you know what's astonishing?

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

No sir, I am not kidding you. First of all, how many other cases do we have out there of planes being deliberately flown into huge skyscrapers? And second of all, you may want to reconsider what we mean by "explain" in a situation involving a phenomenon as complex as this where things happen so rapidly and irreversibly that no one with expertise had time to stop the clock and properly witness and measure exactly what was happening. Think about it:

No one can exactly tell you all of the exact physics of the planes' impacts into the buildings and the exact damage done as a result; they can only estimate it to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

No on can exactly tell you the contribution of the insulation and other building materials to the subsequent fire; it can only be estimated to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

No one can exactly tell you how long the fire burned for and what temperatures it reached in each different square foot of the tower; it can only be estimated to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate.

No one can exactly tell you the kinetic energy released by the fall of the towers and the translation of that into kilowatt hours per ton of concrete crushed; it can only be estimated to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

And so it goes with a lot else that occurred in those relatively brief time periods. You follow?

And furthermore...when you're dealing with a physical phenomenon this complex, small changes in assumptions can yield significant differences of results. So things are not as exact and precise as you may think.

So because no one could tell exactly what happened clearing the crime scene and disposing of all the physical evidence. Then failing to have any sort of investigation until relatives of the victims gave you no option seemed to be the right thing to do.

This mite be the only time a plane was deliberately flown into a skyscraper but the scenario had been considered by anyone who had a role designing one in at least the last 30 years. I'm fairly sure there was a passenger plane that crashed into a block of flats in Holland in the 1970's. It didn't demolish the building.

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

he's just grasping at straws Chunky. He knows deep down what happened.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

So because no one could tell exactly what happened clearing the crime scene and disposing of all the physical evidence. Then failing to have any sort of investigation until relatives of the victims gave you no option seemed to be the right thing to do.

This mite be the only time a plane was deliberately flown into a skyscraper but the scenario had been considered by anyone who had a role designing one in at least the last 30 years. I'm fairly sure there was a passenger plane that crashed into a block of flats in Holland in the 1970's. It didn't demolish the building.

Tell you what, buddy... why don't you listen to the INTERVIEW with Leslie Robertson, one of the CHIEF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/

He talked specifically about how the building was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling at a much slower speed and how it is apples and oranges in terms of the plane that actually hit the building. He says when he heard of the news of the modern, fast planes hitting the building that he wasn't sure if the buildings would be able to stay standing for long. And he was involved in the FEMA and NIST reports.

And the building did survive the impact. It didn't survive the subsequent uncontrolled fire - how many steel-supported buildings are made with 100% certainty to withstand an uncontrolled fire at very high elevations where firefighters cannot get to it? Has it ever occurred to you that the building in the Holland flats case was very different from WTC??

he's just grasping at straws Chunky. He knows deep down what happened.

Nobody knows every detail of what happened, least of all you. You've probably never even heard of Leslie Robertson until I just pointed it out.

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

your arguments are weak at best. So explain to me again how aluminum fucks up steel? So aluminum travelling really fast will destroy 5'' steel columns?



Even after the plane was cheese grated by the exterior steel supports that made the building equivalent to a pencil going through a screen?

You are also avoiding the main points here. Why did it take the 9/11 families 14 months to get the investigation started? Why didn't the gov't start it right away?

How did the media and state officials know right away that it was OBL with no real investiagtion being done? Oh thats right they found the passport of one of the hijackers.....HAHAHAHA please.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

So now they where only designed for a plane to crash at slow speed! I think the interview would be a lot more interesting if they had shown him the footage and asked him to explain what he thought had happened and what he was witnessing. Did he build building 7 as well. Was he worried about building 7 collapsing when it was hit by a chunk of column that wasn't carrying any fuel. One of the criticisms of the 9/11 commission is they went easy on some of the people who testified. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them knew what questions they would be asked before they testified.

Yes it had occurred to me that the flats in Holland where different to the WTC. But it would be interesting to get some more information on the Dutch crash as the flats where made of concrete and the Plane was fully laden with fuel as it has on just taken off. I would be interested in hearing how the fuel burnt after the impact and the effect on the concrete

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

he was involved in the FEMA and NIST reports.

He says here that he didn't participate in the NIST reports directly but he has read it. He doesnt want to talk about building 7 as he wasn't involved in the construction.


[YOUTUBE]WAdcNEa6PTQ[/YOUTUBE]


[YOUTUBE]053IpeEBji0[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]vMZ38mY31cM[/YOUTUBE]

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

your arguments are weak at best. So explain to me again how aluminum fucks up steel? So aluminum travelling really fast will destroy 5'' steel columns?

How many times do we have to go over this same thing? First of all, a modern jet made partially of aluminum composits and laden with fuel traveling at top speed has massive kinetic energy and could obviously do a LOT of damage to the building - but no one is saying that it actually made the building fall. The damage to the steel columns comes into play primarily from the uncontrolled fires, which can weaken the steel to the point where it can't support the load - well below the actual melting point.

Now critics can rightly claim that the pieces of steel taken from the wreckage didn't register very high fires, but they represent less than 1% of the total beams in the entire area, and the fires were localized to a section of the building... so that is just not enough evidence for me to immediately leap to the conclusions of no plane hitting, government shooting buildings down, etc.

You are also avoiding the main points here. Why did it take the 9/11 families 14 months to get the investigation started? Why didn't the gov't start it right away?

I don't know...I don't have the government folks on my direct dial. But that is not enough for me to pitch common sense out the window and start speculating how all of these nefarious things are going on to cover up "$2.3 trillion", or whatever other bullshit people come up with. I really take any comments with a grain of salt from people who always theorize that Mossad, the CIA, or the FBI is behind everything that happens.

But hey...we started this whole thing saying that this is more a religion than anything else...so by all means, believe what you want.

[chunky]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Miroslav there were molten metal pools at the bottom of the buildings!! Pools of the stuff. Not just welding spots. Why don't you do yourself a favor and watch the video that yesme posted. You won't look so stupid in the future if you watch it.

Also You have no way of knowing if it is aluminum the same way I can't confirm it is steel when the buildings are standing. When the buildings were imploded the molten steel formed in pools at the bottom.

Quote Leslie Robertson referring to NIST

"they did no chemical analysis"

[runningman]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Miro won't believe you anyway.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Here's what you don't get: in his speech, Cheney said 2.3 trillion dollars of TRANSACTIONS unaccounted for. In accounting speak, a transaction can be a cash inflow, a cash outflow, or a completely non-cash event for an organization (i.e., simply stated: you're paying bills, you're getting paid, or you're allocating/expensing/amortizing/etc). So when someone says 2.3 trillion in transactions, that does not mean that a stack of 2.3 trillion dollars; much of those transactions offset one another and some have no cash impact at all, so the net amount of dollars is generally in magnitudes smaller than the total transaction amount in question. This is why no one with any business sense got all freaked out by the $2.3 trillion. Every organization has a transaction base that is many factors in magnitude bigger than its actual cash flow, budgets, or revenue.

you know before you said something i never realized it would take about 20-30 years of skimming to reach this huge number, thus showing america that there really is no difference between D or R.

And come on...you really though that the military's transactions account for 1/6th of our economy? That 1/6th of the dollars in our economy were being somehow stolen by Cheney or whoever in the governmeny??

1/6th our national debt was what i said, and in 2001, 2.3 trillion was more like 1/5th of our debt, but you get the point..............now.

And do you really think that there would not be a simpler way for the government to hide accounting issues than to shoot cruise missiles (or whatever) at the Pentagon?

is this the one time you want to use the "simpler" arguement, if so let me respond.

would it not been simpler for the terrorists to fly str8 into the building instead of doing a top gun turn?



would it not have been simpler to just drop down(land) onto the roof instead of trying to come in thru poles/signs/etc?

Did you know that the government controls the money supply and can print money?

nope, never heard of that at all in my research.

Taking out a big chunk of the Pentagon for this would be like using a sledge hammer to scratch your nose; it's simply needless overkill. Occam's Razor...google it

no need to google it, anti-debunkers have been using it for years to get out of the debate.

And so really, it seems to me that you are leaping to wild, unsubstantiated conclusions in asserting that the government had to hit its own Pentagon in order to stop people from getting mad about the "$2.3 trillion" (which, as I've said, is not a pile of $2.3 trillion dollars, as you're thinking of it).

2.3 trillion is still 2.3 trillion, no matter if it was stolen in one day or twenty years. it's money the taxpayer has to pay back, with interest mind you.to assume the american public would of given the dod record budgets every year since 9-11 after it found out about the missing 2.3 trillion(99% of public does not know about this) is a huge f-ing stretch dont you think?

It's the most combersome explanation I could think of for something that you don't even seem to understand. And based on this example of your reasoning, I have to say that my suspicion of everything else you have to say is definitely heightened.

good, perhaps it will get you to do some serious research then, lets keep going on, shall we?

Or perhaps you're just jumping to lots of unsubstantiated conclusions here.

of course it's a huge leap that anyone would listen to the foremost expert on bin laden, about bin laden. who would listen to him about bin laden, clearly he knows nothing.



i'll have to finish tonight, my wife is nagging me to get off the net.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

No sir, I am not kidding you. First of all, how many other cases do we have out there of planes being deliberately flown into huge skyscrapers? And second of all, you may want to reconsider what we mean by "explain" in a situation involving a phenomenon as complex as this where things happen so rapidly and irreversibly that no one with expertise had time to stop the clock and properly witness and measure exactly what was happening. Think about it:

I'm thinking you know about natural laws, so when i say that the governments explaination breaks two laws of physics, i should really have to say no more.

but if i'm going to go thru the time to lay all of this out, you got to put in time on your own research.

No one can exactly tell you all of the exact physics of the planes' impacts into the buildings and the exact damage done as a result; they can only estimate it to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

a pretty damn good estimate in most cases. but lets take the governments estimate when in doubt, hows that?

No on can exactly tell you the contribution of the insulation and other building materials to the subsequent fire; it can only be estimated to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

not true, nist did do tests on recovered wtc steel to see how it would perform. those tests dont help the government theory.

No one can exactly tell you how long the fire burned for and what temperatures it reached in each different square foot of the tower; it can only be estimated to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate.

only because they got rid of the evidence, of course getting rid of the evidence before an investigation even starts is not fishy in the least either.

No one can exactly tell you the kinetic energy released by the fall of the towers and the translation of that into kilowatt hours per ton of concrete crushed; it can only be estimated to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

but you can get damn close, when you have the right data open to you.

And furthermore...when you're dealing with a physical phenomenon this complex, small changes in assumptions can yield significant differences of results. So things are not as exact and precise as you may think.

i agree to a point. which is why i support releasing the government data to independent researchers, and to also fill in any holes.

So how did NIST determine the damage done to the
South tower?

Architect Eric Douglas revealed that it was entirely based on computer simulations.
NIST loaded their computer simulation with "a base case" data for impact damage,
then would "tweak" the input parameters with more severe cases. Why? According
to Douglas, because that was the only way to produce the desired outcome.Simply
put, NIST estimated that anywhere from three to ten columns were broken, then
chose the most severe estimate, because only with ten core columns broken would
the tower collapse in the computer simulation. This violates scientific honesty.

again, let me state that small changes in assumptions aside, physics and the laws of physics are not subject to yours or anyone elses assumptions about anything.

I don't. See, I said I didn't have all of the answers (again, no one does). But according to the reports, the steel components that they recovered to use for those tests represented less than 1% of the overall steel in those particular parts of the building. If you had less than 1% of the evidence, would you draw a 100% conclusion based on that?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/295093/NIS...ructural-Steel See the section on Inventory of Steel Recovered.

no, which is why they carted away the evidence before they could get caught, what OTHER reason do you have for shipping it off so fast?

"Thousands of tons of steel were carted away from ground zero and recycled before any expert could examine what could have been tell-tale clues. Support trusses, fireproofing fragments and even burnt out electrical switches that might have given scientists and engineers insight were lost forever - even before an investigation was underway.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny09_weiner/021002wtccollapse.html

but from the tests done on the recovered steel, it does not in ANY way support the governments theory.

i dont understand what your not getting here partner.

Here's what we do see anecdotally: runningman has posted lots of pictures of molten stuff coming out the sides of the building. That's quite likely aluminum, and it has a melting point of about 660c. We also know that the fuel from the planes must have produced a much higher heat for a brief period. And we know that steel loses its strength at temperatures well below its melting point.

please dont confuse air temp with steel temp, also realize jet fuel was burned up in 10-15 mins.

NIST is careful to debunk the myth that jet fuel raised temperatures to steel-bending levels. Its tests found that jet fuel accelerated burning of workstation contents but had little effect on temperatures [NCSTAR 1, p180].

also realize that a fire moves when the combustable load is used up in an area, when the fire moves away from an area, the steel begins to cool and regain strength. thats not to mention the fact that the columns were huge heat sinks in the first place.

the bigger the heatsink that is connect to what your heating, the longer you will need to heat it in order for it to raise the temp.

And furthermore, you conspiracy folks like to have it both ways, as I've pointed out... first, it was a cool burn and there was no inferno. Then, you say that there was molten stuff all around the wreckage and that stuff was super hot because they used explosives. That Steve E. Jones guy seems to be a huge fan of this. So which is it?

iw ont be discussing the molten metal theory, as it has nothing to do with what i'm talking about, lets just stick with the facts as the government has laid out shall we?

You're probably expecting me to say that the top should have fallen over. It would probably depend on the resistance of the material underneath it relative to any longitudinal movement of the top part of the building...but again, I don't have all the answers. But from everything I've read online, this guy seems to have the most reasonable ones - he says it better than me:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm

only read the first one, will get to the rest later, but as with most, he is dishonest.

Actually the loads are much greater because the initial collapse involved a fall of about three or four stories, not just one

he provides no source for the 3-4 stories theory, and he expects us to believe that ALL supports on 3-4 floors gave out at the exact same time on 3 buildings?

are you sure you want me to go thru the rest of his stuff? cause i will.

[yesme]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

double post

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

you know before you said something i never realized it would take about 20-30 years of skimming to reach this huge number, thus showing america that there really is no difference between D or R.



1/6th our national debt was what i said, and in 2001, 2.3 trillion was more like 1/5th of our debt, but you get the point..............now.

2.3 trillion is still 2.3 trillion, no matter if it was stolen in one day or twenty years. it's money the taxpayer has to pay back, with interest mind you.to assume the american public would of given the dod record budgets every year since 9-11 after it found out about the missing 2.3 trillion(99% of public does not know about this) is a huge f-ing stretch dont you think?

Sigh. Wow... Let me try to give you one final example - a very simple one.

Let's say you're a company that recorded $1000 in transactions in your accounting system during a given time period. Now what does that $1000 in transactions really mean from your perspective? Is it all cash that is available to you for stealing? Not necessarily at all, because let's say:

a. $350 of the transactions represent money YOU OWE OTHERS. It's a cash outflow.

b. $400 of the transactions represent money YOU GET FROM OTHERS. It's a cash inflow.

c. $250 of the transactions have NO CASH IMPACT AT ALL; they are income statement-to-balance sheet moves of past cash inflows or outflows such as accruals, prepaids, etc.

On an ABSOLUTE TRANSACTION BASIS, it's $350 + $400 + 250 = $1000

On a NET CASH BASIS to your company, it's -$350 + $400 = $50.

"$1000 in transactions" over a period of time does not at all necessarily mean "$1000 in cash" available to you during that time! Comprende?

And the military is not a for-profit organization, so it's safe to assume that most of the transactions are cash outflows to other military members and vendors, or non-cash transactions. So how are you going to steal the cash outflows? Well, I supposed you could just not pay your bills... but vendors tend to notice when you don't do that and they make a big public stink and sue you. You could steal some of the money coming in, but notice that it's much smaller than the total volume of transactions recorded. And the non-cash transactions...well, there's no cash there to steal.

And that's why no one is shocked about the "missing $2.3 trillion" is because everyone else understands what you don't: that the volume of total transactions tells you next to nothing about the net cash magnitude available at any given time, and that embezzling the magnitude of 1/6th of the nation's GDP is a ridiculous notion. All it really tells you is that their accounting system is really shitty and disorganized. The military does not even have 1/6th of GDP sitting around in cash to embezzle.

If you really wanted to "steal" money in such magnitudes, why not just do something simpler like have the Fed and the US Mint print out more money? (this is what they do, by the way - inflation is essentially a "hidden" tax levied on people by the government).

Furthermore, if those guys were stealing $2.3 trillion, do you think they would be so stupid as to announce it in a speech?? They would just shut up about it and fake the accounting records forever.

would it not been simpler for the terrorists to fly str8 into the building instead of doing a top gun turn?

You know...I can for instance show you testimony of a very experienced commercial pilot who says that executing that maneuver would not require any sort of "top gun" skills... but what's the point?

of course it's a huge leap that anyone would listen to the foremost expert on bin laden, about bin laden. who would listen to him about bin laden, clearly he knows nothing.

It's not implausible. After all, you ignore the majority opinion of thousands of experts who have studied the 9-11 events and focus on the few ones like Steven E. Jones who say what you want to hear.

Look, this is all going nowhere fast... We started saying that you'd not speculate on how this happened and would just show evidence, and now we've seen you suggest all sorts of highly questionable, unsubstantiated speculative theories based on extremely bad reasoning of how the government announced in a speech that it is stealing 1/6th of the nation's GDP in cash and that the only way they could keep the word from getting out is to cook up a very visible, complex scheme to blow up a part of the Pentagon... Sorry, but I can't take that seriously.

What's the point of even continuing with this? I feel sillier every time I come back here and read more of this stuff, and I don't have the time to keep dealing with it... if you still don't get my simple point with the $2.3 trillion transactions, then you'll never get it... And at any rate, I'm sure there is nothing I could say or show that could ever change your opinion, anyways. So just believe whatever you want to believe...peace out.

[Miroslav]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

but from the tests done on the recovered steel, it does not in ANY way support the governments theory.

i dont understand what your not getting here partner.

I'm getting that you're not getting that it was less than 1% of the steel and therefore impossible to conclude a whole lot from it. And I'm not confusing air temp with steel temp...I know that the jet fuel itself only burned briefly (as I said)...and I also think that your opinions on how the combustible load of the fires changed is highly speculative.

But what you maybe didn't recognize about my argument is that it doesn't require super high temperatures to explain the building collapse. It more importantly requires uneven temperatures between different parts of the building.

This MIT guy wrote one of the best summaries of it that I've read...my parting gift to you:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html

It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

Read that last paragraph several times and note that it does not call form extremely high temperatures throughout the floors to "melt" anything. And it is actually quite consistent with the ability to discover fairly low temperatures in the steel samples, particularly if your sample covers less than 1% of the area's steel.

If I ever see more overwhelming and definitive evidence about controlled demolitions, $2.3 trillion stolen, cruise missiles fired into the Pentagon, etc., then I will change my opinion. But until that time - no offense - I trust this guy's expertise and theorizing a lot more than yours.

...and I'm out. Have fun, guys.

[floridaorange]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^ So, essentially once the integrity of the 1% of steel gave way, the weight of the top of the building collapsing forced the floor below it and the floor below it, and so on, to collapse.
This specific part of the debate seems like a moot point now.