantages. Is there anything to be gained?

The Demon's Head

16th March 2007, 10:55 PM

DavidJames

16th March 2007, 10:57 PM

Is there anything to be gained?Only by Ace. Ace is in it for the publicity. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain.

CHF

16th March 2007, 10:58 PM

Should Ace Baker debate Dr. Greening on Hardfire? We all recognize the disadvantages. Is there anything to be gained?

Giving the twoofers more rope which they tie around their own necks.

WildCat

16th March 2007, 11:06 PM

I'd much rather see Greening debate Gordon Ross, but I doubt that Ace would pay the airfare for someone who doesn't posit beam weapons or mini-nukes.

T.A.M.

16th March 2007, 11:13 PM

ACE:

Once again, to my untrained eye, on first look, they both appear quite similar. I am not talking about a close examination of them. So you have any experts that agree with you, and your assertions about the WTC dust cloud, please list them. To me, they both churn out a slow moving cloud that waffs through the surrounding buildings. The color of the cloud is different...Personally, I'll wait for an experts verdict on the clouds.

Ron:

ACE is an expert in nothing 9/11, but is well versed in other peoples work. He is also obsessed with the topic, and likely has every detail of every issue memorized. To put Frank in their will not bode well for Frank unless you keep the topics pointedly toward his area of expertese. ACE will almost certainly pull the CTer "switch topics quickly and often".

If you stick to the WTC collapse initiation and mechanisms, I am sure Frank will do fine, however, I don't think that is going to happen.

Now put ACE up against Mark Roberts, or Gumboot, and you've got a more evenly matched contest. Put Ross up against Greening, and that is a bit of a better match...or S. Jones against him

My opinion.

TAM:)

Edit:

Ron - no there is nothing to be gained.

Unfit4Command

17th March 2007, 03:07 AM

cloudshipsrule

17th March 2007, 03:48 AM

The subject of the debate will be Greening's crush-down crush-up theory. I have said before, and will say again, I don't know what caused the the twin towers to blow up. I do know, with certainty, that it was not a gravity-driven collapse.

Stick with your day job. There's no future for you in an engineering field.

Unfit4Command

17th March 2007, 03:59 AM

I would like to take this opportunity to commend you, Ron, for being the first person to agree to allow the 9/11 evidence to be presented on television, as I shall in my debate with Frank Greening. Hardfire is only local public access in New York, but it's great. You demonstrate courage where so many before you have not.

The subject of the debate will be Greening's crush-down crush-up theory. I have said before, and will say again, I don't know what caused the the twin towers to blow up. I do know, with certainty, that it was not a gravity-driven collapse.

I do indeed learn things on the forums, that is why I spend so much effort in "hostile" territory. If my science knowledge is so lacking, this will be quite clear to your audience, and the show will serve as a fine debunking document to spread far and wide.

So after researching the subject quite a bit, you decided that a laser beam from outerspace that "dustifies" steel makes the more sense than a gravity-driven collapse?

Horatius

17th March 2007, 08:19 AM

I just had a thought (now, now, that's not nice!).

There are many super-bright people posting regularly here. They have taught me a great deal about the science behind debunking the loons. I put it to them: Should Ace Baker debate Dr. Greening on Hardfire? We all recognize the disadvantages. Is there anything to be gained?

ACE:

Ron:

ACE is an expert in nothing 9/11, but is well versed in other peoples work. He is also obsessed with the topic, and likely has every detail of every issue memorized. To put Frank in their will not bode well for Frank unless you keep the topics pointedly toward his area of expertese. ACE will almost certainly pull the CTer "switch topics quickly and often".

If you stick to the WTC collapse initiation and mechanisms, I am sure Frank will do fine, however, I don't think that is going to happen.

There might be a bit to be gained, if you could show a clear difference between how real science is done, vs. TS1234's "look at teh pictures" version.

But I do agree - you'll need a clear promise from TS to stick to a few topics - your half-hour format won't allow anything more. Choose these topics ahead of time, and clearly lay out the ground rules at the start of the debate, so that when TS tries to switch topics, it will be clear he's violating his agreement.

But yeah, I expect the actual debate to have about as much substance as we see here. Greening: "Here's some evidence." TS: "Fake fakey fake! Look at teh pictures!"

But maybe, just maybe, Greening can finally get TS to understand the concept of a model of the collapse. Even now, TS continues to assert that the model that Greening used represents Greening's actual belief about how the collapses actually evolved, rather than just being a model that allows us to consider the energy requirements of the collapse.

T.A.M.

17th March 2007, 09:54 AM

So after researching the subject quite a bit, you decided that a laser beam from outerspace that "dustifies" steel makes the more sense than a gravity-driven collapse?

It makes me laugh when I see it written in such a way. You have, in such a short sentence, brought out the rediculousness of their entire line of thinking. We get so caught up with debating these people, that we forget to stand back for a moment, reflect on what they are actually proposing. If we did this more often, the humor would make things much less hostile...I think.

TAM:)

Peephole

17th March 2007, 10:41 AM

I honestly think we need to establish a rule [at least of thumb] here. If a CTer presents a theory based entirely on personal, non-expert [mis]interpretation of a 9/11 video (be it one of the mockumentaries or simply video of the event), s/he should be dismissed out of hand until s/he provides something better.
I agree. This isn't discussion worthy, it's just the nonsensical ravings of a retard or lunatic. Threads like these should just be closed or deleted.

Horatius

17th March 2007, 11:05 AM

Threads like these should just be closed or deleted.

Except then we'd be almost as bad as the twoofers at places like LCF or PfT, and they still wouldn't understand that they are wrong. They'd take such actions as evidence that we're "afraid" to address their arguments.

We'll likely never convince the troo bleevers like Ace, so the best we can hope for is to let everyone else know exactly how whacko they really are. Unfortunately, to do that, we have to put up with their insanity.

Mancman

17th March 2007, 11:36 AM

Where do you suppose those 104 (not 110, the bottom 6 floors were a lobby) floorslabs would end up in a pancaking scenario?

They would hit the ground floor at over 100mph, a ground floor which was above a 7 story basement. If the floors penetrated into the basement - would they be visible in any photos taken at ground level or above? Yes or no will suffice.

Truthseeker, this is the second time I have asked this and been ignored. Will you continue to ignore this and go on and on spouting your garbage '1% concrete visible' claims?

HeyLeroy

17th March 2007, 12:35 PM

Sounds like it might be Steve Jones or Greg Jenkins. Whoever said that was looking at a sample. What was the chain of custody? Was it representative of the whole mess? Are we to believe any of the published dust analyses? For all I know, the dust might have been 25% iron.

Based on that sample provided, the author might be telling the truth.

Unrelated to your post, I think it's pretty clear now that Jones and Jenkins are disinfo. They flat refuse to look at the data.

Yep, it's Jones.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.

Retrograde

17th March 2007, 12:42 PM

OMFG! It all makes sense now - Larry Niven was able to devote his life to writing SF in part because he inherited a lot of money - that his grandfather made in the OIL BUSINESS!

And was involved in the Teapot Dome scandal, IIRC. And if not, it makes for a good story, which is just as good as true, if I believe what I read on conspiracy sites.

Yes, you're definitely on to something. Or on something. Whatever:)

Unfit4Command

17th March 2007, 01:15 PM

It makes me laugh when I see it written in such a way. You have, in such a short sentence, brought out the rediculousness of their entire line of thinking. We get so caught up with debating these people, that we forget to stand back for a moment, reflect on what they are actually proposing. If we did this more often, the humor would make things much less hostile...I think.

TAM:)

I've been doing this a lot lately and I've become a more laid back debunker. I especially like the line, "The official story is the conspiracy theory!"
Sit back for a second and think about what you're calling a conspiracy theory, and what you take for fact, and you should realize how ridiculous a majority of the 9/11 conspiracy theories are.

T.A.M.

17th March 2007, 02:00 PM

I am sure if we searched the twoofer forums hard enough, going back about a year or so ago, we could find any number of quotes from ACE stating, in no uncertain terms, that Stephen Jones was absolutely right in his analysis, and that the WTCs were brought down through Explosive based Demolition.

Now that ACE has moved to the JUDY/MORGAN/DARTH VADER camp, It is so easy for him to dismiss his former hero...pathetic.

TAM:)

R.Mackey

17th March 2007, 02:49 PM

Ace made an extraordinarily generous offer to cover Dr. Greening's travel expenses to NYC. I think Greening deserves to be heard, even if Hardfire, with its tiny audience, is the only platform I can provide. This thread reveals my problem.

There are many super-bright people posting regularly here. They have taught me a great deal about the science behind debunking the loons. I put it to them: Should Ace Baker debate Dr. Greening on Hardfire? We all recognize the disadvantages. Is there anything to be gained?

If Dr. Greening is reading this, please accept this advice: Don't book your flight until the check clears.

Ace has pulled this stunt before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64540). Maybe he's sincere this time, and maybe not.

A brief perusal of this thread alone is sufficient to verify that Ace will be completely outclassed. However, much like the famous Gravy vs. Looser Than Words debate (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70716), Dr. Greening's appearance may prove to be a useful resource even if Ace does nothing but sit there and look foolish.

Horatius

17th March 2007, 03:47 PM

And was involved in the Teapot Dome scandal, IIRC. And if not, it makes for a good story, which is just as good as true, if I believe what I read on conspiracy sites.

Yes, you're definitely on to something. Or on something. Whatever:)

Or on someone. It's amazing what guys will do for a woman....

:hypnotize

TruthSeeker1234

17th March 2007, 07:16 PM

Where do you suppose those 104 (not 110, the bottom 6 floors were a lobby) floorslabs would end up in a pancaking scenario?

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: Trussing, Steel floor pan, concrete, carpet, crushed office contents; Trussing, Steel floor pan, concrete, carpet, crushed office contents; etc. We observe nothing of the sort.

They would hit the ground floor at over 100mph, a ground floor which was above a 7 story basement. If the floors penetrated into the basement - would they be visible in any photos taken at ground level or above? Yes or no will suffice.

Your question is falsly premised, ala "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". I try to make it a habit not to answer to such questions.

gumboot

17th March 2007, 07:21 PM

Even NIST has abandoned the pancake theory.

Does anyone else ever get sick of Troothers making assertions about things when they clearly haven't even studied the thing in question?

NIST did not "abandon" anything. They had a hypothesis that the collapse initiation was caused by floor truss failure (a "pancake collapse"), but rejected this hypothesis in favour of the current standing one - a collapse initiated via the sagging of the floor trusses.

This has nothing to do with what happened AFTER the collapse initiation. The floors pancaked onto each other after the initial failure. This is clearly evident and well documented. NIST do not dispute this.

And you're exactly right, pancaking floors would leave the core standing. Which is why the core was still standing after the floors had collapsed. I'm glad we agree on that.

-Gumboot

Mancman

17th March 2007, 07:31 PM

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: Trussing, Steel floor pan, concrete, carpet, crushed office contents; Trussing, Steel floor pan, concrete, carpet, crushed office contents; etc. We observe nothing of the sort.

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

Horatius

17th March 2007, 07:48 PM

Your question is falsly premised, ala "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". I try to make it a habit not to answer to such questions.

Oh come now, Truthseeker1234, you have a habit of not answering all sorts of questions!

And while we're at it: if the Dustification Beam can dustify 80% of the steel in the building, why is it none of the pieces we do see show any signs of being partially dustified? Are we to believe that this process is an all-or-nothing deal? The individual steel components are either intact, or dustified?

Does that seem at all reasonable?

So, Truthy, can you show us any pictures of half-dustified steel?

Go ahead, prove me wrong! I double-dog dare ya!

TruthSeeker1234

17th March 2007, 07:56 PM

Does anyone else ever get sick of Troothers making assertions about things when they clearly haven't even studied the thing in question?

NIST did not "abandon" anything. They had a hypothesis that the collapse initiation was caused by floor truss failure (a "pancake collapse"), but rejected this hypothesis in favour of the current standing one - a collapse initiated via the sagging of the floor trusses.

This has nothing to do with what happened AFTER the collapse initiation. The floors pancaked onto each other after the initial failure. This is clearly evident and well documented. NIST do not dispute this.

And you're exactly right, pancaking floors would leave the core standing. Which is why the core was still standing after the floors had collapsed. I'm glad we agree on that.

-Gumboot

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

TruthSeeker1234

17th March 2007, 08:00 PM

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

WildCat

17th March 2007, 08:14 PM

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Once the collapse initiated, it was a pancake collapse. But it wasn't a pancake collapse in the initial phase because it was initiated by sagging floor trusses pulling the columns inward. Gumboot is correct, and you don't understand what you're reading.

TruthSeeker1234

17th March 2007, 08:18 PM

Once the collapse initiated, it was a pancake collapse. But it wasn't a pancake collapse in the initial phase because it was initiated by sagging floor trusses pulling the columns inward. Gumboot is correct, and you don't understand what you're reading.

NIST said:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse

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?

stateofgrace

17th March 2007, 08:32 PM

TS they did say , the fact you are unable to read English is not their problem.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg

Diagram of Composite WTC Floor SystemNIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

TruthSeeker1234

17th March 2007, 08:48 PM

stateofgrace

17th March 2007, 08:51 PM

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?

In fact, get to anything NIST studied after "collapse initiation".

Excuse me?

Are you unable to read?

What part of pancaking did not initiate the collapse don't you understand?

pomeroo

17th March 2007, 08:59 PM

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?

We all get the idea that NIST showed that pancaking is not the explanation of the collapse, but, rather, is what happened after the collapse was initiated.

Would you care to re-visit the great "Pull it!" controversy?

Hey, nobody's talked about those mysterious "pods" on the planes that crashed into...oh, right. There were no planes.

Ace, a debate between you and Dr. Greening would be a freak show, not an honest examination of evidence.

TruthSeeker1234

17th March 2007, 09:37 PM

We all get the idea that NIST showed that pancaking is not the explanation of the collapse, but, rather, is what happened after the collapse was initiated.

Where does NIST say that?

Would you care to re-visit the great "Pull it!" controversy?

Not on Hardfire.

Hey, nobody's talked about those mysterious "pods" on the planes that crashed into...oh, right. There were no planes.

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".

Ace, a debate between you and Dr. Greening would be a freak show, not an honest examination of evidence.

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?

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.