South Tower Top Explodes Falling in Midair

[spooked911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K75BF9BTpbU

about 2 minutes in the above video

screen shots here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/09/collapse-my-ass-tower-top-explodes.html

[wildbilln864]

1. thank you. It just seems to fly apart for no apparent reason! nt

[hack89]

2. So where are the high pressure shock waves? nt

[spooked911]

3. sorry, what are you asking?

[hack89]

4. High explosives have a distinctive signature

With all that smoke and dust it should be easy to see the high pressure shock wave characteristic of high explosives - it appears to be missing.

[wildbilln864]

5. interesting assumptions. nt

[hack89]

7. Reasonable ones too nt

[Darwins Doberman]

8. Physics, energy, "science"

these things are unimportant, basically periphery issues for the "Troof" movement. The only people I've ever seen as quick to ignore basic science are creationists.

[wildbilln864]

9. I don't know about any troof movement...

but I know that anti-9/11 truthers do not feel basic science is important when it helps to support the official conspiracy theory!

[Darwins Doberman]

10. please enlighten me

as to what scientific principles I'm missing.

[wildbilln864]

11. kerosene fires and office fires do not melt steel! nt

[LARED]

12. Is anyone saying that happend? nt

[wildbilln864]

13. so what melted the steel under those three buildings?

or are you of the notion that it didn't happen?

ETA: by the way, you were very quick on the reply. Good monitoring! Too bad you're not so interested in other issues and problems facing America. 9/11 truth seems to be your main concern. Strange that!

[LARED]

14. Willbill, you can't be serious

This issue has been discussed dozens of times. The melted metal found under the debris were created by underground fires that lasted for weeks. There is absolutely no question the underground fire were hot enough to melt metal.

None.

willbill, I am not monitoring. I happened to be on the web the same time you posted. Simple.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

17. So that's why it was deleted.

I did not look at the main site. My mistake, sorry to the mods and anyone offended. I do not hang out there by the way. More faulty assumptions. The link came up while doing a search on melted steel at WTC.

[SDuderstadt]

18. Which means you'll fall for anything....

why am I not surprised?

[wildbilln864]

101. I didn't fall for the official conspiracy bullshit like you did. nt

[SDuderstadt]

103. You have no idea where I get my information or....

what I believe, Bill. It's truly idiotic to believe that one only has the choice of believing the "truth" or the "government story". Get a Logic textbook and look up "false dilemma".

[petgoat]

183. It's obvious where you get your information--from lying sophists at juvenile debunking sites. nt

[SDuderstadt]

184. Are all debunking sites "juvenile", PG?

Why? Because they contradict your goofy claims? And, if they're "lying sophists", why don't you try exposing one of their "lies"?

[petgoat]

185. All the ones I have seen are juvenile. Most have errors or lies near the top of the home page. nt

[SDuderstadt]

186. Then point them out...

be specific.

[LARED]

20. Willbill, does it not peak your interest that so many

web sites that advocate 9/11 conspiracies are fulled with historical revisionists. Not to mention antisemitism.

Would you be so willing to cleave on to goofy theories if they were routinely linked with KKK sites?

[wildbilln864]

23. Perhaps many are....

many are not. I am against antisemitism.
What melted the steel Lared, under all three buildings?

[LARED]

25. Heat melted the steel. nt

[petgoat]

35. Yeah, and gravity brought down the building, and Kennedy died of death.

Thanks for your help, LARED.

[wildbilln864]

22. I'm talking about molten steel! nt

[wildbilln864]

19. Yes! nt

[LARED]

21. Who? nt

[wildbilln864]

24. indirectly, you are!

What else are you claiming melted the steel?

[LARED]

26. So you think jet fuel continued to burn for weeks?

This is pretty simple. The WTC were full of combustible materials. Once the buildings collapsed debris from the building caught fire underground and burned for many many weeks. In an underground fire the heat of combustion is not easily dissipated so the temperature can get very high. High enough to melt metal, and even steel given the right circumstances.

[wildbilln864]

30. and what would fuel an underground fire for weeks?

paper? books? what? :popcorn:

[hack89]

32. The contents of the buildings perhaps?

all those tons of combustible materials? The reason high rise buildings have fire codes, sprinklers and all that other neat stuff?

[petgoat]

33. Are you guys still pushing this "spontaneous blast furnace" fantasy?

Do you have any evidence that particle board and computer cases can burn
hot enough to melt steel?

You're mixing up the process of creating charcoal, which is done by
heating it in a pile without air, and the process of smelting iron,
which requires the burning of a high-efficiency fuel like charcoal or
coke on the presence of forced air.

You really just make stuff up, don't you?

[LARED]

37. Once again you establish that without question you are without a

clue. I would take the time to explain this issue again but it would be for naught as you are determined to stay ignorant.

[petgoat]

38. Empty claims is all you ever provide, LARED.

Do you have any proof that particle board and computer cases can melt steel?

[LARED]

40. Tell you what PG

Do a little research on the concept of adiabatic flame temperature. CT'er make love to make the complicated trivial and the trivial complicated. Combustion dynamics are not trivial, so read up on the subject and let me know how you make out.

[petgoat]

42. In other words, you have no proof that burning particle board can melt steel. nt

[LARED]

43. Obviously 17 minutes is not long enough to educate yourself.

As your post clearly establishes.

I tried to point you to the light. You prefer darkness. Enjoy.

[petgoat]

44. Are you or are you not claiming that burning particle board can melt steel? nt

[LARED]

45. What I'm saying is that nearly all hydrocarbon based

products can burn hot enough to melt steel under the right conditions.

[petgoat]

46. If you have a blast furnace, and if you have perfect insulation.

And you're claiming that somehow the trifecta was hit and in all three
buildings these perfect conditions were spontaneously created.

[LARED]

49. Again, are you shooting for a record

this is the third post where you establish you don't have a clue.

Try this for a basic introduction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature

Underground fires are pretty good at burning near stoichiometric conditions and relatively close to adiabatic. It know this is above your pay grade so to speak, but perhaps you can use this information to start educating yourself

You might also look up the concept of eutectic melting points.

[petgoat]

57. What's really interesting is that the molten metal you guys try to claim is easily explained

the authorities deny exists.

Didn't you get the memo?

You can't have insulation and aeration in the fire.

You're dreaming to think that a spontaneous blast furnace was created in
the basement of all three buildings.

[SDuderstadt]

58. I don't know of anyone who denies there were pools of something....

I'd love for you to show us anything than denials it was pools of molten steel. Nice try, PG.

[petgoat]

64. John Gross didn't explain it was molten something else. He denied it existed, nt

[SDuderstadt]

67. Jesus Christ, PG...

Gross is not obligated to correct the questioner. If the questioner asks Gross about the existence of "MOLTEN STEEL" (the questioner's exact words), asking the questioner in turn for evidence of "MOLTEN STEEL" is NOT denying there were molten pools of something. Your comprehension of the spoken language really sucks.

[petgoat]

71. Simple honesty requires Gross to correct the questioner.

If someone asks you "Didn't you torture people in Romania"
and you say "No I never tortured people in Romania" and
you don't say "I tortured them in Moldavia" you're being
dishonest.

Gross is being dishonest whether he's lying or whether he's
giving a weasel answer, and you're dishonest to defend him.

He knows it wasn't molten steel. It was molten iron, a
byproduct of the thermite reaction.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Jesus Christ, PG...

Gross is not obligated to correct the questioner. If the questioner asks Gross about the existence of "MOLTEN STEEL" (the questioner's exact words), asking the questioner in turn for evidence of "MOLTEN STEEL" is NOT denying there were molten pools of something. Your comprehension of the spoken language really sucks.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

74. Stop violating science. n/t

[petgoat]

79. I'm not violating science. nt

[AZCat]

85. Fine. Stop misunderstanding, misapplying, and generally fucking up the science. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

77. Make me...

last I checked, you don't have the phrase "Jesus Christ" copyrighted.

[LARED]

59. Okeedokee

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt . -- George Eliot

[greyl]

50. What brand? nt

[wildbilln864]

47. yes, maybe in a blast furnace!

:eyes:

[spooked911]

27. the shock waves were shown by those horizontal puffs of smoke as the top fell in midair

that was the point of the post

[SDuderstadt]

28. Bullshit....

that was air being forced out as the building collapsed. Where else would it have gone? Use your head.

[petgoat]

34. It's not air, Sid. It's powdered concrete. And the mechanism

for expelling air, the bellows action of falling floors,
is decoupled from any possible mechanism for expelling dust.

You can prove it to yourself. Put a soda cracker in your
left hand, representing the concrete floor. You other hand
repesents the upper floor falling on it. Clap your hands
together. Is soda cracker dust expelled violently around the
room?

[SDuderstadt]

36. This is your stupidest analogy yet, PG!

Do you bother to think before posting this nonsense?

[petgoat]

39. Empty claims is all I ever get from you,Sid.

The analogy is quite apt. It shows that pulverization process and the air ejection
process are decoupled. That's not air blowing out, it's powdered concrete.

[LARED]

41. You are amazing - nt

[William Seger]

51. Instead of trapping the cracker between your palms...

... what happens if you hold it between your thumb and forefinger and squeeze it until it breaks? Where did all those "explosives" come from?

If you can figure that out, you should be able to answer these questions (since it's basically the same answer): What happens when you put enough stress on concrete to crush it? What happens to the strain energy it was absorbing? Same question about steel structures: What happens to the strain energy it was absorbing when you stress it enough to break connections?

[petgoat]

89. If you squeeze between thumb and forefinger it breaks, not powders.

But lateral pressure is not what happened.
These were pancakes, remember?

And they were powdered, not crumbled like a cracker into soup.
There are no pictures of crumbled concrete at Ground Zero.
It's all dust.

Besides, the concrete was restrained under a layer of vinyl flooring or carpet on the top,
and the steel floor pans underneath.

An improved analogy is to hold a soda cracker between your two palms, and have a friend
slap your upper hand.


Your question is tautological. When you put enough stress on concrete to crush it, you
crush it. You should go to work for NIST (if you don't already work for them).

[AZCat]

90. This is such an epic fail.

I am in awe of the horribleness of your analogies, petgoat. You should write a book or something.

[petgoat]

92. I take it you went to a tech school like DeVry (if any) and never learned

that if you want your assertions to be taken seriously, you need to provide
examples and substantiation and explanation.

It is not sufficient to state what you regard as the correct answer.

You need to show your work.

Why are you so stingy with your knowledge? All we get from you is the same
spam over and over and over: "Petgoat is an idiot. I'm an engineer and I
know. I'm so busy I don't have time to tell you how he's wrong, but trust me."

[AZCat]

93. Like many of your conclusions, this one is also wrong.

Why am I stingy with my knowledge? Mostly because interacting with people like you here at DU and elsewhere has taught me that placing pearls before swine is pointless.

[petgoat]

96. You do not demonstrate either engineering training or an educated mind.

All we get from you is farts of FUD.

[AZCat]

110. Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

You haven't the foggiest idea what "engineering training" is, so I'm guessing you're applying the same standard to this that you do everything else: if a person disagrees with petgoat, he or she must be incompetent and wrong. I hope you can see the obvious fallacy here (but I've come to expect less - quite a bit less - from you).

[petgoat]

116. See what I mean? All you want to do is talk about petgoat.

Jeez, AZ, get a girlfriend.

[AZCat]

153. That's some delicious irony.

In the same post where you claim all I want to do "is talk about petgoat" you make a remark about my love life. Who is talking about who here?

[petgoat]

157. It wasn't irony. It was a hint that your obsession with me seems unhealthy, nt

[AZCat]

158. Says the same poster...

who makes all this personal by commenting on someone else's love life. That's not the first post, either. Maybe you should take that break now.

[William Seger]

111. It's easy to see why you are having such a problem understanding the collapse

You took so long to answer this, I almost missed it.

> "If you squeeze between thumb and forefinger it breaks, not powders."

Nonsense and double-talk. It breaks into pieces of varying size, including powder, and how much of each just depends on the circumstance. But I asked a second question about the cracker: "Where did all those 'explosives' come from?" With your vast experience with "real world" physics I'm sure you know what I was getting at; why did you ignore that part of the question? Why do brittle materials throw pieces outward when they break up, especially when they break under impact or under bending? If you drop a glass onto concrete from a height of 1 foot, it might break up into a few large pieces and a lot of slivers, with the slivers being thrown outward a few feet. If you drop the same glass from, oh let's say 12 feet, it's going to "explode" into nothing but slivers and fine powder, and that debris can be thrown quite a distance.

You get the same kind of "explosive" results if you hit a glass or a cracker with a hammer. Similarly, if you try to bend glass or a cracker, you're going to get a lot of debris thrown out quite a distance in the direction you're bending it. In your vast experience with "real world" physics, petgoat, how can it be that you've never noticed how crackers and glass and other brittle materials break? Why do you think a brittle material such as concrete would behave much differently? Or is it that you would like to use "special" reasoning in the case of the WTC concrete?

If you put enough stress on a cracker or on a glass or on concrete, it will "explode" because some of the energy you're putting into it will be stored as elastic strain energy. When the total strain energy is high enough to cause fracturing, some of that energy will be consumed by the fracturing (i.e. in breaking chemical bonds), but after that, the elastic strain energy is released, and it accelerates the pieces outward. Both the amount of fracturing and the acceleration of the resulting pieces just depend on how much energy you can put into it before fracturing takes over.

> "And they were powdered, not crumbled like a cracker into soup. There are no pictures of crumbled concrete at Ground Zero. It's all dust."

Oh, really. There are a couple of problems with this argument, starting with the assertion that "it's all dust," which I'm sure you know isn't true, but you keep saying it anyway. Yes, a lot of it was dust; Dr. Frank Greening estimates that about 50% of the concrete debris was 1 mm or smaller. How small it has to be before you call it "dust" is rather arbitrary, but I'd say that no more than 20% or 25% of the debris was "dust." But yes, the remaining concrete was mostly rather small chunks, which Greening estimates had an average size of only 1 cm.

Why so much fracturing? It's simple: Just like the glass that was dropped from 12 feet and all other brittle material fracturing, it's a function of how much energy was put into it. Another factor which you seem to be determined to ignore is that the fracturing didn't all happen on a floor's first impact with the falling debris. Once a floor became falling debris itself, it was subjected to further impacts as it collided with the floors below, and finally the whole pile of debris hit the ground with a tremendous amount of kinetic energy that had to go somewhere! Fairly small percentages of that kinetic energy were converted to sound and heat energy, but according to Greening's riqorous calculations, the total amount of energy that was released by that much mass falling that far was much more than enough to explain the amount of concrete fracturing. The rest of the energy went into ripping the steel structure apart, mainly at it's connections.

And there's a second major flaw in your reasoning when you try to imply that the pulverization couldn't be caused by the collapse, so explosives must have been used: Greening estimates that to get that much concrete fracturing without gravitational energy being involved would require 600 TONS of TNT! And doing so with that minimal amount of explosives would require getting the explosives in direct contact with the concrete, all over its surface at least and perhaps even embedded in drill holes. Otherwise, if the explosives were just "very near" the concrete, you would need much more, because explosives aren't really all that efficient at pulverizing concrete and rock. Conspiracists have abjectly failed to produce any evidence that even enough explosives were used to severe columns on a single level and initiate the collapse, much less the amount that would be needed to destroy the columns at every level, but it's just a boneheaded absurdity to insist that you see any evidence of 600 tons of explosives being used just to pulverize the concrete! How could that much explosives have been placed all over the floors and nobody noticed? And what possible reason can your tortured thinking come up with to explain why the conspirators would do such a thing, anyway, even if they could? Why do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you offer this as a plausible scenario while simultaneously asserting that the pulverization shouldn't have happened in a collapse, even though simple physics says we should expect it to happen? And you claim I'm in denial about the "growing body of facts" surrounding 9/11...

> "Besides, the concrete was restrained under a layer of vinyl flooring or carpet on the top, and the steel floor pans underneath. An improved analogy is to hold a soda cracker between your two palms, and have a friend slap your upper hand."

That is simple too absurd to really waste much time responding to, but I will note that it's tortured rationalization to assert that flooring and the steel pans "restrained" the concrete under the conditions of the collapse. Those conditions were far beyond everyday experiences, but you simply can't say idiotic shit like that, petgoat, and still expect to have any credibility when you claim to have any real understanding of physics.

[petgoat]

121. Nice TiNRAT rant. Do you work for NIST? Same strategy.

Blather long enough and maybe people won't notice that it's bullshit.

Any "explosion" from deformed material is localized at the fracture
zone, and represents a tiny portion of the total material. At the
towers we had total pulverizarion.

Pulverization at the bottom of the tower makes sense. Pulverization
at the top, where you have only five floors falling only sixty feet,
doesn't. There isn't enough energy involved.


>600 TONS of TNT!

Nobody says anyone used TNT

>it's tortured rationalization to assert that flooring and the steel pans "restrained" the concrete >under the conditions of the collapse.

They restrained the dust so there was no mechanism for its energetic expulsion.
Under your theory that the concrete exploded itself through the steel floor pan.

>Those conditions were far beyond everyday experiences,

As the top of the building started falling we had a fifteen story collapse, not
a 110 story one.

[AZCat]

123. See, this is why there is no point in responding substantively to you. n/t

[petgoat]

125. There is certainly a point in responding.

Seger has the satisfaction of making his case to those who read
his post, and making me look like an idiot because of the obvious
clarity of his thinking and the power of his arguments.

Except nobody's going to read his crap, I assure you. It's not a
substantive response. It's a snow job.

Nobody's going to read it, so Seger can claim he dealt with the
issues. He didn't. 600 square foot sheets of concrete did not
explode themselves through ruptures in the floor pans in 1/20
of a second. It's absurd.

If the pan ruptures, you're talking local failure that breaks, rather
than pulverizes the concrete. If the pan doesn't rupture, there's no
way to get the dust into the bellows.

My pictures show that I'm right. Seger won't draw pictures, because
they would show that he's wrong. The soda cracker experiment shows I'm
right. Seger's absurd thumb and forefinger experiment has nothing to do
with reality, and it shows I'm right too--because the cracker breaks into
big pieces, with little powder.

[AZCat]

126. Hmmm. I read it. I understood it. The failure lies with YOU. n/t

[petgoat]

127. More engineering wisdom from AZ. nt

[SDuderstadt]

52. Then where did the air go, genius? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

63. I see you can't answer the question...

PetGoat. Why am I not surprised?

[petgoat]

65. The air was blown out. The dust was not. nt

[SDuderstadt]

68. Do you even notice what you're claiming from post to post?

First you claim it wasn't air that was ejected, it was concrete dust. Now you seem to have reversed your position. Make up your mind.

[petgoat]

73. Air and dust were ejected. Go to school. Learn to think. Sheesh! nt

[SDuderstadt]

76. I see...

you've changed your claim again....now it's dust AND air. Do you even remember your own claims from post to post? In case you don't, here's what you claimed earlier.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=224391&mesg_id=224587


You're hysterical. I have to say, your soda cracker "experiment" is the funniest thing I've heard yet. Even funnier than the bunny cage experiments. Keep them coming!

[petgoat]

78. Learn to think. The concrete is the "puffs of smoke" were were discussing

The air is air. The presence of air and the presence of pulverized
concrete are two different subjects you seek illogically to conflate.



The soda cracker experiment exactly describes the decoupling of the
two mechanisms of expelling air and pulverizing concrete. Most people
have sufficient imagination that they have no need to actually try it.
I see you need to do it. (Hint: it doesn't have to be soda crackers.
It can be graham crackers, oyster crackers, sugar cubes, sugar cookies)

[William Seger]

81. "Learn to think" with THAT as an example?

> "The soda cracker experiment exactly describes the decoupling of the two mechanisms of expelling air and pulverizing concrete."

No, the "soda cracker experiment" exactly demonstrates why your imagination is insufficient to figure out what happened in the collapse. I'm still waiting for you to describe what happened when you crushed the cracker without trapping it between your palms. The reason that's important demonstrates where your imagination has failed you, but it's just the beginning.

When the first floor collapsed, most what was ejected was debris from the perimeter wall and smoke from the fire, because there wasn't any concrete dust at that point. But when the first two concrete slabs collided, the concrete debris was blasted into the floor below, which was still full of air! That air, full of concrete dust, has to go somewhere as the collapse proceeds. The same thing happens all the way down: Concrete debris is being blasted into the space between the slabs, and then the air between those slabs is being forced out. Where is this "decoupling" that you keep yammering about?

For you to keep simultaneous flogging your seriously faulty analogies and suggesting that others need to "learn to think" is beyond belief. Are you a disinfo agent?

[petgoat]

82. You can't crush the cracker without trapping it between your palms,

You can not blast the pulverized floor into the airspace below.

If you break the steel floor pans, you have broken icebergs of
concrete, not a dustified floor layer. Only if the floor pans
remain intact can you create the dust.

The creation of dust and the ejection of air is indeed decoupled.

[William Seger]

84. It's hard to respond to that ...

... without breaking the forum rules, because it's hard to decouple the mind-boggling stupidity of those assertions from the intelligence of the person making them. But I'll give it a try.

> "You can not blast the pulverized floor into the airspace below."

You cannot possibly avoid blasting pulverized concrete into the airspace below. And you wouldn't have to pulverize very much of the concrete to create a lot of dust.

> "If you break the steel floor pans, you have broken icebergs of concrete, not a dustified floor layer."

The steel floor pans would cause the creation of more dust than a plain slab, not less, because the concrete would store even more internal strain energy before breaking through to the airspace below. When concrete fails in compression or shear, it literally explodes from the sudden release of that strain energy, and both the dust and the larger pieces are accelerated by that energy. That's what happens if you try to bend a cracker, too, which makes it hard for me to comprehend how anyone could possibly be that unfamiliar with how things behave in the real world.

> "Only if the floor pans remain intact can you create the dust."

Patent bullshit. If the floor slab is destroyed by having another floor fall on it, a large amount of dust will certainly be created, floor pan or not. When the the floor pan breaks through, both the dust and the larger debris will literally explode into the airspace below. I feel like I'm watching someone attempt a triple back flip and end up in a face plant -- I feel your pain.

> "The creation of dust and the ejection of air is indeed decoupled."

Uh, um... to put it as politely as possible, I fail to see how that's possible, given the sequence of events. The dust is created first, at the very instant of the impact. There is no way to prevent the dust from being blasted into the airspace below when the floor plan also gives way. The air below is then forced to go somewhere as the debris continues downward. The only decoupling I can see is a decoupling of your analogies from common sense.

[petgoat]

95. I love the smell of melting bullshit artists.

You know, I almost resigned from the truth movement a few weeks ago, but
when I see you guys melting down like this--this is what keeps me going.

I drew diagrams of the pulverization mechanism, which were of course
ridiculed on artistic grounds rather than technical ones, but my diagrams
allowed me to come up with the soda cracker analogy.

I would suggest that you draw some diagrams of your pulverization mechanism
to try to show how it works. It doesn't work.

Don't worry about being ridiculed for having ugly drawings. I will defend you
from all those meanies like LARED and AZ. I'll point them to the very charming
primitive art of this presentation:
http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true

I would do the drawings myself, but you guys have so spammed these threads that
it's not worth putting a lot of time into them. I'll respond to your post in
a more substantive way later.

[William Seger]

97. i think you could at least use a vaction from the "movement," PG

You are becoming increasingly irrational.

[wildbilln864]

98. what's a vaction? nt

[William Seger]

100. You figure it out

Or not. :shrug:

[Twist_U_Up]

99. LMAO, that's priceless!! My irony meter just a-sploded.

;-)

[petgoat]

115. Draw some pictures, and you'll see your scenario makes no sense.

>You cannot possibly avoid blasting pulverized concrete into the airspace below.

That's ridiculous. For the upper floor to pulverize the lower, the lower steel structural
floor must hold. If it breaks, you have sheets of concrete, not a layer of dust. How do
you blast the dust?

If you want to pulverize a piece of concrete, you put it on something unyielding and pound it.
You can't put it on a sandpile. If you lever a piece of sidewalk up and put a brick under
it, you can break it into twenty pound chunks quite easily with a sledge.

> The steel floor pans would cause the creation of more dust than a plain slab

My point exactly. When the pans hold, you get dust. When they fail, you don't.
If the pans fail, in the early stages of the collapse you don't even get the floors tearing
loose from the columns.

>it literally explodes from the sudden release of that strain energy, and both the dust and the >larger pieces are accelerated by that energy. That's what happens if you try to bend a cracker,

The strain energy becomes localized in the deformations in the fracture zone. The claim that the big chunks of cracker are accelerated by exploding crumbs at the deformation zone is absurd. Should I sell Exxon and buy Nabisco? Will the explosive energy of crackers to free us from dependence on foreign oil?

>When the the floor pan breaks through, both the dust and the larger debris will literally explode >into the airspace below.

So do these 600 square foot chunks of concrete 4" thick just explode through the steel beneath
them or so they somehow manage to explode through the ruptured spaces--in a tenth of a second?

>I feel like I'm watching someone attempt a triple back flip and end up in a face plant

You're not watching it, you're doing it.

>There is no way to prevent the dust from being blasted into the airspace below

There is no way to blast the dust into the airspace below. Draw some pictures. If a floor cut
loose from the perimeter while holding to the core it would hinge down and break through the
lower floor out near the perimeter. But most of the acreage of the lower floor would then be
unbroken concrete. Most of the potential energy (of the one-story drop) having been absorbed in the impact at that one spot, the rest of the top floor has little left to devote to pulverizing the unbroken acreage of concrete.

>The air below is then forced to go somewhere as the debris continues downward.

The air below is forced to go somewhere, as the lower floor falls, I agree, There's no mechanism
for getting dust into the bellows. If the floor pan breaks, you get 600 sq. foot chunks of concrete, not an acre of dust. We didn't get chunks of concrete. We didn't get floor pans. We got dust and slivers of steel.

If there was anything to the notion that the explosive energy of pulverizing concrete can penetrate
the floors, NIST would have used it. They don't.

Draw some pictures. They'll show that your scenario is absurd. This is why NIST stopped at collapse initiation and didn't want to go into the collapse mechanism. They don't want people thinking about
what happened in there with the floors and the concrete. What happens is a lot of local failures,
a lot of friction, floors tearing loose on one side and getting all tangled up.

Gordon Ross's momentum transfer analysis says the collapse is arrested within three floors.

[William Seger]

135. Here's a suggestion, PG

You've made up your mind you're going to ignore anything I say and just keep repeating this same illogical nonsense over and over. I can't tell if you really believe what you're saying or if your ego prevents you from admitting you were wrong. But so what; if you really believe that nonsense you're probably saying the same thing about me, so here's what you need to do: Write up your "theory" and post it on a board where some real physicists and/or engineers can tell you what they think of it. I suggest physics.org but you chose one. Hell, send it to Gordon Ross. His transfer analysis has been disproved -- his biggest error was counting the energy that went into the concrete pulverization twice, and I don't think anyone has heard much from him since -- but I'm pretty sure that even he will set you straight.

I dare you.

I might even be willing to wager on the result. My only restriction would be: no AE911truth clowns. I've seen a few of those guys on JREF, and I wouldn't let them design a doghouse.

[petgoat]

136. If you can't draw it, you can't build it.

You can not draw a picture of how an acre of concrete explodes itself through steel floor pans.

A shattered glass scatters shards to the degree that its kinetic energy exceeds the amount
necessary to break the glass. It doesn't explode. A cracker doesn't explode between your
finger and thumb.

[petgoat]

146. Draw us some diagrams. Show us how "exploding concrete" penetrates the floor pans.

What's the matter, the draftsman can't draw?

Your explosive strain energy only accumulates at the fracture zone.
When the fracture occurs, the strain energy of the rest of the slab
is released. There is no explosive strain energy to accelerate the
vast majority of the concrete slab.

[William Seger]

162. Oh, I can draw you a beautiful diagram

What I can't do is make you understand that there's no way in hell those thin steel pans could possibly remain intact under those kinds of forces; why they would rupture, rip, or simply come apart at the seams. Nor can I make you understand why released elastic strain would then "explode" dust and small debris through the ruptures. Your "fork" analogy shows that you prefer not to understand the forces involved when heavy masses are in motion, and your "soda cracker between the palms" analogy shows that your lack of common sense. I can't make you understand that all of the dust in drawing 3 that's suspended in air, both above and below the disintegrating slabs, must be forced out of the building as the collapse proceeds. But what the hell; when I was a draftsman, we drew with pencils and triangles, but computer graphics are fun, so here ya go:

[petgoat]

168. Your drawing proves my point, you mischaracterize my argument., and you omit essential elements.

I never said the floor pans wouldn't rupture. I said that ruptured floor
pans represent a very poor vehicle for injecting concrete slabs (as dust)
into the airspace so it can be blown out the window.

Look at your upper floor. Even after it impacts the lower floor, it's still
mostly chunks of concrete of several hundred pounds--not the completely
pulverized concrete we see at Ground Zero.

Look at your lower floor. It poofs a little bit of dust into the airspace.
It doesn't pulverize the half-ton chunks. I certainly can understand that
all the dust shown in your drawing is forced out of the windows, and I agree
that it is. My point is that all the dust in your drawing is not very much
dust at all, that most of the concrete remains in half-ton chunks, and all your
dust does not represent all the dust we see in the photos--which was clearly
entire floors pulverized. Remember there were no floors in the rubble pile.
None.

You omitted two essential elements--the steel floor pan in the upper floor,
and the floor trusses. The steel pan forces the arrival of the upper floor
on the lower in near-simultaneity (or we may call it "soft simultaneity").
That spreads the loads out so you wouldn't get point loads that cause ruptures
in your version.

My version, the truther version, of course, has the floor trusses. You may not
get point loads, but you get extremely localized loads as the bottoms of the
trusses impact along their lengths and crumple. Even under the most damaging
scenario, the lower floor is divided into fish sticks--so the vast majority
of the concrete, 95% at least, remains unpulverized and can not be injected
into the bellows.

Thanks for raising this important point by omission. Something we've learned from
NIST is--look at what they leave out of their pictures to see what's most important.


My "Fork" example shows that I DO understand the forces involves, which forces
Bazant and NIST completely ignore. The forces of friction.

My soda cracker analogy is a perfectly commonsensical analogy. Especially when
you consider that the space between the fingers very well represents the ruptures
in the floor pans.

[petgoat]

171. If there's any concrete "exploding" from strain energy

it just goes to show that it's only by accumulating large amounts of energy
over a large field and concentrating it in a small field that you generate a
small amount of dustification. So your claim that strain energy pulverized
all the concrete and blasted it into the bellows below is specious.

My claim stands. There is no non-explosive mechanism for the pulverization and
expulsion of the concrete. The soda cracker experiment is a perfectly reasonable
model.

[SDuderstadt]

172. Why don't you see if you can get the "soda cracker experiment"....

peer-reviewed? You'll probably win a prize or something.

[petgoat]

173. Why don't you try refuting it by designing a better analogy or showing it to be wrong

instead of inventing goofy games?

[SDuderstadt]

174. I'll stop inventing "goofy games" when you stop...

inventing goofy experiments.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

176. Refute or better my experiment--or quit claiming there's something wrong with it. nt

[SDuderstadt]

177. Your experiment is stupid...

there's no other way to say it.

[petgoat]

178. No one ever refutes it or betters it. nt

[SDuderstadt]

179. Because it's stupid to begin with....

I'm done.

[petgoat]

180. What exactly is stupid about it?

You, AZ, Seger, hack, and LARED lack the structural reasoning
skills to refute it.

[LARED]

181. What?

The very fact you think this is a issue of structural reasoning screams "I'm clueless"

Lets see

Crackers are not concrete floors
Your hands are not concrete floors
Everyone neglects the stuff between the floors like
Floor joists
Furniture
Utility piping
Conduit
Fire suppression
Walls
other steel

PG also neglects to consider that a little dust goes a long way in creating dust clouds. For all she knows the clouds could have only been a few percentile point of actual dust.


Also why is PG assuming the dust was concrete. Analysis of the dust clearly indicate gypsum and glass made up something at least 50% of the composition.

[petgoat]

182. Nobody ever said crackers were concrete floors.

The soda cracker experiment illustrates the functional relationships
of the elements of the floor-concrete system in the process of
pulverizing the concrete and ejecting the dust.

The existence of the neglected stuff shows the absurdity of Seger's
model of the pulverization and ejection process (which ignores that
stuff). It in no way impinges on the validity of the soda cracker
model.

Witnesses said lower Manhattan was blanketed in dust, 4" thick.
That's a lot of dust.

The WTC floors, 220 acres of them, were 4" thick. 220 acres
is a space a bit bigger than a half mile square.

Do you have a link for your claim that the dust was half gypsum and glass?

Oh and by the way, what's wrong with the soda cracker model, besides the
fact that a soda cracker is not concrete?

[William Seger]

187. "what's wrong with the soda cracker model"

Nothing would be wrong with it if you actually used it to learn something useful, but you seem to be determined to avoid that. Instead, you imagine some kind of "palms" that will contain the debris, which have no corresponding analogy in the real towers, so your "cracker model" becomes simply ridiculous. You seem to now admit that those thin steel pans will rupture, rip, and pull apart at the seams, which most certainly would allow dust and small debris to be accelerated through the ruptures. (It was silly of you to point to my diagram as a measure of how much that would be; I can airbrush in as much as you like. It doesn't take much concrete to make a lot of dust.) But rather than admit that you were simply wrong (or just let it lie), you try to save your silly analogy by dreaming up even more absurd reasons why the dust shouldn't be blown into the space below. The floor joists? The pan under the falling floor? Yes, I left those out of my diagram -- because they are irrelevant. The joists can't prevent the pans from rupturing between the joists, and the thin pan of the falling floor is just going to get flattened like a beer can. Here you go, and let's throw in some magical suspended ceiling too, to see if that helps:



As I said before, and as handwaving fails to disprove, there is no way to avoid having a lot of concrete dust in the air both above and below the disintegrating slabs in picture 3, and there is no way to avoid having all of that air and dust forced out of the building as the collapse proceeds.

You also continue to insist that the slab would need to be pulverized in the first impact, even after the obvious fact that it would not has been pointed out to you several times. Pulverization is going to continue as the falling debris suffers more impacts with floors all the way down, and also in the final impact with the ground. (That was another error in Gordon Ross' analysis, by the way: He deducted the full pulverization energy from his "energy balance" in that first impact, when there is no reason to think that's what happened. That made the fact that he also counted it twice even worse, by counting it as energy lost in the inelastic collision and also counting it separately, when in fact some of the energy lost in the inelastic collision went into pulverizing concrete and some into buckling steel.)

And I see that you are now imagining that the joists were indestructible strong -- strong enough to provide space under the floors to protect the people! Amazing. I asked you before what the impact force would be if something fell 12 feet and you ignored that post. It's a shame that you don't know how to estimate that, or you would have some insight into how badly your "common sense" has failed you. But I'll ask again: What would you estimate the impact force to be (stated in Gs) of the falling slab in my diagram, and what would you estimate the capacity of the floor below to resist, also stated in Gs? (I'll give you the same hint again that you don't need to know the mass or calculate the velocity to get the G force of something falling a known distance; you only need to estimate one other number.)

I also see that you're not interested in my wager about the outcome if you wrote up your silly "cracker model" and ran it by some real physicists and/or engineers. Why is that?

[petgoat]

188. More obfuscating straw men from Seger

The entire concrete floor can be pulverized only if the floor pans hold.

If the floor pans break, only part of it is pulverized.

The physical evidence (lack of concrete slabs, 4" of dust all over lower Manhattan)
says the entire floor was pulverized. It also says that it was ejected. The concrete
was not pulverized when it hit the ground. If it had been, we would have seen a pile
of steel floor pans and dust. There were no floor pans.

Your pictures show a piddly ass amount of dust falling through the floor pans. There
is no way for your mechanism to force ALL the concrete through the floor pans and out
of the building.

I never said the joists were indestructible or that they'd protect the people.

I can calculate the G forces, but there's no reason to. We're discussing the mechanism
for the ejection of ALL the concrete in the floors (and not just the creation of some
dust) and you are not able to provide a credible mechanism for it. Stop trying to
distract from that fact.

[William Seger]

191. Keep digging, PG; China can't be very far away

> "The concrete was not pulverized when it hit the ground. If it had been, we would have seen a pile
of steel floor pans and dust. There were no floor pans."

Steven Jones' "meteorites" are actually several compressed floors, containing everything that was between the floors:







> "There is no way for your mechanism to force ALL the concrete through the floor pans and out of the building."

That's an odd and very disingenuous thing to say in a post in which you accuse me of straw men. There is no reason to think all of the dust was expelled through the floor pans. We're arguing about your claim that none could have been.

> "I never said the joists were indestructible or that they'd protect the people."

Yes you did, in this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x224391#225545
> "The floor trusses made a space between the floors that should have protected people and debris--especially at the top floors where the people were."

> "I can calculate the G forces, but there's no reason to."

Yes there is when you assert that the floor pans and joists would prevent concrete dust from being expelled. The impact force would give you a better idea what to expect to happen to those, while your silly "cracker model" has two "palms" that I can't seem to find analogies for. (The impact G force estimate also affects your silly "rake" analogy when you claim that all that force could be dissipated by friction, which was the context of the first time I asked you this question.) Give me an estimate or concede the point that the structure (like most buildings) was not designed to withstand those kinds of impact forces.

> "We're discussing the mechanism for the ejection of ALL the concrete in the floors (and not just the creation of some
dust) and you are not able to provide a credible mechanism for it. Stop trying to distract from that fact."

Stop trying to use straw men to distract from the fact that we are discussing your silly "cracker model" preventing dust from being ejected.

[petgoat]

192. The meteorite is a rare artifact; probably core floors rather than truss floors

There are no pictures of pancake floor slabs. None.
There are no pictures of floor pans or pieces of floor pans. None.

As I explained, all the dust was expelled from between the floor pans.
If it hadn't been expelled, we would have seen the steel floor pans on
the ground. Clearly all the concrete floor material and all the steel
floor pans were ejected out the windows.

As to the floor trusses, you so mischaracterized what I said and took it
so far out of context that I didn't recognize it. I never said the floor
trusses were indestructible. In the context in which I was discussing
"protecting people" the distinction was between having people completely
disappear (which happened to several hundred at least) and having some
recoverable tissue that could be identified. I stand by that. In the
case of the upper floors, I'd expect crumpled floor joists to provide a
space of 1/4" at least that would protect the remains of some of the
people.

Read my lips: I don't assert that the floor pans can't be broken.
I assert that to the degree that they are broken, the concrete is
broken up into icebergs, not pulverized into dust. Only intact floor
pans support total pulverization--which is what happened.

The rake analogy is an answer to Bazant's piledriver thesis, illustrating
the interactions of an intact top block with an intact lower section. It
has nothing to do with the pancake effect that we are discussing here.

Please refrain from calling the soda cracker model "silly" until you can
explain what's wrong with it.

[William Seger]

195. I've already explained what's silly about it

There aren't any "palms" to contain the dust and debris, and ALL the dust that gets ejected into air as the floor slabs destroy each other MUST be forced out of the building as the collapse progresses.

There aren't any pancake floor slabs because there's no way for 4" lightweight concrete to withstand those kinds of impact forces.

There are many close-up pictures of debris that show lots of rusty material that are most likely the destroyed floor pans. They were only 20 gage steel, and they were laid down in long narrow sections, not acre-sized continuous sheets. Like the slabs, they couldn't withstand the stresses they were subjected to. Also, if you're going to assert that there weren't any floor pans left and also assert that thermite and/or high explosive were used to demolish the building, then you need to explain how and why the slabs and floor pans were also destroyed. You ducked that question before, but it hasn't gone away.

Unless you have something new to add, I'm not going to waste any more time rehashing the same nonsense over and over and over.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Was there only one "cracker" in the WTC Towers?

Or, were there multiple "crackers"? That's why your "experiment" is laughable. Trying to model the collapse of the WTC Towers by smashing a cracker between your palms is a fool's errand.

[petgoat]

94. I'm not modeling the collapse, Sid, I'm modeling the pulverization. Learn to think. nt

[SDuderstadt]

104. Jesus Christ, PG...

are you honestly claiming that two palms and one cracker could model 100+ dense concrete floors striking and pulverizing each other? Do you understand anything about physics? Would you try to model the Big Bang by lighting an M-80 and enclosing it in your fist?

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Is "Crispey Jews" a reference to the Holocaust?

I'd love to see you respond to Seger's rather detailed explanation of the problems with your "experiment".

[petgoat]

118. No, I just like the way the words sound. It doesn't mean anything,

My uncle says it, and I want to be like my uncle, so I say it too.

[SDuderstadt]

119. Why don't you try saying it to a group of Holocaust survivors?

Your uncle sounds like an idiot and an anti-semite.

[petgoat]

122. Why don't you try saying "Jesus Christ!" all the time to a bunch of born-agains? nt

[AZCat]

124. Are you equating the two? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

137. Frankly, I don't care what they think of it...

it is a commonly used exclamation, unlike "crispey Jews" which is highly offensive.

[LARED]

131. Crispey Jews?????

Repulsive.

Freudian slip?

[petgoat]

170. Two palms and one cracker represent the mechanism of pulverization of one floor.

That there are a hundred and ten floors is immaterial.

[SDuderstadt]

88. Maybe you should work for NIST....

then we could really get to the bottom of the mystery.

[petgoat]

91. I wouldn't work for that pack of liars and cheaters even if they paid me a million dollars. nt

[greyl]

102. But, "we could really get to the bottom of the mystery" if you did.

Shouldn't you be willing to do that for free?

[SDuderstadt]

105. Tell me something, PG....

was all of NIST a "pack of liars" when Clinton was President or did it happen only after Bush took office? Why do you feel you can just summarily besmirch career civil servants? Isn't that something the GOP does?

[spooked911]

53. bullshit back-- the tower top can't be collapsing in that way as it falls in midair

again, that was the point of the post.

we see explosions coming out from a part of the tower that fell off to the side.

[SDuderstadt]

55. You might have a point if...

you can prove that the "tower top can't be collapsing that way as it falls in midair" (whatever that means) and if you can somehow prove that what's seen are explosions, rather than the muchmore logical conclusion that it's ejecta. You're in way over your head here.

[spooked911]

60. how do you get ejecta when something is in free fall?

the tower top-- or at least a part of it-- was FALLING OFF TO THE SIDE -- as is clearly seen in the videos. It was falling in mid air continued to explode.

[William Seger]

29. Watching videos of actual explosions should help you sort it out

Why haven't you done that before making ridiculous claims?

And what the hell is "fell in midair" supposed to mean?

[spooked911]

54. I'm talking about the top of the tower that falls off to the side

it explodes as it falls through the air

again, that was the point of the post, sorry if you didn't understand

again, the screen shots should help you
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/09/collapse-my-ass-tower-top-explodes.html

Not that you really want to understand, of course

[William Seger]

56. The fuzziness of your wording

... reflects the fuzziness of your understanding of what happened.

The top of the tower is smashing against the bottom, not "falling in midair." With the amount of energy involved in that collision, you don't need explosives to explain why stuff is getting thrown outward. But I suggested that you watch the videos carefully and actually compare them to videos of explosions: Clouds of smoke and dust produced by explosives expand very rapidly and then slow down; the clouds of debris in all of the collapse videos behave very differently. What you've really got there is evidence that there weren't any explosives involved.

As usual, Spooky, your "research" is shoddy and half-assed, your thinking is shallow, and as a result you've jumped to a conclusion that can actually be refuted by your own evidence. But nonetheless, us usual, you will claim that anyone who can clearly see what's wrong with your argument must be deliberately not understanding it.

[spooked911]

61. I watched the videos carefully-- I see lots of powerful explosions

I think it's clear that what happened to the WTC was neither a collapse or a conventional demolition. But there were explosives, definitely-- and there is evidence for nuclear blasts.

Now, the tower top -- at least part of it-- is falling off to the side, and in mid fall, continues to explode. This occurs far enough from the remaining body of the tower that it has to be a new event, not something coming from the lower part of the tower. Something falling in midair is not going to collapse on itself and produce new debris clouds.

This is why I posted this. I was curious as to what you all would say about this. As expected, first you act as if you don't understand what I wrote, then you say I don't understand anything about what happened and that I am misreading the situation. It's all too predictable.

[William Seger]

62. I know what you are saying, and it's simply nonsense

First, it's quite clear that you still haven't taken the time to compare this to actual explosion videos, as I twice suggested. The difference in the speed of cloud expansion is quite apparent. Instead, you must be comparing it to your imaginary idea of what explosions should look like, which doesn't seem to include even a common-sense understanding of how fast the clouds should expand if they were driven by high explosives.

Well, I went to YouTube to see what I could find that might help you, and I happened to find a video that makes the difference completely unmistakable, because it shows some demolition videos side-by-side with collapse videos, and even in slow motion. The video was made by a "truther" who was trying to show the similarities, but like you, he apparently didn't notice this quite obvious difference. Nonetheless, the difference is right there for all to see if they simply look for it, and it isn't going to go away simply because you and he are blind to it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xo9LqeOmEM

Again, what you really have in all of the videos is convincing evidence that explosives were not involved; the debris clouds do not expand rapidly enough to have been caused by explosives.

The "nuclear blasts" theory is so far beyond absurd that it's hard to comment on. Yes, I've read your nonsense on that, so I know you've convinced yourself that those incredibly clever conspirators must have found some way to eliminate the radiation, EMP, and heat that will be produced by every possible nuclear blast, whether fusion or fission. All I can say is that crackpot physics is probably the best way for you to completely guarantee that no sensible person will ever take you seriously. You might as well say that the towers were brought down by black magic. (Actually, that would be a much better theory, since your nuclear blast theory is flatly contradicted by known physics. Going the Judy Wood route of inventing completely imaginary physics will at least make you look like a creative crackpot instead of one who is just invincibly ignorant about nuclear physics.)

As for your claim that the top of the tower is disintegrating while "falling in midair," it is not possible for you or anyone else to see what's happening inside that cloud of debris, but I think what's confusing you the most is that you fail to realize that the collapse front is not accelerating as quickly as the debris falling outside the building. The ejecta that you're looking at is simply coming from the collision between the top and the bottom, as should be expected, not from the top "falling in midair." (That's just a guess about your misconception, however; perhaps if you could explain more precisely how you reached that conclusion, your error would be clearer.) The underlying premise is also totally nonsensical -- that the conspirators would have planted explosives to destroy the top section, which is absolutely going to be completely destroyed anyway by simply falling.

By the way, when I went to your blog, I noticed that you also had a new "analysis" of a photo which you claim shows a plane too small to be a 767. If you'd like to start a new thread on that one, I'll be glad to show you where you went wrong there, since it's so easy to do. I'll bet that for that one, even you will be convinced that you got it wrong.

[spooked911]

66. Ah, good times, good times, WS

The video-- not nearly as convincing for your case as you make it out
yes, the initial squibs in the demo were fast, but that was one video-- and there were violent squibs that came out of the WTC

I won't bother trying to counter your insults-- there's really no point.

I think if you went to my site, looked at the screen shots and read what I described you would know what I am talking about -- and it is NOT the top of the tower smashing into the lower part.

I am talking about the cloud far off to the left-- that suddenly explodes; it is only about half way down-- so it is falling in mid-air-- and there are sudden bursts from the cloud. You seem to know what I mean though you act like you don't.

Whatever....

The perps may well have wanted the top to blow up before it hit the ground so as to minimize the impact as it fell. They may have wanted to completely destroy certain things in that top part-- it certainly was pulverized.

As far as the plane thing, there's no point in starting a new thread. Why don't you just tell me here what my error was?

[William Seger]

70. What I saw on your website...

... is that you are using your imagination to fill in what neither you nor anyone else can see happening inside that cloud of dust and debris. You are continuing to ignore that it simply doesn't look like explosions caused by high explosives, and you are simultaneously failing to make a convincing case that it doesn't look like the kind of ejecta that should be expected in that kind of collapse. So be it; I don't think there's anywhere else to go with that, but I'm glad I found that video to use the next time this comes up.

Re: your photo "analysis," I don't see why you would want to stick that in this unrelated thread. If you think it's valid, why are you hesitant to start another thread?

[spooked911]

75. how do you get ejecta from a cloud of falling debris?

that is what I would like the answer to-- if it isn't explosions?

if you look at the video, the debris cloud falling off to the side EXPLODES. I'd like an explanation for that besides explosives.

As far as the plane-- it's possible I'm wrong, and you said you found a flaw. I generally don't like to start a thread on something I'm not confident about. So I'd appreciate it if you let me know what the mistake is, as you see it.

[William Seger]

80. I already told you what I see: The ejecta is from the collapse front

I have looked at that video more than a dozen times now, and I still don't see any "exploding cloud of falling debris." What I see is that as the collapse proceeds, both dust and heavy debris are being ejected. The heavier stuff is falling away faster than the collapse is proceeding, but it's carrying a trail of dust behind it, i.e. some of the dust slows down and hangs in the air. That puts a cloud of dust both above and below the collapse front, so you can't really see where it is. But the collapse front keeps descending, and it is throwing more ejecta through the dust trails of the previous ejecta. That ejecta is more energetic -- it's being thrown farther out -- simply because the collisions are becoming more energetic, because both the mass of the falling debris and its velocity are increasing.

That's all I see. Seriously. When I watch that video and try to estimate where the actual collapse front is, I don't seen any evidence that ejecta is coming from anywhere other than the collapse front. Perhaps what you need to do is to show where you think the collapse front is when you see this "exploding cloud of falling debris," rather than just assuming that everyone is seeing what you think you see.

As for the "too small plane" photo, your error was ignoring the effect of both the angle of the building to the camera and the further angle of the plane to the building. You can't just say, well, you don't think that matters much, and anyway it looks to you like the plane is coming in straighter than the NIST flight path. If you're claiming to prove that the photo must be faked, you can't do that by finding a discrepancy between the photo and your own bad assumptions.

Here's a graphic showing your annotated photo, but with the NIST drawing rotated to match the building in the photo, and a copy of the plane graphic moved out to match the plane in the photo.



Your "68% of 208 feet = 141 feet" is just nonsense when the angles are considered. To do a real analysis, it would also be necessary to consider the position of the camera and the resulting perspective effect (which would make the plane look slightly smaller relative to the building because it's farther away than the building), but this parallel projection makes the case well enough: The plane in the photo is not too small. Looking at the wings, it also shows that the angle of the NIST flight path looks right.

[spooked911]

83. That's it? I thought you had something more definitive than that.

I figured that would be the problem you would find. I did some tests, and the angle does change the relative size of the plane slightly-- but not enough to account for the large change in size seen.

As far as the debris cloud explosion, I thought it was clear from the screen shots I had. But perhaps not and I need to label the pictures. I do that this weekend.

More generally, in the video I posted, it's pretty darn obvious there are explosive squibs. You can see easily some debris clouds ejecting much more rapidly than others.

[William Seger]

86. "Something more definitive" than a diagram that proves you are wrong?

Obviously, I was too optimistic to think that diagram would convince even you. So perhaps you should start another thread so we can discuss your "tests."

When you label the pictures, please show where you think the collapse front is.

Sometimes it's hard to distinguish cause and effect, but the first step is always to put things in the right time sequence. If you watch any of the controlled demolition videos, another obvious difference between them and the tower collapse videos is that in a CD, the explosions come first and then the building falls down, whereas the collapse videos seem to show the exact opposite sequence. But one similarity is that, after the CD explosive charges have destroyed the columns and gravity is pulling the building down, you continue to see "explosive" events caused by the building colliding with the ground. That's the real similarity that conspiracists see when they say the collapse "looks just like a CD," but unfortunately for the CD hypothesis, it's the one and only similarity, and no explosives are required in either case to explain those "explosions." Those "explosions" are caused by a lot of kinetic energy needing someplace to go, and that's simply what happens when buildings fall down.

[spooked911]

106. I see what you did with the plane diagram now, let me study it

As for the WTC, it's silly to compare standard CD to what happened, when it obviously wasn't a standard CD. And obviously they knew that they could not make the demolition too obvious-- so would have done the explosives in a different way.

[SDuderstadt]

107. So, if it's "not a standard CD"....

how would you know it's CD by claiming it looks like a standard CD? In other words, the fact that it doesn't look like a CD is proof that it is????

[spooked911]

108. lots of reasons-- you know the drill

this was no "collapse"

[SDuderstadt]

109. Oh, bullshit, Spooked....

I DON'T know the drill....suppose you tell us and back it up with evidence.

[spooked911]

112. it's the same stuff you've heard, but refuse to admit is evidence of demolition

very rapid fall time
complete destruction down to base
incredible pulverization
destruction going up and down during the fall
too small of a debris pile
missing core columns
missing people
extreme heat for weeks in the rubble
etc

[William Seger]

113. Problem is....

... (other than "too small of a debris pile" and "missing core columns" being totally imaginary "evidence"), the problem is that the other evidence can be explained without demolition being involved. The principle of parsimony says that you need unambiguous evidence of demolition before that becomes more plausible than a natural collapse. That's especially true when you are proposing that the hypothetical conspirators concocted such an elaborate, complicated, large, and extremely risky hoax, when they could have instead pulled off a much simpler attack using only a handful of black ops agents (who didn't need to be coaxed or coerced into going along with an insane plan), with virtually no risk of anything going wrong or getting caught -- and still had the same presumed "false flag" effect by simply blaming it on terrorists.

[spooked911]

130. I will admit

that you were right about the plane size. Pretty amazing how well you aligned the plane and towers in your diagram. Quite impressive.

OK, now as to demolition-- where are the missing core columns?

http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2006/12/ground-zero-smoking-cannon-where-are.html

What size debris pile would you expect?

I am open to convincing explanations.

[petgoat]

133. The diagram looks good. Check the scale, though. Seger cheated

on his picture identifying WTC7 core columns in the NIST diagram.

My quick and dirty check is that if the WTC is 208 feet wide,
the plane is 153.7 feet. A 767-200 is 159 feet. Maybe there's
some distortion introduced by the fact that it's moving at 500 mph,
I don't know. Or maybe I'm just one beer too careless.

Here's an image I created to demonstrate how Seger cheated by using
a perspective view of the plan to distort the relationship among the
columns until he got the fit he wanted.



In fact the thread is a classic example of bullshitters reinforcing
each others' crap.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=222155&mesg_id=222155

I was confused by a very confusing diagram from the NIST report.

Three guys were immediately all over me saying I was an idiot to be confused,
and it just proved what a nincumpoop I was, that the drawing was perfectly
clear. They identified the columns in the drawing.

I then showed that those columns could not be the ones they claimed, and
Seger came back with this fabricated distorted drawing to prove that their
columns were a good fit.

Finally they had to admit that they had completely misinterpreted NIST's diagram
that they had claimed was clear and well done.

These guys are not honest, and they're not interested in truth. They're interested
in sowing FUD about investigations into the anomalies of the official story.

[AZCat]

139. It's interesting how we both posted in the same thread yet have completely different perceptions.

I can only conclude that either you totally misunderstood the diagram, our posts, and the subsequent discussion, or you are incapable of admitting you're wrong. For some reason I'm torn between the two possibilities. Still, it's interesting seeing you try to explain away what is clearly not 99th percentile mechanical reasoning on your part.

[petgoat]

145. Typically, you don't even try to describe what happened, or mount any argument at all.

You don't address any specifics in the issue.
All you say is "You're wrong."

Your pointless farts waste everyone's time. There's no reason anyone
should be interested in baseless opinions.

And you still seem to get "mechanical reasoning" and "spatial reasoning"
mixed up, which I doubt any real engineer would do.

[AZCat]

147. There's no point in arguing with you, petgoat.

How many times do I have to say that?

And I don't give a shit what you think a "real engineer" would or wouldn't do. You haven't the foggiest fucking idea what a real engineer is, and it is very apparent you've never had even a passing familiarity with the profession.

[petgoat]

148. There's no point in arguing with me because you know you can't stand up to me.

All you can do is fart and mutter insults, and it wastes everyone's time.

Very cute tactic you and Seger had. Seger posts an impenetrably badly written
sheet of blather about her "explosive strain energy" bullshit. When I point
out that it's unreadable and thus obfuscatory, you write a one-liner endorsing
it and implying that I can't understand it.

[AZCat]

152. The size of your ego is impressive.

Too bad it isn't matched by your abilities. Get help, petgoat.

[petgoat]

154. The engineer is a shrink! But won't talk about engineering.

He also endorses lying graphics and won't help Seger write a coherent paragraph.

Why won't you answer the questions about the impossibility of 600 sq. foot chunks of
floor slabs exploding themselves with non-existent strain energy through ruptured parts
of the steel floor pans?

[AZCat]

155. I think W.S. is right about the breakdown.

You've become even more incoherent than usual. Perhaps you should take a break. Maybe reread the DU forum rules while you're at it.

[spooked911]

140. Thanks. I agree.

The perspective issue can be quite tricky, and things can be easily manipulated. I'm not convinced that 2D diagrams represent true perspective perfectly.

[William Seger]

143. I got yer scale, petgoat

After rotating the diagram to match the camera angle of the photo, I simply resized it to make the building the same as the apparent size of the building in the photo, then checked to see if the plane also matched the apparent size of the plane photo. Yeah, Spooky better "check the scale" to make sure I didn't "cheat" -- whatever the hell that means in this context. If you are suggesting the plane is not scaled correctly in the original diagram, Spooky said he had already done that and I agree it is correct, but it should be easy enough for you to check again before implying that I "cheated." But even if it were wrong, that would be NIST's error, so you must be insinuating that I might have cheated by resizing the plane drawing separately from the building floor plan, to force it to match the photo. That should also be easy for you to check, and perhaps you should before making insinuations.

But you are the one who argues dishonestly, petgoat; you aren't even honest with yourself, and your distorted description of that other thread is a good example. When you posted it, saying you couldn't make any sense of it at all, LARED and AZCat pointed out that there were two possibilities for those three columns, and just by eyeballing it they thought one set was more likely. That should have been the end of the thread, because even though it was hard to tell by eyeball which columns those were, and even if you had thought the other columns were more likely, it didn't really make any difference for what the diagram was intending to show. But you now say that you "then showed that those columns could not be the ones they claimed." Bullshit; you came back with an interpretation that was too bizarre to even be comprehensible. When challenged on that (because it made no sense whatsoever), you appealed to your own authority by claiming to be in the 99th percentile in spatial reasoning. If that were true, petgoat, then you wouldn't have started the thread in the first place, or at the very least you would have immediately noticed that the other three columns LARED and AZCat mentioned explained the rendering perfectly. Just by eyeballing it myself, I thought LARED and AZCat had correctly identified the columns, so I tried to see if they would line up if the floor plan was simply rotated. They didn't, but then again, they shouldn't line up if the rendering wasn't done with a parallel projection. The diagram I posted simply showed that they did line up pretty well if we assumed the rendering had instead been done with a perspective projection. That was possible, since not enough of the floors were shown in the rendering to really tell. That wasn't "cheating," nor was the purpose to make you look like a "nincumpoop"; you had already done that for yourself before I joined the thread. It was just an attempt to understand the rendering. But there were other parts of the diagram that it didn't explain, so I kept looking at it. It's unfortunate that I didn't check the other three columns first, but hey, I never claimed to be in the 99th percentile.

> "Finally they had to admit that they had completely misinterpreted NIST's diagram that they had claimed was clear and well done."

You were only one who completely misinterpreted the rendering, petgoat, and I was the one who figured it out, even though it still didn't matter. And whadaya know, after failing in your feeble attempt to prove NIST was somehow committing some kind of fraud with that diagram, you suddenly didn't care about those three columns, or the rest of the diagram for that matter, much less what the rendering was really intended to show in the first place: column 19 buckling when the floors fell away. But after all that, you have the chutzpah to say:

> "These guys are not honest, and they're not interested in truth."

Fuck you, petgoat. But I digress. Getting back to this NIST diagram, there are still two sources of "distortion" in the Clark photo that would affect comparing the size of the plane drawing to the plane photo. One is motion blur, which would make the plane image look longer, not shorter, because it just adds the distance the plane traveled during the exposure time. (You had a 50/50 chance and you got it wrong again, ya big nincumpoop.) The other is perspective foreshortening from the camera's viewpoint, which would make the plane image appear slightly shorter relative to the building, because it's slightly farther away than the building. Those two effects offset each other to some extent or another, but doing a truly accurate analysis is not trivial. It's also not particularly necessary, because "no plane hit WTC2" is one of the most idiotic "conspiracy theories" in history, since that was certainly the most photographed disaster in history. I don't claim to be a photogrammetric expert, but I do claim to at least have enough common sense to spot "truth movement" bullshit.

[petgoat]

144. Seger's cheating graphic stretched the drawing like silly putty

to make the columns line up and arrive at the desired answer.

She claims to have been a draftsperson, and if that's true, she knows
how dishonest this was. And then she tried to defend herself with a
lot of blather about dual-point perspective that wasn't there.

And then they turned out to be the wrong columns!

Maybe if she'd learn to write in paragraphs somebody would actually read
her bullshit. I won't hold my breath. She doesn't dare write clearly because
then the impossibilities in her assertions show.




I was right to be confused by the diagram, because there are a number of
misleading visual cues (optical illusions) at the top floor. Also, a
sense of unease is engendered by the fact that the columns are not spaced
the same at the top as they are at the bottom. I questioned the drawing
because it didn't make sense, and you guys jumped all over me saying it did.
And now she tries to argue that its ambiguity is a plus!

Call be old fashioned, but I think a diagram in a technical report of
historical import both in engineering terms and in global terms ought to
bear some resemblance to reality!

[petgoat]

149. SEGER'S CHEATING GRAPHIC, POST 144 ABOVE nt

[William Seger]

150. You might be just one post away from a nervous breakdown

Elastic strain energy can make heads explode, too, ya know. But you just can't stop yourself from replying, can you.

Nyah ah ah, my NIST bosses will be so pleased. I hope my next assignment is as entertaining as you have been.

[petgoat]

151. Elastic strain energy is simple.

Rubber bands, playing cards, soda crackers.

Dishonesty makes my head explode. That's why I'm a truther.
That's why the NIST reports outrage me. That's why I went
after that hero janitor feller. That's why I'm going after
Kevin Barrett in the Wisconsin forum.

So are you telling me you're going to ride off into the sunset?
Last I heard, the janitor was in Colombia selling his hero tale.
Maybe he wants some company.

[William Seger]

164. Pop Quiz: Spatial Reasoning

Nope, sorry, I'm not going anywhere (unless I get a promotion, heh heh), but this thread is getting too boring.

Rummaging around Spooky's blog, I found a page titled "Conflicting Plane Paths-- Clearest Example Yet?" :
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/10/conflicting-plane-paths-clearest.html

Basically, he's saying that a video shot from under the Brooklyn Bridge, east of the towers, shows the plane's apparent size increasing as it approaches (as would be expected), but in a video shot from the west side (more or less directly opposite the towers), the plane doesn't change much in apparent size.

Assuming you know the approximate plane path, it should be trivial for someone in the spatial reasoning 99th percentile to explain that apparent contradiction to Spooky. Can you?

[SDuderstadt]

120. Why on earth would "missing people" be evidence of...

controlled demolition?? Are you serious? The problem with your list is that all those phenomenom can be easily explained by other causes. Seriously, you need to quit rebunking this stuff and making us liberals look silly.

[spooked911]

128. Yes, I'm serious. It's no joke what they did.

Vaporized people, extremely pulverized concrete, hundreds of tons of missing steel, extreme heat for weeks despite millions of gallons of water can be explained by other causes than nuclear demolition?

I don't think so.

And you really shouldn't worry about what other people think and worry more about the 9/11 criminals still at large.

[AZCat]

129. There's a reason why Plowshare was unsuccessful. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

138. Wtf do you think happens to people crushed between 100+....

concrete floors? Please stop with the nuclear demolition nonsense.

[spooked911]

141. they get flattened-- they don't disappear

there was plenty of other stuff in between those floors that essentially disappeared as well

and yeah-- you need to explain the bone fragments sprayed into Bankers Trust.

[SDuderstadt]

142. Does it occur to you that people trapped in the building...

wouldn't merely be "flattened" the massive floors, but obliterated? Do you honestly think the human body is a match for multi-ton concrete floors? Does it further surprise you that human remains would also rain down on lower surrounding buildings as the towers wrenched violently apart?

It really cracks me up that you guys can't understand why people laugh at your questionable grasp of science.

[spooked911]

156. science and logic

Your grasp of science isn't impressing me.

Think of all the STUFF that was in between every two floors-- trusses, pipes, ducts, inner walls, desks, cabinets, bookshelves, computers, chairs, tables, toilets, sinks, carpets, padding, people. Almost all of this stuff basically was pulverized into small fragments and dust and much of it blown outwards. This indicates explosive force.

You're saying that ALL this stuff would be ground into miniscule pieces by (in the most favorable scenario for you) multiple stacked-up floors falling as a flat slab at free fall speed 10 feet down?

That just isn't going to pulverize the floor contents and blow them outwards-- and isn't even a realistic way for the stuff to fall. It would flatten some stuff, sure. But blow all that stuff into smithereens? It just isn't feasible. Remember-- there also has to be energy leftover to break the next floor down-- we're not talking about extreme force falling on all that stuff on top of bedrock. There has to be some give in each collision in your model. Not to mention that this pulverization is taking place in a fraction of a second.

The official collapse story is a sick joke.

[SDuderstadt]

159. No one is saying all the material and victims....

were either expelled or crushed. But, it's pretty clear there wouldn't be much left of anyone expelled from the building. Are you expecting to see whole bodies? Why?

[spooked911]

160. All the inner contents and victims were pulverized and much of the remains expelled.

most of the non-steel contents of the towers simply disappeared-- and even some of the steel seems to have been vaporized.

You can deny this if you wish, but it's the sad facts that provide extra evidence of demolition.

[PatrickSMcNally]

161. Robert Shaler

If Shaler is telling the truth, they supposedly found identifiable DNA remains of 1592 people killed at the WTC site. Some of that is discussed in WHO THEY WERE. At least words like "vaporized" sound to be a bit of an exaggeration.

[spooked911]

163. Yes, I read the book-- and the point is, for 1400 people or so, they found NO

identifiable remains!

[PatrickSMcNally]

165. Glass half-empty of half-full?

OK, so you're suggesting that not finding remains of close to 100% of the people is decisive? They found remains for more than 50% of the dead. Doesn't that mean just a little bit?

[spooked911]

166. I think the lack of remains for 1400 people is indicative that something extreme

happened-- i.e. demolition.

it's like the dog that didn't bark-- it's the lack of something that is a clue.

[PatrickSMcNally]

167. Not quite

One should keep in mind that what Shaler actually says is that it was the 1500 for which the remains were sufficient to identify. He does not actually say that there were no remains of the other 1400, but merely that those remains were not sufficently suitable for identification. That's different from saying that all such 1400 bodies were vaporized.

[spooked911]

196. Yes, that's true-- but think about how much DNA is in a 180 pound body

and how much the tissue and bone must have been destroyed to not get ANY type-able DNA. I think it is pretty fair to call that extreme pulverization or vaporization.

[petgoat]

169. The floor trusses made a space between the floors

that should have protected people and debris--especially at the top
floors where the people were.

[petgoat]

134. How do you explain 600 1/2" bone fragments on the roof of the Bankers Trust? nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

190. ENERGY

as in kinetic energy, caused the material to have a sideways velocity. Chemical decomposition would have resulted in a much more violent expultion of gas, dust, material than seen.

Note the rapid expansion and SOUND.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Xd1Y62D8c

[petgoat]

132. If clouds of dust and smoke are slow it's because the explosions were in the core

and the pressure wave had the work of tearing apart the perimeter wall before it
became visible. Also note that if the explosive is nanothermate it may generate
a different envelope for its pressure wave than other explosives do.

[vincent_vega_lives]

189. High Explosives

have a super sonic shock wave. That is the definition of "detonation".

[petgoat]

193. Low Explosives don't have a super sonic shock wave.

Nano thermite can be formulated as a high or low explosive.

Interestingly, it turns out that many of the NIST investigators who
were very studiously ignoring the evidence for thermite are in fact
experts in nano-thermite.

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=482

[William Seger]

194. They "studiously ignored" non-existent evidence?

Ooo, that's suspicious.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[aldo]

31. But, but . . . I thought it was the pile driver collapsing the building?!!

You mean, they lied?

[wildbilln864]

48. oh no....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

good one.