I think Graeme MacQueen pretty handily smashes that sledgehammer hypothesis...

[wildbilln864]

in this lecture.

[seemslikeadream]

1. I'm watching now

Thanks

[seemslikeadream]

2. All you have to do is OPEN your eyes

It's never happened before


I don't see no WHAM, do you?

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Unless he explained why mass stops being mass when it stops being part of a structure...

He didn't explain anything away at all.

A big steel beam doesn't stop being a big steel beam just because it's been ripped away from the overall structure.

Also, the 911blogger page talks about people experiencing explosions. All well and good, but none of those explosion cut a single support column, core or perimeter, as the seismographs show.

I'll look at this later when I get to a better Internet connection.

ETA: I see some actual scientists have already been looking at this over at JREF:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114795

I think Dave Rogers gave you a very good answer to your question and nicely addressed MacQueen's concerns that there was no "wham". I think you need to realize that Bazant and others have developed simple models of the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 mainly to study the overall energetics of the collapse process, not to describe every detail and nuance of what we saw on 9/11. Thus such models, by their very nature, are approximations. Newton's laws of gravity did a pretty good job of explaining the motions of the planets when they were first applied to this problem in the years following the publication of Principia in 1687. Nevertheless, by the 1900s, more precise measurements of the motion of planets such as Mercury showed discrepancies with predictions based solely on Newtonian mechanics, and it needed relativity theory to supply the corrections that brought theory back into synch with observation.

When it comes to the collapse of the Twin Towers it is logical and mathematically much easier to assume the collapse was a series of impacts of a horizontal block onto a series of horizontal floors. This gives a "first-order" approximation to the motion, which is what I did in my calculation of several years ago. Since that time it has been possible to recognize corrections that need to be applied to the first-order model to better describe what was actually happening during the collapse of each tower. These include allowing for mass shedding; allowing for the increased strength of the columns as you go down the building; allowing for tilting, etc, etc. I have applied some of these corrections and found that the collapse times do indeed change, but only by a few seconds. Actually the notion that the collapse should show a "hiccup" at each floor is itself based on the assumption that the columns fail more or less instantly on impact. This would be true if the failure mode was a fast fracture; however there was actually some initial buckling of the columns, (followed by the fast failures of bolts and welds), which would serve to smear the resistance over time and distance. If you now factor in the effects of tilting and the fact that column failures would spread across the facade and core as in the uneven crumpling of a can, you will have a more or less constant resisting force all the way down the tower, as observed ........ Hence no wham!

That would be Frank Greening.

[Twist_U_Up]

5. This linking to JREF has to stop......

His site has more bullshit in one day that AJ can come up with in a months time.

DU at its finest

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Feel free to demonstrate any mistakes in that section I quoted.

Also, if you can demonstrate that the JREF site is a hate site on the order of Alex Jones, the moderators would be happy to oblige you. :eyes:

But you will do neither. You will just yell instead of debating substantively.

[petgoat]

78. Obvious mistakes

Impacting the floors does not take down the core. If that's the
simplification invoked, you wind up with my meatball-on-a-fork
model whereby the floors and perimeter columns are peeled away
and the core remains standing.

Bazant's obvious mistake is that he assumes that a monolithic
piledriver composed of the top fifteen floors remains intact
as it pounds down the entire lower structure, and assumes that
"crush down" forces are not balanced by any equal and opposite
"crush up" forces to destroy said piledriver.

Another mistake in Bazant is that he assumes that the 287 columns
in the upper section impact the 287 columns in the lower section
precisely, when clearly they would not. You'd see upper columns
exhausting their energy in punching holes in floors.

[wildbilln864]

9. Why would cutting a column cause a seismographic event bolo?

It wouldn't neccesarily do so. Thermite would not. Keep trying though. Sooner or later you may gain an understanding based on science rather than JREF speculation. I won't hold my breath though.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. Because explosions (what the 911blogger article is talking about) would do so.

On the one hand, you point to all of the witness to EXPLOSIONS, EXPLOSIONS, EXPLOSIONS.

When it's pointed out that explosions would be on the seismographs, you say THERMITE, THERMITE, THERMITE.

But people wouldn't have heard thermite. And no one has proposed a plausible way that thermite COULD cut those beams. All anyone ever does is make sinister implications.

And so round and round it goes. EXPLOSIONS, THERMITE, EXPLOSIONS, THERMITE.

You keep wanting it both ways. What makes sense is fire destroying column 79, setting off a progressive collapse.

[wildbilln864]

13. Not neccesarily....

The building was built to absorb a jumbo jet. Withstand 100 mph hurricane winds. It would absorb the blasts similarly. Especially horizontal blasts.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. When the jumbo jet hit it, wildbill, it showed up on the seismograph.

NEXT.

[wildbilln864]

16. Maybe so....

So what? :popcorn: Next yourself. Do you actually believe you've proven something? You haven't.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. So what?? If the building being built to absorb a jumbo jet didn't stop that event from showing up

on a seismograph, why would it stop cutting charges from showing up?

You have completely destroyed your own point. I didn't prove anything at all -- you did it for me.

[wildbilln864]

65. It would depend upon...

the size of the explosions now wouldn't it. I think a jumbo jet slamming into the buildings at 400+ mph would indeed shake the buildings to the foundations. But a cutting charge placed to exert forces horizontally would not.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. Well, that's what you say. Brent Blanchard says different.

And since he has worked in the demolition industry all of his career, and has seen the seismograph reading that WOULD have picked up cutting charges that severed those columns, I'm going with what he says. I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings.

[Ghost in the Machine]

79. Brent Blanchard couldn't distinguish the seismic reading of a few small charges going off from any

of the *other* 8,000 miniscule microquakes that happen *every day*. It could be passed over as just another non-event event that is nothing to be concerned with... barely a blip on the radar...

Let's not leave that part out of the story...

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. The seismograph reading was approximately 2.1 on the Richter Scale..

Richter Magnitudes Description Earthquake Effects Frequency of Occurrence
Less than 2.0 Micro Microearthquakes, not felt. About 8,000 per day
2.0-2.9 Minor Generally not felt, but recorded. About 1,000 per day


A large hand grenade measures 0.5 .... how about a little C-4 on a few key columns?

Oh yeah.... and how many buildings lose their fireproofing every day, due to these approximately 9,000 microquakes and minor quakes?

NEXT!

[Bolo Boffin]

26. So? n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. Superbly intelligent reply!

NOT!!

"So?".... Is that *all* you've got? Are you waiting for someone at debunker central to formulate a cut~n~paste reply for you?

"If the building being built to absorb a jumbo jet didn't stop that event from showing up
on a seismograph, why would it stop cutting charges from showing up?"


How would it be differentiated from any of the other 7,999 microquakes that happen per day? It's basically a 'non-event event', something they're not concerned with for any reason. Could be caused by a train... or a subway, right?

"So?", indeed....

[Bolo Boffin]

46. You haven't accounted for the types of seismographs that detected the collapse events.

Be so good as to do so before embarrassing yourself further.

[Ghost in the Machine]

52. That's not what we're discussing, is it?

Please try follow along and keep up with the conversation... the only one being embarrassed here is you... your lack of comprehension is still shining like a beacon in the fog.

Sing along here with me, bolo... "This little light of mine: I'm gonna let it shine! Let it shine, let it shine, let it shineee"

Thanks,

Ghost

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Yes. Yes, it is.

A reference to the seismographs operating that day is part of discussing the seismographs that picked up the collapse and would have picked up cutting charges.

[Ghost in the Machine]

70. "When the jumbo jet hit it, wildbill, it showed up on the seismograph."

No, we're discussing the seismographic readings at IMPACT, *not* at Collapse Initiation or during the collapse... read your own words in the subject line... "when the jumbo jet HIT it,.... it showed up on the seismograph"...

Once again, please try to follow along and keep up with the conversation.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. You are wrong.

We were talking about the cutter charges. Wildbill said that the cutter charges wouldn't show because the building was built to absorb a jumbo jet. I pointed out that the jumbo jet DID show up on the seismographs. That is the conversation.

Put. Down. The Bong.

[Ghost in the Machine]

72. Very good, bolo! You're almost catching on!

Yes, *you* pointed out the seismographs at impact, and I picked up and followed from there. That's part of what's called 'furthering a conversation'

You then went on to say "If the building being built to absorb a jumbo jet didn't stop that event from showing up on a seismograph, why would it stop cutting charges from showing up?"

I pointed out to you that a large hand grenade would only measure a 0.5, which is the low end of the microquake scale, and that there's 8000 of them per day that happen. It's a non-event. BTW, that one large hand grenade would be equivilent to the seismic energy release of 12.4 lbs of TNT.... Even during collapse, with a higher seismic reading, where would a couple of well placed C-4 charges make any significant spike in the readings?

[Bolo Boffin]

73. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Brent Blanchard's paper.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Your information base is too lacking for you to further this conversation.

[Ghost in the Machine]

74. I suggest you familiarize yourself with your own words.. and with how a conversation flows

Your information base is too lacking for you to be in *any* conversation, but it hasn't slowed you down yet, has it?

You see, the difference between you and me is that I have the ability to look at ALL sides of a subject and to make my own conclusions based on ALL the evidence/information I've read, while all you can do is parrot what someone else says that you happen to agree with. You constantly seek validation/approval of your positions, while I just couldn't give a flying rats ass whether you like, or agree with, my opinion or not.

I'm not out to change your mind about anything because I know it can't be done. All I can do is point out weaknesses or fallacies in your position... but I can't even make you *see* them. That's all on you, my friend, all on you and your level of comprehension & willingness/desire to learn.

How far away was that lake, again?

[Bolo Boffin]

76. Goodbye, Ghost. n/t

[Make7]

83. Which event measured 2.1 on the Richter scale? ( n/t )

[Ghost in the Machine]

84. The first collapse....

The impacts were only 0.7 & 0.9 ML (magnitude level). The collapses themselves were only 2.1 and 2.3


Here's a question for you: if the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, which was 21 miles away, only recorded the *collapses* at 2.1 and 2.3, what would they have measured a blast from a grenade or some C-4 at? Keep in mind that a large grenade, which is equal to 12.4 lbs of TNT, only registers a 0.5, and that's **NEAR the epicenter**.

[Make7]

85. Given the context of the discussion, that could easily have been misinterpreted.

 

wildbilln864 wrote:

Not neccesarily....

The building was built to absorb a jumbo jet. Withstand 100 mph hurricane winds. It would absorb the blasts similarly. Especially horizontal blasts.

Bolo Boffin wrote:

When the jumbo jet hit it, wildbill, it showed up on the seismograph.

Ghost in the Machine wrote:

The seismograph reading was approximately 2.1 on the Richter Scale.

Without specifying that you were were relaying data on some event other than the one being discussed, your statement could easily be interpreted to mean that you were saying one of the plane impacts registered as a magnitude 2.1 seismic event.
 

[Ghost in the Machine]

86. Follow the discussion up from there a little bit...

Bolo Boffin (1000+ posts) Thu May-29-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Because explosions (what the 911blogger article is talking about) would do so.
On the one hand, you point to all of the witness to EXPLOSIONS, EXPLOSIONS, EXPLOSIONS.

When it's pointed out that explosions would be on the seismographs, you say THERMITE, THERMITE, THERMITE. {emphasis mine}

But people wouldn't have heard thermite. And no one has proposed a plausible way that thermite COULD cut those beams. All anyone ever does is make sinister implications.

And so round and round it goes. EXPLOSIONS, THERMITE, EXPLOSIONS, THERMITE.

You keep wanting it both ways. What makes sense is fire destroying column 79, setting off a progressive collapse.

The bottom line still remains: seismic data does NOT rule out controlled demolition. Period. It doesn't *prove* CD, that's not what I'm saying, either..

[Make7]

87. I was looking at where the conversation went after you entered the thread.

From your posts, it seems like you were discussing a seismic impact event, not a collapse event.

Bolo Boffin wrote:

You haven't accounted for the types of seismographs that detected the collapse events.

Ghost in the Machine wrote:

That's not what we're discussing, is it?

Bolo Boffin wrote:

Yes. Yes, it is. A reference to the seismographs operating that day is part of discussing the seismographs that picked up the collapse and would have picked up cutting charges.

Ghost in the Machine wrote:

[quoting Bolo Boffin] "When the jumbo jet hit it, wildbill, it showed up on the seismograph." [end quote]

No, we're discussing the seismographic readings at IMPACT, *not* at Collapse Initiation or during the collapse... read your own words in the subject line... "when the jumbo jet HIT it,.... it showed up on the seismograph"...

The way that looks to me is that you were referring to the seismic event of an impact. You even put it in a bold font.
 

[Ghost in the Machine]

88. It's quite possible that I just fucked up and posted the collapse reading instead of the impact

reading.... other than that, do you have a point? If so, spit it out.

Can you explain how anyone would distinguish a 0.5ML reading, caused by an explosive charge, from any of the other 7,999 readings of less than 2.0ML that occur every day? If so, please do do... if not, please explain what your point is...


Thanks,

Ghost

[Make7]

89. Perhaps it's just me, but the argument you appear to be making seems illogical.

In a couple of your posts you seem to be implying that seismic events of less than a 2.0 magnitude would be difficult to distingush from any of the other less than 2.0 magnitude events. I'm just curious to know how they were able to distingush the seimic events registering 0.7 and 0.9 in magnitude referred to in your previous post.

Now if one believed that the plane impacts were events of a magnitude greater than 2.0, you might possibly have a point. (Well, I would at least understand the reasoning behind the question.) But given that they identified multiple seismic events significantly less than 2.0 on the Richter scale, I'm just not sure that the cutoff point you have chosen is exactly helping your case.
 

[Ghost in the Machine]

90. I'll try to make it easier for you to understand...

In a couple of your posts you seem to be implying that seismic events of less than a 2.0 magnitude would be difficult to distingush from any of the other less than 2.0 magnitude events.

Implying?? No, that's *exactly* what I'm saying....

I'm just curious to know how they were able to distingush the seimic events registering 0.7 and 0.9 in magnitude referred to in your previous post.

Well, let's see here... ummmm.... do you think that maybe it was because the seismographs were studied *after* the fact? You know, like.. ummm... they already *knew* what time the impacts happened, and they actually went and *looked* at those times on the seismographs? Do you think that maybe, jussssssst mayyyyybe, they could have done the same with the collapse readings??

Now if one believed that the plane impacts were events of a magnitude greater than 2.0, you might possibly have a point. (Well, I would at least understand the reasoning behind the question.) But given that they identified multiple seismic events significantly less than 2.0 on the Richter scale, I'm just not sure that the cutoff point you have chosen is exactly helping your case.

Oh, where to start? You do understand the definition of **LESS THAN 2.0**, right? What "cutoff point" have *I* chosen? Have you familiarized yourself with the Richter Scale and its various readings? If the impacts of planes flying at 500mph, along with the resulting explosions, only registered a 0.7 and 0.9, what do you think a few well-placed charges would have registered? Keep in mind that a large grenade would only register a 0.5, and that's *near* the epicenter, not 21 miles away like Lamont-Doherty is.

Take a deeper look at the impacts. We've heard that the buildings shook when the planes hit, right? Well, a 0.7ML or 0.9ML event isn't *felt* when it happens. Therefore, the impacts created a much larger energy event, but it was absorbed throughout the building and the air outside. Very little of the energy traveled through the building's bedrock foundation... only enough to register a microquake, a non-event event. Every day there are about 8,000 seismic events of less than 2.0ML. These events are not felt by anyone. They cause no damage and are of no concern to the people reading the seismographs. No one knows they happened, except for the people monitoring the seismographs.

There are also about 1,000 events per day that register between 2.0 - 2.9. These events are rarely felt, but recorded. Given the collapse readings of 2.1ML and 2.3ML, the collapse shouldn't have been *felt* by anyone, yet we saw the videos shot during the collapses where the ground shook, causing cameras on tripods to shake. The low seismic readings are, again, because the energy was absorbed through the air and surrounding buildings. Once again, keep in mind that it takes the equivalent of *70lbs* of TNT to produce a 1.0ML reading, *1 metric ton* of TNT to produce a seismic reading of 2.0ML, and **5.6 metric tons** of TNT to produce a 2.5 reading.... and this is **NEAR** the epicenter.

If a grenade sized blast (remember that's a 0.5ML reading, *near* the epicenter) went off in the building, it would be absorbed by the building and very little, if any, energy would travel through the bedrock to seismograph located 21 miles away. This leads us again to the bottom line: seismic data **cannot** disprove controlled demolition of the Twin Towers, or WTC7. Period. The assertion that seismic data disproves controlled demolition has been debunked. Anyone who asserts this idea is spreading false information. It's a lie, no more, no less.


As an aside, Brent Blanchard states that Protec was operating portable seismographs in both Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9-11, but seismologists from Lamont-Doherty say 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." Maybe Mr. Blanchard would like to share his data with Lamont-Doherty? Where *are* Brent Blanchard's seismic readings? :shrug:


Peace,

Ghost

[Make7]

91. I'm still not sure if you have actually demonstrated anything...

Regarding the identification of the impact times in the LDEO data you wrote:

Well, let's see here... ummmm.... do you think that maybe it was because the seismographs were studied *after* the fact? You know, like.. ummm... they already *knew* what time the impacts happened, and they actually went and *looked* at those times on the seismographs? Do you think that maybe, jussssssst mayyyyybe, they could have done the same with the collapse readings??

So you believe that the explosives could have been set off at any point in time and therefore they would have no idea where to begin to look at the data for any indicative seismic events?

Personally, I would have thought the most obvious time to look for explosive seismic events would be immediately preceding, or at the very beginning of the collapse events. Even if for some reason you think that explosives were set off minutes or hours before the collapse(s) in order to demolish WTC1 and/or WTC2, I would still think the timeframe for which the data would need to be examined is fairly obvious.

Ghost in the Machine wrote:

Keep in mind that a large grenade would only register a 0.5, and that's *near* the epicenter, not 21 miles away like Lamont-Doherty is.

Well, I was assuming that it would take more than a single large grenade to bring down one of the twin towers. Depending on the controlled demolition scenario that you subscribe to, there may need to be many high explosive charges set off near simultaneously, or in rapid succession (less than the time it took for the collapse). Would that not create a more identifiable seismic signature?

Ghost in the Machine wrote:

If a grenade sized blast (remember that's a 0.5ML reading, *near* the epicenter) went off in the building, it would be absorbed by the building and very little, if any, energy would travel through the bedrock to seismograph located 21 miles away.

Of course Bolo Boffin wasn't referring to the LDEO data when discussing the seismograph readings that he believes would have picked up any explosive detonations. Why you continue to bring up their data and location in a discussion about data collected much closer to the WTC site is one thing I'm not sure I understand.

Ghost in the Machine wrote:

As an aside, Brent Blanchard states that Protec was operating portable seismographs in both Manhattan and Brooklyn on 9-11, but seismologists from Lamont-Doherty say 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." Maybe Mr. Blanchard would like to share his data with Lamont-Doherty? Where *are* Brent Blanchard's seismic readings?

As an aside? These are the readings that Bolo Boffin was talking about. An aside?

The seismologists at LDEO were probably referring to permanent seismographic stations - like one would find at a university or government installation. Why you think that statement is relevant enough to even mention is beyond me. Do you think people operating portable seismographs would be required to notify the LDEO so their seismologists can keep track of other people's data?


In the end, it seems like you are arguing against the Protec data that Brent Blanchard says should have shown seismic events associated with high explosives, had they occurred, with data from much farther away that you appear to believe would not pick up any seismic events from explosives anyway.

Aren't you basically just saying that you do not believe Bolo Boffin's source?
 

[Ghost in the Machine]

92. Actually, I think I've demonstrated your complete lack of comprehension and/or critical thinking

..skills.

Here's some things for you to do before you respond again:

1.) Formulate a coherent reply that explains how some small charges would be picked up on a seismograph 21 miles away, while an airplane impacting the buildings only registered a 0.7 and 0.9. Also, explain how seismologists would differentiate a normal 0.5 reading, of which 8,000 per day occur, from a reading produced by a blast from explosives.

2.) Please point to Brent Blanchard's data from *his* portable seismographs. Brent Blanchard stated that he used his data, *combined with* "the more precise data from Lamont-Doherty". Please provide a link to Protech's data, as I can't seem to locate it.

3.) Elaborate on how *you* know what Bolo Boffin is talking about in regards to the seismographic data. A link to any response on this thread will suffice.

4.) Quit using Bolo Boffin as your appeal to authority. It's laughable, to say the least.


Thanks,

Ghost

[Make7]

93. I'm still trying to understand a couple of things.

You say that you debunked Brett Blanchard, but you also say that you have yet to see his data. How exactly have you debunked something that you haven't seen?

I'm rather skeptical that there are 7,999 seismic events of less than 2.0 magnitude in the New York City Metropolitan area every day. That sounds like a lot to me.
 

[Ghost in the Machine]

94. Thanks for confirming your lack of comprehension and critical thinking skills

"You say that you debunked Brett Blanchard, but you also say that you have yet to see his data. How exactly have you debunked something that you haven't seen?"

I've read his paper. Have you? You obviously believe him, without seeing any data provided by him. Why is that? Because it fits your world view? Because you need to appeal to authority and he's a "demolition expert"? How can you support and defend something you've never seen? I asked you to point to Blanchard's data... you failed to do so.


"I'm rather skeptical that there are 7,999 seismic events of less than 2.0 magnitude in the New York City Metropolitan area every day. That sounds like a lot to me."

Who said they were all in New York City? Work on those comprehension skills you obviously lack, then get back with me, ok?

Thanks for playing... but you don't even qualify for a booby prize...

[Make7]

95. RE: "Who said they were all in New York City?"

Perhaps you have some coherent argument in this thread somewhere but are simply unable to articulate it adequately.

Near the start of our conversation you said:

Can you explain how anyone would distinguish a 0.5ML reading, caused by an explosive charge, from any of the other 7,999 readings of less than 2.0ML that occur every day?

Given that seismic events in the Northeastern United States are relatively infrequent when compared to more active areas like California, Alaska, etc. I fail to see how seismologists would be having difficulties distigushing between a magnitude 1.5 event in California vs a 0.9 event in New York City. Do you think those other 7,999 seismic events were all somehow creating such confusion on seismographs in the vicinity of New York City that no one could make any sense out of the readings?
Not to mention the fact that small seismic events in CA would not even register in NY.
If the vast, vast, vast majority of those "7,999 readings of less than 2.0ML that occur every day" are not in the vicinity of New York City then how is that data even relevant to the discussion?

-Make7
 

[defendandprotect]

98. Or the simultaneous explosions showed up on the seismograph . . .

[SDuderstadt]

57. The building was NOT...

built to "absorb a jumbo jet". The assumptions in the design were about a 707, not a 757, coming in for a landing at a nearby airport, thus with a faitly small fuel load going much slower. Nice try, Bill.

[wildbilln864]

67. That would be....

incorrect!

[spooked911]

96. flaws

"When it comes to the collapse of the Twin Towers it is logical and mathematically much easier to assume the collapse was a series of impacts of a horizontal block onto a series of horizontal floors."

It is certainly mathematically much easier! Logical-- no.

"Actually the notion that the collapse should show a "hiccup" at each floor is itself based on the assumption that the columns fail more or less instantly on impact."

This is contradictory.

"there was actually some initial buckling of the columns, (followed by the fast failures of bolts and welds),"-- this is speculation.

"If you now factor in the effects of tilting and the fact that column failures would spread across the facade and core as in the uneven crumpling of a can, you will have a more or less constant resisting force all the way down the tower, as observed"

Gobbledygook.

[SDuderstadt]

97. "Gobbledygook"

This is the hands-down winner of the most unintentionally ironic post of the week.

[CrawlingChaos]

4. great presentation

MacQueen is an excellent communicator and this lecture would make a great intro for those new to 9/11 skepticism. I liked the moment near the beginning where he shows a slide of the south tower "collapse" and says something like, "if you had no prior knowledge of this event and I showed you this photo, what would you say is happening to that building? Would you describe it as 'falling'?" Um, no. There really is no getting around words like "exploding" and "pulverizing". He also does a wonderful job of conveying the incredible strength of these structures, in a way that any nontechnical person can understand. Because once an observer gets a bit of distance and perspective and puts aside the emotions connected with that day, it doesn't take any technical expertise to spot this obvious lie.

[wildbilln864]

7. Yes.

His presentation is very credible. The sledgehammer fallicy is so rediculous I can't imagine anyone with any knowledge of physics would fall for it. It's just stupid. Obviously if the upper section was destroying the lower as it fell it would also be destroyed and not be able to demolish the building all the way to the ground. :eyes:
Thanks for your input CC.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. "it would also be destroyed and not be able to demolish the building"

What?

Just because the upper section is ripped apart doesn't mean it disappears, wildbill. It still has just as much mass as it did before. Mass vs. Structure. That's what did all three WTC buildings in.

[wildbilln864]

10. Wrong!

That's just foolishness. As is plain to see in the video. Much of it's mass is ejected off in all directions. It becomes less as it travels down. The columns get bigger and therefore stronger as they go down.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Later calculations have taken mass shedding into account.

It's only your assertion that "much of it's mass" is eliminated.

The mass still actually becomes more and more as it goes down. The columns don't get big and strong enough. As that mass continues to fall, it gains more and more momentum.

This is science, wildbill. This is math.

[wildbilln864]

14. your bullshit speculation!

It's not just my assertion. It's a characteristic plainly seen.

[seemslikeadream]

17. This is science, wildbill. This is math.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vReD2zryQmA







Dear Mister Fantasy play us a tune
Something to make us all happy
Do anything take us out of this gloom
Sing a song, play guitar
Make it snappy
You are the one who can make us all laugh
But doing that you break out in tears
Please don't be sad if it was a straight mind you had
We wouldn't have known you all these years

[Bolo Boffin]

19. How much asbestos was in either tower, Seems?

It's a matter of public record.

[seemslikeadream]

20. And just imagine how much it was gonna cost to remove it all

[Bolo Boffin]

25. You didn't answer my question.

Of course, you know the answer. I've given it to you before.

The North Tower had about twenty floors of asbestos at the time of their destruction. The South Tower had zero. No asbestos insulation was EVER put into the South Tower.

[seemslikeadream]

27. I did answer your question

[Bolo Boffin]

29. No, you did not.

I asked how much asbestos was in the towers. You said "hundreds of tons", an answer equivalent to saying that "billions of gallons" of water is in the ocean.

You continue to post that ad to pretend that the buildings were full of asbestos. The truth is, only twenty floors in the North tower had asbestos when they collapsed. That's it. 10% of the building's insulation was asbestos. A sizable amount, but far, far less than 100%.

There's that order of magnitude thing again.

[seemslikeadream]

31. I really can't believe you are saying there was no asbestos in the South tower

Are you PWA again?

[Bolo Boffin]

33. It's the truth. Why wouldn't I say it? n/t

[seemslikeadream]

36. Check with Mesothelioma Home

http://www.maacenter.org/jobsites/WTC/asbestos.php

[Bolo Boffin]

37. They don't say that asbestos was or was not put into the South Tower.

They say that the plans were only to put it on the first forty floors.

But the NY Times article I linked shows that this only happened in the North Tower.

[seemslikeadream]

39. You need to think again bolo

Do you have any idea of the other sources of asbestos that was in the towers

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Do you?

Your link is only talking insulation.

[seemslikeadream]

42. ./..........

Acoustical panels
Acoustical plaster
Acoustical tile
Adhesive
Aircell insulation
Aprons
Asbestos board
Asbestos canvas
Asbestos cloth
Asbestos cord
Asbestos corrugated sheets
Asbestos curtains
Asbestos felt
Asbestos fiber
Asbestos fiber felt
Asbestos finishing cement
Asbestos flatboard
Asbestos forms
Asbestos furnace tape
Asbestos gaskets
Asbestos gloves
Asbestos insulating blankets
Asbestos insulating cement
Asbestos insulation
Asbestos lap
Asbestos micarta
Asbestos millboard
Asbestos mineral wool
Asbestos mittens
Asbestos packing
Asbestos pads
Asbestos panels
Asbestos paper
Asbestos rollboard
Asbestos rope
Asbestos seals
Asbestos sheets
Asbestos sponge block
Asbestos sponge cover
Asbestos spray
Asbestos tank jacket
Asbestos tape
Asbestos textile
Asbestos tiles
Asbestos wick
Asbestos yarn
Asbestos-faced mineral wool
Asphalt
Attic insulation
Automobile hood liners
Blaze shield
Block
Board
Boiler wall coat
Boilers
Bonding cement
Cables
Calcium silicate insulation
Carded asbestos cloth
Castables
Ceiling tiles
Cement
Ceramic tile
Cigarette filters
Clapboards
Clay
Cloth
Clutches
Cork board
Cork covering
Cork-filled mastic
Cork mastic
Corrugated asbestos sheets
Corrugated paper
Dry mix joint compound
Duct adhesive
Eighty-five percent magnesia insulation
Emulsion adhesive
Emulsions
Expansion
Expansion joint
Fake snow
Fibrous adhesive
Finishing cement
Fire resistant insulation shield
Firebrick
Fireclad asbestos paper
Firefoil board
Firefoil panel
Fireguard asbestos paper
Fireproofing cement
Flex board
flexible duct connectors
Furnace cement
Fyrbestos sheets
Gasket material
Gaskets
Generators
Goldbestos
Gunning mix
Hair dryers
Heat shield
Heatguard
High pressure packing
Industrial A-C board
Insulation coating
Insulation duct
Insulation jacketing
Insulating mix
Insulation seal
Insulmastic
Ironing board covers
Joint compounds
Kent cigarettes
Lagging
Lagging adhesive
Lagging cloth
Lagging tape
Leggings
Limpet
Marine panels
Mastic
Masonry fill
Mastic
Mastic adhesives
Metal mesh blanket
Millboard
Mineral wool block
Mineral wool insulating cement
Mineral wool mineral wool blankets
Mittens
Mitts
Navy sealer
Nuclear reactors
One-shot cement
Packing
Packing material
Paint
Paper
Paper tape
Panels
Patching fiber
Patching plaster
Permaboard
Pipe covering
Plaster
Powershield
Pumps
Putty
Quick-setting joint compound
Railroad electrical arc chutes
Raw asbestos fiber
Refractory cements
Roofing felt
Roofing paper
Rollboard
Rope
Rope packing
Sealer
Sheet packing
Sheet rope
Sheetrock
Sheets
Shingles
Sound shield
Sleeves
Spackle
Spackle plaster
Sponge felt
Spray
Spray fireproofing
Stone corrugated sheets
Stone sheathing
Talc powder
Tape
Tar paper
Transite
Troweled coating
Turbines
Valve rings
Valve stem packing
Valves
Vermiculite compounds
Vinyl asbestos floor tile
Vinyl wallpaper
Waterproofing
Welding rods
Wick
Wires
Wood fiber plaster
Yarn

[SidDithers]

77. Nuclear reactors were in the North Tower?...

Mineral wool insulating cement
Mineral wool mineral wool blankets
Mittens
Mitts
Navy sealer
Nuclear reactors
One-shot cement
Packing
Packing material
Paint
Paper

Sid

[seemslikeadream]

80. Try reading the post I was replying to

[seemslikeadream]

43. From Coffee Pots to Potting Soil: 5,000 consumer products contained asbestos

http://www.asbestosnetwork.com/exposure/ex_consumer.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Oh, my fucking God. You really think all those products had any affect on anything?

:eyes:

[seemslikeadream]

49. YES

CHECK OUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK AND DYING BECAUSE OF IT

[Bolo Boffin]

51. The amount contributed by any of those other products is most likely negliable compared to the

remaining insulation.

No one thinks that asbestos is the sole problem for the 9/11 responders. The Pile was a toxic waste dump of all kinds of chemicals and plastics burning. Asbestos was a part of the problem, but far from the entire one, and your laundry list of products containing asbestos has no bearing on this at all until you produce some reasonable estimates of how much of each was in the towers.

I dare you to post once in response to this.

[seemslikeadream]

54. you and Rudy

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1B2WBD-F-7I

Two More Policeman die of 9/11 -related lung cancer


Source: nypost.com

By LARRY CELONA

September 6, 2007 -- Two more cops have died of 9/11-related lung cancer, according to their families.

Officer Frank Macari, 51, died on Monday, after a five-year battle with the disease.

Macari, a 13-year veteran of the force assigned to Brooklyn, developed a tumor on his leg in December 2001, after working at Ground Zero. He leaves a wife and stepdaughter.

Officer Madeline Caro, 41, a 16-year veteran, succumbed to lung cancer in July. Carlo, assigned to the South Bronx, also spent days at the World Trade Center site. She leaves a son and daughter.

Macari's family will file papers, as Carlo's family has done, to obtain line-of-duty benefits from the NYPD.

Meanwhile, the sixth annual NYPD 9/11 Memorial Weekend begins tomorrow with a 1 p.m. parade in lower Manhattan, ending at the police memorial wall at Liberty Street and South End Avenue.

The weekend includes a Saturday-night concert at Town Hall in honor of the NYPD's 9/11 victims. It stars tenor Ronan Tynan.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09062007/news/regionalnews/two_9_11_sick_cops_die.htm


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/02/1622 /

Giuliani: Worse Than Bush
He’s Cashing in on 9/11, Working with Karl Rove’s Henchmen and in Cahoots With a Swift Boat-Style Attack on Hillary. Will Rudy Giuliani Be Bush III?

by Matt Taibbi

.....

Although respiratory-mask use was mandatory, the city allowed a macho culture to develop on the site: Even the mayor himself showed up without a mask. By October, it was estimated, masks were being worn on site as little as twenty-nine percent of the time. Rudy proclaimed that there were “no significant problems” with the air at the World Trade Center. But there was something wrong with the air: It was one of the most dangerous toxic-waste sites in human history, full of everything from benzene to asbestos and PCBs to dioxin (the active ingredient in Agent Orange). Since the cleanup ended, police and firefighters have reported a host of serious illnesses — respiratory ailments like sarcoidosis; leukemia and lymphoma and other cancers; and immune-system problems.

“The likelihood is that more people will eventually die from the cleanup than from the original accident,” says David Worby, an attorney representing thousands of cleanup workers in a class-action lawsuit against the city. “Giuliani wears 9/11 like a badge of honor, but he screwed up so badly.”

When I first spoke to Worby, he was on his way home from the funeral of a cop. “One thing about Giuliani,” he told me. “He’s never been to a funeral of a cleanup worker.”

Indeed, Rudy has had little at all to say about the issue. About the only move he’s made to address the problem was to write a letter urging Congress to pass a law capping the city’s liability at $350 million.

Did Giuliani know the air at the World Trade Center was poison? Who knows — but we do know he took over the cleanup, refusing to let more experienced federal agencies run the show. He stood on a few brick piles on the day of the bombing, then spent the next ten months making damn sure everyone worked the night shift on-site while he bonked his mistress and negotiated his gazillion-dollar move to the private sector. Meanwhile, the people who actually cleaned up the rubble got used to checking their stool for blood every morning.

Now Giuliani is running for president — as the hero of 9/11. George Bush has balls, too, but even he has to bow to this motherfucker.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/02/1622 /

While the mayor himself flew out of New York on a magic carpet, thousands of cash-strapped cops, firemen and city workers involved with the cleanup at the World Trade Center were developing cancers and infections and mysterious respiratory ailments like the “WTC cough.” This is the dirty little secret lurking underneath Rudy’s 9/11 hero image — the most egregious example of his willingness to shape public policy to suit his donors. While the cleanup effort at the Pentagon was turned over to federal agencies like OSHA, which quickly sealed off the site and required relief workers to wear hazmat suits, the World Trade Center cleanup was handed over to Giuliani. The city’s Department of Design and Construction (DDC) promptly farmed out the waste-clearing effort to a smattering of politically connected companies, including Bechtel, Bovis and AMEC construction.

[seemslikeadream]

55. Over five thousand tons of asbestos were used in just insulation for the structural steel.

This deserves a post of it's own
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2698070

[seemslikeadream]

34. Still, about 400 tons of asbestos fiber was in the buildings when they collapsed.

http://www.maacenter.org/jobsites/WTC/asbestos.php

[seemslikeadream]

28. South Tower had zero

Link please?

[Bolo Boffin]

32. And around and around we go.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E1DF143BF93BA2575AC0A9679C8B63

Note that the article's focus is on the LACK of asbestos being thought as something that cost lives. That was on September 18th, 2001.

Only forty floors in the North Tower ever got any asbestos. That was down to 20 floors by the time the buildings collapsed. Tenants moving in would request it be removed.

[wildbilln864]

66. Isn't that why....

you hang out here? To go round and round again.

[seemslikeadream]

30. No asbestos insulation was EVER put into the South Tower.

WTF?

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Here you go again -- three posts when one would do.

WTF is up with that?

[seemslikeadream]

38. You should stop watching FOX NEWS bolo

Some were quick to say that the lack of asbestos was what caused the buildings to burn and collapse so rapidly. Steve Milloy, a writer for FOX News, went so far as to surmise that "junk science-fueled asbestos hysteria" had been responsible for the death of hundreds of individuals. Some agreed with Milloy. Others adamantly disagreed.


http://www.maacenter.org/jobsites/WTC/asbestos.php

[Bolo Boffin]

40. You should stop making assumptions about my viewing habits, SLAD

My info is from the New York Times.

[seemslikeadream]

45. No asbestos in the south tower. Is that REALLY what you said bolo?

:rofl:

[seemslikeadream]

21. hundreds of tons

yes I know

[seemslikeadream]

22. And you do know WR Grace lied about that also

Don't you bolo?

And you do know WHO bought up bankrupt WR Grace don't you bolo?

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Why do you make three or more different posts when one would do?

Are all of those really worth their own subthread?

[seemslikeadream]

47. Your naivete on the subject of asbestos is stunning

I just can't believe you would say that

[Bolo Boffin]

50. And that's four this time. It's like you hope to overwhelm with a river of bullshit.

This topic could have been a decent looking one, easy to follow and understand, but you insist on spreading it out here and there.

Why do you do that? Why shouldn't this tactic of yours be classified as board disruption?

[seemslikeadream]

53. Your assertion that there was ZERO asbestos in the tower is unbelievable

[seemslikeadream]

56. SD tells me my posts are too long, you tell me my posts are too short.......

What pray tell, unsolicited OTer's advice should I listen too?

[SDuderstadt]

58. I never said ALL your posts are too long, SLAD

Try being honest, for a change.

[seemslikeadream]

59. Try being honest, for a change SD

I NEVER SAID THAT YOU SAID THAT ALL MY POSTS WERE TOO LONG

[SDuderstadt]

60. Jesus, SLAD...

You said, "SD tells me my posts are too long". Where did I ever say that? I said that you often post things that are ponderously long and incoherent, That is hardly generalizable to me complaining your posts are too long.

[seemslikeadream]

61. WHERE IS THE WORD ALL SD?

[SDuderstadt]

62. You really need to take a class in writing precision, SLAD

If you say that someone says your posts are too long, the express implication is that you never write short posts, The precise way to make your claim is that I say some (many, most) of your posts are too long. While you're at it, take a class in Logic, too.

[seemslikeadream]

63. ........

MY

[SDuderstadt]

Well, at least this post is...

SHORT but still incoherent. Why don't you go ahead and have the last word. Try to be coherent.

[SDuderstadt]

64. Well, at least this post is...

SHORT but still incoherent. Why don't you go ahead and have the last word. Try to be coherent.

[wildbilln864]

75. I'm talking about mass ejection...

not shredding. Please try to keep up.

[mhatrw]

81. Thanks. That was impressive. n/t

[mhatrw]

82. Thanks. That was an hour well-spent!

I saw no WHAM! and I saw no Sledgehammer.