Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

[FineWine]

You are quite wrong. If anything I was a supporter of America before 9/11. I still am a supporter of he notion of real American values and the Constitution. But I am not a supporter of yor goverment as you may have noticed. I consider them murderous swine.

And I DID realise that 9/11 was an inside job all on my own.

No, Bill, you are an America-hating crank. I didn't vote for "my" government. But I accept the legitimacy of free elections, even when I disapprove of the results. Your goal of a dictatorship of stupid bigots peddling pseudo-science and ancient, discredited ethnic smears has nothing to do with "real American values." The innocent people your deranged, ignorant mob would lynch haven't murdered anyone. The Islamist barbarians, who would gleefully slit your throat for your racist denigration of their efforts, are murderous swine. You support them as a particularly stupid and vile extension of the principle, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Again, you can't "realize" something that is insane and contradicted by ALL available evidence.

 

[aggle-rithm]

'' The common wisdom is that "you can't keep secrets in Washington," and that someone always deliberately leaks or inadvertently blabs. But, says Ellsberg, who was privy to some of the most top-secret material for years, "the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public.

This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy... Secrets that would be of the greatest importance to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the Executive Branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."

You need an attribution here.

 

[carlitos]

I don't know how you debunkers do it, but kudos. The illogic is strong with the Truth guys. Regarding 'secrets' getting out of such a massive conspiracy, it's got to be tough waking up in the morning, knowing that tens of thousands of your fellow citizens have successfully conspired to murder your countrymen, keeping silent for fear of some vague threat or something, and not one of them has spoken out.

"Their" motivation for doing all of this murder was obvious - they hang out at airports and have foot fetishes, and this was the only way to get all the travelers to take off shoes.

Bill Clinton had some sort of relations with that Lewinsky woman. They couldn't keep it quiet and only two people knew.

 

[Heiwa]

Originally Posted by Heiwa
...
At the perimeter the outside air cools the structure so nothing will happen there.


Are you serious??? Do you even understnad fire and heat transfer??

So what does the outside air do?

Actually, to feed the inside fire, outside, cool air is sucked into the structure; otherwise there is no fire. The fresh air from outside provides the oxygen! No oxygen, no fire.

Any fire fighter knows this. So they follow the fresh air and fight the fire. Just keep your head down and there is always fresh air available below the fire.

That's another reason why a one-way crush down of a structure cannot take place

 

[FineWine]

'' The common wisdom is that "you can't keep secrets in Washington," and that someone always deliberately leaks or inadvertently blabs. But, says Ellsberg, who was privy to some of the most top-secret material for years, "the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public.

This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy... Secrets that would be of the greatest importance to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the Executive Branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."

You've been caught lying again. No--zero--"secrets" known to thousands, hundreds, or even dozens of insiders can be kept for long. Your imaginary secret army that exists outside all institutions of government is a lunatic fairy tale. Who are these people? Who funds them? (I'll guess, the Rothschilds--am I right?)

Why do you run so cravenly from my question about your deranged movement's failed predictions? There's no mystery here. You run because the FACT that you America-hating frauds got everything wrong means that your premises are wrong. You can stop quaking in your boots, Bill. We know your secret.

Bush is gone, Bill. Yes, you hate the thought and you will close your eyes and wish real hard. But no fairies can save you. Bush is gone. He wasn't planning martial law. You were wrong again. You are always wrong, and you can't learn a thing.

 

[FineWine]

So what does the outside air do?

Actually, to feed the inside fire, outside, cool air is sucked into the structure; otherwise there is no fire. The fresh air from outside provides the oxygen! No oxygen, no fire.

Any fire fighter knows this. So they follow the fresh air and fight the fire. Just keep your head down and there is always fresh air available below the fire.

That's another reason why a one-way crush down of a structure cannot take place

Tell us why firefighters reject your hogwash about explosives.

 

[bill smith]

You need an attribution here.

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/ellsbergs-secrets.htm

 

[Justin39640]

So what does the outside air do?

Actually, to feed the inside fire, outside, cool air is sucked into the structure; otherwise there is no fire. The fresh air from outside provides the oxygen! No oxygen, no fire.

Any fire fighter knows this. So they follow the fresh air and fight the fire. Just keep your head down and there is always fresh air available below the fire.

That's another reason why a one-way crush down of a structure cannot take place

below the fire there is the thing that is on fire (der)
the most oxygen is close to the floor cause smoke rises

firefighters use scott packs and crawl cause its a lil easier to see

i wasnt a fireman like tri but i was a junior and did smoked out building simulations
you cant see **** even crawling on the floor with full gear
you can pretty much see 3 inches past the mask but thats about all
i couldnt imagine trying to breathe in that without a scott pack

fresh air will not cool a building with a fire that big
you failed thermodynamics as well

 

[FineWine]

A lot of it is in the interpretation of results by Sunder and his gang Al. But even if they obviously deviated from an individual scientists resuts it would be no special problem to put the arm on him and keep him quiet. Everybody has a price Al, or at least a family.

Who is threatening them, Bill? Why does this evil army need to hide? If your imaginary villains threaten someone's job, then they obviously exert some coercive power over the victim's boss. Let's get back to my friend who watched the crash of Flight 175 from her office windows. If I follow you, she was told to claim that she observed the crash. But she never went public, and her experience is known only to her husband and a few close friends. So, she was fed a story and told not to publicize it. Hmmm. Now, Bill, you have acknowledged your rather remarkable lack of intelligence, but, even for you, this yarn smells bad. Pressing on, she has to continue maintain a fiction that she doesn't publicize because she will be fired from a job that she retired from in 2005.

I don't know, Bill. It's your problem: you unravel it.

 

[alienentity]

How weird is this? I ask Steve Austin a very simple, polite question

'Here's a simple question for you then - since you apparently believe that the WTC tower collapses were due to explosive demolition, can you provide at least one leading or significant demolitions expert who backs up this claim?'

Steve hasn't been able or willing to do this, in the midst of posting dozens of times on this thread (so he's obviously very active here), and responds thus:

Well be the first brave JREF'er and come on over to the BBC blog and we can discuss anything related to 9/11 you want.

No!!

Ummm, what on earth has that got to do with Steve's inability to produce a credible demolitions expert who'll back up his tower CD belief?

Steve, dear fellow, you were the one who came onto this forum, and started making all sorts of claims and allegations. If you can't take criticism, or answer a simple fair question, you're free to go back to a truther forum.
Just don't ask me to follow you. I'm not interested, mmkay?

Now, please answer the question. Time is ticking. It's been 1 day now, and you're evading the question.

 

[tfk]

Steve,

deleted tons of hot air Tom wrote in an effort to justify his differentiating between "expert" and "amateur".

.
Only the MOST ignorant, and the most arrogant, of amateurs would describe the difference between "amateur" and "expert" as "hot air".
.

My, my, my. Who was it that came out with a fairly detailed explanation of what happened to the towers on September 13, 2001? So by your definition he is an amateur and should not be listened to.

.
I assume that you are talking about Zdenek Bazant.

Bazant offered his opinion AFTER the an analysis of one of the world's top experts.

That same expert wrote (in 1991) the textbook "Stability of Structures: Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture and Damage Theories". And 5 other textbooks on structural mechanics, chapters in 20 more textbooks, about 470 peer-reviewed published research articles. And a bunch more.

That expert was, of course, Zdenek Bazant. Bazant did his calculations, which were certainly based upon analyses done in the decades before 9/11. And THEN wrote his paper.

And in that paper, Bazant was exquisitely careful to point out that his was a preliminary analysis.
___

And the remainder of this post is a PERFECT example of one error after another. Made because you're an amateur at this, Steve.

"Peer reviewed" does NOT mean "right". It means "lacking glaring errors". (Even a competent one, to which none of those papers appears to have been subjected.)

Until a finding has been independently verified, it is NOT accepted as true. It is not even accepted as probable. Professionals look at the authors, the methodology and the results and attach their own (variable) probability to the results.

Well now you are moving your goal posts ahead of any possible argument I might have made so as to not appear to have moved those goal posts afterwards.

Wrong.
Those are not MY goalposts. Those are science's goal posts. They have been exactly where I described them for the last century or so.

But let's take what you say at face value. GREAT, who has independently verified the official NIST report? And I don't mean simply implementing safety protocals based on their findings, I mean a true independent verification of NIST's final report?

What's that you say? No one? OH... MY...GOD!

.
Wrong again.
They have been "peer reviewed" and independently corroborated. Because they are so enormous, it was not done in the usual way. But it has been done.
.

Hey here are some nice papers that refute most of the Official Conspiracy Theory...
http://journalof911studies.com/
Now since 9/11 truth has so many good articles and papers out there we can simply ignore the flawed work of NIST and the 9/11 commision

Wrong.
You THINK that these papers have refuted NIST because you are an amateur.

dude, i'm not the one calling others names here like "juvenile" and "kid" etc..

.
Dude... ??

I called your arguments & your tactics "juvenile".

Based on your history, you've earned the title.

Now, if you'd like to show that you not, why don't you put on your big-boy pants and answer the following SUBSTANTIVE issue.

You erroneously claimed that everyone was avoiding answering your assertion that people were avoiding your "psychological aspects of disagreeing with the gov't position".

I didn't avoid the question. Neither did several others. We stated that there are no threats to life, property or employment for disagreeing with the government. There are no consequences for calling the president, VP, and the entire administration murderers, traitors, conspirators, etc.

As proof:
Alex Jones lives & breathes. And laughs all the way to the bank.
Steven Jones, ditto.
Griffin, Fetzer, Lear, Stubblebine, etc. ditto.
bill smith, deep & you., ditto.

Watergate.
Iran - Contra.
Pentagon Papers
Torture of detainees
etc. etc. etc.
All stories that the admin wanted to keep secret. But came out thru anonymous tips.

Some pencil neck geek from the Bush admin attempted to quash the published opinions of an average NASA scientist regarding Global Warming. The scientist told the pencil neck to stuff it, and called up the newspaper. When the dust had settled, the scientist kept publishing EXACTLY what he'd published before (which was 180° to the admin's official position), and the pencil neck was gone. And the ENTIRE admin stopped trying to influence scientific papers.

These examples constitute absolute PROOF that your "psychological intimidation" thesis is utterly wrong.

How about you answer this substantive issue, instead of the "you're calling me immature" nonsense.

Tom

PS. Now, if you want to clarify things, tell us. What grade are you in? Or how long have you been out of school? What is your profession? How long have you been practising?

 

[triforcharity]

So what does the outside air do?

Stand next to a fire, and tell me what the air does around it, IT HEATS UP!!! DER!!

Actually, to feed the inside fire, outside, cool air is sucked into the structure; otherwise there is no fire. The fresh air from outside provides the oxygen! No oxygen, no fire.

Der, its called basic science, something that seems to ellude you.

Any fire fighter knows this. So they follow the fresh air and fight the fire. Just keep your head down and there is always fresh air available below the fire.

Follow the fresh air to find the fire?? Um, not really. What we do is look for the really hot stuff called flames and put the wet stuff on it. And no, there is not always fresh air in a building fire. Plus, we don't need for fresh air to be in a building that we occupy, we bring out own. Its called a few different things, most commonly called a SCOTT Pac, or SCBA.

I have been in MANY structures where I couldn't see past my nose. That is why they invented TIC devices. I am going to assume you know what a TIC device is, right?? And no, there is not fresh air below a fire, there is superheated air below a fire.

That's another reason why a one-way crush down of a structure cannot take place

Because air feeds fire?? That alone makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever!!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Can you explain why this does not apply if the local failure is caused by controlled demolition charges?

Remember the video you were shown, that documented exactly this happening?

In case Heiwa missed it.

 

[alienentity]

Tom, David Chandler has appeared on another thread challenging your comment from June '09

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4907759#post4907759

In case you hadn't noticed it..

 

[bill smith]

So what does the outside air do?

Actually, to feed the inside fire, outside, cool air is sucked into the structure; otherwise there is no fire. The fresh air from outside provides the oxygen! No oxygen, no fire.

Any fire fighter knows this. So they follow the fresh air and fight the fire. Just keep your head down and there is always fresh air available below the fire.

That's another reason why a one-way crush down of a structure cannot take place

Heiwa can you isolate any specific reason that T will not take on this post ?

Part C fell directly down on part A. The only force on the upstanding giant core columns was therefore compressive. After a small amount of elastic absorence of the downward force these columns would have punctured any floor and stripped off any floor to column connection that they encountered in part C. This would have ocurred before any plastic deformation of the upstanding columns was spossible seeing that the PE of the seperately descending components could never have overcome the general and constant SE of the individual upstanding giant columns.

Furthermore as the upstanding columns buried themselves deeper in the descending body of part C that body would have provided lateral support for the upstanding columns.

 

[tfk]

???? If local failures of any kind occur in a structure, associated elements will displace, e.g. the ones above move down by gravity when WTC 1 part C drops. The ones that are fixed to ground, part A below, will not start to move. They may get locally damaged at contact ... but they will not move. And they will not be one-way crushed down.

Clear?

Drop any C on A and check yourself.

Crystal clear.

Crystal clear that you completely avoided the question that I asked you. Please don't do that.

I asked you a very specific question.

Please refer to my post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4907405#post4907405 , and answer the specific question that I asked. Not an unrelated question that you wish to answer.

Tom

 

[aggle-rithm]

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/ellsbergs-secrets.htm

I'm sure there are many secrets that will never be known. There are still thousands of classified records from WWII that have no reason to remain classified. However, they will remain so, forever. That is because the only way they can become declassified is for someone to specifically request it...and how do they know to request information on a secret they know nothing about?

Probably most of this stuff is pretty banal. Just because something is secret doesn't mean it is critical to national security. Sometimes it's just classified by an overzealous officer/bureaucrat who's trying to cover his own behind.

 

[triforcharity]

Bill, I took on that post with my eyes closed and shot it down like a Jap plane over Pearl Harbour. What exactly are you trying to say?? Did you miss my post??

 

[Heiwa]

PS, Talk to any firefighter and ask them to eplain "Exposure" to you Heiwa.

In firefighting, "Exposure" is when another building is exposed to the heat of a fire near it, and catches fire. IE: Take two cars, set one on fire, and park the other one near it. What do you think is going to happen to the second car??? Most likely it also will catch on fire. Der.

But it will not melt! And it will not one-way crush down. Just local fires. Easy to handle. I have actually done advanced fire fighting training. Very useful. I have stopped fires several times. But you are off topic. Pls explain why a one-way crush down is possible.

 

[tfk]

AA. Yes. It seems the WTC 7 CD was concentrated at floors 6 and 13. Thus upper part floors 16 - 47 of WTC 7 free fell for 2.25 seconds. NIst agrees. Happens every time when CD is at work.

Again, you did not answer ANY of the questions that I asked you.

I did not ask where WTC7 failed.
I did not ask about the free fall of the upper stories.
I did not ask whether NIST agrees with anything.
I did not ask if WTC7 was a CD.

Please go back to my post http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4907298#post4907298 and answer the questions that I ask.

Thank you.

tk