| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: Improbable Collapse |
 |
|
Absolutely fantastic new dvd that will explode into the mainstream. Not long to go now.
http://www.911truth.org/store/dvdIC.htm
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:50 pm Post subject: Re: Improbable Collapse |
|
|
When the summary is demonstrably flawed, then I don't think the DVD is going to offer anything new in the way of evidence:
| Quote: |
Kevin Ryan was dismissed from his executive position at Underwriters Laboratories in 2004, after the public release of a letter he wrote to Frank Gayle, a scientist in the World Trade Center fire investigation. Ryan asked Gayle to clarify the results of a UL fire test on behalf of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). In the test, steel structures similar to those used in the WTC were subjected to furnace fires for two hours at temperatures higher than those in the Twin Towers on September 11th. The steel withstood the test easily, and Ryan concluded this raised serious concerns about the NIST collapse hypothesis.
|
I doesn't take much research to find the holes in this story. Kevin Ryan was a site manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of UL. "Site manager" usually isn't considered an executive position, but never mind that. It appears that once again we have someone who is trying to make a name for himself in a field outside his area of expertise. What does building construction have to do with environmental health?
Nevertheless, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if he actually demonstrated he knew what he was talking about. I looked at the memo Ryan supposedly sent that "blew the cover" off the "conspiracy". This memo demonstrated that Ryan employs all the standard tricks of the CT trade, such as pretending that it was ONLY fire that caused the collapses, resurrecting the old, faithful strawman of "the fires weren't hot enough to melt steel", etc.
His reasoning seemed to work along these lines:
1. Structural elements similar to those used in WTC passed the standard tests, which involved heating fire-protected structures to 2000 degrees F for two hours.
2. Even if the fire protection wasn't there, the steel wouldn't have melted.
In order to buy this line of reasoning, you must ignore the fact that individual structures cannot be scaled up to represent an entire building, and that steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength.
So, bottom line: It doesn't matter how impressive one's credentials are, if he's clearly an idiot, I'm not going to waste my time listening to him.
And that goes double for Steven Jones. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb
Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Location: Flintshire
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It appears that once again we have someone who is trying to make a name for himself in a field outside his area of expertise. |
May I ask what your profession and/or area of expertise is? Just to be fair I'm a web developer. So in this field, I'm way out of my depth and am soley relient on weighing up the considered opinions of those more educated than I. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ComfortablyNumb wrote: | | Quote: | | It appears that once again we have someone who is trying to make a name for himself in a field outside his area of expertise. |
May I ask what your profession and/or area of expertise is? Just to be fair I'm a web developer. So in this field, I'm way out of my depth and am soley relient on weighing up the considered opinions of those more educated than I. |
I'm a software developer as well. So I admit this is outside MY expertise as well. HOWEVER...
1. "Scientific" support for the "inside job" theory seems to ALWAYS come from scientists working outside their area of expertise -- it doesn't necessarilly make them wrong, but it's a red flag.
2. It isn't necessary to dig too deep to find holes in some of these ideas. For instance, you don't have to know too much about structural engineering to know that NO ONE has claimed that the towers collapsed because the support beams melted from the fire. It's also easy to spot the many instances when Ryan ignored unseemly facts, such as the heavy structural damage that went along with the fires, and the fact that most of the fuel feeding the fire was from the contents of the buildings, not jet fuel.
It doesn't matter how educated you are, you don't get a pass on logical thinking if you claim to want to know the truth. Reality doesn't grade on a curve. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
(AHEM) I recall there were three natural blast furnaces smelting molten steel underground for 8 weeks from three skyscraper collapses initiated by fires on the 60th and 80th floors that blew out horizontally in toxic micro particle toward New Jersey on the wind.....in the muppet babies once  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb
Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Location: Flintshire
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with you on this front and to add to it, the burden of proof lies with the proposer of a theory. Including, unfortunately, structual collapse due to plane impact and fire.
Disproving controlled demolition does not prove the pancake theory et al.
However, From a common sense point of view, I just can't see how two buildings made exactly the same but with two very different types of impact damage can completely collapse in exactly the same way and finish up as total heap on the floor.
With all the pulverisation and ejection of debris outward my gut feeling is that the collapse would have run out of steam. Especially as the inner core is progressively stronger on the lower floors.
To put in once sentence. Where is all the growing energy coming from? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ComfortablyNumb wrote: | I agree with you on this front and to add to it, the burden of proof lies with the proposer of a theory. Including, unfortunately, structual collapse due to plane impact and fire.
Disproving controlled demolition does not prove the pancake theory et al.
However, From a common sense point of view, I just can't see how two buildings made exactly the same but with two very different types of impact damage can completely collapse in exactly the same way and finish up as total heap on the floor.
With all the pulverisation and ejection of debris outward my gut feeling is that the collapse would have run out of steam. Especially as the inner core is progressively stronger on the lower floors.
To put in once sentence. Where is all the growing energy coming from? |
To put an answer in one sentence, the growing energy is coming from more and more floors collapsing. Certainly there was some pulverisation, although how much is disputed (see the other thread) and some debris fell off to the side, but most of it continued to fall on the lower floors.
As NIST put it "the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ...and the 'three underground natural blast furnaces smelting steel for 8 weeks, can you give us the maths for that? (oh, and building 7 that seemed to go from the bottom up). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ComfortablyNumb wrote: | | To put in once sentence. Where is all the growing energy coming from? |
Acceleration. Kinetic energy = ½mv²
I used to be a software developer  How's the business these days?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb
Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Location: Flintshire
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Certainly there was some pulverisation |
How much in percentage terms?
| Quote: | | some debris fell off to the side |
How much im percentage terms?
| Quote: | | but most of it continued to fall on the lower floors. |
OK thats fine for the floors, but I can't see how this accounts for the core collapsing in squence too.
| Quote: | | As NIST put it "the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. |
But, we're in agreement that the total weight of all these floors were not acting upon the floors below so although the idea is good this is only assumption.
| Quote: | | From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse." |
Although I've seen the 'spire' still standing after WTC2 fell. I have never seen anything of WTC1 left let alone 60 stories. And by now I think I've seen every video there is! Can you point me to this?
Good debating! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Starring Steven E. Jones
Kevin Ryan
James T. Hoffman
Dr. David Ray Griffin
William Veale
Mark Jacobson
Glenn Corbett |
They're stars now! Pretty soon they'll be rockin' mad bling and have a pair of fly honeys hanging from each arm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | ComfortablyNumb wrote: | | To put in once sentence. Where is all the growing energy coming from? |
Acceleration. Kinetic energy = ½mv²
I used to be a software developer How's the business these days? |
Great! Microsoft has gotten so anal with its security that it is now impossible to do anything useful on that platform. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | ...and the 'three underground natural blast furnaces smelting steel for 8 weeks, can you give us the maths for that? |
We could if we had anything other than anecdotal evidence on the "steel" that was "smelted". Do you have access to some information about the molten metal that the rest of us don't? Such as its volume and actual composition? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Quote: | Starring Steven E. Jones
Kevin Ryan
James T. Hoffman
Dr. David Ray Griffin
William Veale
Mark Jacobson
Glenn Corbett |
They're stars now! Pretty soon they'll be rockin' mad bling and have a pair of fly honeys hanging from each arm. |
"Starring Steven Jones as Clint 'Hammer' Rockjaw...." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Given the plethora of 'straight to YouTube' independently made docs which, love em or loathe 'em, critics, seem a glowing testament to the grit, skill and creativity of the truth movement, am I being unfair to be thinking "This may the start of the cash-in"?
The trailer makes me think it's probably not offering anything you can't already access for free...
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 804
Location: London Town
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hope they all become millionaires many times over.
_________________
'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ComfortablyNumb wrote: | | Quote: | | Certainly there was some pulverisation |
How much in percentage terms?
| Quote: | | some debris fell off to the side |
How much im percentage terms?
| Quote: | | but most of it continued to fall on the lower floors. |
OK thats fine for the floors, but I can't see how this accounts for the core collapsing in squence too.
| Quote: | | As NIST put it "the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. |
But, we're in agreement that the total weight of all these floors were not acting upon the floors below so although the idea is good this is only assumption.
| Quote: | | From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse." |
Although I've seen the 'spire' still standing after WTC2 fell. I have never seen anything of WTC1 left let alone 60 stories. And by now I think I've seen every video there is! Can you point me to this?
Good debating! |
I have no idea how much pulverisation took place, or indeed when it took place, or how much debris fell to the sides. The CTs will say none, because they have this mantra "the buildings fell in their own footprint". Assumptions are all we have to work with, since the detail of what was happening was shrouded in the dust cloud. But consider the floors above the collapse point, 12 and 28 stories respectively, continuing on their downward path crashing down on the floors below, no doubt they were breaking up from the bottom upwards, but unless more than 50% of the debris from that was falling off to the sides together with more than 50% of the debris from the lower floors hit, the debris mass would not lighten, and would grow heavier with any lower percentage.
I have never seen any discussion of how the central core fell, my own thought is that the floors pulled it outwards as they fell, piece by piece. I do not know which is the video that NIST refers to, but I have found this still picture. It has just occured to me that having a part of the central core standing at that point, when the rest had already failed is quite a strong argument against CD. I think Griffin argues that the central core would remain standing unless demolished. If part did remain and then fell by itself, how can that fit in with CD? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stateofgrace
Moderate Poster
Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 234
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: | Given the plethora of 'straight to YouTube' independently made docs which, love em or loathe 'em, critics, seem a glowing testament to the grit, skill and creativity of the truth movement, am I being unfair to be thinking "This may the start of the cash-in"?
The trailer makes me think it's probably not offering anything you can't already access for free... |
I get the impression the cash-in started a while ago.
http://www.911truth.org/store/911truthstore.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ComfortablyNumb wrote: | I agree with you on this front and to add to it, the burden of proof lies with the proposer of a theory. Including, unfortunately, structual collapse due to plane impact and fire.
Disproving controlled demolition does not prove the pancake theory et al.
However, From a common sense point of view, I just can't see how two buildings made exactly the same but with two very different types of impact damage can completely collapse in exactly the same way and finish up as total heap on the floor.
With all the pulverisation and ejection of debris outward my gut feeling is that the collapse would have run out of steam. Especially as the inner core is progressively stronger on the lower floors.
To put in once sentence. Where is all the growing energy coming from? |
For a full answer the Greening report is at :
http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But if it were left standing, why did it fall over on its own a few seconds later? Wasn't the core pretty firmly anchored?
And why didn't it topple over? It's clearly quite intact and taller than the surrounding buildings - where did it go? I've never seen a picture of such a huge chunk of steel in the debris. Did it just disintegrate?
I don't get it...
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I was referring to this:
| Quote: | | I have never seen any discussion of how the central core fell, my own thought is that the floors pulled it outwards as they fell, piece by piece. I do not know which is the video that NIST refers to, but I have found this still picture. It has just occured to me that having a part of the central core standing at that point, when the rest had already failed is quite a strong argument against CD. I think Griffin argues that the central core would remain standing unless demolished. If part did remain and then fell by itself, how can that fit in with CD? |
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb
Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Location: Flintshire
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | I do not know which is the video that NIST refers to, but I have found this still picture. |
This is a picture of WTC1 which did indeed leave a sizablel portion of the core. But NIST have stated that over half the core was left when WTC2 collapsed. Where is the photographic evidence to show this? I don't think there is any.
| Quote: | | If part did remain and then fell by itself, how can that fit in with CD? |
This is a fair point. Although I'm not advocating CD here, I would say that the final collapse of that peice of the core was from the base and collapsed straight down. Neither you or I can see the mechanism that casued that so like the rest, its assumption. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb
Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Location: Flintshire
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the reference. I will read it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: | But if it were left standing, why did it fall over on its own a few seconds later? Wasn't the core pretty firmly anchored?
And why didn't it topple over? It's clearly quite intact and taller than the surrounding buildings - where did it go? I've never seen a picture of such a huge chunk of steel in the debris. Did it just disintegrate?
I don't get it... |
The core, the perimeter columns, and the floors worked together to hold the building up. No single element could stand on its own, particularly not one that was heavily damaged by falling debris.
As to what happened to the central core -- it collapsed. When it was intact, it was mostly air; once collapsed its volume would be much smaller. It became a twisted pile of metal mixed in with the much larger pile of debris that it fell into. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As an aside, and offering no explanation - though I have read plenty of them from many proponents of various groups - but that 'spire' collapse is one of the most mysterious things I've ever seen.
The only additional information I've acquired since first seeing it a couple of years ago is that the core columns were welded (using the best welders available in NYC and going over budget in the process) to be continuous 1300ft lengths of steel (which doesn't help at all, but is interesting nevertheless). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: |
Yes, but this - http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-photo.html--S iteID-268208.html
is a enormous section of steel beams that's standing after the collapse so presumably has nothing to crush it or otherwise fold, spindle or mutilate it.
I don't get why it appears to collapse downwards, in on itself (not to mention why it appears to vanish)
These are huge steel beams - why would they fall to bits post collapse? Why down? How does steel fall in on itself if there's no force being exerted? Why wouldn't it be more prone to topple over?
Sorry if I'm a bit slow or anything, I don't do this structural engineering stuff. |
Because it's barely hanging on and then gives up, like a tree that's only barely falling? Because rubble is moving and settling at the base and gives it the final nudge?
I can't see a mystery here.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL
Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006
Posts: 988
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aggle-rithm wrote: | | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | | ...and the 'three underground natural blast furnaces smelting steel for 8 weeks, can you give us the maths for that? |
We could if we had anything other than anecdotal evidence on the "steel" that was "smelted". Do you have access to some information about the molten metal that the rest of us don't? Such as its volume and actual composition? |
Don't start rewriting history for gawds sakes, Are you disputing the existence of satellite thermal imaging clearly showing the hotspots WTC1,2 and 7weeks after? or the steam clouds that persisted for months? Do you concur with NIST that the fires on the 60th and 80th floors fell and instigated these 'natural blast furnace steel smelters' below ground zero? because the collapse footage clearly shows the floors affected by fires were blown out horizontally reduced to micro particle by some mystery energy source. Maybe there's something in your 911 commission report? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
Don't start rewriting history for gawds sakes, Are you disputing the existence of satellite thermal imaging clearly showing the hotspots WTC1,2 and 7weeks after? |
No, I'm disputing the existence of molten steel. Maybe there was some, maybe not, but we have nothing but anecdotal evidence.
| Quote: | or the steam clouds that persisted for months?
|
Where there's steam, there's molten steel...?
| Quote: | Do you concur with NIST that the fires on the 60th and 80th floors fell and instigated these 'natural blast furnace steel smelters' below ground zero?
|
You characterize them as "natural blast furnace steel smelters". All I have seen in the NIST report was a brief mention of the post-collapse fires -- since it was beyond the scope of their report, they merely said that whatever was melted down there, and they couldn't confirm or deny its existence, it probably had something to do with the fires under the rubble.
| Quote: | | because the collapse footage clearly shows the floors affected by fires were blown out horizontally reduced to micro particle by some mystery energy source. Maybe there's something in your 911 commission report? |
You were able to see micro-particles in the footage? Ya got skills, man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm
Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Posts: 557
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Enormous sections of steel beams that ARE NOT DESIGNED TO STAND ON THEIR OWN, but with the help of other structural elements now missing, have a tendency to collapse. You wouldn't necessarily see whatever force acted on it to push it over the edge, but it probably wouldn't have taken much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
