Windows Breaking From Heat - Page 3

Arus808 · 13th September 2006, 06:12 PM

wtf are you talking about? That WHOLE floor is on fire. what prevents more from burning? Concrete between floors did much to prevent it from spreading.

defaultdotxbe · 13th September 2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory.

i always figured they are fires inside the building, seems logical enough given we know th ebuilding was on fire

Bell · 13th September 2006, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory.

You have never seen that picture before?

And we must believe that you want to investigoogle 9/11 ??

defaultdotxbe · 13th September 2006, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory.

wait a second, this contradicts your earlier statement that steel, being a good conductor of heat, would wick away any heat before it could get red hot

keep seeking that truth, keep seeking

Dog Town · 13th September 2006, 06:22 PM

Quote:

wait a second, this contradicts your earlier statement that steel, being a good conductor of heat, would wick away any heat before it could get red hot

That's why he hates it about now! Will comeback with,a sooper dooper thermate story in
..3..2..1

Bell · 13th September 2006, 06:22 PM

I think I misinterpreted Troof11's post.

But if I'm not mistaken, those red hot columns you see, is actualy the fire raging on that floor.

WildCat · 13th September 2006, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Prior to 9/11, it was thought that dark smoke indicated an oxygen poor, fuel rich (thus relatively cool) fire.

No, that was pror to 1950 or so, when plastic and other synthetic materials became common. Smoke color has nothing to do w/ fire intensity. There was nothing cool about that fire.

Quote:

No dobut WTC1 had some intense fire going on. They accelerated suddely at the time of the jet impact on WTC2, suggestive of explosions. WTC2, fires indeed seemed small and localized. One firefighter who reached the 78th floor reported two pockets of fire that he believed could be knocked down with two hand lines.

Except that the plane struck above the 78th floor. And higher up was where the really big fires were, fire travels up in case you never noticed that fact. And BTW, that fireman also reported many bodies on the 78th floor from that "small, isolated" fire.

Quote:

There are so many videos, and so many windows, I would like to see video of windows popping out.

Yes, it's all about videos w/ you guys.

You realize all this has been brought up before and debunked long before you came around, don't you? Do troofers ever learn anything, or do they just keep repeating the same nonsense like it's some kind of mantra?

defaultdotxbe · 13th September 2006, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

That's why he hates it about now! Will comeback with,a sooper dooper thermate story in
..3..2..1

same deal with the "faster than free fall" claims, CTers are quicker to accuse the govt of somehow violating the laws of physics than consider they might be wrong about something

R.Mackey · 13th September 2006, 07:09 PM

My goodness, not even twelve hours go by, and just look at the carnage... I guess another recap is in order for TruthSeeker1234.

When I left for work this morning, I had a couple of new one-sided discussions under way. One was this thread:

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/vol...micFurlong.doc

I'm seeking serious comment on the merits/demerits of this paper.

To this, I wrote a lengthy, detailed reply. And... no answer. Not even an acknowledgement.

sigh.

This morning, I among others tore up his notions that WTC 7 fell "symmetrically," while discovering that, while he can quote the Laws of Thermodynamics, he sure doesn't understand them. Or can distinguish them from Newton's Laws of Motion.

Any reply? Of course not. Just a wild swerve while he shifts the focus to the Eagar paper, for reasons unknown, and he proposes that a coffee table and a saw might be a good model for the WTC tower collapses.

sigh.

Undaunted, we have this thread, itself begun as a rephrased question from another thread, started to avoid acknowledging an excellent answer in that exact same thread. As if to clean the slate, we began anew:

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

In another thread I had said: ... "No breaking windows from heat at WTC."

Clearly Hans is suggesting that heat broke windows at WTC. I think that's wrong. Can anyone provide evidence of windows breaking from heat at WTC? This would be video of windows popping out and falling, after the jet impacts are over with.

If someone can show this, I will stand corrected.

Let's ignore, for the moment, that TruthSeeker1234 has never, ever articulated why he believes this, or where he got the idea from. Made it up, as far as I can tell.

The table showing an actual count of windows broken by the fire was produced again, but was the correction acknowledged? Of course not. Instead, he demanded pictures.

Pictures were produced -- crystal clear, annotated, with full provenance! And the reaction?

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

I'm still waiting for any evidence that windows broke from heat. Especially WTC2. WTC1 did have severe fires, no doubt. WTC2, not so much. Seemed like they were going out after about a half hour or so.

Yes, to repeat, we do not believe the government reports. If the numbers in the table are factual, then it is pretty good proof that heat broke the windows. Problem is, that table would have had to be based on observation, on evidence. I don't see the evidence.

Yes, that's right, he "doesn't see" the evidence. How he can move his goalposts so many times without seeing what he's running from is left as an exercise.

Incredibly, his unfaltering ability to never answer anything is not limited to questions of a conspiratorial nature! I had this curious exchange, seemingly a ray of hope:

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

It's not about defeat, it's about learning. I seek the truth. I've already stood corrected on a few points, and I say so. I've also pointed out some errors of others.

Really?? I must have missed them, could you give me an example?

How about the threads you've abandoned without comment? Ever come to any decision there? If you are willing to learn, then perhaps you deserve more credit than your demeanor suggests.

Alas, my hopes were soon dimmed, and finally dashed, as the answer -- like so many others -- just never comes. I'm still waiting for that one, too.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Hold off on questioning me for a moment, you can get back to that. Answer these.

The final chapter in this bizarre epic was just too much for me to handle. TruthSeeker1234 is calling for one-on-one moderated debate.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Everyone is dodging my questions too! Perhaps we could set up a thread where it was one on one, say me against Mackey, or Gravy or somebody. Then structure an actual debate, with postive statements, rebutalls etc.

Even if we ignore the apparent backpedaling, this is just too much.

Why would anybody want to debate him in the first place? What's in it for me? I submit the sordid tale above as evidence that TruthSeeker1234 either does not understand the concept of debate, or has no real interest in it. I actually suspect the former at this point. If you have any interest in such a debate, I suggest you start volunteering some answers when questioned, or no debate with you is even possible.

TruthSeeker1234, is it possible that, back in the first thread you abandoned, you mistook one of my Parthian shots (down at the bottom) for sincere advice, and followed it? If so, keep it up -- you are very, very near to that lofty goal. Congratulations.

And thanks for the entertainment.

kevin · 13th September 2006, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

No, that was pror to 1950 or so, when plastic and other synthetic materials became common. Smoke color has nothing to do w/ fire intensity. There was nothing cool about that fire.

NIST wrote that comment in their debunking paper. The problem is that it wasn't continuously that way in all areas. The NIST debunking paper goes on to point out that as soon as a new influx of air (say from a broken window...) hit a region it would flash up in a very hot fire. From most of the videos I've seen the majority of the smoke tends to be grayish with occasional outpourings of black smoke, which would then change color.

plastics and such add to the smoke color but I believe lack of air caused the majority of the dark smoke.

Dog Town · 13th September 2006, 07:23 PM

This post by RM should end this thread, and Tweaker1234's others!

Quote:

You are travelling through another dimension...

Unless a change is made!

Sword_Of_Truth · 13th September 2006, 07:26 PM

What I thought was telling was that the smoke never varied in volume. It came out of the towers at the same rate throught the entire event.

If fires are burning out and cooling down, they'll produce less smoke, won't they?

uruk · 13th September 2006, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Seems simple, but not so fast. First, the squibbs appear far below the collapse front. This would imply that the floors inside are breaking away from the core and perimeter 20-30 floors lower than the observerd collapse front. Yet this pancaking effect is now specifically rejected by NIST, because it doesn't explain how the core would fail.

The air, like everything in nature, would find the path of least resistance. The air would burst out of the weakest point. As the air is being pushed a compression wave forms ahead of the object that is pushing it. That means the air would find a weak point to burst out ahead of the collapsing floors.

If I recall correctly from watching videos, in controlled demolition the explosions usually start from the ground up. The "squib" videos from WTC start from the top down. For the video minded, here's a link which shows some controlled demolition:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...s/1787846.html
Oddly, the windows do not blow out in the buildning.

Quote:

Even if it is true that the floors were collapsing 20-30 floors below the observed collapse front, then what is pulverizing all the concrete 20-30 floors above?

If you look at the video, the section of the buildning above the impact point is still relatively intact when it starts to collaps. The wieght of that section provides the necessary inertial force to start pulverising the material below it as the structure below it gives away. Remember, you have alot of weight bearing down on steel heated to near melting temperatures. And several hundred tons of building material traveling at terminal velocity has a lot force behind it.

Quote:

Next problem with the simplistic "pancake makes squibbs" theory is, how does a falling floor focus the smoke and debris into a jet shape? Even if the floor was pancaking, and compressing air between them, why would it always choose just the center window to exit? You have a whole floor slamming down on another floor with a bunch of dust and debris, but all of it shoots out one window? Every time? Why? What mechanism is present to focus this?

Like I said above, the air will first find the weakest point to burst out of first. What is shaping the jet is the shape of whatever that weak point is. which is usually a glass window. The floors in the WTC were not one big empty clear space. The floor in an office building is a maze of walls enclosing office spaces and ventilation ducts. The air would not flow evenly through the floors. It would be ducted through various areas eventually finding the weakest window and bust out in a jet.

Quote:

Try clapping a book together with flour in it. You can get it to shoot out, but not in a jet shape. We are back to the second law of thermodynamics. Lightwaves do not focus without a lens. Water does not "focus" unless it is forced through a hole.

Like i said above, the floor was not a clear empty space like the book would be. The air would have been ducted by the configuration of the office walls. In essence the air would have been focused into smaller volumes (just like air in a ventialtion system) and not evenly across the entire volume of the floor.

Quote:

Anyone care to comment on these delicate points? Or just back to the smack down?

Done.

kevin · 13th September 2006, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

What I thought was telling was that the smoke never varied in volume. It came out of the towers at the same rate throught the entire event.

If fires are burning out and cooling down, they'll produce less smoke, won't they?

Not really. Smoldering fires can produce a LOT of smoke. And really hot fires can cause less (think the bed of coals at the bottom of a bonfire -- hotter than the flame but very little smoke). I'm not sure you can judge the hotness of a fire by the amount of smoke. I'd ask firefighters and fire experts for sure.

Additionally there are many scenarios possible where one fire begins to die down and another flares up keeping the amount of smoke fairly constant.

Loss Leader · 13th September 2006, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory.

Truthseeker1234, yes! Yes! My God, yes! Hundreds of posts in and you have finally stated something so true, so real, so obvious that it has restored my faith in you as an actual seeker of truth.

You admit above that you have looked at a photo, you have seen what the photo appear to show you, and you can't figure this out under anybody's theory.

And you are absolutely right! You can't figure it out. Because you know absolutely nothing about engineering or physics or explosives or politics. You don't understand the building's construction. You don't understand the damage done on the inside. You don't understand how fires spread. You don't understand.

And all that's left is for you to take one little baby step more. Just one tiny little step. And shut your fracking mough about stuff you can't figure out, jerk!

That's what the experts are for. Listen to them. Trust them. Sleep peacefully in their arms. And, if you ever get the least bit of an idea in your head, just keep repeating, "I am incapable of figuring this out."

Dog Town · 13th September 2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

I'm not sure you can judge the hotness of a fire by the amount of smoke.

Depends on what is burning, air flow, and a few dozen other variables!
So... no.

qarnos · 14th September 2006, 12:49 AM

BUMP for TruthSeeker (yes, I know I am dreaming...)

Belz... · 14th September 2006, 04:37 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory.

That's not the columns, seeker. That's fire you see through the window openings.

CurtC · 14th September 2006, 08:21 AM

His statement about glowing columns, when it's obvious that we're looking at fire through window openings, makes me think that he is just trolling here. No one could really be that stupid and operate a computer. Could they?

ponderingturtle · 14th September 2006, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

acceleration from gravity is about 32 feet per second per second. So after one second of falling, material is going 32 feet/second. That's about 21.8 miles per hour.

That material hitting the top of WTC7 did not hit the ground. It must have come from the top of WTC1.

Please provide evidince that WTC7 was 16 feet from WTC1 specificaly all the parts of WTC1 that hit it.

ponderingturtle · 14th September 2006, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe

wait a second, this contradicts your earlier statement that steel, being a good conductor of heat, would wick away any heat before it could get red hot

keep seeking that truth, keep seeking

Interesting theory, but I have done experiments to prove that you can heat steel up very hot at one end of a short bar and have the other end be cool to the touch. Those experiments I called blacksmithing.

And I don't see red hot steel in that picture I see broken windows showing the fire inside

uruk · 14th September 2006, 09:59 AM

I was looking at the "squib" video on this site:
http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm
And I noticed that the ejected material started out small and slow and then increased in volume and velocity as the floor continued to collapse (just as you would expect from increasing air pressure). If the squib had been a explosive device the plume would have big at first and then die off rather quickly.

FramerDave · 14th September 2006, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

It means that other fires in other buildings were hotter. Like the 1st interstate bank building, which did have windows popping out, and which burned for 3 1/2 hours, and which is still standing just fine.

And tell us please, how many aircraft hit that building?

KingMerv00 · 14th September 2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

I also observe a 110 story building being dissociated into shredded steel and fine powder, ejecting all contents horizontally with great energy in all directions...

Experiment:

1) Take hammer.
2) Smash an ice cube.

Is the ice cube hammered into the ground? What's that you say? Chunks fly out horizontally?

Repeat experiment using 20 stories of skyscraper as hammer.

KingMerv00 · 14th September 2006, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

It means that other fires in other buildings were hotter. Like the 1st interstate bank building, which did have windows popping out, and which burned for 3 1/2 hours, and which is still standing just fine.

I'm really sick of you making these kinds of analogies. You are beating a dead strawman.

Fire != collapse
Fire + plane = collapse.

ponderingturtle · 14th September 2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by KingMerv00

I'm really sick of you making these kinds of analogies. You are beating a dead strawman.

Fire != collapse
Fire + plane = collapse.

That is just silly, saying that structural dammage from a collision could be at all related to collapse? Who would ever believe that?

Ok ok, anyone with any understanding of basic structural engeneering, but apart from that?

Timble · 14th September 2006, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

Don't think it was a nuke, Jones tested for radiation. But we all observe the mushroom cloud. Observations require explanations.

Must be an electron compression bomb, total matter-energy conversion, no nasty radioisotopes...

chipmunk stew · 14th September 2006, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Timble

Must be an electron compression bomb, total matter-energy conversion, no nasty radioisotopes...

You should propose this over at the LC forums. They'll eat it up.

CurtC · 14th September 2006, 11:37 AM

So where is this mushroom cloud I'm supposed to be observing?

Hellbound · 14th September 2006, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by CurtC

So where is this mushroom cloud I'm supposed to be observing?

You must take your magic mushrooms to see it

I wouldn't be suprised if there was something very similar formed, though. And this is because, unlike many Truth Seekers, I actually care enough to go beyond the movies and TV to get my knowledge of physics, and have a basic understand of what forms a mushroom cloud.

But, again, a few hours of research and reading is, apparently, too far for most Truth Seekers to go.

CurtC · 14th September 2006, 12:57 PM

But if anything, it was an upside down mushroom cloud. Normal mushroom clouds happen when a column of hot air rises, and at the top the air goes around in a vortex. The towers' dust columns were travelling down, being entrained with the falling building, then spread out at ground level (though different from a vortex).

KingMerv00 · 14th September 2006, 01:12 PM

Mushroom Cloud:

Not a Mushroom cloud:

Darth Rotor · 14th September 2006, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Interesting theory, but I have done experiments to prove that you can heat steel up very hot at one end of a short bar and have the other end be cool to the touch. Those experiments I called blacksmithing.

And I don't see red hot steel in that picture I see broken windows showing the fire inside

I think he should do a safer experiment. He could stick both ends of an uncoiled paperclip into the slots of an electric outlet. Test is to see how quickly the middle heats up.

Hey, why did it get so dark in the lab?

ETA:

King Merv, did you mean this?

DR

KingMerv00 · 14th September 2006, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

ETA:

King Merv, did you mean this?

http://www.globalecho.org/usrdir/215...room_Cloud.jpg
DR

Yea. I had trouble getting that image so I switched. Thanks.

Hmmm... that's a pretty mushroom cloud. I wonder what building collapsed to make it.

Hellbound · 14th September 2006, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by CurtC

But if anything, it was an upside down mushroom cloud. Normal mushroom clouds happen when a column of hot air rises, and at the top the air goes around in a vortex. The towers' dust columns were travelling down, being entrained with the falling building, then spread out at ground level (though different from a vortex).

Well, yeah, I did say something similar

But, It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume a large cloud tossed into the air after impact, which did happen. Of even the outrushing dust to be pushed up the sides of nearby buildings, creating things that look much like mushroom clouds.

Basically, anything that would have forced dust upwards could have created the effect. I was mainly arguing that even a mushroom cloud does not mean explosives.

TruthSeeker1234 · 14th September 2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Experiment:

1) Take hammer.
2) Smash an ice cube.

Is the ice cube hammered into the ground? What's that you say? Chunks fly out horizontally?

Repeat experiment using 20 stories of skyscraper as hammer.

A few problems with this analogy.

1) The hammer doesn't shatter, only the ice. With WTC, the "hammer" (the upper part of the building) disintergrates along with the lower part. Odd.

2) Breaking the ice requires not only the hammer hitting from above, but also tremendous resistance from below. Yet, according to NIST, the intact structure below offered "very little resistance". This low resistance, of course, is needed to explain the rapid collapse times.

3) Swinging the hammer is imparting great energy into the system beyond gravitational potential energy. WTC supposedly crushed themselves using gravity alone.

So, if you want to construct for us a valid analogy, try to come up with an example where these two things occur:

1) An object stands there maintaining its shape for a long time.

2) Then, after some internal part of the object fails (for whatever reason) and goes away, the top part falls into the bottom part, and both top and bottom are crushed, and then great amounts of the resulting stuff is thrown sideways, and it all happens within, say 150% of free fall time.

chipmunk stew · 14th September 2006, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234

So, if you want to construct for us a valid analogy, try to come up with an example where these two things occur:

1) An object stands there maintaining its shape for a long time.

2) Then, after some internal part of the object fails (for whatever reason) and goes away, the top part falls into the bottom part, and both top and bottom are crushed, and then great amounts of the resulting stuff is thrown sideways, and it all happens within, say 150% of free fall time.

Here's one: A big ol' building (millions of pounds of mass). That oughta work.

TruthSeeker1234 · 14th September 2006, 02:17 PM

defaultdotxbe · 14th September 2006, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Interesting theory, but I have done experiments to prove that you can heat steel up very hot at one end of a short bar and have the other end be cool to the touch. Those experiments I called blacksmithing.

And I don't see red hot steel in that picture I see broken windows showing the fire inside

well i know that, and most relatively intelligent peopel know that, but previously TS1234 had said that steel would copnduct heat away before it would be hot enough to weaken (thus long before it would be red hot) despite being wrong on 2 statements, he still contradicted himself

TruthSeeker1234 · 14th September 2006, 02:21 PM

Here's a pretty mushroom cloud. I wonder which building collapse made it

13th September 2006, 06:12 PM	#81
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202	wtf are you talking about? That WHOLE floor is on fire. what prevents more from burning? Concrete between floors did much to prevent it from spreading.
Arus808 Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,202

13th September 2006, 06:14 PM	#82
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory. i always figured they are fires inside the building, seems logical enough given we know th ebuilding was on fire
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

13th September 2006, 06:15 PM	#83
Bell beautiful freak Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 20,465	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory. You have never seen that picture before? And we must believe that you want to investigoogle 9/11 ??
	__________________ Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life. I♥NY You gotta love cops.

13th September 2006, 06:17 PM	#84
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory. wait a second, this contradicts your earlier statement that steel, being a good conductor of heat, would wick away any heat before it could get red hot keep seeking that truth, keep seeking
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

13th September 2006, 06:22 PM	#85
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,461	Quote: wait a second, this contradicts your earlier statement that steel, being a good conductor of heat, would wick away any heat before it could get red hot That's why he hates it about now! Will comeback with,a sooper dooper thermate story in ..3..2..1
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

13th September 2006, 06:23 PM	#87
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,000	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Prior to 9/11, it was thought that dark smoke indicated an oxygen poor, fuel rich (thus relatively cool) fire. No, that was pror to 1950 or so, when plastic and other synthetic materials became common. Smoke color has nothing to do w/ fire intensity. There was nothing cool about that fire. Quote: No dobut WTC1 had some intense fire going on. They accelerated suddely at the time of the jet impact on WTC2, suggestive of explosions. WTC2, fires indeed seemed small and localized. One firefighter who reached the 78th floor reported two pockets of fire that he believed could be knocked down with two hand lines. Except that the plane struck above the 78th floor. And higher up was where the really big fires were, fire travels up in case you never noticed that fact. And BTW, that fireman also reported many bodies on the 78th floor from that "small, isolated" fire. Quote: There are so many videos, and so many windows, I would like to see video of windows popping out. Yes, it's all about videos w/ you guys. You realize all this has been brought up before and debunked long before you came around, don't you? Do troofers ever learn anything, or do they just keep repeating the same nonsense like it's some kind of mantra?

13th September 2006, 06:25 PM	#88
defaultdotxbe Drunken Shikigami Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Dark Side of the Sun Posts: 7,482	Originally Posted by Dog Town That's why he hates it about now! Will comeback with,a sooper dooper thermate story in ..3..2..1 same deal with the "faster than free fall" claims, CTers are quicker to accuse the govt of somehow violating the laws of physics than consider they might be wrong about something
	__________________ I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein

13th September 2006, 07:09 PM	#89
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	You are travelling through another dimension... My goodness, not even twelve hours go by, and just look at the carnage... I guess another recap is in order for TruthSeeker1234. When I left for work this morning, I had a couple of new one-sided discussions under way. One was this thread: Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 http://worldtradecentertruth.com/vol...micFurlong.doc I'm seeking serious comment on the merits/demerits of this paper. To this, I wrote a lengthy, detailed reply. And... no answer. Not even an acknowledgement. sigh. This morning, I among others tore up his notions that WTC 7 fell "symmetrically," while discovering that, while he can quote the Laws of Thermodynamics, he sure doesn't understand them. Or can distinguish them from Newton's Laws of Motion. Any reply? Of course not. Just a wild swerve while he shifts the focus to the Eagar paper, for reasons unknown, and he proposes that a coffee table and a saw might be a good model for the WTC tower collapses. sigh. Undaunted, we have this thread, itself begun as a rephrased question from another thread, started to avoid acknowledging an excellent answer in that exact same thread. As if to clean the slate, we began anew: Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 In another thread I had said: ... "No breaking windows from heat at WTC." Clearly Hans is suggesting that heat broke windows at WTC. I think that's wrong. Can anyone provide evidence of windows breaking from heat at WTC? This would be video of windows popping out and falling, after the jet impacts are over with. If someone can show this, I will stand corrected. Let's ignore, for the moment, that TruthSeeker1234 has never, ever articulated why he believes this, or where he got the idea from. Made it up, as far as I can tell. The table showing an actual count of windows broken by the fire was produced again, but was the correction acknowledged? Of course not. Instead, he demanded pictures. Pictures were produced -- crystal clear, annotated, with full provenance! And the reaction? Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 I'm still waiting for any evidence that windows broke from heat. Especially WTC2. WTC1 did have severe fires, no doubt. WTC2, not so much. Seemed like they were going out after about a half hour or so. Yes, to repeat, we do not believe the government reports. If the numbers in the table are factual, then it is pretty good proof that heat broke the windows. Problem is, that table would have had to be based on observation, on evidence. I don't see the evidence. Yes, that's right, he "doesn't see" the evidence. How he can move his goalposts so many times without seeing what he's running from is left as an exercise. Incredibly, his unfaltering ability to never answer anything is not limited to questions of a conspiratorial nature! I had this curious exchange, seemingly a ray of hope: Originally Posted by R.Mackey Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 It's not about defeat, it's about learning. I seek the truth. I've already stood corrected on a few points, and I say so. I've also pointed out some errors of others. Really?? I must have missed them, could you give me an example? How about the threads you've abandoned without comment? Ever come to any decision there? If you are willing to learn, then perhaps you deserve more credit than your demeanor suggests. Alas, my hopes were soon dimmed, and finally dashed, as the answer -- like so many others -- just never comes. I'm still waiting for that one, too. Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Hold off on questioning me for a moment, you can get back to that. Answer these. The final chapter in this bizarre epic was just too much for me to handle. TruthSeeker1234 is calling for one-on-one moderated debate. Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Everyone is dodging my questions too! Perhaps we could set up a thread where it was one on one, say me against Mackey, or Gravy or somebody. Then structure an actual debate, with postive statements, rebutalls etc. Even if we ignore the apparent backpedaling, this is just too much. Why would anybody want to debate him in the first place? What's in it for me? I submit the sordid tale above as evidence that TruthSeeker1234 either does not understand the concept of debate, or has no real interest in it. I actually suspect the former at this point. If you have any interest in such a debate, I suggest you start volunteering some answers when questioned, or no debate with you is even possible. TruthSeeker1234, is it possible that, back in the first thread you abandoned, you mistook one of my Parthian shots (down at the bottom) for sincere advice, and followed it? If so, keep it up -- you are very, very near to that lofty goal. Congratulations. And thanks for the entertainment.

13th September 2006, 07:21 PM	#90
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	Originally Posted by WildCat No, that was pror to 1950 or so, when plastic and other synthetic materials became common. Smoke color has nothing to do w/ fire intensity. There was nothing cool about that fire. NIST wrote that comment in their debunking paper. The problem is that it wasn't continuously that way in all areas. The NIST debunking paper goes on to point out that as soon as a new influx of air (say from a broken window...) hit a region it would flash up in a very hot fire. From most of the videos I've seen the majority of the smoke tends to be grayish with occasional outpourings of black smoke, which would then change color. plastics and such add to the smoke color but I believe lack of air caused the majority of the dark smoke.
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	__________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites

13th September 2006, 07:23 PM	#91
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,461	This post by RM should end this thread, and Tweaker1234's others! Quote: You are travelling through another dimension... Unless a change is made!
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

13th September 2006, 07:26 PM	#92
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	What I thought was telling was that the smoke never varied in volume. It came out of the towers at the same rate throught the entire event. If fires are burning out and cooling down, they'll produce less smoke, won't they?

13th September 2006, 07:28 PM	#93
uruk Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers Posts: 5,313	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Seems simple, but not so fast. First, the squibbs appear far below the collapse front. This would imply that the floors inside are breaking away from the core and perimeter 20-30 floors lower than the observerd collapse front. Yet this pancaking effect is now specifically rejected by NIST, because it doesn't explain how the core would fail. The air, like everything in nature, would find the path of least resistance. The air would burst out of the weakest point. As the air is being pushed a compression wave forms ahead of the object that is pushing it. That means the air would find a weak point to burst out ahead of the collapsing floors. If I recall correctly from watching videos, in controlled demolition the explosions usually start from the ground up. The "squib" videos from WTC start from the top down. For the video minded, here's a link which shows some controlled demolition: http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...s/1787846.html Oddly, the windows do not blow out in the buildning. Quote: Even if it is true that the floors were collapsing 20-30 floors below the observed collapse front, then what is pulverizing all the concrete 20-30 floors above? If you look at the video, the section of the buildning above the impact point is still relatively intact when it starts to collaps. The wieght of that section provides the necessary inertial force to start pulverising the material below it as the structure below it gives away. Remember, you have alot of weight bearing down on steel heated to near melting temperatures. And several hundred tons of building material traveling at terminal velocity has a lot force behind it. Quote: Next problem with the simplistic "pancake makes squibbs" theory is, how does a falling floor focus the smoke and debris into a jet shape? Even if the floor was pancaking, and compressing air between them, why would it always choose just the center window to exit? You have a whole floor slamming down on another floor with a bunch of dust and debris, but all of it shoots out one window? Every time? Why? What mechanism is present to focus this? Like I said above, the air will first find the weakest point to burst out of first. What is shaping the jet is the shape of whatever that weak point is. which is usually a glass window. The floors in the WTC were not one big empty clear space. The floor in an office building is a maze of walls enclosing office spaces and ventilation ducts. The air would not flow evenly through the floors. It would be ducted through various areas eventually finding the weakest window and bust out in a jet. Quote: Try clapping a book together with flour in it. You can get it to shoot out, but not in a jet shape. We are back to the second law of thermodynamics. Lightwaves do not focus without a lens. Water does not "focus" unless it is forced through a hole. Like i said above, the floor was not a clear empty space like the book would be. The air would have been ducted by the configuration of the office walls. In essence the air would have been focused into smaller volumes (just like air in a ventialtion system) and not evenly across the entire volume of the floor. Quote: Anyone care to comment on these delicate points? Or just back to the smack down? Done.
	__________________ Fourscore and seven years ago I tapped yo mama in a log cabin! Abe Lincoln Last edited by uruk; 13th September 2006 at 07:32 PM.

13th September 2006, 07:36 PM	#94
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth What I thought was telling was that the smoke never varied in volume. It came out of the towers at the same rate throught the entire event. If fires are burning out and cooling down, they'll produce less smoke, won't they? Not really. Smoldering fires can produce a LOT of smoke. And really hot fires can cause less (think the bed of coals at the bottom of a bonfire -- hotter than the flame but very little smoke). I'm not sure you can judge the hotness of a fire by the amount of smoke. I'd ask firefighters and fire experts for sure. Additionally there are many scenarios possible where one fire begins to die down and another flares up keeping the amount of smoke fairly constant.
kevin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 1,666	__________________ Long story short, if you wanna get famous, it helps if you're taking a dump. -- RealityBites

13th September 2006, 07:45 PM	#95
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory. Truthseeker1234, yes! Yes! My God, yes! Hundreds of posts in and you have finally stated something so true, so real, so obvious that it has restored my faith in you as an actual seeker of truth. You admit above that you have looked at a photo, you have seen what the photo appear to show you, and you can't figure this out under anybody's theory. And you are absolutely right! You can't figure it out. Because you know absolutely nothing about engineering or physics or explosives or politics. You don't understand the building's construction. You don't understand the damage done on the inside. You don't understand how fires spread. You don't understand. And all that's left is for you to take one little baby step more. Just one tiny little step. *And shut your fracking mough about stuff you can't figure out, jerk!* That's what the experts are for. Listen to them. Trust them. Sleep peacefully in their arms. And, if you ever get the least bit of an idea in your head, just keep repeating, "I am incapable of figuring this out."
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

13th September 2006, 07:45 PM	#96
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,461	Quote: I'm not sure you can judge the hotness of a fire by the amount of smoke. Depends on what is burning, air flow, and a few dozen other variables! So... no.
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

14th September 2006, 12:49 AM	#97
qarnos Cold-hearted skeptic Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Melbourne, Austrylia Posts: 1,985	BUMP for TruthSeeker (yes, I know I am dreaming...)
	__________________ "In the twenty years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident, there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]" - Greenpeace press release.

14th September 2006, 04:37 AM	#98
Belz... Fiend God Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details... Posts: 28,446	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 This is a facinating photo. How on earth did that perfect row of perimeter columns get red hot, without flames, without any of the nearby ones getting that hot? I can't figure this out under anybody's theory. That's not the columns, seeker. That's fire you see through the window openings.
	__________________ 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

14th September 2006, 08:21 AM	#99
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	His statement about glowing columns, when it's obvious that we're looking at fire through window openings, makes me think that he is just trolling here. No one could really be that stupid and operate a computer. Could they?

14th September 2006, 08:25 AM	#100
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 acceleration from gravity is about 32 feet per second per second. So after one second of falling, material is going 32 feet/second. That's about 21.8 miles per hour. That material hitting the top of WTC7 did not hit the ground. It must have come from the top of WTC1. Please provide evidince that WTC7 was 16 feet from WTC1 specificaly all the parts of WTC1 that hit it.

14th September 2006, 08:33 AM	#101
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe wait a second, this contradicts your earlier statement that steel, being a good conductor of heat, would wick away any heat before it could get red hot keep seeking that truth, keep seeking Interesting theory, but I have done experiments to prove that you can heat steel up very hot at one end of a short bar and have the other end be cool to the touch. Those experiments I called blacksmithing. And I don't see red hot steel in that picture I see broken windows showing the fire inside

14th September 2006, 09:59 AM	#102
uruk Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: In the land of the Shatner stealing Mexico touchers Posts: 5,313	I was looking at the "squib" video on this site: http://www.debunking911.com/overp.htm And I noticed that the ejected material started out small and slow and then increased in volume and velocity as the floor continued to collapse (just as you would expect from increasing air pressure). If the squib had been a explosive device the plume would have big at first and then die off rather quickly.
	__________________ Fourscore and seven years ago I tapped yo mama in a log cabin! Abe Lincoln

14th September 2006, 10:21 AM	#103
FramerDave Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 726	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 It means that other fires in other buildings were hotter. Like the 1st interstate bank building, which did have windows popping out, and which burned for 3 1/2 hours, and which is still standing just fine. And tell us please, how many aircraft hit that building?
FramerDave Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 726

14th September 2006, 10:38 AM	#104
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 I also observe a 110 story building being dissociated into shredded steel and fine powder, ejecting all contents horizontally with great energy in all directions... Experiment: 1) Take hammer. 2) Smash an ice cube. Is the ice cube hammered into the ground? What's that you say? Chunks fly out horizontally? Repeat experiment using 20 stories of skyscraper as hammer.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

14th September 2006, 10:40 AM	#105
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 It means that other fires in other buildings were hotter. Like the 1st interstate bank building, which did have windows popping out, and which burned for 3 1/2 hours, and which is still standing just fine. I'm really sick of you making these kinds of analogies. You are beating a dead strawman. Fire != collapse Fire + plane = collapse.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

14th September 2006, 10:45 AM	#106
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,417	Originally Posted by KingMerv00 I'm really sick of you making these kinds of analogies. You are beating a dead strawman. Fire != collapse Fire + plane = collapse. That is just silly, saying that structural dammage from a collision could be at all related to collapse? Who would ever believe that? Ok ok, anyone with any understanding of basic structural engeneering, but apart from that?

14th September 2006, 11:00 AM	#107
Timble Muse Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Wisteria Avenue, Huntingdon Posts: 934	Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 Don't think it was a nuke, Jones tested for radiation. But we all observe the mushroom cloud. Observations require explanations. Must be an electron compression bomb, total matter-energy conversion, no nasty radioisotopes...
	__________________ We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful what we pretend to be.

14th September 2006, 11:24 AM	#108
chipmunk stew The Spikey Mace of Love and Mercy Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: SE PA Posts: 7,465	Originally Posted by Timble Must be an electron compression bomb, total matter-energy conversion, no nasty radioisotopes... You should propose this over at the LC forums. They'll eat it up.
	__________________

14th September 2006, 11:37 AM	#109
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	So where is this mushroom cloud I'm supposed to be observing?

14th September 2006, 11:50 AM	#110
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,911	Originally Posted by CurtC So where is this mushroom cloud I'm supposed to be observing? You must take your magic mushrooms to see it I wouldn't be suprised if there was something very similar formed, though. And this is because, unlike many Truth Seekers, I actually care enough to go beyond the movies and TV to get my knowledge of physics, and have a basic understand of what forms a mushroom cloud. But, again, a few hours of research and reading is, apparently, too far for most Truth Seekers to go.

14th September 2006, 12:57 PM	#111
CurtC Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 4,758	But if anything, it was an upside down mushroom cloud. Normal mushroom clouds happen when a column of hot air rises, and at the top the air goes around in a vortex. The towers' dust columns were travelling down, being entrained with the falling building, then spread out at ground level (though different from a vortex).

14th September 2006, 01:12 PM	#112
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Mushroom Cloud: Not a Mushroom cloud:
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust? Last edited by KingMerv00; 14th September 2006 at 01:15 PM.

14th September 2006, 01:13 PM	#113
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,260	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle Interesting theory, but I have done experiments to prove that you can heat steel up very hot at one end of a short bar and have the other end be cool to the touch. Those experiments I called blacksmithing. And I don't see red hot steel in that picture I see broken windows showing the fire inside I think he should do a safer experiment. He could stick both ends of an uncoiled paperclip into the slots of an electric outlet. Test is to see how quickly the middle heats up. Hey, why did it get so dark in the lab? ETA: King Merv, did you mean this? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis Last edited by Darth Rotor; 14th September 2006 at 01:17 PM.

14th September 2006, 01:19 PM	#114
KingMerv00 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA Posts: 14,482	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor ETA: King Merv, did you mean this? http://www.globalecho.org/usrdir/215...room_Cloud.jpg DR Yea. I had trouble getting that image so I switched. Thanks. Hmmm... that's a pretty mushroom cloud. I wonder what building collapsed to make it.
	__________________ If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

14th September 2006, 01:19 PM	#115
Hellbound Abiogenic Spongiform Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In a handbasket Posts: 8,911	Originally Posted by CurtC But if anything, it was an upside down mushroom cloud. Normal mushroom clouds happen when a column of hot air rises, and at the top the air goes around in a vortex. The towers' dust columns were travelling down, being entrained with the falling building, then spread out at ground level (though different from a vortex). Well, yeah, I did say something similar But, It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume a large cloud tossed into the air after impact, which did happen. Of even the outrushing dust to be pushed up the sides of nearby buildings, creating things that look much like mushroom clouds. Basically, anything that would have forced dust upwards could have created the effect. I was mainly arguing that even a mushroom cloud does not mean explosives.

14th September 2006, 01:57 PM	#116
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756	Quote: Experiment: 1) Take hammer. 2) Smash an ice cube. Is the ice cube hammered into the ground? What's that you say? Chunks fly out horizontally? Repeat experiment using 20 stories of skyscraper as hammer. A few problems with this analogy. 1) The hammer doesn't shatter, only the ice. With WTC, the "hammer" (the upper part of the building) disintergrates along with the lower part. Odd. 2) Breaking the ice requires not only the hammer hitting from above, but also tremendous resistance from below. Yet, according to NIST, the intact structure below offered "very little resistance". This low resistance, of course, is needed to explain the rapid collapse times. 3) Swinging the hammer is imparting great energy into the system beyond gravitational potential energy. WTC supposedly crushed themselves using gravity alone. So, if you want to construct for us a valid analogy, try to come up with an example where these two things occur: 1) An object stands there maintaining its shape for a long time. 2) Then, after some internal part of the object fails (for whatever reason) and goes away, the top part falls into the bottom part, and both top and bottom are crushed, and then great amounts of the resulting stuff is thrown sideways, and it all happens within, say 150% of free fall time.
TruthSeeker1234 Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,756