As yet STILL unanswered questions about the WTC collapse

Email this topic to a friend Printer-friendly version of this topic Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)		Locked thread - Read only  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Lobby / Latest 9/11, Military Affairs, and Terrorism (Protected)
Original message

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-07-02, 12:47 PM (ET) As yet STILL unanswered questions about the WTC collapse at least as far as I'm concerned! The war on Iraq is successful I guess. It's deflected attention away from a 911 investigation and has people having to spend their time going out and protesting the war rather than protesting 911! I'm starting this because as someone noted the other was getting huge. Here is about the last thing I added to the last thread. I call this strange. If you look closely you can see the lower part is still standing but instead of being able to see any of the vertical ribs of the building or the corner of the building it looks like they are exploding. I think it looks bizarre. Plaguepuppie added another pic on the old thread that looks weird too. I noticed there's another thread about the strange pools of melted steel in the WTC with seismic events right before they fell. it looks interesting but I havent had time to check it out while I'm sending letters to congress and making phone calls. See this was is being extremely sucessful!   Top

Table of Contents

Subject     Author     Message Date     ID    As yet STILL unanswered questions about the WTC collapse re7141 Oct-07-02 1    Danged if I know Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/07/2002 2        seismic statistics twin towers ewing2001 10/07/2002 3            Another strange pic for review, again 2muchbs 10/08/2002 4            Pyroclastic flows plaguepuppy 10/08/2002 6    WTC Collapses; why not the Pentagon? Canitbe 10/20/2002 134  Some points on photo analysis plaguepuppy Oct-08-02 5    If something was exploded in the sub basement Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/08/2002 7        If something was exploded plaguepuppy 10/08/2002 8            There would have to be other charges throughout Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/08/2002 9                How the perimeter columns were assembled plaguepuppy 10/08/2002 10                    One comment I had on the info in this post Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/11/2002 30                Another pyroclastic slurry plaguepuppy 10/09/2002 11                    Watched that video Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/09/2002 12                        That is the so-called "spire"... ramblin_dave 10/09/2002 14                            OK Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/09/2002 15                                The video is not clear enough... ramblin_dave 10/09/2002 16                                    OK, Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/09/2002 17                                        Could someone give me an explanation Endimion 10/09/2002 18                                    About the dust plaguepuppy 10/09/2002 19                                        If steel was being turned to dust somehow... ramblin_dave 10/09/2002 20                    The more I know, the less I understand DulceDecorum 10/09/2002 13                        Man in moon meets the WTC DulceDecorum 10/10/2002 21                            I'm not a scientist Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/10/2002 22                                Acid rain from hell? plaguepuppy 10/11/2002 23                                    The latest from Tom Bearden - scalar EM weapons in Iraq? plaguepuppy 10/11/2002 24                                    Smoking guns or just smoke? LARED 10/11/2002 25                                        Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg* DulceDecorum 10/11/2002 26                                            Thanks for sharing that wonderful story LARED 10/11/2002 27                                            hehe, little Lared Brinker! Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/11/2002 31                                        If we COULD explain it, it wouldn't be COVERT, now would it? Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/11/2002 28                                            You must have the MSTM dictionary LARED 10/11/2002 32                                                oh dear... Dumas 10/11/2002 33                                                    Scripted? LARED 10/11/2002 34                                                No Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/11/2002 35                                                Dragging dust - not so stunning plaguepuppy 10/12/2002 36                                                    Let me ask you a serious question LARED 10/12/2002 38                                                        two (simply wrong) explainations plaguepuppy 10/12/2002 42                                                        Why don't you address how the spire turns to dust and falls Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/12/2002 51                                                            I can't address LARED 10/12/2002 65                                                                Hmm, I have fallen many times Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/13/2002 72                                                                    re: LARED 10/13/2002 74                                                                        Yeah, I know, you think everything happened Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/13/2002 75                                                                            Dragging out the "Offical Version" again LARED 10/13/2002 76                                                                                All sound and fury signifying NOTHING Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/13/2002 85                                                            Veni vidi dusty DulceDecorum 10/13/2002 77                                                                dementia americana plaguepuppy 10/13/2002 80                                                I don't think you know how to reason Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/12/2002 37                                                    He did. LARED 10/12/2002 39                                                        Again, you're trying to make lemonaide out of oranges Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/12/2002 40                                                            You really should examine my link. LARED 10/12/2002 41                                                                Actually objects fall at a decreasing rate(!) plaguepuppy 10/12/2002 43                                                                    I was trying to use MSTM's terms LARED 10/12/2002 44                                                                    Exactly 2muchbs 10/12/2002 46                                                                        Way 2muchbs LARED 10/12/2002 47                                                                            Notice how civil and constructive the tone gets plaguepuppy 10/12/2002 57                                                                                You need to review the thread LARED 10/12/2002 66                                                                            Hero worship? 2muchbs 10/12/2002 59                                                                                Real Science? LARED 10/12/2002 67                                                                I did look at your link Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/12/2002 50                                                                    I'm glad you tried it LARED 10/12/2002 52                                                            Interesting LARED 10/12/2002 45                                                                What exactly is supposed to be the point of this garbage Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/12/2002 49                                                                    Well LARED 10/12/2002 53                                                                        Everything does Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/12/2002 55                                    Those are very informative links Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/11/2002 29                            eutectic reactions LARED 10/13/2002 71    Trailing dust ramblin_dave 10/12/2002 48        Yes LARED 10/12/2002 54            Maybe this fact will interest everyone, including you. Endimion 10/12/2002 58                Ok, but I'm not clear on what part you're talking about LARED 10/12/2002 60                    Well why don't you then walk into a constuction site Endimion 10/12/2002 63                        Huh LARED 10/12/2002 68        Gypsy auto body plaguepuppy 10/12/2002 56        Trailing dusty glory plaguepuppy 10/12/2002 61            You can bet it's a pyroclastic flow! Endimion 10/12/2002 62            Just think of the volume 2muchbs 10/12/2002 64                Considering the volume ramblin_dave 10/12/2002 69                    partially eroded steel plaguepuppy 10/13/2002 70                        Eutectic reaction ramblin_dave 10/13/2002 79                            One minor point about eutectic mixtures plaguepuppy 10/13/2002 81                                Hey Plaguepuppy LARED 10/13/2002 83                                    Thanks you for that useful information plaguepuppy 10/13/2002 90                                        Sure LARED 10/14/2002 101                    I doubt very seriously that fire retardant was sprayed on the outer Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/13/2002 73                        Painful Questions ewing2001 10/13/2002 78                            Yes, an outstanding effort! plaguepuppy 10/13/2002 82                                interesting William_WaLLace 10/16/2002 115                            I'm here! EricHufschmid 10/14/2002 92                                Welcome Eric! plaguepuppy 10/14/2002 94                                    Also, keep in mind Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/14/2002 96                                        I forgot about those incidents already! EricHufschmid 10/15/2002 103                                            Not per se Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/15/2002 104                                            Found this post on another thread about the Power Plant Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/16/2002 117                                    Welcome to the club DulceDecorum 10/15/2002 113                    An alternative possibility LARED 10/13/2002 84                        Truffles DulceDecorum 10/13/2002 86                            Excellent websites, Dulce Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/13/2002 87                                JFK vs. 9/11 Dumas 10/13/2002 89                                    JFK == 9/11 plaguepuppy 10/13/2002 91                            Powdered concrete DulceDecorum 10/13/2002 88                                Powdered concrete & powdering iron plaguepuppy 10/14/2002 93                                    Picture that goes with above plaguepuppy 10/14/2002 97                                        That shows that strange glow also Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/14/2002 99                                            strange glow plaguepuppy 10/15/2002 108                                Good photo of the floor joist connection points as well Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/14/2002 95                                    Guess that is an oxy/acetalene torch laying on the column Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/14/2002 100                                    Are you sure those are outer columns? LARED 10/14/2002 102                                        Nope, those are from the core plaguepuppy 10/15/2002 109                                            It sure matched the diagrams I have seen for the columns Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/15/2002 111                If I remember my chemistry class correctly Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/14/2002 98  I got one more thing that boggles me Mr_SmokesTooMuch Oct-15-02 105    ...the mechanics of what is going on here? plaguepuppy 10/15/2002 106        I have no claims of knowing anything about digital imaging Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/15/2002 110            Right, it's an artifact plaguepuppy 10/15/2002 112                As Schultz would say DulceDecorum 10/15/2002 114                    One of the photos showing those lines IS Hi-Res Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/16/2002 116                    I flunked Covert Technologies 101 Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/16/2002 118                        Covert Tech plaguepuppy 10/18/2002 119                            Another nice pyroclastic blowout plaguepuppy 10/18/2002 120                            Any ideas what the "bright spot" is? Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/18/2002 121                                These are long distance photos EricHufschmid 10/23/2002 150    One photo runs clockwise and the other CCW LARED 10/15/2002 107        That damn Osama DulceDecorum 10/18/2002 122            Huh???? LARED 10/18/2002 123                As Einstein once said, plaguepuppy 10/19/2002 124            Osama yo momma plaguepuppy 10/19/2002 125                Can we trust Here Is New York? EricHufschmid 10/20/2002 130  Another "dirty little secret" regarding 911.....is there more to be emmaline Oct-19-02 126    So many secrets plaguepuppy 10/19/2002 127        I'd like to bring up that pic I put up again. Mr_SmokesTooMuch 10/19/2002 128            Bright spots plaguepuppy 10/20/2002 133  Eric Hufschmid noticed something new IrateAutodidact Oct-19-02 129    So people actually heard me? EricHufschmid 10/20/2002 131        How do we know you're really Eric Hufschmid? ramblin_dave 10/20/2002 132            Mommy said not to talk to strangers DulceDecorum 10/20/2002 135                ...don't let your babies grow up to be warheads plaguepuppy 10/20/2002 136        Yes, Conservative Talk Radio can provide good 9-11 info ... IrateAutodidact 10/21/2002 137            Bright skies over NYC plaguepuppy 10/22/2002 138                Finally, I am here Endimion 10/22/2002 140                    Hard Drive repair IrateAutodidact 10/22/2002 142                        Will not go Endimion 10/23/2002 151                            That's the thing about New Yorkers ... IrateAutodidact 10/23/2002 152                                I support your idea Endimion 10/26/2002 156            Don't pay them to help me commit suicide EricHufschmid 10/22/2002 139                The things our money pays for plaguepuppy 10/22/2002 141                Gawd, don't say that ... IrateAutodidact 10/22/2002 143                    His name was Terry Yeakey DulceDecorum 10/23/2002 144                        We are getting off topic DulceDecorum 10/23/2002 145                            Onward into the fog plaguepuppy 10/23/2002 147                                Late to the Party.... Webfairy 10/24/2002 154                                    Welcome DulceDecorum 10/27/2002 158                                    Welcome - and some thoughts about the "fireman video" plaguepuppy 10/28/2002 160                                        why video may be lousy EricHufschmid 10/29/2002 161                                            Double vision plaguepuppy 10/29/2002 162                                                Some fuel may have splattered EricHufschmid 10/30/2002 163                                                Clip from Naudet video plaguepuppy 10/30/2002 164                            They may have attempted to steal gold on the 10th. EricHufschmid 10/23/2002 149                    Cops that have trouble committing suicide EricHufschmid 10/23/2002 146                        Books - paper has great bandwidth plaguepuppy 10/23/2002 148                        Egads IrateAutodidact 10/23/2002 153                            Yeakey and image quality plaguepuppy 10/26/2002 157                        Run that by me one more time DulceDecorum 10/27/2002 159                            The lengths some people will go to... plaguepuppy 10/30/2002 165                                Another excerpt from Naudet: ask the man who's seen one plaguepuppy 10/30/2002 166                                    One last snip from Naudet plaguepuppy 11/02/2002 168                            Whole lotta shakin' goin' on plaguepuppy 10/31/2002 167                                One more interesting picture plaguepuppy 11/04/2002 169                                    Yowsa DulceDecorum 11/04/2002 170                                        WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED THERE? plaguepuppy 11/05/2002 171                                            No he didn't. LARED 11/05/2002 172                                                Some better numbers? plaguepuppy 11/05/2002 173                                                    This inforformation has been posted a few times already LARED 11/06/2002 174                                                        Amount of concrete plaguepuppy 11/06/2002 176                                                Russell aint likely to correct it EricHufschmid 11/06/2002 178                                            plaguepuppy Dejitaru_Shuurajou 11/06/2002 175                                                how stuff falls down plaguepuppy 11/06/2002 177                                                    Intersting view of WTC-1 collapse plaguepuppy 11/07/2002 179                                                        When the top finally does start to fall Mr_SmokesTooMuch 11/07/2002 180                                                        Another good resource... Dejitaru_Shuurajou 11/07/2002 181                                                            Some thoughts about the "spire" plaguepuppy 11/07/2002 182                                                                Another interesting detail plaguepuppy 11/08/2002 183                                                                    Tiime for a new thread DulceDecorum 11/10/2002 184                                                                        I'm Locking This undergroundrailroad 11/10/2002 186

Lobby | Latest | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

re7141 (2 posts) Oct-07-02, 02:13 PM (ET) 1. As yet STILL unanswered questions about the WTC collapse Fascinating picture. To me, it doesn't appear the vertical ribs are "exploding" but are "shaking" extremely violently causing concrete to turn to dust. Question is what would cause a massive structure to shake like that? Floors pancaking down or something in the basement rattling the columns?   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-07-02, 02:24 PM (ET) Reply to post #1 2. Danged if I know All I do know is I can't see why they would be doing that.   Top

ewing2001 (3251 posts) Oct-07-02, 06:06 PM (ET) Reply to post #2 3. seismic statistics twin towers LAST EDITED ON Oct-07-02 AT 06:09 PM (ET) Yesterday at our desk at the protest in NYC i received the information, that BEFORE the Twin Towers collapsed, the seismic rates jumped to 2.1/2.3. (please bear with me, if this was not paraphrased scientifically correct) I know the guy who runs the Flight93 seismic page, but never heard about irregularities at the Twin Towers as well. My source told me to look at the official website of the Columbia University Earth Institute. Unfortunately i have no time to analyse and even read my search results, but i hope i found and pasted the correct page and you are able to scoop it down on credibility or if it fits the original statement: http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/story11_16_01.html Earth Institute News posted 11/16/01 Contact: Danielle Bizzarro For Immediate Release Columbia Earth Institute (212) 854-7893 dbiz@ldeo.columbia.edu Harvey Leifert America Geophysical Union (202) 777-7507 hleifert@agu.org Damage to Buildings Near World Trade Center Towers Caused by Falling Debris and Air Pressure Wave, Not by Ground Shaking, Columbia Seismologists Report in November 20 issue of Eos Researchers Call for Seismographic Stations in Urban Areas On September 11, seismographs operated by Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, recorded seismic signals produced by the impacts of the two aircraft hitting the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and the Towers’ subsequent collapse. While the ground shaking was consistent with the energy released by small earthquakes, it was not sufficient to cause the collapse of or damage to the surrounding buildings, as some have thought. Rather, the buildings around the Twin Towers were impacted both by the kinetic energy of falling debris and by the pressure exerted on the buildings by a dust- and particle- laden blast produced by the collapse. Writing in the November 20 issue of Eos, published by the American Geophysical Union, seismologists from Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory outline the sequence of seismographic recordings on that tragic day, and argue that vibrations recorded on September 11 were of a magnitude thought to be too low to cause structural damage to buildings, especially in the northeast region of the United States. However, the authors add that because there were no seismographic stations in or even near the World Trade Center, it is impossible to know for sure that the ground-shaking did not have any impact on the neighboring buildings. Ultimately, they say, urban officials should consider the importance of placing seismographic stations in high-density urban areas. "Our recordings were made at considerable distance," said Won-Young Kim, who is in charge of seismological network operations for Lamont-Doherty. "However, plans are pending for an Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS) that calls for placing seismic instruments in such urban areas as New York City. The tragic events of September 11 show that such instrumentation can serve a purpose that sometimes transcends strict earthquake applications." Seismic recordings on E-W component at Palisades, NY for events at World Trade Center (WTC) on September 11, distance 34 km. Three hours of continuous data shown starting at 08:40 EDT (12:40 UTC). Two largest signals were generated by collapses of Towers 1 and 2. Expanded views of first impact and first collapse shown in red. Displacement amplitude spectra in nm-s from main impacts and collapses shown at right. Note broadband nature of spectra for collapses 1 and 2, whereas relatively periodicmotions for impacts 1 & 2. The paper was authored by 12 researchers at Lamont, including Kim; Lynn Sykes; Klaus Jacob, Paul Richards and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Lerner-Lam is the director of Columbia’s new Center for Hazards and Risk Research. Lerner-Lam explained what happened once the planes hit the World Trade Center, and how they resulted in relatively small seismographic readings. "The energy contained in the amount of fuel combusted was the equivalent to the energy released by 240 tons of TNT," said Lerner-Lam. "This energy was absorbed by the buildings and produced the observed fireballs, but did not immediately cause the collapse. During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage– but not causing significant ground shaking." Seismographic recordings of the tower collapses were recorded in five states, as far away as 428 kilometers <266 miles> in Lisbon, New Hampshire. Lamont’s home station, in Palisades, New York, is located above the Hudson River, 34 kilometers <21 miles> from downtown Manhattan, where the towers stood. The aircraft impacts registered local magnitude (ML) 0.9 and 0.7, indicating minimal earth shaking as a result. The subsequent collapse of the towers, on the contrary, registered magnitudes of 2.1 and 2.3, comparable to the small earthquake that occurred beneath the east side of Manhattan on January 17, 2001. The Lamont seismographs established the following timeline: 8:46:26 a.m. EDT <1240 UTC> Aircraft impact - north tower, Magnitude 0.9; 9:02:54 a.m. EDT <1302 UTC> Aircraft impact - south tower, Magnitude 0.7; 9:59:04 a.m. EDT <1359 UTC> Collapse - south tower, Magnitude 2.1; 10:28:31 a.m. EDT <1428 UTC> Collapse - north tower, Magnitude 2.3. In addition, the seismic waves were short-period surface waves, meaning they traveled within the upper few kilometers of the Earth’s crust. They were caused by the interaction between the ground and the building foundation, which transmits the energy from the impacts and the collapses. The authors also noted that as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to that of a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material move in a dust/mud matrix down the volcano’s slope. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows. The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory operates 34 seismographic stations in the northeast in collaboration with several institutions. Network operations are supported by the United States Geological Survey. The network is part of the Advanced National Seismic System, a national seismological monitoring initiative being implemented through a USGS-university partnership. The paper by Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes, J.H. Armitage, J.K. Xie, Klaus H. Jacob, Paul G. Richards, M. West, F. Waldhauser, J. Armbruster, L. Seeber, W.X. Du, and Arthur Lerner-Lam, "Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City," appears in Eos, Volume 82, number 47 (20 November 2001), page 565. Journalists may request a copy of the paper from Harvey Leifert, hleifert@agu.org, specifying a pdf or fax version. Please include your name, publication, postal address, phone, fax, and email address. There is no embargo. To speak with any of the researchers listed above, please contact Stacey Gander, Administrative Assistant, at Columbia’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research: (845) 365-8909 or staceyv@ldeo.columbia.edu. Web site for the Lamont-Doherty Cooperative Seismographic Network: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/ The Columbia Earth Institute Š GROUND ZERO Forum NYC http://forums.delphiforums.com/ground_zero2001 http://www.ourDNA.org http://www.lebensaspekte.de 911Skeptics worldwide unite! Supporter of the 911-Skepticism Movement NYC, Washington, San Francisco, Connecticut, Ohio, Portland etc... Support public LIHOP-evidence now, SETUP later! http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00068.htm http://www.lihop.net Martin Luther King III, Nina Hagen, Spooky, Patti Smith got our files! How Cynthia McKinney got our 911-files + Bush-Booker-Video (SGTV) http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=9053&forum=DCForumID60 Support the 911-Truth Commission: http://www.911nationalnetwork.org/petition/ Ed Asner, Harry Belafonte, Howard Zinn etc... http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html http://www.ctnow.com/features/lifestyle/hc-profile0929.artsep29,0,5020067.story?coll=hc%2Dheadlines%2Dlife Support the No.1 911-Bookmark-List: http://globalfreepress.com Support the No.1 911-Timeline Center: http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/ How the 911-Lie started: Bush at Booker Elementary http://ewing2001.kulturserver-berlin.de/Bush_Booker_SGTV.mov http://burningbush.myip.org/DUTV-BUSHWTC.zip http://burningbush.myip.org/DUTV-BUSHWTC.small.mov Please donate for GZ Forum NYC. Every $10 counts. (telephone bills, phone research, PR costs, media tools,video distribution, hardware upgrade, security solutions, provider costs, various investigations etc...) Info at http://www.lebensaspekte.de/groundzero/donation.html 911Skeptics in the media: http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.conspiracy.0912w NOTE: Any use of non-standard English words that are in quotes within this post should not be construed by any member of DU as prejudice against Southern people, African Americans, Asian people, Northern people, Arabic people, Jewish people, Christian people or any other group save one. These words are blatant prejudice against STUPID people.   Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Oct-08-02, 00:27 AM (ET) Reply to post #3 4. Another strange pic for review, again LAST EDITED ON Oct-08-02 AT 00:30 AM (ET) Yes, its saved in my FTP space, and yes its a touch blurry. If you look around the web you will find it posted, and it appears clearer. I found this smoke and debris jetting from the structure below the collapse mind numbing. But so many others could have cared less. This little bit from above can safely be trashed: "The energy contained in the amount of fuel combusted was the equivalent to the energy released by 240 tons of TNT," said Lerner-Lam." I don't know what planet this guy is on, but his theory is highly misleading. It's not how much energy was released that's of importance, but the rate at which it was released. 240 tons of TNT? Come on give us a break. That comparison is ridiculous. By the way what was the method of containment? The open atmosphere? Must be some of that new jet fuel I have heard so much about. lol. Bill   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-08-02, 01:54 AM (ET) Reply to post #3 6. Pyroclastic flows "The authors also noted that as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to that of a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material move in a dust/mud matrix down the volcano’s slope. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures common in volcanic flows. " At last, someone else bothers to comment on this! "This huge amount of very fine dust seems to virtually fall in place, much of it within the outlines of the former building. This created a pyroclastic flow, or perhaps more properly a turbidity current: a slurry of dust and air much denser than the air around it, that can accelerate to considerable speeds as it falls." (from http://ontario.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=7336&group=webcast) Pyroclastic flows and turbidity currents are well known in geology. Turbidity current is a more general term, usually used to designate the underwater equivalent of pyroclastic flows. These occur when sediment along the edge of a continental shelf slump in a kind of avalanche, creating a "fluid within a fluid" of sediment mixed with water that is denser than the surrounding medium. Anyone who understands the physics of turbidity currents will see why it is so remarkable that such an effect could occur in a building collapse. For this flow to have formed, and formed as soon as it did, the building materials had to be pulverized and energetically mixed with air from very early on in the collapse, virtually from the moment of onset. There can be no question that a very large energy input is needed to reduce an intact building to a slurry of dust and debris. And until it has had time to accelerate the weight of the building cannot supply that kind of energy. "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglas (1857) PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

Canitbe (33 posts) Oct-20-02, 08:24 PM (ET) Reply to post #1 134. WTC Collapses; why not the Pentagon? Would someone please explain why the Pentagon sustained relatively little damage compared to the WTC buildings. Wouldn't a 757 traveling at 200+ mph do more damage than what the Pentagon suffered?   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-08-02, 01:26 AM (ET) 5. Some points on photo analysis This is indeed an interesting picture that illustrates several of the anomalies that can be seen in the twin tower collapses. However the vertical striations you see are not actually the outer columns being vibrated or exploding, but something just as strange, and something that is visible in many other photos and videos. The vertical stripes are arising from the object at the bottom right of the photo, the diagonal element with a darker area under it. This is a large steel panel that appears to be a portion of the outer wall that has remained bolted together and is falling as a unit. As it falls (this can be seen much more clearly in the videos) it leaves behind a thick trail of dust which creates the appearance of vertical columns. What is strangest about this is that the steel itself appears to be disintegrating as it falls, turning into metal dust in much the same way as the "spire" that is left after WTC-1 fell (see my web page for more on the spire). There are several video clips, and stills like the above, that show large chunks of the outer wall falling - though actually remarkably few of these large pieces can be seen falling as opposed to the very uniform slurry of fine dust and small pieces of steel that makes up most of the collapse. But where these large pieces can be seen they are trailing thick clouds of dust behind them. Needless to say there is no way that dust from other construction materials, say gypsum or concrete, could be pouring off these objects so long after they start to fall. And on closer exam of the videos there is an unmistakeable attenuation and softening of these pieces as they fall, suggesting that it is indeed the steel itself that is giving rise to the dust trails. Here is a video of the WTC-1 collapse that shows this same "softening" process in steel that is still standing: http://ontario.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/close-up_north_tower.mpg (2.8MB file) Notice how, after the top of the building has dropped out of the frame, the vertical structure a little right of the middle of the frame (which appears to be a piece of the outer wall to the right of the corner of the building facing us) quickly begins to droop and curl over, at the same time that it gives off thick clouds of dust. I'll try to find some good clips to show free-falling pieces doing a similar disappearing act - I have to do a little searching to find a good clip that isn't too long. One other interesting feature of the picture is the large number of short pieces of steel columns, about one floor in height, that can be seen along the leading edge of the dust cloud. These pieces can be seen in a number of pictures, and seem to be ejected at high speed just ahead of the main dust/debris cloud. This picture shows more of these "chopped-off" pieces of steel, and a large chung trailing thick dust. Lots more interesting stills at http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?categoryID=4 The obvious question is how these pieces of steel were broken off so uniformly and thrown out so energetically. The same issue that applies to the creation of so much fine dust applies here: what is the energy source, and what is the mechanism? No account of this is even attempted in the "official" explanation of the collapses. "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglas (1857) PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-08-02, 02:41 PM (ET) Reply to post #5 7. If something was exploded in the sub basement that took out the whole support columns wouldnt necessarily do it either. I remember reading of some guys theory that the towers were designed and built to collapse on demand. As crazy as it sounds that seems like the only thing that would explain it to me. They are talking pyroclastics. Virtually, the only time that occurs is from volcanic activity, the most awesome power on earth. I don't see the trade tower collapse as that cataclysmic of an occurance   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-08-02, 04:31 PM (ET) Reply to post #7 8. If something was exploded LAST EDITED ON Oct-08-02 AT 04:38 PM (ET) LAST EDITED ON Oct-08-02 AT 04:32 PM (ET) If you look at the seismic tracings of the collapse (the original, not the blow-up) you'll see that there is a very energetic spike very close to the onset of shaking in each collapse. In fact they go "off scale" and cross over the other tracings on the page: These very large spikes are clipped off on the enlarged tracings, but are clearly the most energetic part of the events and take place in about the first second of the ~10 sec. of waves seen in the blow-ups. This means that the strongest ground shaking, and so the highest energy release to ground, happens very close to the onset of the collapse. If the collapse begins because of failure of trusses, floor pans, etc. there should be very little seismic energy being transmitted to the ground in the early stages of the collapse. Instead we would expect the greatest energy at the end of the 10 seconds when the wreckage hits the ground. Some sort of cutting charges at the bottoms of the 47 core columns would definitely create a big seismic impulse, being closely coupled to the bedrock. By comparison nothing happening high up in the towers could have transmitted such a big impulse to the ground - the tower itself would have attenuated too much of it. "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglas (1857) PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-08-02, 05:25 PM (ET) Reply to post #8 9. There would have to be other charges throughout the building tho it seems. It's weird, you look at these pics of the tower and all you can see is a column of concrete dust and regular length pieces of steel flying out of the column like an eruption. Wouldnt the pieces of steel be of different lenghts? Could the floors collapsing break the steel beams in half and hurl them out like that? I sure got no idea! It looks to me like the whole building just disintegrated instead of collapse. Could looking at the original blueprints for the building show it was built to be demolished easily if need be?   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-08-02, 11:20 PM (ET) Reply to post #9 10. How the perimeter columns were assembled The 14" square box columns came in pre-assembled units 3 floors long, so it is indeed strange that they broke into so many ~1 floor long pieces. The 3 floor by 3 column assemblies were staggered so that the end connections did not line up with the ones on either side. You can see this jagged 3 column step effect on the edges of some of the bigger pieces. In spite of all this overlapping and reinforcement, very little of the outer walls seems to have fallen in interconnected chunks like the pictures above. Instead the columns seem to have chopped themselves into nice clean 1 floor pieces. From chapter 2 of the FEMA report: "The buildings’ signature architectural design feature was the vertical fenestration, the predominant element of which was a series of closely spaced built-up box columns. At typical floors, a total of 59 of these perimeter columns were present along each of the flat faces of the building. These columns were built up by welding four plates together to form an approximately 14-inch square section, spaced at 3 feet 4 inches on center. Adjacent perimeter columns were interconnected at each floor level by deep spandrel plates, typically 52 inches in depth. In alternate stories, an additional column was present at the center of each of the chamfered building corners. The resulting configuration of closely spaced columns and deep spandrels created a perforated steel bearing-wall frame system that extended continuously around the building perimeter. ... Construction of the perimeter-wall frame made extensive use of modular shop prefabrication. In general, each exterior wall module consisted of three columns, three stories tall, interconnected by the spandrel plates, using all-welded construction. Cap plates were provided at the tops and bottoms of each column, to permit bolted connection to the modules above and below. Access holes were provided at the inside face of the columns for attaching high-strength bolted connections. Connection strength varied throughout the building, ranging from four bolts at upper stories to six bolts at lower stories. Near the building base, supplemental welds were also utilized. Side joints of adjacent modules consisted of high-strength bolted shear connections between the spandrels at mid-span. Except at the base of the structures and at mechanical floors, horizontal splices between modules were staggered in elevation so that not more than one third of the units were spliced in any one story. Where the units were all spliced at a common level, supplemental welds were used to improve the strength of these connections. Figure 2-3 illustrates the construction of typical modules and their interconnection. At the building base, adjacent sets of three columns tapered to form a single massive column, in a fork-like formation, shown in Figure 2-4." Notice the great lengths the designers went to to prevent the kind of breaking off at each floor that seems to have happened so easily in the collapses. And notice too how strong the connections between adjacent columns were: 52" tall steel plates welded between adjacent columns at each floor. Yet most of the outer columns broke off into little pieces not connected to anything else What immense force could break all those welds and bolts, chop up the columns, and send the pieces flying? It certainly wasn't gravity, which unfortunately leaves explosives (whole shitloads of them, distributed widely through the structures) and/or some kind of unconventional energy weapon. Being a belt-and-suspenders kind of guy, I personally suspect both. "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglas (1857) PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-11-02, 07:01 PM (ET) Reply to post #10 30. One comment I had on the info in this post I've never done construction welding, I'm more of a fabricator. In general, each exterior wall module consisted of three columns, three stories tall, interconnected by the spandrel plates, using all-welded construction. Cap plates were provided at the tops and bottoms of each column, to permit bolted connection to the modules above and below. I have fabricated parts to do more 5th wheels, trailer hitches and snow plows than I care to think about and, even tho I'm an excellent welder, I would never just leave it at a weld. Safety requires that you drill and bolt the piece together and then weld it so that there is a back up if the weld should ever break. I can't hardly believe that they would have all-welded construction with no safety bolts. They used safety bolts at other joints it specifies in the snip above. Little things like these make me wonder if they weren't constructed to do what they did on 911.   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-09-02, 02:03 AM (ET) Reply to post #9 11. Another pyroclastic slurry One big chunk visible on lower left, shedding big dust trails. Also some debris on upper right that seems to be flying up! Clearly a very energetic event, lots of finely pulverized stuff being blown out to the sides. And note the glow on the upper left - this is not a trick of the light and shows up in numerous pics and videos. Here's a video clip (11.4MB mpeg but worth the d/l) that shows the very bright and persistent glow that develops as WTC-1 hits the ground: http://ontario.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/tower_2_afterglow.mpg "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglas (1857) PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-09-02, 11:05 AM (ET) Reply to post #11 12. Watched that video saw the light, that is weird and I noticed something else you may or may not have noticed. After the building is completely down, you can still see a very tall sliver of the building standing along what would be your right as you watch it. It stands there for quite sometime and then jsut seems to DISINTEGRATE INTO DUST. There is no way the tower collapsing causes this because the tower is already down! Check it out, something is very, very wrong with that. It doesn't fall or anything, it jsut plain disintegrates into duist as it's standing there. I actually downloaded the clip and played it on media player   Top

ramblin_dave (177 posts) Oct-09-02, 12:39 PM (ET) Reply to post #12 14. That is the so-called "spire"... It was pointed out in the previous thread by plaquepuppy. Here is his link... http://home.attbi.com/~jmking/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-09-02, 12:46 PM (ET) Reply to post #14 15. OK couldn't imagine that everyone in this bunch had missed that up till now! The thing is, nothing in the world that I know of would make something come apart and fall straight down like that. It's a hard enough stretch believing the towers themselves did it, what we're seeing in that spire is impossible by everything that I know of. It looks like sci-fi, like a disintegration beam being used.   Top

ramblin_dave (177 posts) Oct-09-02, 01:12 PM (ET) Reply to post #15 16. The video is not clear enough... to establish for sure, for me anyway, that the spire turns to dust. Those who say otherwise claim that the spire became laden with dust as the rest of the tower fell. Then as the spire fell, the dust comes off and obscures the actual fall of the spire itself.   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-09-02, 01:59 PM (ET) Reply to post #16 17. OK, I can even go along with that, but why did it fall straight down, like the towers did? Instead of falling over like a tree or buckling and falling over. It falls straight down. Just very, very weird. Best evidnce I've seen yet IMO.   Top

Endimion (49 posts) Oct-09-02, 03:29 PM (ET) Reply to post #17 18. Could someone give me an explanation what is wrong with this picture? Here we see pretty big piece of outer support lying sticked in ground, but WHAT kind of support? It is a part of outer support that was situated immediately above lobby of each tower. Check some pictures of ground lobby before 9/11. I think the "gap" between floors is in fact 4th floor. But how could 4th floor piece of outer support suddenly "jump" over WTC3 ? WTC3 is being destroyed partially only by ~8th floor. Suggests, comments? Evil piggies are everywhere...BEWARE   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-09-02, 04:05 PM (ET) Reply to post #16 19. About the dust There are pictures of this thing just after the dust cloud has settled that show it to be squeaky-clean of any dust: http://home.attbi.com/~jmking/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-230496.html Or here perhaps starting to shed some dust from the lower end of the part visible: http://home.attbi.com/~jmking/wsb/html/view.cgi-image.html--graphic.html And here just after it has turned to dust: http://home.attbi.com/~jmking/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--SiteID-230497.html This is way more dust than could have been sitting on the surface of the columns, and even if there had been some it would have fallen at about the same rate as the steel. But there's no question of what the video shows, even if it isn't perfectly sharp: this very tall object falls straight down, and soon after starting to fall(~1/3 of the way down)the sharp outline of the steel columns disappears, leaving a narrow vertical pillar of dust that falls at a slower rate, but still almost vertically. I didn't notice this the first few times I watched this clip - the glow was what really impressed me. But as I was getting ready to send it to someone this funny spire thing caught my eye. To me the glow is as puzzling as this disintegration business, and probably a manifestation of the same thing. You can see how the camera stops down, showing that it is indeed much brighter. The brightness is localized to the left side of the image, and the right side gets derker as the camera stops down. This is simply not a camera artifact or reflection of the sun off white dust, it's much too bright for that. There's a similar glow after the collapse of the first building, that seems to last right up to the second collapse: http://ontario.indymedia.org/local/webcast/uploads/bright_afterglow_of_south_tower_collapse_.avi All I can offer is that it obviously takes a large energy input to turn steel to dust, and that same energy source is probably responsible for the glow. I'm not an insider, so I have no idea what this might be, but the Tesla energy weapon yarns that Tom Bearden spins have a ring of truth. He describes scalar wave weapons, based on an expanded version of Maxwell's equations, that allow energy to be pumped from a remote site without being dissipated in the space in between. It involves two scalar waves (this is the Tesla part- conventional electromagnetics does not include this)that can carry a lot of energy, but don't interact with matter. But where the two beams intersect, energy seems to appear out of nowhere as interferance of the two scalar waves causes conversion into conventional electromagnetic radiation. Here's a link to Bearden's web site: http://www.cheniere.org/books/analysis/index.html "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglas (1857) PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

ramblin_dave (177 posts) Oct-09-02, 04:25 PM (ET) Reply to post #19 20. If steel was being turned to dust somehow... wouldn't there be samples of outer wall elements that were partially "decomposed". Other photos I have seen of steel at the scrapyard all looked normal to me - normal in the sense that it wasn't corroded or partially decomposed.   Top

DulceDecorum (344 posts) Oct-09-02, 11:56 AM (ET) Reply to post #11 13. The more I know, the less I understand LAST EDITED ON Oct-09-02 AT 11:59 AM (ET) OK, I will admit it. I am not a rocket scientist. I have a fairly decent background in hard science but I cannot claim to even be related to a physicist. All the same, I can chew gum and walk at the same time. I know that the tomato is a fruit, despite the protestations of the US Supreme Court and the Reagan administration who insist that it be treated as a vegetable. I can correctly pronounce the word nuclear. That ought to count for something. So there I am, looking at the seismic waves of 9:11 and I do not know what to say. Therefore, I search for some simliar event. I myself cannot explain the behaviour of the Boeing at the Pentagon. Has anything like this ever happened before? Andrei Olkhovatov, a Russian scientist who supports many of his findings, says that a meteor 200ft across would have left at least 100,000 tonnes of debris along its approach path. “But the question arises, where are the remnants?” he asked. “Nowhere, nothing after decades of detailed research.” http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/ntungusk.htm Hmmm. But what does this have to with the WTC? We had LOTS of debris in New York. Our problem here is that we cannot explain it. There were no appreciable seismic waves in Washington, but they abound in New York. All this on the same day and from the same group of people! So I start to look around. http://www.seismo.com/msop/nmsop/03%20source/source1/source1.html Off I go, looking for another instance in which there was an impact followed a considerable while later by a cloud of dust. Preferably one in which puzzled knowledegable people stated and then retracted their intial impressions regarding the formation of a cloud of dust forming a considerable time after an impact. http://www.scienceweb.org/can/news/dec97/n121997a.htm I try to find another event which has baffled many scientists of many different disciplines. http://omzg.comcen-1.nsk.su/tunguska/en/newse/abstracts/volkov.htm http://olkhov.narod.ru/tunguska.htm#35 But then I find that I am on the wrong track since this mystery was declared solved days after our own event occured. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1628806.stm And then, as things fall, I find that I really must put on my tinfoil hard hat. Meteorite crashes near mourning Jordanian village April 24, 2001 AMMAN (AFP) - Residents of a Jordanian village attending a funeral got an unwelcome surprise when a fiery meteorite crashed down in their midst, one of them told AFP Monday. "More than 100 of us were gathered Wednesday at sundown to bury a village resident when we saw a strange object that looked like a ball of fire," said Mohammed Nawaf Mikdadi, mayor of Beit Eidess, some 85 kilometers north of Amman. "The meteor shot through the sky from west to east before a part of it came down a half kilometer (quarter mile) from the village, sparking an explosion and then a fire with four-meter flames for 10 meters straight," Mikdadi told AFP. "The villagers thought it was a missile, but when we went to the spot there weren't any metal scraps," he said. The mayor expressed relief the meteorite fell on a rocky area near Beit Eidess and not in a nearby forest, which could have spelled disaster for the village. After I have read the above-given AFP report, I posted in METEOROBS emailing list that the event more resembles a geophysical event, than a meteoritic one, but the description is very brief for any solid conclusion. And soon confirmation of the geophysical interpretation appeared! Here it is in JAS www-site. Geophysical data reveals several interesting features. First, weak shallow earthquakes occur from time-to-time in the area of the event, pointing on increased level of tectonic activity in there. Especially on April 25 an earthquake took place not far from the impact place. Below are results of search for similar or stronger earthquakes through catalog of the Seismology Division of the Geophysical Institute of Israel in the area +-0.4 degrees around the impact site for the last decade. The results speak for themself. <snip> I am searching for more detailed geophysical data on the event. Also it would be very interesting to know, did the fireball deposit any substance? On May 10, 2002, I got e-mail from Dr. Claude Perron (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire de Mineralogie, Paris, France), who analysed the event soil samples. He wrote that the samples seem to be combustion residues (carbon) and ashes (calcium and potassium carbonate), together with local stones. What caused the fire, he has no idea. but he added that it is certainly not a meteorite. MORE But many other witnesses and people, who saw video of the lights reject the airplane explanation. Moreover appeared-later data makes the airplane explanation rather unlikely. Here is from www.nidsci.org/news/newjersey_contents.html : Data from Newark International Airport on July 15 indicates Multiple Objects Without Transponders Detected. On July 25, 2001, NIDS sent a FOIA request to the FAA requesting radar tapes (Tracon) for the July 14-15, 2001 timeframe around the Carteret UFO incident. NIDS also requested the tower voice tapes for the same time period from Newark International Airport. Prior to receiving the FOIA data, NIDS received a preliminary analytical report that details unidentified flying objects without transponders detected on air traffic control radar in the airspace around Newark International Airport on the night of July 14-15, 2001. The report is summarized in table form below. The following points are to be noted: All times in the report are Zulu time (GMT). Subtract 4 hours to get Carteret time for each data point. Speed of the different objects is measured in knots (kts). EWR refers to Newark International Airport. NONE of the objects in the table below had transponders. By far the most noteworthy aspect of this communication is the large number of objects detected that DO NOT have transponders (all commercial aircraft have transponders) in the airspace around Newark International at the same time that an estimated seventy eyewitnesses on the New Jersey Turnpike and a further fifty (estimated) witnesses from Staten Island reported unidentified lights in the same area of sky. A request to randomly check for aircraft without transponders at the same time on a DIFFERENT night produced the result that there were no objects without transponders in the air around Newark International airport on that second, randomly chosen, night. This "control" study lends support to the notion that such a large profusion of objects without transponders in the air around one of the busiest international airports in the world is unusual. Secondly, the fact that multiple objects without transponders were in the same airspace while over one hundred eyewitnesses on the ground were watching several unidentified objects over Carteret may be of interest. http://olkhov.narod.ru/gr1997.htm#30 And then I am right back where I started. The more I know, the less I understand.   Top

DulceDecorum (344 posts) Oct-10-02, 07:45 PM (ET) Reply to post #13 21. Man in moon meets the WTC There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. <snip> A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes. http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-10-02, 09:32 PM (ET) Reply to post #21 22. I'm not a scientist but I have been a machinist and welder for years and that is the first I have ever heard of such a thing and I have never seen anything like that. Acid rain, huh? Does he give any idea of how rain got into the construction of the WTC to coat the steel with this sulpher? I would think they would have noticed the roof leaking a little bit over the years!   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-11-02, 08:31 AM (ET) Reply to post #22 23. Acid rain from hell? The motherfucking smoking gun is in the house! "A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness." If anyone can explain this *without* black technology I'll be real interested to hear it. As to Ramblin_Dave's question about why it doesn't seem to affect all the steel equally, I suspect it has to do with resonance effects between the energy source and the structure. From what I know about conventional electromagnetics, there could easily be effects related to the size of pieces and the wavelength of the energy source that could spare smaller pieces but dump a lot of energy into larger pieces. This could account for the many small (~1 floor) pieces of columns that seemed to fall intact while the big chunks of the outer wall trailed thick dust clouds. The size of the pieces could also be a factor - we see pictures of the big 1'x3' box columns from the core that look unaffected. Maybe this is because they are big enough to act as a current path to ground without "burning out". Conversely, the "spire" was very thin and nothing else was standing around it to divert the energy flow, and we saw it turn very abruptly to dust. One other thought about scalar weapons - in one of Bearden's pieces (http://www.cheniere.org/books/analysis/index.html) he mentions a "metal softening mode" that the Russian Tesla weapons could employ: "On Jan. 1, 1986, a startled Frank Golden detected —and physically verified with a special technique— that a metal softening scalar EM signal had been added onto the Soviet Woodpecker signals. Thus, at that time the Soviet Union was preparing to exercise a metal softening test at some future time, in some location over the U.S.** ** Note this signal could also have been present for the Dec. 12 destruction of the Arrow DC-8 at Gander AFB, Newfoundland." More scalar weapons links at http://home.attbi.com/~jmking/wsb/html/view.cgi-showresources.html-TopRes-Tesla-2C-20scalar-20devices-20and-209-2F11.html "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglas (1857) PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-11-02, 12:06 PM (ET) Reply to post #23 24. The latest from Tom Bearden - scalar EM weapons in Iraq? http://www.rense.com/general30/mager.htm "Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglas (1857) PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-11-02, 01:16 PM (ET) Reply to post #23 25. Smoking guns or just smoke? If anyone can explain this *without* black technology I'll be real interested to hear it. If anyone can explain this using covert technology I'll be real interested to hear it.   Top

DulceDecorum (344 posts) Oct-11-02, 02:54 PM (ET) Reply to post #25 26. Doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg* True! Of course it is! <...> I have given you the story just as Mother told it to me, years ago. Why, there is not a child in Holland who does not know it. And <...> you may not think so, but that little boy represents the spirit of the whole country. Not a leak can show itself anywhere either in its politics, honor, or public safety, that a million fingers are not ready to stop it, at any cost. http://home.planet.nl/~meder/map12/hansbrinker.html *The fall of Tidde Winnenga (scroll down) People, we have our own personal cadre of heroic Hans Brinkersmen. Not a leak can show itself anywhere that certain fingers are not ready to stop it, at any cost.   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-11-02, 03:51 PM (ET) Reply to post #26 27. Thanks for sharing that wonderful story Story telling can be a useful tool for teaching. But for the stories to be effective one needs to understand the audience. Nice story.   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-11-02, 07:20 PM (ET) Reply to post #26 31. hehe, little Lared Brinker!   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-11-02, 06:22 PM (ET) Reply to post #25 28. If we COULD explain it, it wouldn't be COVERT, now would it?   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-11-02, 09:18 PM (ET) Reply to post #28 32. You must have the MSTM dictionary MSTM = Mr_SmokesTooMuch Are you saying that something that is covert is not explainable? Or did someone steal your smokes and you're having a bad day? Because something is not readily explainable does not mean you have found the smoking gun for covert activity as implied. Here's another not so stunning piece of reasoning. The sections of the WTC facade that appear to be vaporizing as they fall are merely falling at a faster rate than the dust. Meaning, the photo was taken after the sections fell through the dust plume. The mass and shape of the section at a higher speed have dragged some dust with the section as it falls.   Top

Dumas (95 posts) Oct-11-02, 09:21 PM (ET) Reply to post #32 33. oh dear... the "official" answers continue...good lord...i must admit, i don't know what's more entertaining, the "price is right" at 3:00 in the morning or Lared's scripted responses...*tsk tsk* "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Johann W. von Goethe " Oh Mortal Man, is there nothing you cannot be made to believe?" -- Adam Weishaupt – Co-founder Of The New World Order "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.." --President Bush, speaking to the United Nations. "The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are." --Marcus Aurelius   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-11-02, 09:41 PM (ET) Reply to post #33 34. Scripted? Whatever do you mean?   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-11-02, 10:26 PM (ET) Reply to post #32 35. No Covert= hidden, non observable Overt= observable basic definitions   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-12-02, 09:18 AM (ET) Reply to post #32 36. Dragging dust - not so stunning "Here's another not so stunning piece of reasoning." Well at least your self image is getting more realistic. "...the sections fell through the dust plume. The mass and shape of the section at a higher speed have dragged some dust with the section as it falls." And pigs might look like ravens, if they had wings and feathers. Here are some better views of large chunks of the outer wall shedding dense trails of dust: (Thanks to Edminion for pictures) A dense object moving through a cloud of dust would actually leave a trail with *less* dust than the surrounding space. Here we see objects falling through dust-free space and leaving thick trails of dust behind, dust that obviously represents much more material than could be "dragged along". A glance at these pictures shows that there is much more going on than dust swirling in the trail of a moving object. "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 09:59 AM (ET) Reply to post #36 38. Let me ask you a serious question Do you actually believe those photos are evidence of the steel vaporizing? Really? I mean there are at least two very simple explainations for the trails of dust. The section of facade dragged some dust with them as they fell though the dust and/or the dust was pushed between the structure elements/ columns during the collaspe and is falling out as the steel falls. Two quite reasonable explainations for what is observed. Why not examine those possibilities rather than getting worked up into a lather about "a smoking gun is in the house." It ain't even a squirt pistol.   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-12-02, 11:00 AM (ET) Reply to post #38 42. two (simply wrong) explainations Dragging or pushing dust - can you show me an example anywhere else of this "pushing/dragging" of dust outside the whimsical precincts of "New York freestyle" laws of physics? The pictures above do not show dust being pushed, or dust somehow mysteriously being "dragged" along. Think of a car driving through fog: it does not push fog ahead of it, and the fog in its wake will swirl and eddy, not issue in a thick sheet from the back of the car. Is it metal dust? Well all I can say is that it is clearly coming *from* the falling objects, not being passively dragged along. Is it dust, smoke, vapor of some kind? The sections of outer wall are mostly metal, and I do not see any other source for the thick clouds of opaque material issuing from them. "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-12-02, 03:03 PM (ET) Reply to post #38 51. Why don't you address how the spire turns to dust and falls STRAIGHT DOWN? I would love to see that! If you say it doesn't turn to dust, even YOU would have to admit that it falls straight down or is that just an optical illusion? Does the Island of Manhattan have some special physics that don't apply to the rest of the earth?   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 09:20 PM (ET) Reply to post #51 65. I can't address how it turns to dust because that didn't happen. You'll need to ask Plaguepup that one. He has a theory I think. My best guess as to why to falls straight down rather that tips over is that universal thingy called gravity. I can't tell for sure looking at the videos, but based on the bit of column design I have been exposed to, I would say the bottom of the structure buckled from its own weight allowing the top section to fall straight down. Another possibility is that the debris pile took out the bottom sections once the pile got big enough. Sort of like quickly kicking out the bottom block in a stack of blocks. IMO, the fact it fell nearly straight down is hardly worth a comment The only thing I find amazing about the spire is that it managed to remain standing for a few moments. It had to be at least 600 or 700 hundred feet tall.   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-13-02, 10:06 AM (ET) Reply to post #65 72. Hmm, I have fallen many times and yes gravity is the cause of it, but I usually tip over, not collapse stright down into the ground, even if my knees buckled that wouldn't happen. Besides you can plainly see with your own eyes that there is no buckling, the material seems to disolve and then DROP straight down. Make a stack of blocks and kick the bottom out from it, they fall straight down do they? Your idea is flat out BS. I would have felt better if you had just fell back on optical illusion than trying to say that. I must call those demolition companies and tell them to quit using explosives. Obviously, all they have to do is start a fire in the top part of the building and it will come down the same way. Even the bits that don't fall down intially just need a nice bump and they will fall straight down too!   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-13-02, 10:56 AM (ET) Reply to post #72 74. re: Besides you can plainly see with your own eyes that there is no buckling, the material seems to disolve and then DROP straight down You must have x-ray vision as at least the bottom 1/3 to 1/2 of the spire is not observable. You have not way of knowing if there was buckling or not. I made a reasoned assumumption that it buckled. Rather than indulge in wild speculation. It should be noted that the spire does not exactly fall straight down. It seems to sway or start to tip over and then falls straight down. Like the bottom supports were removed. Also the spire seems to disolve only after it starts to drop. After dust or debris on the spire obscure the view. That terminal velocity thing again.   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-13-02, 12:16 PM (ET) Reply to post #74 75. Yeah, I know, you think everything happened LAST EDITED ON Oct-13-02 AT 12:17 PM (ET) according to the "official" version, what ever that is. You are the only one that has seen it if there is an official verison. All I have seen is people "suppositioning" like we are doing on this thread. You have made your objective clear in your 400+ posting in only the 911 folder. Hmmmmm. Why are you so concerned with showing us the error of our ways again? Oh, yeah! Because we are so embarrassing to "Democrats" like yourself IMHO if you want to do something to save Democrats from being embarrassed, why don't you fight them doing shit like passing $1.2 trillion tax cuts for big business and starting wars with countries that have never done anything to us, IMO you can't get much more embarrassing than that for Democrats like me. Thanks for being so concerned about us Lared, but I think we can take care of ourselves, and nothing you have shown me on any thread comes even close to makiing me think 911 happened as the "official verdict" would have us believe. I won't even bother trying to address what you posted. Since you never answer any specific questions of your "theories" anyway, why should I?   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-13-02, 01:39 PM (ET) Reply to post #75 76. Dragging out the "Offical Version" again There is no offical version as far as I know. I post what I believe are reasonable explainations based on known science. Let me state again that while there are a few unexplained elements in WTC 1,2 and 7 collapses, the majority of "evidence" cited in these parts is in the realm of foolishness. The notion that a 600 to 700 foot spire just vaporized in mere moments is in fact, foolishness. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. You really need to check your facts regarding my posting habits. It's kinda scary you care. Are you a latent stalker? While most of my posts have been in the 911 forum, I have ventured to other areas. Why is that an issue in your mind? Is there some qualifications to being a DU poster that requires I post in a variety of forums? Is there some equation I need to follow? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. As for me trying to save Democrats from themselves regarding the nonsense expoused here, Get a grip. I post here because I like it. I learned a long time ago I could provide rock solid evidence proving my position and the hard core conspiracy advocate will find some silly rational to ignore it. Look at the Pentagon thread. Amazingly some still are looking for the Boeing even with the overwhelming photographic evidence that proves, yes proves, without doubt the "offical story". LOL. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Also, if you have noticed not to many Democrats that believe the evil Bush cabel is directly responsible for the attacks on the WTC and pentagon, and far fewer believe the government or any other entity collapsed the WTC using explosives or covert technology. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. So tell me how are YOU fighting to save Democrats from themselves. Lately thay can't seem to get anything right. You're service is needed, so put down your smokes and get busy sorting out the world according to you.   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-13-02, 05:34 PM (ET) Reply to post #76 85. All sound and fury signifying NOTHING The "you are embarrassing Democrats" is your own words from another thread. Yeah, I do think it suspicious that about the only place someone posts on DU is here to tell us all how silly we all are. I don't base my beliefs on how many other people believe it. Rather than making you an intellectual giant, I would think doing that makes you a LEMMING. I'd need you to refresh me on when you have EVER thought anything but the "official version" was what happened that day. Even the most mundane discrepencies pointed out where called "crazy" and other names by you. I'm done trying to save the Democrats, you can't save someone that WANTS to commit suicide. Yes, the SPIRE DIDN"T happen, tho you can plainly see it with your own eyes. What you CAN'T see however is the "buckling" that you say is shown. This will be my last reply to any post you ever make. Don't reply to mine either please, because I am not addressing them to you, believe me. I hate the idea of having to put someone on my ignore list. It's never been used yet on DU, but I'm afraid it will have to be for you, because I consider you at best to be a troll(look up the definition of that Mr Weblink) or worse.   Top

DulceDecorum (344 posts) Oct-13-02, 02:48 PM (ET) Reply to post #51 77. Veni vidi dusty LAST EDITED ON Oct-13-02 AT 03:03 PM (ET) Well, you do all know about the Manhattan ailment "dementia americana" described by attorney Delphin Delmas. Laws (including those of physics) are sometimes applied rather differently in Manhattan. http://www.amiannoyingornot.com/view.asp?ID=5032 We have an expert witness here people, just like they did at that trial. You naughty jurors are supposed to follow through with ONLY what you have been permitted to consider. If you don't, why, the judge will just have to set aside your verdict.   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-13-02, 04:14 PM (ET) Reply to post #77 80. dementia americana Hey, this could explain a lot! Maybe inanimate objects can get "DA" too and violate the laws of physics but of course without any evil intent. Besides, the inanimate objects of the WTC have been punished enough... Not sure that it's worth the effort to respond to LAR_LAR's silly comments above, except to note that tall skinny objects do commonly topple over, regardless of what's happening at ground level (unless there happens to be exlposive demolition down there). And this "spire" is extremely tall and thin. No kind of buckling or getting nudged by the debris near the bottom could induce it to do anything other than topple over. Not that it matters at this point, but I am finally convinced thet LAR_LAR is simply lying about being an engineer. After getting in a silly argument about the meaning of "terminal velocity" he continues to misuse the term: "Also the spire seems to disolve only after it starts to drop. After dust or debris on the spire obscure the view. That terminal velocity thing again." "that terminal velocity thing" indeed... where is this massive amount of dust hiding in the still pictures of the bare metal of the spire? After standing in the middle of the high-velocity pyroclastic flows of the collapse, how could all this dust (enough supposedly to completely hide the steel columns) remain "on" or somehow attached to the mostly vertical surfaces of the spire? And why, just as it starts to drop does all this dust suddenly jump off and form a thick cloud? Those of you who have actually looked at the video can see that initially the outline of the steel columns is clearly visible as it starts to fall, then very suddenly vanishes, leaving only the dust cloud. Did the dust suddenly become denser in a few milliseconds? The mystery of why and how an extremely tall skinny object made of steel box columns can do anything *but* topple over is a great one indeed, second only to the mystery of how in managed to remain standing through the violent and turbulent pyroclastic flows of the collapse and for a few seconds after. "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-12-02, 09:36 AM (ET) Reply to post #32 37. I don't think you know how to reason Here's another not so stunning piece of reasoning. The sections of the WTC facade that appear to be vaporizing as they fall are merely falling at a faster rate than the dust. I thought someone proved back in the middle ages that all objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass?   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 10:09 AM (ET) Reply to post #37 39. He did. And then someone sometime after that worked out the mechanics of terminal velocity. Here's a fun link that graphically shows it. Watch the red line. http://www.explorescience.com/activities/Activity_page.cfm?ActivityID=27   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-12-02, 10:23 AM (ET) Reply to post #39 40. Again, you're trying to make lemonaide out of oranges LAST EDITED ON Oct-12-02 AT 10:32 AM (ET) Terminal velocity doesnt mean that somethings fall faster than others. Terminal velocity means that objects fall at an increasing faster rate until they reach max speed, ie terminal velocity. But then, you already knew that, didn't you? Edit: Also, you could have jumped off the top of the WTC and still not hit terminal velocity before you hit the ground, so it doubly doesn't apply at all here. Maybe if the dust and debris had jumped out of an airplane it would apply, but all the debris would still fall at the same rate.   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 10:36 AM (ET) Reply to post #40 41. You really should examine my link. It can be instructive. Nice back pedaling though. Actually objects fall at a decreasing rate due to the same countering force that causes the terminal velocity.   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-12-02, 11:08 AM (ET) Reply to post #41 43. Actually objects fall at a decreasing rate(!) I've never seen such an incoherent description of terminal velocity from someone claiming to have scientific training. No, objects do not fall at a decreasing rate (and then stop in midair?), they accelerate until the drag force from the medium they are falling through equals their weight, then continue to fall at that speed. All objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum, but in a viscous medium they have a drag force related to their shape and cross sectional area and to their velocity in the medium, so denser and more compact objects will reach a higher terminal velocity. "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 12:21 PM (ET) Reply to post #43 44. I was trying to use MSTM's terms I understood his term of decreasing rate to equal acceleration. An object falling through a medium will start to decrease its acceleration immediately. The decreasing rate (deceleration) will reach zero at most time. The time it takes to get there is dependent on all sort of variables, like its shape, what medium it is passing through, is it rotating...etc. After a certian amount of thime the object is now at it's terminal velocity. Acceleration = 0 Seeing as you obviously understand the dynamics here, would you say it is reasonable to believe the steel facade pieces fell through the dust cloud because dust will reach terminal velocity nearly instantanously, while the steel needs quite a bit more distance and time to get there?   Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Oct-12-02, 12:35 PM (ET) Reply to post #43 46. Exactly Once again Jeff is correct and lared is all smoke and mirrors. Thanks Jeff. Simple and factual. Lared how could you forget about the great fluid we live in and its viscosity? lol! Perhaps this is another area we should test to disprove. Lets simply drop a beam or group of beams, surrounded by smoke, concrete dust etc and watch how quickly they seperate. Or Maybe we could drop a section of the same materials that made up the WTC towers from 50,000 feet and watch as it falls to earth without disintegrating into a fine powder. I say we just test this stuff while videotaping and shut up the BS. Also want to point out that much of the material in the pics posted above has not been crushed with relation to its vertical position in the building. Not what I would expect. Bill PS: Lared, where can I get some of that super diesel fuel you have been raving about. Sounds so much better than the diesel fuel I have experience with. A diesel fuel that can burn without oxygen? I have to get me some of that. Thanks for teaching me all about fuels. I wouldnt know what to do without your insightful but 180 degrees out scientific approach.   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 01:39 PM (ET) Reply to post #46 47. Way 2muchbs LAST EDITED ON Oct-12-02 AT 01:42 PM (ET) Truly pathetic attempt to mischaracterize what I said. Unless you really are that ignorant of the subject. Assuming it's not ignorance, it does lighten my heart to see your post. That much BS is a clear sign you're desperately grasping at straws. BTW the hero worship of plaguepuppet is getting scary.   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-12-02, 04:52 PM (ET) Reply to post #47 57. Notice how civil and constructive the tone gets When the LAR_LAR man descends on a thread! PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 09:21 PM (ET) Reply to post #57 66. You need to review the thread I didn't start it.   Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Oct-12-02, 05:17 PM (ET) Reply to post #47 59. Hero worship? I agree with a post that fits real science, and that is Hero worship? Perhaps you nailed it, and Jeff is a Hero for honestly reporting about scientific happenings. I don't agree with just about anything you write. If I did I would let you know. That's not my fault, its yours for spewing so much nonsense. Jeff nailed it in a few words. So I support what he said. How is that wrong? You on the other hand seem to be learning as you go. You backtrack so heavily you probably get whiplash. Where do you get the grasping with straws shit? Is this just your attempt at slander? I could "almost" care less anymore about the structures being demolished. That's your problem now. I am simply sharing my thoughts as shaped through many years of experience. It appears that you are the one who is grasping at straws. I personally think you have little engineering experience and zero real world materials experience. You have proved that many times. That's some dust supply stemming from those columns. Amazing how much pressure drop occurred behind them. Must be some more of that "new" physics stuff out of New York. A seemingly never ending supply of dust and smoke. Now that's weird science. Bill   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 09:28 PM (ET) Reply to post #59 67. Real Science? Scientific happenings?????? Jeff nailed it in a few words.?????????????? You have proved that many times. ????????????? ROTFLMAO Best laugh of the day Thanks   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-12-02, 02:55 PM (ET) Reply to post #41 50. I did look at your link and I will point out you can vary the mass of the "ball" by quite a bit. From lightest to heaviest it varies the time by 3 TENTHS of a second. I would hazard to say that that would not even register to the human eye that is such a small difference.   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 03:26 PM (ET) Reply to post #50 52. I'm glad you tried it Now try changing the size of the ball to get at the variable that has some impact in the terminal velocity. Think of the difference between a 1 oz marble dropping (high density) and a 1 oz piece of foam (low density).   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 12:29 PM (ET) Reply to post #40 45. Interesting Also, you could have jumped off the top of the WTC and still not hit terminal velocity before you hit the ground, Based on what? so it doubly doesn't apply at all here. Maybe if the dust and debris had jumped out of an airplane it would apply, but all the debris would still fall at the same rate. Sorry, you're not even close. Most of the dust will hit terminal velocity nearly instantaneously. The steel debris will take far longer. How long is not really important because the magnitude between the two terminal velocities is very large. Try an experiment. Take some gypsum dust and a marble, and push them both off the kitken table with a little bit of force and get back to me with your results.   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-12-02, 02:52 PM (ET) Reply to post #45 49. What exactly is supposed to be the point of this garbage in relation to the WTC disaster? Also, you could have jumped off the top of the WTC and still not hit terminal velocity before you hit the ground, I still stand by that. Terminal velocity comes into play during long falls, or are you trying to say that a marble falling off my kitchen table will hit speeds in excess of 200 MPH?   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 03:33 PM (ET) Reply to post #49 53. Well I pointed out that dust from the collapse and the WTC facade would fall at different velocities as a possible solution as to why the dust seems to trail from the facade pieces, ie the facade carried /pushed the dust/debris out past the dust cloud and gave the illusion that the facade created the dust via vaporization. You insisted that everything fell at the same rate regardless of mass. So I introduced you to the notion of terminal velocity.   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-12-02, 04:14 PM (ET) Reply to post #53 55. Everything does .3 seconds differential is not enough to say they don't.   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-11-02, 06:39 PM (ET) Reply to post #23 29. Those are very informative links LAST EDITED ON Oct-11-02 AT 06:46 PM (ET) A person would like to think that nukes are as bad as it gets, but if these weapons do exist (and I think they do for a couple of reasons) then they are more deadly than nukes even. pretty scary! I have read alot about planes laying down chemical trails and most think it has something to do with weather control. One of the metals they lay down is aluminum and there is talk that the big radar system way up north (HARPS I believe its called)is also one of these scalar weapons, they say when that is cranked up and the aluminum particles are in the air that it could basically turn our atmosphere into a giant microwave oven. It would not surpirse me a bit to find out this was the case. The other thing I think could be some indication that these Tesla weapons are a reality is; I worked on our ICBMs for years and anytime a Soviet satellite went over we had to close the site up completly until it was out of range. It was a REAL pain in the ass, since it took nearly an hour to penetrate and back out of the site. It would make sense if there was some way the Russians could collect intelligence, but when you think about it, that is not likely. They know the exact location of the site already and what knowledge could they get by looking at a picture of a missile in a launch tube? Especially since we had the Head of the whole Soviet space command come and tour our base and trainer site while I was in Grand Forks, ND. I'm sure that would expose more secret info than a satellite going over. After reading the links and reading that these weapons will cause nukes to go off on their own, makes me wonder if the USAF wasn't afraid they could cause some type of nuclear accident if the launcher was open. When the site is buttoned up, it is completely protected from EMP by gigantic surge protectors. It seems like that would protect it from the other effects the Tesla weapons as well. Edit:Here is a few lines from the last article linked that basically say the same thing as I did, I hadn't looked at the last link until now. Using the exothermic mode it is possible to make any airplane drop from the sky, anywhere. It is possible to destroy any missile, in its flight path or in its silo. Bearden sites many instances of downed planes he believes were tests of the scalar weapons. (Gandor, Newfoundland)   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-13-02, 09:45 AM (ET) Reply to post #21 71. eutectic reactions occur at a reduced temperature. eutectic; A mixture of substances having a minimum melting point. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html The question that needs an answer is where did the sulfur come from in WTC7.   Top

ramblin_dave (177 posts) Oct-12-02, 02:40 PM (ET) Reply to post #5 48. Trailing dust What is known of the outer wall construction beyond the steel sections that formed the outer columns? I would guess that the interior walls were drywall. But what about insulation, could it have been some kind of blown in or poured product? Watching some of the collapse videos it does seem more like something is eroding from the falling wall sections rather anything being dragged along. Could this material be gypsum powder or an insulation material?   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 03:39 PM (ET) Reply to post #48 54. Yes Could this material be gypsum powder or an insulation material? I think so. I believe a large amount of the dust seen is fireproofing/ wall board gypsum /ceiling tiles / insulation. All of this material is easly crushed. All the elevator shafts (30 or so on each floor) and stairwells (3) had four layers of 5/8" wall board as fireproofing.   Top

Endimion (49 posts) Oct-12-02, 05:13 PM (ET) Reply to post #54 58. Maybe this fact will interest everyone, including you. About month ago, I was talking to a guy that gave me this stunning piece of knowledge. Ok, enough with poetry. Less 10 years ago, his father (working in the tower 1 or 2) took him on a "Tour la WTC". They were wandering around the floors, and they got into a construction area (I think he told me it was around 50th floor). Entering the floor, he noticed how fire-insulation was removed from the floor trusses. Now, here are my questions. 1)How the heck did they get permition to enter a construction area?!?! I say if >they< could enter it, then it really wouldn't be impossible to impregnate the whole ~100 floors with "firecrackers". 2)Why would workers remove all of the fireproofing in order to make some changes for new offices?! I won't answer this one, cause I already did above. P.S.: Here is a little IGNORANCE from a guy from another stupid forum. I quote: "the reason everything was turned to dust was 1.5 million tons crushing everything at 120 mph causing 2.9 richter earthquakes! the reason all the rubble was shipped out was to find human remains and begin on recontructing them. there is no conspiracy. studying the rubble, all engineers say the fireproofing was horribly burned away from the steel ties! and pancake effect works! more and more weight crushing each floor would create suffiecient force to cromple the twin towers." Can you actually believe how much crap is layed in ordinary citizens heads? WOW! 1.5 million tons. That's like 2 towers plus WTC4,5 or 6. 120 mph??? WWWHAT? That is 222.24 km/h! WEEEEE.... ALL engineers? Reconstructing pieces? How? COME ON, give me a break!..... There is so much crap around. And when you try to remove it, the crap responds violently! And, Lared, you can't say that explosive releasing of the YELLOW-ORANGE dust is normal. THINK! Oh, another thing. Think about what did you just said about core fireproofing. And remember what were you yelling before (core melting). Evil piggies are everywhere...BEWARE   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 05:26 PM (ET) Reply to post #58 60. Ok, but I'm not clear on what part you're talking about Getting into a construction site is not exactly evidence of anything that I can think of. Removing fireproofing does not mean it was not replaced. In a constrution project there can be manifold legit reasons to remove loads of different stuff 1.5 million tons That is the combined weight of the towers as far as I know. And, Lared, you can't say that explosive releasing of the YELLOW-ORANGE dust is normal. What YELLOW-ORANGE dust? Oh, another thing. Think about what did you just said about core fireproofing. And remember what were you yelling before (core melting). I have never said the core melted. I have always said the fire was hot enough to degrade the strength of the steel.   Top

Endimion (49 posts) Oct-12-02, 06:52 PM (ET) Reply to post #60 63. Well why don't you then walk into a constuction site and wander around some hollow skyscraper. I think the security had "holes". Fireproofing should be replaced immediately, not in the end of works. Safety first! Each tower is 500000 t, not 750000 t. What YELLOW-ORANGE dust? Just look at the photos Jeff put here. See that big piece? (pics are time delayed, so one can see how it erupts) Melted, softened, I heard tons of it. BS. Evil piggies are everywhere...BEWARE   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-12-02, 09:34 PM (ET) Reply to post #63 68. Huh Walking onto a construction site is evidence of absolutely nothing. That was my point. I take it you disagree? Melted, softened, I heard tons of it. You may have heard tons of it from somewhere, but you never heard from me about melted steel.   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-12-02, 04:49 PM (ET) Reply to post #48 56. Gypsy auto body The outer walls were 14" steel columns alternating with ~22" windows, so I doubt that there were little strips of drywall on each column. Someone here must have been is one of the offices - were the columns bare metal on the inside? But the problem that remains is that, even if there were bits (14" wide strips) of drywall on the inside of the columns, what would make it turn to fine powder that we see being released at high rates over long distances of fall? It's not enough to say that gypsum is easily puverized: how is it being pulverized in this actual situation? Are we to believe that air whipping around the edges of the columns is scouring it off as a fine dust? In objects falling from 10s of mph to maybe 150 mph (remember that they are not all falling from the top and have not reached the ground)? And look at the volume of dust- these are thick, opaque trails stretching hundreds of feet. Can air really make wallboard disintegrate so slowly and so uniformly, into huge quantities of fine dust? Only in LAR_LAR land! "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-12-02, 06:14 PM (ET) Reply to post #48 61. Trailing dusty glory Yes, there's no question *something* is being eroded off the outer walls. The continuous sheet of dust streaming away from the trailing edges of the pieces can be seen to actually "attach to" the trailing edge. This can only happen if the material streaming off originates from the section of wall. As 2much points out, this is all about fluid dynamics. A solid object moving through dust (or smoke or whatever simulation of the system you choose)will leave a path with *less* dust behind it and trailing vortices of the dust moving back into the cleared path. It cannot push (other than in a very narrow zone at the leading edge) or pull dust along in its path, nor can it carry large amounts of dust along and later dump them. To do justice to this fluid dynamic/terminal velocity question, we have to recognize several different regimes of behavior: 1) A solid object falling in a fluid, e.g. a chunk of steel falling in air. It will accelerate at G- (drag coefficient x V), but in fact will accelerate at almost G and not reach terminal velocity in 1300'. 2) Smoke or dust particles suspended in air. If these are fine enough they will have a low terminal velocity, and form a cloud that drifts slowly down at a speed that depends on particle size and density. 3) Thick suspensions of dense fine particles in high concentration (particles per unit volume). When dense enough such a suspension can become a turbidity current of pyroclastic flow. In this regime the "fluid" of suspended particles is dense enough to flow at high speed in the less-dense medium, achieving a terminal velocity much higher than for normal dust or smoke. "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

Endimion (49 posts) Oct-12-02, 06:45 PM (ET) Reply to post #61 62. You can bet it's a pyroclastic flow! I saw on one video (streetcollapse.mpeg) how the flow from 1st tower acts like liquid, and spills under the car like liquid He. Damn scary. Makes you want to scream and run. I doubt many pyroclastic matter would become out of the collapse without charges. (well, not all of the tower would fall down) It was like a thick, heavy, dense wave of almost water matter, that suffocated a lot of people. Remember St.Helen eruption? Evil piggies are everywhere...BEWARE   Top

2muchbs (1189 posts) Oct-12-02, 07:50 PM (ET) Reply to post #61 64. Just think of the volume LAST EDITED ON Oct-12-02 AT 07:52 PM (ET) Of sheetrock required to create such a particulate trail. At the rate its bleeding off in the PICS above, you would need massive sections of sheetrock to fall only 50 feet while maintaining that dense smoke trail effect. And the result would not look anything like the PICS anyway. It's not jet fuel as it would have long been vaporized/burned at this point, and its not just about anything else I can think of. So how did it happen? The PICS of the debris falling, trailing such a dense matter are very hard to explain. But then again so are the energy input spikes directly before collapse, the basement molten metal, and the smoke jets way below collapsing floors, and the spire to dust deal, and the fireman telling of explosions well after plane impact, And Bush killing an investigation, Sulfur traces,etc. Can it get more obvious? I think not. Can Lared be more obvious, I think not. Bill   Top

ramblin_dave (177 posts) Oct-12-02, 11:01 PM (ET) Reply to post #64 69. Considering the volume The outer walls must have been a composite of drywall and insulation on the interior with the steel column sections and column covers on the outside. The steel columns would have had sprayed-on fire retardant material. The plume of debris could consist of all this stuff. Most of the steel in the debris pile seems devoid of fire retardant based on the pictures I've seen. In the Naudet brothers video, when they are running from the collapse of tower 1, the debris comes first in stone size chunks, then a hail of gravel size pieces, then sand-like grit, then a blizzard of darkness inducing fine powder and fluffy flakes that look and fly around like snow. It would seem that the fire retardant alone might supply enough volume since it would be at least a half inch or more. Plus it flakes off rather easily and would be consistent with the fluffy debris seen in the video. Thing is, if we speculate that the steel itself was being eroded somehow, then there would have to be partially eroded steel in the debris pile. But I can't see any such evidence in all the pictures nor have I found any reporting on this. Most of the steel looks clean with very little fire retardant remaining. The energy spikes are interesting, the molten metal needs to be confirmed, and other unexplained phenomena all need further study. Isn't it obvious why Bush is trying to kill the investigation of 9/11? He knows it could lead to revealing that he and his inner circle had rather specific information on what was coming and they did nothing about it, which will lead to the unavoidable conclusion that they allowed the attacks to happen.   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-13-02, 00:28 AM (ET) Reply to post #69 70. partially eroded steel See http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5189&forum=DCForumID43&omm=21 from this thread. "A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness." There is some very strangely "eroded" steel found in the WTC-7 wreckage. Given that only ~100 pieces from the towers were saved it may be that no clear evidence of "metal softening" in the twin towers survived. "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

ramblin_dave (177 posts) Oct-13-02, 04:12 PM (ET) Reply to post #70 79. Eutectic reaction Yes, I had read that article before. It seems to talk about a possible reaction with steel where there were high temperatures involved and some other elements such as sulfur. http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html Most of the falling wall sections seen were not touched by the fire, so it would not seem that this phenomenon would apply in that case.   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-13-02, 04:23 PM (ET) Reply to post #79 81. One minor point about eutectic mixtures The eutectic point represents the ratio of two or more substances that will have the lowest melting point for that particular combination of substances. This does not mean that it will form at a low temperature though. To dissolve sulfur in steel it must be heated to close to the melting point or the sulfur will not be able to diffuse into the metal. The presence of such mixtures indicates very high temperatures and high concentrations of sulfur - perhaps thousands of little match girls scattered through the buildings? "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-13-02, 05:07 PM (ET) Reply to post #81 83. Hey Plaguepuppy To dissolve sulfur in steel it must be heated to close to the melting point or the sulfur will not be able to diffuse into the metal. The presence of such mixtures indicates very high temperatures and high concentrations of sulfur - Is positively unadulterated BS. Let me repeat that. Positively unadulterated BS. I work with materials on a regular basis that are subject to eutectic reactions and it don't work that way. Not even close.   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-13-02, 10:59 PM (ET) Reply to post #83 90. Thanks you for that useful information Could you be a little less specific? "it don't work that way. Not even close." Perhaps you could share your great experience and knowledge with those of us who don't spend our days heating little piles of sulfur with a torch. Some numbers perhaps? "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 PlaguePuppy's Café   Top

LARED (475 posts) Oct-14-02, 12:04 PM (ET) Reply to post #90 101. Sure There are basically three things a play in these types of reaction. Time, temp and contaminate. I see these sort of reactions/corrosions on a regular basis at work. We have a number of furnaces and incinerators that collectively operate anywhere from 1000 to 2500 deg f. The materials range from CS to nickel alloys. I am not an expert in this, but I have collaborated with metallurgists on a number of occasions and have first hand knowledge. I can only generalize the following and please keep in mind this phenomenon is hardly an exact science. In my experiance these reactions will occur somewhere above 1/2 the melting point. I have seen the results of the the CS/Sulphur reaction first hand, plus others. The level of contaminates can be as low a the PPM range to start this reaction. The time plays an important role as the reactions may or may not be energetic. I've seen failure that took years to progress and I've seen failures that took a few days. As I said there are alot of variable at play. Your suggestion that to dissolve sulfur in steel it must be heated to close to the melting point of the steel or the sulfur will not be able to diffuse into the metal is just plain false. The definition of a eutectic reactions is that the elements create a new melting point below the normal melting point.   Top

Mr_SmokesTooMuch (2935 posts) Oct-13-02, 10:11 AM (ET) Reply to post #69 73. I doubt very seriously that fire retardant was sprayed on the outer LAST EDITED ON Oct-13-02 AT 10:13 AM (ET) columns of the building. No fire in a building is going to get hot enough to affect their strength, period. Their load was vertical. The fire retardant was sprayed on the floor joists and supports and they would be the ones that would be most affected from heat due to the horizontal(gravity)loads.   Top

ewing2001 (3251 posts) Oct-13-02, 03:05 PM (ET) Reply to post #73 78. Painful Questions LAST EDITED ON Oct-13-02 AT 03:08 PM (ET) I just got the booklet "painfulquestions" from Eric Hufschmidt http://www.erichufschmid.net/ http://www.erichufschmid.net/PainfulQuestions.html It's THE No.1 book about all Sep11th collapses with many pictures. Not necessarily all new facts for other specialists like 2muchBS and plaguepuppy, but a MUST to read and have for everyone who support that B7, WTC 1/2 and Pentagon was destroyed with controlled demolition. I was very impressed and found some very good new details for me. It's an excellent analysis with great (originals with high resolution!) images, maps, drawings and figures. I told Eric to meet 2muchBS, plaguepuppy and all the other specialists here. Maybe he has time to join in. Great book! GROUND ZERO Forum NYC http://forums.delphiforums.com/ground_zero2001 http://www.ourDNA.org http://www.lebensaspekte.de 911Skeptics worldwide unite! Supporter of the 911-Skepticism Movement NYC, Washington, San Francisco, Connecticut, Ohio, Portland etc... Support public LIHOP-evidence now, SETUP later! http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00068.htm http://www.lihop.net Martin Luther King III, Nina Hagen, Spooky, Patti Smith, Ralph Nader got our 911-files! How Cynthia McKinney got our 911-files + Bush-Booker-Video (SGTV) http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=9053&forum=DCForumID60 Support the 911-Truth Commission: http://www.911nationalnetwork.org/petition/ Ed Asner, Harry Belafonte, Howard Zinn etc... http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html http://www.ctnow.com/features/lifestyle/hc-profile0929.artsep29,0,5020067.story?coll=hc%2Dheadlines%2Dlife Support the No.1 911-Bookmark-List: http://globalfreepress.com Support the No.1 911-Timeline Center: http://cooperativeresearch.org/completetimeline/ How the 911-Lie started: Bush at Booker Elementary http://ewing2001.kulturserver-berlin.de/Bush_Booker_SGTV.mov http://burningbush.myip.org/DUTV-BUSHWTC.zip http://burningbush.myip.org/DUTV-BUSHWTC.small.mov Please donate for GZ Forum NYC. Every $10 counts. (telephone bills, phone research, PR costs, media tools,video distribution, hardware upgrade, security solutions, provider costs, various investigations etc...) Info at http://www.lebensaspekte.de/groundzero/donation.html 911Skeptics in the media: http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.conspiracy.0912w NOTE: Any use of non-standard English words that are in quotes within this post should not be construed by any member of DU as prejudice against Southern people, African Americans, Asian people, Northern people, Arabic people, Jewish people, Christian people or any other group save one. These words are blatant prejudice against STUPID people.   Top

plaguepuppy (398 posts) Oct-13-02, 04:30 PM (ET) Reply to post #78 82. Yes, an outstanding effort! Hufschmid manages to find a lot of outstanding pictures and other graphics. I especially like the contour elevation map of the site after the collapse that shows levels below ground level in the middle of several of the structures. WTC-6 has two large hemispherical craters in the middle, both with bottoms below ground level. Pretty good for a spontaneous collapse - a naieve observer might think is showed the effects of two huge-ass explosions. But it's probably just another example of "American Dementia" (the especially virulent NYC version) as it applies to inanimate objects. "Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage." N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02 PlaguePuppy's Café   Top