Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[bill smith]

171 Minutes With Evan Dando and Juliana Hatfield

''....Dando uses both hands to pick up his piece of the World Trade Center. “Open the window,” he commands. “The towers were right there. That morning really ********** me up. The second plane was so close, it went shoom, right over my head.” He pauses and absentmindedly pats the pack of Marlboro Lights in his shirt pocket. “Because I was so close, I know what really happened,” he says. “I shouldn’t get into it, because I’m not a political person, but they were blown up by bombs. They were not taken out by those airplanes. Those fires were going out and then the buildings blew up. What I saw and heard that day was a crime, and not by the people they’re saying. That’s all I’ll say.” He pauses. “I’m worried about our country. But then again I’ve been worried about America my entire life.”

READ MORE:-

http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/encounter/68806/

 

[TJM]

171 Minutes With Evan Dando and Juliana Hatfield

lol

 

[tfk]

It's perhaps splitting hairs, but...

Splitting relevant hairs is sometimes useful.
Splitting irrelevant hairs is a waste of time. But something for which you display a singular talent & fondness.

Connection to and caused are not the same thing.

This is structural engineering.

Parts interact with each other (i.e., exert forces on each other) by contacting each other. Forces cause various things to happen.

"Connected to" and "cause" are intimately intertwined.

Specifically, "connected to" is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for "caused".

Agreed, though there is what I would term *diagonal slice* post initiation...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkS58AwDX0E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr5GJwfLCl4

...which does appear to traverse bottom-up.

Please identify what you think that you see traversing up the building.
I see nothing.

and it can't have been in the core because the survival of the core spires demonstrates that the core failure propagated downwards, not upwards.

Not agreed.

I'm quibbling use of the word *can't*. IF an explosion low down severed some of the inner core columns, …

There was no explosives down low in the towers. Or in WTC7, for that matter.

The cause of the collapse initiation of the towers is imminently clear from the videos: the mechanisms that bowed the external columns inward over the course of about 20 - 30 minutes.

Structural effects share time constants. The events that caused the columns to bow occurred over 20 - 30 minutes.

Explosions & their consequent effects have time constants measured in milliseconds to seconds.

There is zero evidence of any explosion down low.

The objective videocamera audio channels trump all subjective verbal comments about explosions, providing positive proof that there were no explosives down low.

I'm not saying *there was an explosion and it took out the inner core low down*.

Of course you aren't. Because you're interested in leaving the door ajar for all manner of nonsense.

I'm saying that use of the word *can't* is not appropriate. It's *possible*. Probable or plausible are different words.

"Can't" is exactly the right word here.

It is not possible that there were explosives down low in the towers.

There is zero evidence for it.
There is a ton of evidence against it.
There is utterly decisive evidence that explosives anywhere (top, middle or bottom) of the towers could not possibly have played any role in the slow progressive creep & buckling of the external columns that played a central role in the collapse initiation.

The only purpose for the idiotic speculation is promulgating dumber-than-dirt truther controlled demo nonsense.

 

[tfk]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=21306http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_268324cb55829e71a2.jpg

lol

"Crack addicts for 9/11 Truth"??

 

[tfk]

Could you tell me the simplest of metrics...the vertical distance between the top of the windows on floor 22 to the roofline ? (Or more preferably the height of each individual storey. ft and inches is fine)

Roofline to top of windows on 29th floor = 241' 10" (NCSTAR1-9 pg 600)

Story to story height = 12' 9" (NCSTAR1-9 pg 100)

Roofline to top of 24th floor window should be: 305' 6"

22nd & 23rd floor windows are slightly different. Details are on NCSTAR1-9 pg 102. You should be able to work it out from that info.

 

[femr2]

Splitting relevant hairs is sometimes useful.

You must be very bored tom. Responding to a 6 day old post. Scraping the barrel eh ?

Splitting irrelevant hairs is a waste of time. But something for which you display a singular talent & fondness.

Maybe we'll discuss the content in more detail, if I feel inclined. Might end up a bit like the trace data. You'll spend months whining about it, go silent for a while, then start using my data to make your point, with nay-an apology for making such a fuss in the first place.

"Connected to" and "cause" are intimately intertwined.

Context tom. Quote mining.

Please identify what you think that you see traversing up the building. I see nothing.

Look harder. I'll dig you out a the911forum link if you're interested, which you're probably not. Try watching a few times. You'll get there.

There was no explosives down low in the towers.

Didn't say there was. Didn't say there wasn't.

the mechanisms that bowed the external columns inward over the course of about 20 - 30 minutes.

Am sure you've read through the IB studies at the911forum. So, what is this mechanism of which you speak with surety tom ?

Explosions & their consequent effects have time constants measured in milliseconds to seconds.

What happened to structural engineering tom ? IF something, natural or not, occurred low down in the core, affecting a portion of the core, what would the structural effect be, and over what period of time would it occur ?

There is zero evidence of any explosion down low.

Rubbish. There's the infamous *kerosene fireball* for a start.

The objective videocamera audio channels trump all subjective verbal comments about explosions, providing positive proof that there were no explosives down low.

Ahem. Was the explosion in the lobby silent ?

the slow progressive creep & buckling of the external columns that played a central role in the collapse initiation.

Again, please state the exact mechanism that led to IB tom.

The only purpose

Mechanism for IB tom. Not your opinion, but the actual cause.

For clarity, the discussion was about the use of the word can't. 6 days ago. Again, you must be really bored. Trolling

 

[femr2]

Roofline to top of windows on 29th floor = 241' 10" (NCSTAR1-9 pg 600)

Story to story height = 12' 9" (NCSTAR1-9 pg 100)

Roofline to top of 24th floor window should be: 305' 6"

22nd & 23rd floor windows are slightly different. Details are on NCSTAR1-9 pg 102. You should be able to work it out from that info.

Thanks, but I have that detail tom, as you well know.

Now, why exactly present this detail, when you know full well I'm fully aware of it, and have presented it to you numerous times over on the trace data threads ?

You are also aware of why I want the details to be as accurate as possible.

One issue is the 12' 9" metric. Which is a general approximate.

Another issue is the top of 29 to roof metric, which as a single value does not suit my purpose.

NIST have a poor record in simple measurements, imo, so I'm still after floor by floor heights, which will hopefully include accurate details of facade measurements from base to roofline.

The sideline point being that it is ridiculous that these simple details are not available. Would a high resolution scan of the facade elevation be some kind of security risk ?

Here's one....how tall is the building ?

 

[triforcharity]

Here's one....how tall is the building ?

610' tall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

 

[femr2]

610' tall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

That's an approximation, with no information on its accuracy, what it actually relates to (as in what face, pavement to roofline/sub-floor to roofline), ...

There are references to the height being any of 160m, 174m, 186m, ...

NIST opt for approx. 186m, but I don't have any information to clarify further. I'd like it accurate to an inch or two. I'd imagine there is a metric which is approximately 186m, but what is it ? ...

 

[tfk]

femr,

You must be very bored tom. Responding to a 6 day old post. Scraping the barrel eh ?

Oh, criminey. Let the 3rd grade games begin...

Might end up a bit like the trace data. You'll spend months whining about it, go silent for a while, then start using my data to make your point, with nay-an apology for making such a fuss in the first place.

"… whining …"?


I "went silent" when I got tired of your unending crap.

Exactly the same crap that you pull in this post.
__

Please identify what you think that you see traversing up the building.
I see nothing.

Look harder. I'll dig you out a the911forum link if you're interested, which you're probably not. Try watching a few times. You'll get there.

Exactly this crap.
Refusal to answer direct questions directly.

There was no explosives down low in the towers. Or in WTC7, for that matter.

Didn't say there was. Didn't say there wasn't.

Exactly this crap.
You're a coward who won't commit to saying anything.

Am sure you've read through the IB studies at the911forum. So, what is this mechanism of which you speak with surety tom ?

Why on earth would I read about IB from that group of bozos? The one time I went over there, there wasn't a thoughtful, competent poster in the bunch.

It turns out that I've got a MUCH better source of info: the real, bona fide, accomplished structural engineers who wrote the NIST report.

The cause of the collapse initiation of the towers is imminently clear from the videos: the mechanisms that bowed the external columns inward over the course of about 20 - 30 minutes.

Structural effects share time constants. The events that caused the columns to bow occurred over 20 - 30 minutes.

Explosions & their consequent effects have time constants measured in milliseconds to seconds.

What happened to structural engineering tom ? IF something, natural or not, occurred low down in the core, affecting a portion of the core, what would the structural effect be, and over what period of time would it occur ?

Try reading what I wrote again.

The Inward Bowing took 20 - 30 minutes.
Heating & creep of large steel beams takes on the order of 20 - 30 minutes.
Explosives operate on the order of milliseconds.

Ergo, the Inward Bowing was due to heating and creep.
Not due to explosives.

If the inward bowing had occurred in milliseconds, then it might have been due to explosives.

Simple.

There is zero evidence of any explosion down low.

Rubbish. There's the infamous *kerosene fireball* for a start.

Just as I said at the beginning: "splitting irrelevant hairs…"
Swapping meaning.
50 mph goal posts.
Zero interest in honest discussion.

1. the fireball's a deflagration, not an explosion.
2. Neither CD bozos nor real structural engineers consider the fireball to be a source of significant core damage.

The fireball is irrelevant to your contention of "explosives down low", which is tied directly to your CD crap.

Keep swapping topics, femr. Makes you look like an idiot.

Again, please state the exact mechanism that led to IB tom.
Mechanism for IB tom. Not your opinion, but the actual cause.

Read the NIST report. It's explained there.
Your buds at the911forum are hopelessly out of their league.

But if you had a clue, you'd realize that the mechanism is irrelevant.
The mere existence of Inward Bowing is sufficient to cause collapse.

For clarity, the discussion was about the use of the word can't.

Exactly.
Dave said that an explosion down low in the core can't have caused the collapse.
You said the word "can't" was incorrect.

You were wrong.
Dave was right.

Always glad to clarify things for ya.


tom

 

[femr2]

I "went silent" when I got tired of your unending crap.

You started the thread, complained endlessly about it's accuracy, yet you are now using that very same data, both by pointing folk to the raw data download, and use of it in graphs you have generated.

The thread is there, and I encourage anyone interested to read it from the top.

What was that smiley ?

Exactly this crap.
Refusal to answer direct questions directly.

It's like talking to a caveman. Watch the video..titled *diagonal slice* with a description of ejecta traversing bottom-up and north to south across the east face...as already described. If you can't be bothered to read prior discussion, I can't be bothered to hold your hand whilst you catch up.

Exactly this crap.
You're a coward who won't commit to saying anything.

Rubbish. Every time you attempt to apply imaginary tfk inference to something I have written, I'll clarify it. Simple as that. You don't like it ? Nay mind. You'll live.

Why on earth would I read about IB from that group of bozos?

Dodge. Not surprised.

It turns out that I've got a MUCH better source of info: the real, bona fide, accomplished structural engineers who wrote the NIST report.

The NIST IB mechanism is physically unreasonable. Doesn't work. For details see the911forum.

Try reading what I wrote again.

The Inward Bowing took 20 - 30 minutes.
Heating & creep of large steel beams takes on the order of 20 - 30 minutes.
Explosives operate on the order of milliseconds.

Ergo, the Inward Bowing was due to heating and creep.
Not due to explosives.

You are not listening. The instant result of an event affecting some core columns would be load redistribution. The point of this element of discussion is related to various IB mechanisms, which bearing in mind you're not going to go read, and I'm not replicating it all here for you, means...remember context tom. You're really not good at focus.

Just as I said at the beginning: "splitting irrelevant hairs…"
Swapping meaning.

Not at all. If you state *no explosion down low*, and yet the lobby windows are blown out, marble dislodged...yada yada...then however you want to interpret it...an explosion occurred.

Perhaps I write in a more literal context than you do. Really irritates you eh ?

Zero interest in honest discussion.

Incorrect. Justify the accusation or retract.

1. the fireball's a deflagration, not an explosion.

You say photoshopped means faking audio, I say windows getting blown out is a consequence of an event describable as a explosion. (And they're called trousers, not pants )

2. Neither CD bozos nor real structural engineers consider the fireball to be a source of significant core damage.

Didn't say it was.

The fireball is irrelevant to your contention of "explosives down low"

Never said it was. Objected to you stating no explosions down low.

Fun this eh. Not.

which is tied directly to your CD crap

Might be an idea to quote what you are basing that statement upon...

Keep swapping topics, femr. Makes you look like an idiot.

Keep up.

Read the NIST report.

Have, thanks.

But if you had a clue, you'd realize that the mechanism is irrelevant.

To you perhaps. Quite a statement. So you don't know. Thanks.

Always glad to clarify things for ya.

Boring tfk fluff.

 

[jaydeehess]

Can you prove the bolded statement? The initiating event in wtc 7 occured at the 13th floor and that led to the penthouse collapsing first 34 stories higher up.

Yes, and the infalling of the east penthouse was the first indication that collapse was occuring whereas in the towers the perimeter columns were inwardly bowing for 20-30 minutes basically as part of the collapse initiation PRIOR to collapse.
Is it your intention now to state that either the towers or WTC 7 was a CD but not both?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You say photoshopped means faking audio, I say windows getting blown out is a consequence of an event describable as a explosion. (And they're called trousers, not pants )

As I understood it, part of the lobby damage was from the tower flexing out of its normal range due to the plane impacts... there were tons of reports throughout the buildings where doors were jammed shut, drywall fractured, ceiling panels dislodge, and a whole assortment of other damages.

I know the quibble is pretty stale but I seriously don't understand why you people are sparring over the word "can't." Thanks to the benefit of 20/20 hindsight it's a meaningless discussion, and seems especially so for your case since you appear fairly content with the idea that the collapse was still happening once it got started..

 

[beachnut]

...
Not at all. If you state *no explosion down low*, and yet the lobby windows are blown out, marble dislodged...yada yada...then however you want to interpret it...an explosion occurred.
...

From thermite? lol, you have the CD delusion and no explosives. You got some nano-thermite window cutter charges from Jones secret insane stash of stupid junk on 911?

Not an explosion from explosives or thermite.

The impacts from aircraft on 911 were equal in KE to 1300 and 2093 pounds of TNT. Impressive impacts, and those impacts are solely responsible for the damage done on 911.

KE impact = in energy to 2093 pounds of TNT
Where did this stuff land? Can it knock out windows, make loud noises, be felt before heard; did it shake the building? That is a lot of energy; not to mention the 315 TONS of TNT heat energy in the jet fuel burning.

I can see it now, the MIB leader asking why they need thermite and explosives when you have 10 times more energy in jet fuel. The resulting office fires have more energy than thermite and explosives. 911 truth needs remedial physics classes and more.

 

[femr2]

{snip beachnut disturbing ramble}

did (the impact) shake the building?

Yup...

 

[twinstead]

Hmmmm. The plane impacts appear to have had a traumatic effect on the buildings.

 

[femr2]

Hmmmm. The plane impacts appear to have had a traumatic effect on the buildings.

Am not sure if that was humour ?

The trace, including NISTs less accurate version, shows that there was no drastic lateral displacement of the building. It oscillated about various natural frequencies, rather than *vibrated*.

Maximim displacement was under 20 inches at the 70th floor. Well under design maximum wind load deflection.

Note the time axis scale. Each oscillation takes over 10 seconds.

See NCSTAR 1-5A Appendix K for full details of NISTs less accurate tracing method.

 

[DGM]

I don't have any information to clarify further. I'd like it accurate to an inch or two.

What would you like it to be measured from? What you ask is actually a little objective. Why does it matter?

 

[femr2]

What would you like it to be measured from? What you ask is actually a little objective. Why does it matter?

Determining more accurate scaling metrics for trace data translation from pixels to real-world units.

Becomes increasingly important for underlying scaling to be as accurate as possible as derivations for velocity and acceleration are considered.

 

[DGM]

Determining more accurate scaling metrics for trace data translation from pixels to real-world units.

Becomes increasingly important for underlying scaling to be as accurate as possible as derivations for velocity and acceleration are considered.

The funny thing is I'm not sure anyone ever actually measures the exact height of a building. I've been a builder for many years and it's always just a figure derived from the plans. There are way to many variables and frankly (unless your going for a world record)* it's not that important.


* note: even record setters are constantly being re-examined.