Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[Arus808]

DUDE, in my post #20 in this thread, I POSTED a link to a picture of a "30-ton hydraulic press!" It looks quite a bit more robust than the wimpy hydraulic presses you posted pictures of. Here it is again since you were too lazy to bother fully reading my post:

http://www.cincinnatiprecisionmachinery.com/img_used_equipment/used30tonhydraulicpress_SandSMachine%20(2).jpg

for the love of all that is $deity. YOU are using the hydraulic press of ONE image. I posted SEVERAL of 50 ton presses! that's what they look like! THOSE ARE 50 tons presseS! eghad. Im not that stupid to post an image and calim that its 50 ton press when its not!


YOu are being intellectually dishonest here to only use ONE picture, when you can google and find many pcitures of 50 ton presses, that look like the presses I posted!


First image on this page:
http://www.glenridgemachine.com/machine_miscellaneous.htm
Says so right above the image

This is a 50 ton press:
http://www.filtreccorp.com/catalog/shop-press-hydraulicelectric-pump-p-230.html


so please provide a source where Mike describes what the press actually looked like. To a T.

 

[DavidJames]

...so I'm taking EXTRA care to make sure I know what i'm talking about.

That explains why you abandon the other thread. You remember, where you first posted trying be all engineering like, then met up with people who actually do know what their talking about. Remember, then when called on it, you changed the subject, remember. Then you said you were too busy at work (but that didn't stop you from continuing posting after changing the subject), then, wham, disappeared.

Now you're over here.

But don't feel bad, you guys are all like that. Focus seems to be an issue.

Take care.

 

[Gravy]

Low explosives cannot. The reason for this (off the top of my head) is that the high explosive reaction is characterized by detonation velocities in the millions of feet per second.

Thousands, brasil. Thousands. And yet no one who was directly exposed to the fireballs reported any such thing happening. You do understand that a high explosive produces a blast wave that travels much farther than any fire it produces, don't you? If you do not understand that, please do not stand close enough to a stick of dynamite to get burned by it, okay?

A fireball rushing down an elevator shaft from 100 floors up

Who claims this happened? Not the "official version." Not me.

...is not capable of reducing a hydraulic press to rubble.

Is a jet fuel blast capable of knocking one over and burying it when a nonbearing wall is blown out? Of course. Here's an informative post by Ryan Mackey that will help you to understand this issue: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3193586&postcount=55

Perhaps you aren't aware that Mike Pecoraro isn't arguing that a bomb destroyed the press. Perhaps you missed his description of the white smoke and kerosene smell on the B-6 level.

Did you miss that, brasil, or are you conveniently forgetting it? I'd appreciate an answer.

I suggest you read my paper "William Rodriguez, Escape Artist." It presents dozens of witness accounts, all of which are consistent with jet fuel igniting, and none of which are consistent with the use of high explosives.

 

[R.Mackey]

I don't even know where to begin with you because you really have NO IDEA what you're talking about. [...] The reason for this (off the top of my head) is that the high explosive reaction is characterized by detonation velocities in the millions of feet per second.

Oh, the irony.

BTW, low explosives can too cut through steel, etc. Even hear of a pipe bomb?

 

[brasil]

OH SORRY, i was off by a couple of zeroes because I'm trying to single handedly fend off an attack of bullies in a hostile forum where I can only type and research simultaneously at the same time. Excuuuuuse Me. Totovader and Arus808 are off by a lot more than some zeroes. They're not even worth replying to because they're obviously still in high school...

You're right, the detonation velocity is in the realm of thousands of feet per second with high explosives. I confused the number with pounds per square inch of pressure that high explosives can create, which IS around 1 million or more. The exact detonation velocity is not relevant. What IS relevant, and what I am 100% correct in saying is that high explosives can cut through steel and destroy a hydraulic press, but burning jet fuel cannot, especially not from almost 100 floors away through floors walls, and multiple elevator shafts.

As to the "fireball" raging down the elevator shafts - I was under the impression that the "official explanation" for the damage to the WTC lobby (the one where huge sections of marble broke off the walls and all the windows were blown out) was a raging mass of burning jet fuel blasting the elevators down to the lobby, and fire. The other theory is that explosives on the lower floors or in the basement caused that damage. Which theory do you believe?

Yes, I did read portions of "William Rodriguez, Escape Artist" because I still believe that the testimonies of the employees in the lobby and basements point more to explosives going off than anything that could have been caused by a plane 80 or 90 floors up, but I wanted your take on it. I don't doubt that you have only included accounts "consistent with jet fuel igniting" and none that are consistent with explosives, however, I think it's hard to so easily sweep under the rug Mike Pecoraro's account of extensive damage and "rubble" and a hydraulic press "gone."

Also, I believe the seismic data also points more strongly to explosives than does a jet impact at the top of the building (your point about how far the shock wave travels). Witnesses described the building swaying drastically and "torquing" after the plane hit. My first guess is that too much of the energy from the plane impact was absorbed by the massive, swaying building to create the magnitude of seismic activity that Columbia recorded in the ground. That's another issue I want to take up with you. I don't have sources on hand or numbers, but it makes a lot of sense. I will look for information about those topics, but I will not appreciate an attack dog jumping all over me because I don't have it NOW.

These things take time, and you people would be surprised how popular of a guy I am in NYC. Posting to this forum may just be a fun diversion for today, but if I don't get more respect I may be forced to go back to my A-list partying. Here it is 12:40 am on a wednesday night, and I'm actually getting irritated because of posts on a forum where no one agrees with me when I could be out dancing with my hot girl friends.

 

[LashL]

OH SORRY, i was off by a couple of zeroes... <no need to go any further>

88.
(You do know what that means, don't you, brasil?)


What a complete and utter waste of time you are.

LashL, please refrain from personalizing things - address the argument, not the individual.

Thanks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[Gravy]

brasil, you seem to miss reading a lot of posts here. I'd appreciate your response to the points in my post #43. Thanks.

 

[R.Mackey]

Also, I believe the seismic data also points more strongly to explosives than does a jet impact at the top of the building (your point about how far the shock wave travels). Witnesses described the building swaying drastically and "torquing" after the plane hit. My first guess is that too much of the energy from the plane impact was absorbed by the massive, swaying building to create the magnitude of seismic activity that Columbia recorded in the ground. That's another issue I want to take up with you. I don't have sources on hand or numbers, but it makes a lot of sense. I will look for information about those topics, but I will not appreciate an attack dog jumping all over me because I don't have it NOW.

Actually, that makes no sense at all. If the building was "torquing" after being hit, rather than translating, that implies the base of the building was resisting the force of impact. Rotational moment is created by force couples. This guarantees that force was transmitted into the ground after impact, and thus would have showed up on seismographs.

Furthermore, the seismographic readings have a characteristic time associated with building motion, not just a sudden impulse as would be seen with explosives.

And had there been explosives, you'd need to explain how on earth someone managed to trigger them exactly at the same time as an aircraft impact. Fat chance. Even if we ignore the fact that such explosives wouldn't make any sense at all, this hypothesis is loony.

You should probably take a break and reassess your position. So far you've not managed anything terribly insightful.

 

[Gravy]

These things take time, and you people would be surprised how popular of a guy I am in NYC.

If you catch me saying that you've never gotten anything right, remind me of this statement.

Posting to this forum may just be a fun diversion for today, but if I don't get more respect I may be forced to go back to my A-list partying. Here it is 12:40 am on a wednesday night, and I'm actually getting irritated because of posts on a forum where no one agrees with me when I could be out dancing with my hot girl friends.

I know basic membership in Second Life is free. Is upgrading to the A-list worth the money?

 

[Gravy]

Seismic data?

I got yer seismic data right here.

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

– Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York.

 

[brasil]

Is a jet fuel blast capable of knocking one over and burying it when a nonbearing wall is blown out? Of course. Here's an informative post by Ryan Mackey that will help you to understand this issue: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3193586&postcount=55

Perhaps you aren't aware that Mike Pecoraro isn't arguing that a bomb destroyed the press. Perhaps you missed his description of the white smoke and kerosene smell on the B-6 level.

Did you miss that, brasil, or are you conveniently forgetting it? I'd appreciate an answer.

No, I am not ignoring his description of smoke or "kerosene smell." I'm also not disputing the possibility that jet fuel somehow made it all the way from the impact zone to the basement. What I was doing was highlighting the things he described which YOU are conveniently omitting or forgetting when you discuss the issue. I'm happy to consider the possibility of jet fuel in the basements, but you seem to be ignoring the evidence for explosions. It seems you've also spent a lot of time attacking Rodriguez's character. I need to look into his story more, admittedly.

I skimmed R.Mackey's post about the energy potential stored in jet fuel. My first reaction to it is if jet fuel is so amazingly packed with explosive power, why is it never used as a high explosive on its own for demolition work? (i have never heard of it being used for anything of that nature, correct me if i'm wrong).

He rather boldly states: "What matters is that 290 kg of jet fuel is a totally acceptable amount of jet fuel to pour down the elevator shafts. The damage seen in the basement is, therefore, perfectly reasonable."

I agree that 290 Kg of jet fuel could have poured down the elevator shafts, however, it requires a very large jump in logic to link that to the amount of damage reported in the basement. This brings me back to my minor error with numbers regarding detonation velocity vs. pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. Jet fuel in an unconfined state is not to my knowledge going to have much blast potential at all, in terms of fps or psi. I could imagine a fireball bursting out of a confined elevator shaft, but this will not even come close to creating the blast required to turn solid objects to "rubble." Even in a totally confined state, I'm don't think jet fuel will explode in a way that's anything comparable to TNT. If this were the case, blasting would always be done with the much more "energy rich" jet fuel than the "inferior" TNT. We know it's not, so I don't understand how R.Mackey can prove his point with equations that have no bearing on what actually is used in the real world. Jet fuel is not used for blasting. TNT and other high explosives are, regardless of how much more "energy rich" jet fuel is.

 

[Pardalis]

My first reaction to it is if jet fuel is so amazingly packed with explosive power, why is it never used as a high explosive on its own for demolition work?

Yeah, they really should add ramming airplanes at full speed to their methods of demolition.

 

[LashL]

<nonsense>

As I said before: 88.

 

[brasil]

Actually, that makes no sense at all. If the building was "torquing" after being hit, rather than translating, that implies the base of the building was resisting the force of impact. Rotational moment is created by force couples. This guarantees that force was transmitted into the ground after impact, and thus would have showed up on seismographs.

Furthermore, the seismographic readings have a characteristic time associated with building motion, not just a sudden impulse as would be seen with explosives.

And had there been explosives, you'd need to explain how on earth someone managed to trigger them exactly at the same time as an aircraft impact. Fat chance. Even if we ignore the fact that such explosives wouldn't make any sense at all, this hypothesis is loony.

You should probably take a break and reassess your position. So far you've not managed anything terribly insightful.

If the building was "torquing" or "swaying" back and forth, then wouldn't we expect the seismic data to also show an oscillation for the duration of time that the building was moving, if what you say is correct - that the swaying building could also transmit enough of a shock wave into the ground to register seismically?

As far as I understand, you can't have it both ways: either the bulk of the energy was absorbed by the building or it was absorbed by the ground. If the building moved so much that it knocked people out of their chairs, then it seems to me the energy from the impacts was absorbed by the building and not the ground.

Yes this is conjecture, but it's informed conjecture, and since you're so sure of yourself, why don't you provide some evidence of your own or a link to something that accounts for the impact energy and where it was transmitted to?

 

[brasil]

I got yer seismic data right here.

"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers. That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

– Arthur Lerner-Lam, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, New York.

That's just one guy's opinion who doesn't want to be labeled a "crackpot" by his colleagues at Columbia. It's a statement of opinion, not a scientific one And guess what, I work for Columbia and I know how unpopular anyone is who asks too many questions about 9-11.

 

[R.Mackey]

I agree that 290 Kg of jet fuel could have poured down the elevator shafts, however, it requires a very large jump in logic to link that to the amount of damage reported in the basement. This brings me back to my minor error with numbers regarding detonation velocity vs. pounds per square inch (psi) of pressure. Jet fuel in an unconfined state is not to my knowledge going to have much blast potential at all, in terms of fps or psi. I could imagine a fireball bursting out of a confined elevator shaft, but this will not even come close to creating the blast required to turn solid objects to "rubble." Even in a totally confined state, I'm don't think jet fuel will explode in a way that's anything comparable to TNT. If this were the case, blasting would always be done with the much more "energy rich" jet fuel than the "inferior" TNT. We know it's not, so I don't understand how R.Mackey can prove his point with equations that have no bearing on what actually is used in the real world. Jet fuel is not used for blasting. TNT and other high explosives are, regardless of how much more "energy rich" jet fuel is.

The basement explosions are not "demolitions." The structural damage was light compared to the interior damage. This is part of the reason why we know it was a fuel deflagration, and not TNT.

The military does indeed use FAE's in certain applications.

Normal demolition does not use fuel explosives because they try to expend as little energy as possible. There's no advantage at all for them in using a higher energy-density approach. None.

My equations speculate a total static overpressure of 5 PSI for the entire basement. This is a substantial overestimate of the event in the basement. A 5 PSI overpressure -- a momentary one, not a static one -- is generally enough to damage or destroy ordinary structures. My calculations are a wild overestimate.

Please read thoroughly in the future before attempting to criticize results you don't understand.

 

[Gravy]

No, I am not ignoring his description of smoke or "kerosene smell." I'm also not disputing the possibility that jet fuel somehow made it all the way from the impact zone to the basement. What I was doing was highlighting the things he described which YOU are conveniently omitting or forgetting when you discuss the issue. I'm happy to consider the possibility of jet fuel in the basements, but you seem to be ignoring the evidence for explosions.

Yo, Sherlock: I wrote a whole paper about that: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist.

 

[R.Mackey]

If the building was "torquing" or "swaying" back and forth, then wouldn't we expect the seismic data to also show an oscillation for the duration of time that the building was moving, if what you say is correct - that the swaying building could also transmit enough of a shock wave into the ground to register seismically?

Who said anything about a "shock wave?" The seismograph does show oscillation.

As far as I understand, you can't have it both ways: either the bulk of the energy was absorbed by the building or it was absorbed by the ground. If the building moved so much that it knocked people out of their chairs, then it seems to me the energy from the impacts was absorbed by the building and not the ground.

I can, and I do, have it both ways. Seismographs measure force and displacement, not energy dissipation. And where force is concerned, Newton specifies "equal and opposite," does he not?

Yes this is conjecture, but it's informed conjecture, and since you're so sure of yourself, why don't you provide some evidence of your own or a link to something that accounts for the impact energy and where it was transmitted to?

You've misplaced your burden of proof. It's right there beside you.

Impact energy translates into building kinetic energy translates into ground motion and is picked up by the seismograph. Energy is conserved, you know. It can show up in all of these places at slightly different times. There is no energy deficit, and you are the only person I've ever heard of who attempted such an argument. If you honestly believe this, then develop this argument -- I'm under no obligation to do it for you.

 

[brasil]

Yo, Sherlock: I wrote a whole paper about that: William Rodriguez, Escape Artist.

Yes, in post #45, paragraph 4, I said I had read parts of it earlier today. You're not reading everything i'm writing either, apparently.

 

[Gravy]

That's just one guy's opinion who doesn't want to be labeled a "crackpot" by his colleagues at Columbia. It's a statement of opinion, not a scientific one And guess what, I work for Columbia and I know how unpopular anyone is who asks too many questions about 9-11.

One guy's opinion? You mean others in the LDEO may disagree with him? How about Won Young-Kim? How about seismologists at other centers? Or should we take your completely uninformed opinion over the evidence analyzed by career experts?



Serious question: are you kidding about all this? Is this a big put-on? Because this is some of the most ridiculous 9/11 denialist nonsense that I've seen. And I've seen a lot of that.