Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 JREF Forum Momentum Transfer in WTC

 Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

 Tags frank greening , gordon ross , momentum , transfer

 9th September 2006, 03:54 PM #1 TruthSeeker1234 Banned   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756 Momentum Transfer in WTC Consider Gordon Ross' paper: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Jou...ansferRoss.pdf (remove space after h) Frank Greening's attempted criticism: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_2_Greening.pdf (remove space after h) and Ross' reply to Greening: http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Art..._RossReply.pdf (remove space after h) NIST, of course, did not attempt to do any calculations showing the possibility that the upper part of a damaged tower could cause the phenomenon we observe in the videos (i.e. the shredding of the steel and near total-pulverization of all other matter into fine powder). Thus it appears that, at present, Ross is the last word on the subject. Can anyone provide a refutation of Ross? I am not interested in the planes, or the fires. I am only interested in seeing calculations that show the possibility that the upper part of a skyscraper can crush the lower part, and itself, under the force of gravity. In fact, let's not limit it to skyscrapers. I'd like to see any example of any object or structure, made of any material(s), of any average density, of any size (say between 1 inch to 100 miles) which meets the following two critera: 1. The object or structure is able to stand up against the force of gravity and retain its shape (i.e. generally behaves as a solid, not a liquid or a gas) for at least a year. 2. As a result of damage, an upper part of the object falls down into the lower part, and using no other source of energy apart from gravity, at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter. Last edited by Lisa Simpson; 9th September 2006 at 04:16 PM. Reason: linkage
 9th September 2006, 04:05 PM #2 TruthSeeker1234 Banned   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756 Momentum transfer I do not know why this was moved to "conspiracy theories" from "science and mathematics". I am not interested in any conspiracy theories on this thread. I am only interested in the science and math. Thanks
9th September 2006, 04:07 PM   #3
Lisa Simpson
THE Lisa Simpson

Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 20,057
 I moved it. You can still discuss the science here. But it belongs in this sub-forum. Posted By:Lisa Simpson
__________________
That's what the Internet does -- you get a free bonus prize of Stupid Lies with every box of Delicious Facts. - cracked.com

Facts are satanic litter on the heavenly highway to blind faith! - Betty Bowers

 9th September 2006, 04:13 PM #4 T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816 a little disingenuous coming in here and complaining about where a post is moved, when your selected username clearly indicates that you are a "Truth" seeker (9/11 "Truth" movement). But if I am wrong, than please tell me that you believe the official story about 9/11 and i will apologize. Otherwise, your post belongs right where it still sits. Don't worry, if it is debate over the "Ross" paper you want, i am sure you will get it here. TAM
 9th September 2006, 04:13 PM #5 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136 R. Mackey, whose posts are must-reads, points out several problems with Ross' paper: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...&postcount=576 __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
 9th September 2006, 04:18 PM #6 Pardalis Banned   Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 I do not know why this was moved to "conspiracy theories" from "science and mathematics". I am not interested in any conspiracy theories on this thread. I am only interested in the science and math. Thanks Yeah right, not with that screenname. Give me a break...
 9th September 2006, 04:19 PM #7 R.Mackey Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857 Beat me to it. What do you mean by "attempted" refutation? Greening is correct. Unless you're referring to how Ross, being on the board of editors of that "journal," is guaranteed the last word.
 9th September 2006, 04:21 PM #8 Pardalis Banned   Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 In fact, let's not limit it to skyscrapers. Why??? Skyscrapers are very unique constructions, especially the WTC towers. Why on earth would you want to compare it to... let's say... trees???
 9th September 2006, 04:23 PM #9 TruthSeeker1234 Banned   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756 Momentum transfer Mackey states Quote: The floor trusses are either failed or intact -- if failed, the top of the column is no longer constrained, and is free to deflect to the sides; Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them.
 9th September 2006, 04:25 PM #10 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter. Your source for this contention? __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
 9th September 2006, 04:27 PM #11 R.Mackey Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 In fact, let's not limit it to skyscrapers. I'd like to see any example of any object or structure, made of any material(s), of any average density, of any size (say between 1 inch to 100 miles) which meets the following two critera: 1. The object or structure is able to stand up against the force of gravity and retain its shape (i.e. generally behaves as a solid, not a liquid or a gas) for at least a year. 2. As a result of damage, an upper part of the object falls down into the lower part, and using no other source of energy apart from gravity, at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter. On further inspection, it looks like you're not talking about Ross at all. All Ross's flawed whitepaper concerns is whether progressive collapse could initiate with a single floor. He deals only peripherally with the crumbling energy of other WTC materials. I reject your challenge. Where do you get the idea that 50% of the mass of the WTC towers was "rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter?" This does not describe the debris seen after the collapses. What you've got here is a strawman.
 9th September 2006, 04:28 PM #12 T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816 where's the popcorn, this looks like a good one. TAM
 9th September 2006, 04:31 PM #13 R.Mackey Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Mackey states Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them. Cross-braced, by the floor trusses. I thought that was obvious. Please read completely before criticizing. I also had a follow-up addressing Ross's "rebuttal" to Greening, found here. Happy reading.
 9th September 2006, 04:32 PM #14 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,503 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Mackey states Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them. How is "massively" ? __________________ The Onmyouza Theatre, An unofficial international fanclub forum dedicated to the Japanese heavy metal band Onmyo-Za: "In the interests of time and space, it is not unreasonable to cite one point at a time. Citing 30 is the equivalent of citing none. Obviously." - Robert Prey "Physical evidence must be observed and interpreted by witnesses which makes it subjective and subject to mistakes and to fraud." - Robert Prey
 9th September 2006, 04:34 PM #15 kevin Graduate Poster     Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666 Originally Posted by R.Mackey Where do you get the idea that 50% of the mass of the WTC towers was "rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter?" This does not describe the debris seen after the collapses. What you've got here is a strawman. What weighs more 100lb of concrete or 100lb of concrete power 100 micron average diameter? __________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites
 9th September 2006, 04:35 PM #16 David Wong Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,768 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Consider Gordon Ross' paper: at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter. Could anything short of a nuclear device do that? No controlled demolition has ever turned half a building into powder, as far as I know.
 9th September 2006, 04:39 PM #17 R.Mackey Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857 Originally Posted by kevin What weighs more 100lb of concrete or 100lb of concrete power 100 micron average diameter? The latter weighs more... on the mind of a 9/11 denier. TruthSeeker, if you really wish to have an intelligent, abuse-free scientific discussion here, I'm game. Just say the word.
 9th September 2006, 04:43 PM #18 TruthSeeker1234 Banned   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756 You're correct that Ross does not get into the dissociation of the non-metallic mass of the towers. He has calculated that global collapse is not possible under the circumstance. Figuring in the other observaions, such as the pulverization, only makes the "gravity did it" explanation more absurd. I will make that a sepearate thread, and name it the "TruthSeeker Challenge". Perhaps there will be a reward. Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"? Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors?
 9th September 2006, 04:46 PM #19 Pardalis Banned   Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831 I'll leave this debate to the people who know their physics, but I'd like to ask Truthseeker to take note of this fallacy, which no one is immune to: http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/inde...om_Incredulity Just so that you are aware of it.
 9th September 2006, 04:46 PM #20 Loss Leader Opinionated JerkModerator     Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885 Didn't NIST just clarify this? Originally Posted by NIST Smacking The Truthers Silly In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. __________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE
 9th September 2006, 04:48 PM #21 TruthSeeker1234 Banned   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756 Mackey, you are simply incorrect about the floor trusses being the only cross-bracing for the core columns. Look here, for instance: http://www.peaceproject.com/graphics...s/CA2-huge.jpg (add needed h t t p and w's) Please retract your error, or lose credibility. Last edited by Lisa Simpson; 9th September 2006 at 04:50 PM. Reason: linkage
 9th September 2006, 04:49 PM #22 R.Mackey Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 You're correct that Ross does not get into the dissociation of the non-metallic mass of the towers. He has calculated that global collapse is not possible under the circumstance. Figuring in the other observaions, such as the pulverization, only makes the "gravity did it" explanation more absurd. I will make that a sepearate thread, and name it the "TruthSeeker Challenge". Perhaps there will be a reward. Except, as my posts referenced above point out, as does Greening, he did the calculation wrong. It's really a very bizarre argument that Ross is trying to promote. No need for a "challenge." No stunts are necessary. If you can find holes in my reasoning, I'd like to hear about them. I am a scientist and I want to learn. But keep in mind that I will defend my opinions, trying to find out which of is right. Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"? Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors? I might remind you that concrete made up only a small fraction of the WTC tower mass. The flows were not in any way "pyroclastic." I fear you are getting your information from disreputable sources. We've seen this misnomer for a long time. If you're claiming 100 micron particles from the size of the debris cloud and eyeballing it, as in your "four to five times the volume of the intact tower" statement, then you need to research the debris much, much more carefully. No way you can make that claim. Again, if you are serious about debating Ross's paper, please do so. You've seen my criticisms. But you will have to do much better than you have so far.
 9th September 2006, 04:50 PM #23 DavidJames Philosopher   Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,085 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 You're correct that Ross does not get into the dissociation of the non-metallic mass of the towers. He has calculated that global collapse is not possible under the circumstance. Figuring in the other observaions, such as the pulverization, only makes the "gravity did it" explanation more absurd. I will make that a sepearate thread, and name it the "TruthSeeker Challenge". Perhaps there will be a reward. Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"? Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors? So much for science Now you can see why the tread was (correctly) moved __________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand.
 9th September 2006, 05:10 PM #25 TruthSeeker1234 Banned   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756 Mackey, of course pictures of the core are during construction. How could we photograph it after they were finsished? Come on. There is ample photographic evidence that the 47 core columns were horizontally and diagonally braced. Where is your evidence that they were not? Next, there was about 100,000 tons of concrete per tower, which is about equal to the mass of the steel. Regardless, It appears almost everything besides the steel was rendered into fine powder. Otherwise, where is it? Still waiting for the pictures of stacked up floors, or desks, or . . .anything. Someone else upthread was wondering how much explosives it would take to bring the tower down, speculating it would take a nuke. Bear in mind that, using NIST logic, it would not take very much at all. NIST would have it that all that is needed is to initiate local collapse on one floor, gravity would do all the rest. Right? Greening did point out what he felt were errors in Ross, which is why I linked his paper. Ross answered that even if Greening was right, it would only delay the halt of collapse by a fraction of a second.
 9th September 2006, 05:16 PM #26 kevin Graduate Poster     Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Mackey, you are simply incorrect about the floor trusses being the only cross-bracing for the core columns. Look here, for instance: http://www.peaceproject.com/graphics...s/CA2-huge.jpg (add needed h t t p and w's) Please retract your error, or lose credibility. You do know those corner columns that are cross-braced are the kangoo jacks supports and were dismantled when the job was complete right? Most of the rest of the columns were straight braced against each other with some cross-bracing. If you look at the framing plan and model NIST used you'll see they had the proper bracing in place. __________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites
 9th September 2006, 05:21 PM #28 apathoid Government Loyalist     Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Virgo Supercluster Posts: 2,699 Truthseeker, have you any idea how much explosives would be necessary to micronize 50% of the floor slabs? Have you any idea why said explosives were so quiet? Did you know that in CD, the explosives are used to cut columns, not blow the floor slabs to smithereens?
 9th September 2006, 05:24 PM #29 TruthSeeker1234 Banned   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756 Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized. Mackey, I will study your critique of Ross. On first read, I got to the false statement about the floor trusses and stopped.
 9th September 2006, 05:26 PM #30 apathoid Government Loyalist     Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Virgo Supercluster Posts: 2,699 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized. Mackey, I will study your critique of Ross. On first read, I got to the false statement about the floor trusses and stopped. Truthseeker, have you any idea how much explosives would be necessary to micronize 99% of the floor slabs? Have you any idea why said explosives were so quiet? Did you know that in CD, the explosives are used to cut columns, not blow the floor slabs to smithereens?
 9th September 2006, 05:27 PM #31 R.Mackey Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized. Mackey, I will study your critique of Ross. On first read, I got to the false statement about the floor trusses and stopped. Given that you've already made several serious errors in your first seven posts, I'm not interested in your guesses. Show me that 99% was pulverized, and show me the average fragment size by species. Until then, you're whistling Dixie. You have yet to demonstrate my statement is false. You also have yet to demonstrate that you understand the point it makes.
 9th September 2006, 05:28 PM #32 Pardalis Banned   Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831 Truthseeker, are you Terrocell on the LC forum by any chance?
 9th September 2006, 05:34 PM #33 kevin Graduate Poster     Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666 does truthseeker1234 remind anyone else of christophera? Only wants pictures. Pulverization/atomization of concrete. Massive core (I'm just waiting for the claim it was concrete 7 floors below that picture.) __________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites
 9th September 2006, 05:40 PM #34 TruthSeeker1234 Banned   Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756 kevin wondered Quote: What weighs more 100lb of concrete or 100lb of concrete power 100 micron average diameter? The mass is the same, the "weight", in the real world, would actually depend on a few things. Surface area to mass ratio, for instance. The bigger that ratio, the more air will resist it from falling. If the implication is that puverized mass will push down on intact structure as well as non-pulverized mass, you must consider that the majority of the mass in each twin tower lander well outside the footprint of the building, thus making it unavailable to push down on the intact structure.
 9th September 2006, 05:40 PM #35 David Wong Graduate Poster     Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,768 Originally Posted by apathoid Truthseeker, have you any idea how much explosives would be necessary to micronize 99% of the floor slabs? Guys... I don't think he's talking about Controlled Demolition. I seriously think he's saying the buildings were empty mock-ups. I think that's why he's harping on the lack of furniture in the rubble. After all, is there ANY method ever devised by mankind that could micronize 99% of a building's non-metal mass? Why would you want to?
 9th September 2006, 05:44 PM #36 kevin Graduate Poster     Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 kevin wondered The mass is the same, the "weight", in the real world, would actually depend on a few things. Surface area to mass ratio, for instance. The bigger that ratio, the more air will resist it from falling. I said a 100 pounds vs. 100 pounds. That is already weight. And the conversion of mass to weight does not in anyway involve the surface area to mass ratio. Quote: If the implication is that puverized mass will push down on intact structure as well as non-pulverized mass, you must consider that the majority of the mass in each twin tower lander well outside the footprint of the building, thus making it unavailable to push down on the intact structure. Says who? With what calculations? __________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites
 9th September 2006, 05:47 PM #37 R.Mackey Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 If the implication is that puverized mass will push down on intact structure as well as non-pulverized mass, you must consider that the majority of the mass in each twin tower lander well outside the footprint of the building, thus making it unavailable to push down on the intact structure. I just got done correcting einsteen about this in another thread. There is some fractured mass, even some big chunks, that spills over the sides early. However, most mass that eventually lands outside the footprint gets there by first smashing into the structure, so it does contribute. This is irrelevant vis-a-vis Ross's paper, since he is considering collapse initiation. There are no large chunks or small chunks to fall away at that time. Once the upper mass has a few floor's worth of momentum, collapse is inevitable even if a significant fraction of it ricochets off to the sides. Please provide evidence for how much mass was ejected. And keep in mind that the debris pile after collapse would itself spill over the footprint, so a single post-collapse picture is not precise enough.
 9th September 2006, 05:47 PM #38 stateofgrace Guest     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Scotland Posts: 3,847 Truthseeker1234 are you Gordon? If you are,did you do as I suggested? Did you get your work reviewed by the bodies I suggested ? Last edited by stateofgrace; 9th September 2006 at 05:59 PM.
 9th September 2006, 05:50 PM #39 R.Mackey Philosopher     Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857 I don't believe this is Gordon Ross. He is not sufficiently familiar with Ross's papers.
 9th September 2006, 05:53 PM #40 Gravy Downsitting Citizen     Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: In the argyle Posts: 17,136 Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". AFAIK, no analysis was done of how much concrete was reduced to what size. George Pataki, who works in Albany, did not spend significant time down in the rubble pile. Now, there was about 60,000,000 pounds of gypsum drywall in the towers. (at 19% sulfur content, that's 11.4 million pounds of sulfur...something smells like rotten eggs, Steven Jones). What do you think happened to it? Which do you think pulverized faster and finer, the concrete or the drywall? How about the 6,000,000 pounds of ceiling tiles and the millions of pounds of fire insulation? Which pulverized faster and finer those or the concrete? Quote: I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. Please do some research on what a pyroclastic flow is. Hint: "Pyro." Quote: It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. No, it doesn't, and you'll learn that arguing from incredulity ("It couldn't happen because I don't believe it could happen") is dealt with swiftly and savagely by the JREF ninjas here. Quote: If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"? Most went down, some went out. Here's a question: if most everything turned to dust, what comprised the 1.6 billion pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted on conveyor belts for evidence and remains at Fresh Kills landfill? Here's a related post of mine, with a report from someone who did spend months in the pile, on what the rubble looked like to him: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...1&postcount=20 Quote: Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors? I apologize for not having the link to this handy. Maybe someone can remember where it came from. IIRC, this museum display shows 8 tower floors compacted to four feet high. __________________ "Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links Last edited by Gravy; 9th September 2006 at 06:00 PM. Reason: forgot link

JREF Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit