Loki047

iTrader: (6)

There seems to be a disconnect because you post links as proof, instead of posting conclusions based on evidence (which should be linked to a reputable site).

BenR

iTrader: (2)

911 Challenge

drewbroo

iTrader: (2)

that video is no longer available.... )-=

JasonC SBB

Loki,

I explained that the speed at which building 7 for instance, fell, is close to free fall, which is impossible in a gravitational collapse. The recent link I posted re: #7, shows the calculation that the speed at which it collapsed says that the beams offered a resistance only equal to 15% of the building's weight ... which is impossible. If you want details, click the link. There's also a video where you can see the collapse of #7 which looks much more like a classic demolition - the center of the building begins falling first, and the outer walls "lean in". Nothing like your proposed collapse due to the atrium. Check it out.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

No. Look at the canteliever beams. When the those members failed the interior would drop first

ray_sir_6

iTrader: (1)

Even I figured that out. The center would collapse into the void caused by using the canteliever beams first, cause it would be the point with the least support, so the first to react to critical failures in the structure.

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Dead on.

JasonC SBB

You're still ignoring the near free-fall speed and the calculations that show that the resistance offered by the structure at that speed is only 15% of the building's weight, which is impossible for a gravitational collapse.

There are also pictures in the link of the building damage - not extensive at all.

JasonC SBB

Here's that link again:

http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/0...-of-wtc-7.html

And here's the calculation of the resistance to collapse as ~15% of the building's weight:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC...xamination.pdf

ray_sir_6

iTrader: (1)

I'll go thru the slide show....

Slide 9 - 36% of 1010 is 365.76. So that means it's actually 365 of the 1010, so it should have said <36% or approx. 36%. Now we look up Scripps-Howard and find their normal survey technique involves a three phrase option, "a very important, somewhat important or not important", as used in an exit poll (http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cf...-POLL-02-18-05). So using that you can determine that the 3 answers available to these 1010 people was based on this same format, and therefore only <36% thought it was "Very likely, or "somewhat unlikely", and >67% thought it was "not likely". Of course they don't break it down to show who said "somewhat" and who said "very".

Way to skew the numbers though....bravo!

You know the USSR did some decent propaganda, and the one that was used as a GREAT example was the race between the US and the USSR. The USSR lost, but put in all the newspapers that it came in 2d place...omitting the fact that there were only 2 competitors!

Slide 10 - Where did they get some of their numbers?

911Truth.com letter from Zogby

Even a fellow conspiracy site has vastly different numbers for the same survey.

Slide 11 - WOW...860 random conspirators demand "real" answers? Does that even get them "minority" status?? I had more people in my high school class.

Slide 16 - One person on camera giving his perception of what happened and it was actually CORRECT makes it a myth? I came to that same conclusion while watching it LIVE.

Slide 17 - Using differently designed buildings under different situations doesn't give a good example.

ray_sir_6

iTrader: (1)

Slide 22 - I love watching those. Notice they start at the bottom and then blow out critical floors in the lower levels to facilitate it falling straight down? There were no "explosions" at the bottom of the towers, just near the areas where the planes had impacted.

Heat and pressure. That is what is needed to cause plastic explosives (most commonly used for demolition) to explode. I am sure a plane impacting, and then turning into a fireball, would certainly have set off any explosives on those floors and caused it to pancake immediately onto the other floors.

Alot of slides - Those were some good vids of Tower 7 falling. Of course, having the windows still intact as it was falling pretty much eliminates explosives in my mind. If explosives were ripping thru the inside of the building, the pressure waves would have certainly pop out a few windows. The only windows that came out were from the deforming of the building DURING it's collapse.

Slide 32 - Not all the columns failed in 1/10th a second of each other. The first few would have failed before the complete structural failure would occur. If they had video of inside the building prior to it collapsing, there would have been bowing of the floors and support beams as they gradually took on more weight from the failed supports until they also failed and the whole building fell. The chance of it falling straight down like that? SLIM! But it can still happen, and it did.

Slide 35 - "heard a clap of thunder" You mean like huge slabs of concrete (floors of the building) collapsing together. "looked like a shockwave ripping thru the building" The waving of the outer fascade caused by the inner supports buckling. "the windows all busted out" The live video shows no windows coming out till the building was collapsing, not BEFORE. (the human mind is an interesting thing...memory can be wrong in timing of events and the order they happened...or completely forget things).

Slide 37 - So a Air Force SPEC OPS guy is an expert on sounds now? When the UN building was bombed in Baghdad, I was on the roof of my building and heard it (>1 mile away) and I thought it was someone banging on the connex next to the building. Noone knew it was an explosion until we got the report on the radio. I had seen and heard plenty of explosions before, cause we were blowing up caches all the time. So I can claim to be just as much an expert on "sound identification" yet I couldn't distinguish between someone hitting a metal connex and a HUGE bomb going off.

Slide 47 - "Authored by basicly the same group of engineers" ABSOLUTELY...the top of their fields...nothing but the best of the best!

Slide 48 - "suggesting an internal failure and implosion" Nothing about explosives in that statement. I guess some people when they see implosion immediately jump to the conclusion they were referring to "by means of explosives".

Slide 49 - Exactly. To do so without anyone knowing and with very limit prep time would be IMPOSSIBLE. The building falling like that isn't IMPOSSIBLE, but HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.

Slide 52 - This has never happened before. The entire string of events would be VERY DIFFICULT to reproduce, if not near impossible, even if Ground Zero had been untouched. There isn't enough data to determine EXACTLY what happened. There are still unexplained plane crashes, should we blame those on the government, too???

Slide 55 - "If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised.” This was not concerning a possible implication of the President, or others, but concerning how much information they had prior to the attacks. "At the center of the secrecy debate are sensitive presidential daily briefings, or PDBs, that the commission wants to examine as part of its inquiry. Particularly important is the crucial Aug. 6, 2001 PDB, which warned of Osama bin Laden's desire to hijack commercial planes in the United States. For months the White House resisted, and the commission hinted it might subpoena the document. A deal was finally cut last week, which Cleland opposed, allowing a handpicked subset of commissioners to be briefed on the PDBs."

Slide 56 - That is a weird request. "Don't look at these floors."

Slide 57/58/59- "This is professional (demolition) work." Really, so which one of the companies that does this did it? I would really like to know which company it is and how they kept all their employees quiet and how not a single one of them has been "morally obligated" to let people know? Or did the gov't eliminate them? I am sure someone would have noticed an ENTIRE COMPANY in such a limited field just disappear.

Slide 60 - I am sure the firefighters heard the building creaking and saw visual signs that it might collapse. If I had just watched 2 building fall right next door, I might be inclined to think the one I was in might do the same, even with just a SLIGHT CREAK, or a few cracks in the walls. If I saw a car going too fast and said, "He's not gonna make that turn." and he doesn't, is that a conspiracy??

Slide 61 - Maybe they said "Looks like they brought down this one as well." There had to be signs it was gonna fall. Cracks in the walls, slight leaning, sounds of the beams creaking and straining under additional loads. Hell, if it was explosives, then they would have seen them, too. Either way, there were signs.


Slide 63 - "It's about to blow up." What your mind thinks and your mouth says isn't always the same. It's happened to everyone, and why wouldn't a few people, in that situation, with that stress, have it happen?

Slide 64 - SCRIPT? HAHAHAAHAHAHAHHA....

Slide 65 - And all the tenants either failed to notice, or just never mentioned, people there setting explosives throughout the building? The one person who saw this and spoke up would be famous before I could finish this sentence! Why hasn't he? I don't know anyone who wouldn't.

I'll conclude for now...I'll pick back up tomorrow on slide 67: World Trade Centers Twin Towers

JasonC SBB

The presentation does explain that the collapse of the twin towers was not like the traditional demolition where it's blown up from bottom up.

By "Ppofessional" demolition they didn't mean an entire company was hired.

Have you seen the pictures of the WTC7 damage prior to collapse? It's not much:
http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/2006/0...-of-wtc-7.html

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

Ray_Sir_6 i love the answers and agree 100% keep it going

ray_sir_6

iTrader: (1)

So there are roving bands of demolition experts with no corporate ties doing "covert" building demo installs?? I can see it now, wireless "bluetooth enabled" detonators, cause if there was miles of det cord running thru the building, it would be hard to miss by the occupants. I can just imagine how many different frequencies they would have to use, cause the explosives aren't set off together, but in a carefully planned order to get the building to lay where they want it. So now there is the need to have a computer or similar device that can send that signal to the different groups of explosives, since the time seperation is <1 sec, and I can't imagine someone trying to do that with their cell phone!!! What about inference from other sources, IE, those people trying to call home??? There is a reason det cord is used, cause it burns at set rates (to stagger the explosives) and is resistant to electrical interference. I have yet to see a demo using these "wireless" detonators, but lets just assume they are getting a basicly unlimited bank roll (what's a few $100 MIL to the US Gov't..pocket change...just write it up under "black opts") so they can afford the good stuff. So now they took this new ultra expensive method, with all the drawbacks already inherent in the system, and smashed airplanes in their immediate vicinity going 600mph...and filled with jet fuel. So thru the miracle of modern science or just DAMN GOOD LUCK, the detonators don't get blown off the plastic explosives, or melted in the inferno. Now we have figured out how they planned on setting off the charges, so lets get to the charges....plastic explosives would be the preferred choice, for it's malibility, so it can be shaped to actually "cut' the beams instead of just wasting energy blowing chunks of concrete insulation everywhere by using standard dynamite. I don't believe standard dynamite has been used to fall a modern steel frame building before, so plastic has got to be the one used. Well, again, big hunks of silly putty stuck on most of the walls would definitely draw some attention, so how did they hide it? Lots of potted plants??? Well, lets assume it was the same color as the walls, or was a super special mix that only required small amounts, and it was similar in appearance to silicone sealant. OK...easy enough...they could plant it in front of everyone and just say they were "insulating" the building. Well, plastic explosives needs both heat and pressure to explode...and a jet plane at 600mph should create enough pressure, and the jet fuel...well, you know where I am going with this. So what kind of explosive and detonator can survive those kinds of adverse conditions??? Let me tell you....NONE!

One of my favorite quotes from South Park - "DAMN YOU SCIENCE!" The episode where Cartman went into the future and everyone is Atheist. I'll disect more of the slideshow tomorrow. It's been "fun"

MX_Eva

Gotta say, most of the "explosives" claims do not account for the fact that people were actually in the building. We've mentioned the DET cord before...and gotten no real response. You just can't pull this kinda **** off with people using the building everyday with the number of people who work there, and get it done on a day when people are still there.

The "Free Fall" argument can't be used. It isn't impossible for the building to collapse in the manner it did, in fact it's probably pretty likely that it would with many repeats of simulation of the data. Oh wait...someone did that...like Purdue. Then when some zealot picks apart the details and feels that they don't accurately represent what happened he dismisses everything presented and says "it's a video game". As someone who knows his way around simulation programs...AND BUILDS video games, i'd tell the guy to **** off and stop being so ignorant. He acts as though that simulation wouldn't have a million different read outs that accompany the visuals that make it easy to understand. Anyway, the only way the argument (which is the only one you really seem to be stuck on) can be proven and used as FACT, you would have to repeat the crash as an experiment several times with the exact circumstances and achieve different results, which is to say that the different results may not even support your theory.

thebeerbaron

iTrader: (1)

i will make a few small points and go back to lurking:

a) as a former academic, you realize that pretty words, and even more importantly, pretty graphics can go incredibly far in convincing an audience that your points are valid. strong peer review is the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff. my area of study was computer security. there are less than a half-dozen top-tier conferences on this subject per year, mostly broken down into much finer fragments of the subject - crypto, network security, etc. hundreds of academics submit papers to a conference, perhaps two dozen are chosen to present. most of those two dozen will then be ripped apart during the presentations. what does this mean? of hundreds of people with doctorates in a very narrow area of expertise, only a small handful produce work that stands up to the rigors of a full-scale review by experts in their field. bachelors, masters, and doctorates are available in cracker jack boxes these days. certifications are even easier to obtain. fancy letters after a name do not make someone an expert, or even remotely competent in any field.

b) there are thousands of factors that should be taken into account during any calculations, even rough, of what "exactly" might be going on during the collapse or whatever. see the above. you bet your *** one of your esteemed peers is going to rip your "model" to shreds if you've forgotten something he thinks is important. did your concrete-pulverization model take into account the concrete mixture used at each site, as well as the steel formulation, as second order harmonic disturbances in the underlying concrete substrate?

c) Who is more likely to find qualified academics, vet their qualifications, and convince them to speak for the record, PBS or a free-for-all website?

JasonC SBB

WRONG. You obviously did NOT even look at the Purdue animation. Purdue only showed the plane entering the building, not the pancaking. They also got a LOT of details wrong, like the # of columns cut. See my link regarding the issues with their animation.

JasonC SBB

Look at the angled cut of the beam in this photo. How could a plane make a cut like that, or fire for that matter? Notice how the melted steel from the cut dribbled down and re-hardened.

JasonC SBB

When a building collapses due to gravity, and has damage on one side (like building #7), it doesn't fall symmetrically and pulverizes, it topples.

See video of toppling building:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...demolition.wmv

Loki047

iTrader: (6)

jason... where are the other cut ones? I would check the lengths of the beams (joints fail first my friend) and see where the joint would be.