• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread henryco's new paper

leftysergeant said:
I still see the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as more resembling the rersults of a mub slide or turbidity flow than they do the release of a spring.
Click to expand...

The mud slide is a decent analogy (or avalanche) as the collisions (to make a complex problem simple) is what causes the next set of solid objects to move.
 
metamars said:
Dr. Greening gave a lengthy reply on The 911 Forum
Click to expand...

Without reading Dr G stuff, it will say the paper is woo.

When will the OP paper be published in a real journal?

Is the 911 Forum quiet? Have the sincere 911 researchers boken a big story of delusoins, or returned to reality?
 
Last edited:
The floor slabs progressively collapsed inside the columns (the window squibs slightly behind the free falling perimeter columns sections ) The unsupported perimeter columns then toppled outwards. Like balancing one stick at the end of another stick. They distanced out as far as they were high. 40-50 stories 5-600 hundred feet at Winter Garden.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149420
 
Last edited:
Newtons Bit said:
The steel ejections were not caused by air pressure at all. The dust plumes, concrete and maybe even furniture could be caused be ejected by air pressure.

Do a sanity check if you don't believe me. The velocity of the air pressure would need to be nigh on super-sonic to cause a steel column to be thrown outwards.
Click to expand...

I thought about this for a while and now I feel kind of silly...

Yeah the air pressure would have to be ridiculous to throw those columns....
 
More importantly, only a shock wave could have done such -- and only high explosives could create a shock wave.

But if there were high explosives large enough to throw those pieces, then they would have thrown smaller pieces much farther. Think of all the windows. Think "shrapnel." Odds are that anyone within a klick or so would have been cut to bits, and we wouldn't have gotten any close up footage since the cameras would all have been destroyed.

I covered this in my whitepaper, years ago, pages 96-98. The minimum size for an explosive to throw those columns is in the neighborhood of 800 kg. That's a heck of a big bomb. No way that happened. The lethality radius for a comparable bomb (the Mk. 84) is approximately 400 meters...

In contrast, since the largest pieces of steel flew the farthest, that means the distance is drag-limited, or caused by retained spring energy per pound, or both, since these mechanisms favor larger pieces. Both are also totally consistent with an explosives-free, unsuspicious collapse.

That's all there is to it. The "paper" in question is nothing new at all, just a retread of stupid ideas we retired years ago.
 
beachnut said:
Without reading Dr G stuff, it will say the paper is woo.

When will the OP paper be published in a real journal?

Is the 911 Forum quiet? Have the sincere 911 researchers boken a big story of delusoins, or returned to reality?
Click to expand...

henryco will NEVER publish in a real journal since he believes his works are rejected by peer-reviewers because they are too "innovative". I am serious.
 
240-185 said:
henryco will NEVER publish in a real journal since he believes his works are rejected by peer-reviewers because they are too "innovative". I am serious.
Click to expand...

For an unknown reason, i was not informed that my post was published on Jref until yesterday monday 18th. I did not received the messages sent to me before. I will start by answering as soon as possible Dr Greening explanations on the 911 forum.

I will never publish in a peer-reviewer journal, not because i'm too innovative for them but because its a feodal system completely under control of various lobbies and i dont want to waste my time.

Frederic Henry-Couannier
 
Seymour Butz said:
It just shows how off the rails the twoofer claims of how the air ejections=explosives going off=ext columns being flung out.

If the air being squeezed out from between the floors and through the windows is from explosive, and the explosives are responsible for these ext columns hitting the Winter Garden, then it should be easy to see in videos these columns being propelled at the very instant this air is being ejected. If explosives were indeed responsible, then it MUST be when these air ejections are seen, since any rational person realizes that the impulse can't come later.(of course THAT'S the point. Twoofs aren't rational)

But instead, we never see that. We see the air ejections progress down the building, and the ext columns still firmly in place, and not yet moving.

Ok, so now they'll claim that those were "turning the floor into dust", and the explosives that blew the columns came an instant later and were obscured by the dust clouds. So how does that work when the floors are gone, and the falling floors would have "wiped away" any charges that could have been attached to the inside of the ext columns?

There's just zero consistency from these morons. Not even Tony Szamboti seems to be able to meet that rather important criteria.
Click to expand...

These explosions are destroying part of the core of the tower in advance. this is just as in controlled demolition except that these "squibs" are here much more powerful and the ejecta much more massive: i measured 160km/h : trully explosive...I see no evidence that there are not also columns being ejected inside the cloud.but may be these are just mistimed. Another front of much morepowerfull explosions follows.

Fred
 
The ejections, whatever the mechanism behing them (springs or whatever you want) mean that the collapse has progressed too rapidly: only pressure or shockwaves (as in avalanche) can progress faster than allowed by gravity and conservation of momentum, not successions of collisions.
Moreover if there was a collapse started in advance in the core of the tower, it would not manifest itself on the West face only but also on the North face.
At last a localized collapse on the West face is completely nonsense since it would require all floors to be fracturated in two pieces in their bulk while the the bolt and welding at the extremities of the trusses are much weaker.

F
 
henryco said:
These explosions are destroying part of the core of the tower in advance. this is just as in controlled demolition except that these "squibs" are here much more powerful and the ejecta much more massive: i measured 160km/h : trully explosive....
Fred
Click to expand...

Yes, as explosive as a sneeze

Major fail. Explosive velocity is several orders of magnitude faster than that.
 
henryco said:
The ejections, whatever the mechanism behing them (springs or whatever you want) mean that the collapse has progressed too rapidly: only pressure or shockwaves (as in avalanche) can progress faster than allowed by gravity and conservation of momentum, not successions of collisions.
Click to expand...

You're getting lost in translation here. I don't know what you mean? It's pressure, exactly like you've said that is responsible. Not shockwaves. The overpressure in the building blew out fresh air intake ducts. These ducts have been shown to be in the exact location of these alleged "squibs".

edit: nevermind Dave explained. waves propagating in a medium etc.
 
Last edited:
henryco said:
I will never publish in a peer-reviewer journal, not because i'm too innovative for them but because its a feodal system completely under control of various lobbies and i dont want to waste my time.

Frederic Henry-Couannier
Click to expand...

My bad, you also mentioned that reason.
BTW, stundied.
 
henryco said:
The ejections, whatever the mechanism behing them (springs or whatever you want) mean that the collapse has progressed too rapidly: only pressure or shockwaves (as in avalanche) can progress faster than allowed by gravity and conservation of momentum, not successions of collisions.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Consider an impact on the upper end of a vertical steel column. How fast does the effect of that impact propagate down the column? The answer is, at the speed of sound in steel, rather than at a velocity/time profile determined by the acceleration due to gravity. Therefore, a succession of collisions between extended objects can propagate downwards faster than a 1G acceleration velocity profile.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Wrong. Consider an impact on the upper end of a vertical steel column. How fast does the effect of that impact propagate down the column? The answer is, at the speed of sound in steel, rather than at a velocity/time profile determined by the acceleration due to gravity. Therefore, a succession of collisions between extended objects can propagate downwards faster than a 1G acceleration velocity profile.

Dave
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it. Thanks for the translation.
 
i measured 160km/h : trully explosive...
Click to expand...

That works out to 44.4 meters per second. Compare that to conventional TNT at 6,900 meters per second. Still want to stick to the term "Truly Explosive" to describe it?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Wrong. Consider an impact on the upper end of a vertical steel column. How fast does the effect of that impact propagate down the column? The answer is, at the speed of sound in steel, rather than at a velocity/time profile determined by the acceleration due to gravity. Therefore, a succession of collisions between extended objects can propagate downwards faster than a 1G acceleration velocity profile.
Dave
Click to expand...

It's a joke a suppose! sound or any deformation of the steel will not pulverize concrete projecting massive debris at 160km/h several floors in advance! simply ridiculous...
 
Sam.I.Am said:
That works out to 44.4 meters per second. Compare that to conventional TNT at 6,900 meters per second. Still want to stick to the term "Truly Explosive" to describe it?
Click to expand...

No problem since
1) its also a typical velocity for squibs in controlled demolition...
remember that any jet is decelerated thery fast in the air and here might be up to 20 meters away from its source.

2) I see no other really convincing explanation for such speeds here

F H-C
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom