9/11

[blackascoal]

blackascoal, do you also have a degree in Electrical engineering?

I have a degree in IT.

What do you have?

[White Doors]

blackascoal, do you also have a degree in Electrical engineering?

I have a degree in IT.

What do you have?

A witty sense of humour.

[Riverwind]

The good thing about being me is that I can do whatever the hell I want, including posting on a Canadien message board.

You could also claim that you are close personal friend of George Bush but it does not mean anyone will believe you.

The GLARING failure in your "weakened structure" cartoon theory is the rate of speed of all three collapses.

For starters, it is next to impossible to measure the speed of collapse with any accuracy. Measurements range from 10s to more than 20s which makes any conclusion based on the speed of collapse inconclusive.

It does not take rocket scientist intelligence to recognize that mass meeting mass slows the rate of speed of the colliding mass.

A supertanker that collides with a sail boat is not going to experience a significant reduction in speed even if there is a theoretical loss of energy.

it happened THREE TIMES on the very same day with different impacts and causes.

Two of those collapses were identical buildings with nearly identical damage. It is not surprising that they collapsed in the same way. In fact, the differences in the time of collapse are predictable give the location of the damage. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why any real expert dismisses the controlled demolition claims. WTC7 was unexpected, however, out of control fires in buildings with severe structural damage is not a very common occurance so it is impossible to know what the 'normal' behavour of buildings should be.

[blackascoal]

blackascoal, do you also have a degree in Electrical engineering?

I have a degree in IT.

What do you have?

A witty sense of humour.

Cool !!!

[kimmy]

I've already demonstrated how the fraud happened without tipping off "thousands" to the trick

You did? Wait, when did that happen?

-k

[Black Dog]

So a plane carrying 8,000lbs doesn't burn the pages of an open book nor burn or melt a wooden stool or a plastic monitor only a few feet away ... but melts giant buildings ..

That photo is from the section that collapsed, which means the offices aren't neccesarily anywhere near the point of impact.

Even though a 757 is almost as tall as the Pentagon, the roof didn't collapse after the impact until nearly a half-hour later and left only a 16 x 14ft. hole .. didn't samage the manicured lawn at all .. left no burn or skid marks on the lawn even though the plane HAD to be flying at ground level.

Height of Pentagon: 77 ft 3.5 in (24 m)

Height of 757: 44 ft 6 in

What they are is evidence of shaped cutter charges .. and they are not caused by fire or collapsing debri.

Or they may have been cut after the fact by rescuers. It's clear that those photos were taken while recovery efforts were still underway.

Tell me .. where is all the furor and acknowledgement by the same community of experts you allude to .. to the new found knowledge that small fires, any fires, can melt buildings? Such knowledge would cause a monumental change in the way the buildings are designed and constructed. Governments all over the world would demand and require radical changes in building construction and there would be a flurry of activity surrounding the massive examination and modification of existing buildings.

Um...dum-dum? Small fires? A 40,000 ton Molotov cocktail travelling at more than 500 miles per hour did not cause "small fires" nor did the WTC "melt". You're arguing against a straw man of your own making.

In fact, there is NO science that supports the cartoon theory.

BZZZT! Wrong!

The chart on Page 6 indicates both towers fell at speeds below free-fall.

I have a degree in IT.

Well, then if we need a software patch I'll be sure to give you a holler. But how does that make you qualified to talk physics or engineering?

[Canadian Blue]

Excuse me .. YOU are more accomplished than Col Bowman?

YOU have more expertise on any subject regarding this issue than Col. Bowman?

YOU were/are a fighter pilot .. closely involved with NORAD?

I doubt that .. and so do you.

Yes I am since I am don't have obvious mental problem's

I run into about 10 different Col's on an average day, and none of them are 9/11 revisionists. As well I work with NORAD so I do have some experience with NORAD.

[kimmy]

Even though a 757 is almost as tall as the Pentagon, the roof didn't collapse after the impact until nearly a half-hour later and left only a 16 x 14ft. hole .. didn't samage the manicured lawn at all .. left no burn or skid marks on the lawn even though the plane HAD to be flying at ground level.

Height of Pentagon: 77 ft 3.5 in (24 m)

Height of 757: 44 ft 6 in

I suspect that's while standing on landing-gear and includes the height of the tail. The diameter of the fuselage would be considerably less than 44 feet.

What they are is evidence of shaped cutter charges .. and they are not caused by fire or collapsing debri.

Or they may have been cut after the fact by rescuers. It's clear that those photos were taken while recovery efforts were still underway.

The fact that even the "big-name" truthies (if that's not an oxymoron...) aren't focused on these "cut beams" anymore leads me to suspect that they've already been discredited, probably for the reason you mention.

Well, then if we need a software patch I'll be sure to give you a holler. But how does that make you qualified to talk physics or engineering?

Haven't you heard about his official capacity with US Congress?

blackascoal is a congressman, in the same sense that PolyNewb is an applied physicist, Fetzer is a theoretical scientist, Hoffman has been published in Scientific American, etc etc.

Hey, BD, what are your super qualifications? I've decided that I'm to go with "experienced logistics and deployment expert" (by which I mean, I deploy food and beverages to customers and determine the most efficient logistics for getting their orders from the kitchen to their tables.) How about yourself?

-k

[Canadian Blue]

Tell me .. where is all the furor and acknowledgement by the same community of experts you allude to .. to the new found knowledge that small fires, any fires, can melt buildings? Such knowledge would cause a monumental change in the way the buildings are designed and constructed. Governments all over the world would demand and require radical changes in building construction and there would be a flurry of activity surrounding the massive examination and modification of existing buildings.

I think that a massive jet crashing into an office building would create more than just a "small fire".

I believe their was a report about building changes, however I'd think it would be hard to stop a building from collapsing when a massive jet crashes into it.

Does the silence of the construction and engineering community all over earth also suggest that you're right?

What silence, listen to what ASCE had to say on 9/11, same with demolition experts. Not to mention Popular Mechanics, the Scientific American, etc.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

Tell me .. where is all the furor and acknowledgement by the same community of experts you allude to .. to the new found knowledge that small fires, any fires, can melt buildings? Such knowledge would cause a monumental change in the way the buildings are designed and constructed. Governments all over the world would demand and require radical changes in building construction and there would be a flurry of activity surrounding the massive examination and modification of existing buildings.

Nobody said they melted building's, however the fire was not the only cause of collapse. Think for a second what kind of an effect a huge jet would have from flying into a tall skyscraper.

I have a degree in IT.

I like how most of the 9/11 revisionist's have some degree which has very little to do with civil engineering.

By the way, what exactly is your capacity in congress?

[blackascoal]

You could also claim that you are close personal friend of George Bush but it does not mean anyone will believe you.

I've not asked you to believe anything I say. I don't even care if you believe what YOU say.

For starters, it is next to impossible to measure the speed of collapse with any accuracy. Measurements range from 10s to more than 20s which makes any conclusion based on the speed of collapse inconclusive.

Are you suggesting that you cannot look at a video of an event and determine the speed of that event? Wouldn't that be a silly thing to say? The speed of the collapse of all three buildings is well-known, documented, and unchallenged by anyone, including the Bush Administration.

Post comment that challenges the conclusion that WTC7 fell in just over 6 seconds, 1/10 of a second slower than if you dropped a 1,000 lb weight from its roof.

A supertanker that collides with a sail boat is not going to experience a significant reduction in speed even if there is a theoretical loss of energy.

Yes it will, and again demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the science. The towers collapsed from the top which would not have created a "supertanker collidong with a sailboat scenario" .. in fact it would have been the other way around.

Two of those collapses were identical buildings with nearly identical damage. It is not surprising that they collapsed in the same way. In fact, the differences in the time of collapse are predictable give the location of the damage. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why any real expert dismisses the controlled demolition claims. WTC7 was unexpected, however, out of control fires in buildings with severe structural damage is not a very common occurance so it is impossible to know what the 'normal' behavour of buildings should be.

My brother .. I can cite many fires in high-rise buildings .. RAGING fires that burned for many hours without collapsing or buckling in the slightest.

An addition problem for the cartoon theory is that the relatively small fires were LOCALIZED .. does that mean anything to you?

Even if one were to believe the cartoon theory, how would localized fires distribute melting/weakening properties throughout the entire building? Assuming the cartoon theory, wouldn't localized fires cause weakening in the columns nearest the fires thus causing the building to collapse towards the sides where the fires were .. instead of a controlled uniform pancaking equally througout the building.

What you suggest cannot be replicated.

What scienctific law or theory supports such an occurance?

[blackascoal]

Canadian Blue,

Nobody said they melted building's, however the fire was not the only cause of collapse. Think for a second what kind of an effect a huge jet would have from flying into a tall skyscraper.

About the same effect a bomber crashing into the Empire State Bulding had .. which was not as well constructed.

I like how most of the 9/11 revisionist's have some degree which has very little to do with civil engineering.

And your degree is in ..... ?

By the way, what exactly is your capacity in congress?

That would be none of your business, although I'd have no problem discussing that with a poster I respected, as I have many times.

[Canadian Blue]

QUOTE

Nobody said they melted building's, however the fire was not the only cause of collapse. Think for a second what kind of an effect a huge jet would have from flying into a tall skyscraper.

About the same effect a bomber crashing into the Empire State Bulding had .. which was not as well constructed.

Buddy that was a B-25, no comparison can be made between a two engine aircraft and a huge jet.

And your degree is in ..... ?

I'm getting some upgrading done, then I'll probably get a BA, and after I get that finished I'll probably try to get a degree in Education and become a Social Studies Teacher.

I don't like lying about what qualification's I have as many people on here have done.

That would be none of your business, although I'd have no problem discussing that with a poster I respected, as I have many times.

So you would post what your work was in congress on here?

My brother .. I can cite many fires in high-rise buildings .. RAGING fires that burned for many hours without collapsing or buckling in the slightest.

Were they hit by a commercial jet as well?

[Riverwind]

Are you suggesting that you cannot look at a video of an event and determine the speed of that event?

The videos in question do not show the entire collapse. Futhermore, the final stages of the collapse are obsured by dust clouds so it is next to impossible to say when the collapse ended. There is no way you could produce an estimate that is accurate enough to draw the conclusions you wish to draw.

Yes it will, and again demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the science. The towers collapsed from the top which would not have created a "supertanker collidong with a sailboat scenario" .. in fact it would have been the other way around.

The buildings designed to support a static load. Once the top of the building started to move the lower floors were nothing more than toothpicks to the supertanker falling from above.

brother .. I can cite many fires in high-rise buildings .. RAGING fires that burned for many hours without collapsing or buckling in the slightest.

Can you provide one example where the structural integrity was compromised before the fire started?

wouldn't localized fires cause weakening in the columns nearest the fires thus causing the building to collapse towards the sides where the fires were .. instead of a controlled uniform pancaking equally througout the building.

I am not interested in rehashing arguments I already had with PN. However, it can be shown relatively easily that any structure with limited redudancy can collapse straight down even if supports on only one side are damaged. This happens because once one support collapses the load shifts to the undamaged supports and causes them to collapse almost immediately.

[blackascoal]

This has been a lot of fun .. but it's getting a bit boring.

I can rest in the knowledge that like the fraud of Saddam with WMD, the fraud of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes", the fraud of the Niger documents, the fraud disclosed in the Downing Street Memo, the fruad of the aluminum tube "evidence", the fraud of the toppling of Saddams statue, the fraud of Jessica Lynch, the entire fraud of the invasion of Iraq, and various other frauds uncovered during the fake "war on terror" ...

This too will come to light.

This issue is a wonderful examination of human fraility.

thanks

[Black Dog]

kimmy:

Hey, BD, what are your super qualifications? I've decided that I'm to go with "experienced logistics and deployment expert" (by which I mean, I deploy food and beverages to customers and determine the most efficient logistics for getting their orders from the kitchen to their tables.) How about yourself?

I'm a sisyphycisist. Mine is to perceive the delicate arrangement of the cosmos and engage in protracted, pointless and menial discussions on its contents. Observe my powers!

Are you suggesting that you cannot look at a video of an event and determine the speed of that event?

Yes.

Wouldn't that be a silly thing to say?

No. Here's a hint: dust.

The speed of the collapse of all three buildings is well-known, documented, and unchallenged by anyone, including the Bush Administration.

Post comment that challenges the conclusion that WTC7 fell in just over 6 seconds, 1/10 of a second slower than if you dropped a 1,000 lb weight from its roof.

I challenge that conclusion.

Yes it will, and again demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the science. The towers collapsed from the top which would not have created a "supertanker collidong with a sailboat scenario" .. in fact it would have been the other way around.

Hi. Meet my friends mass and momentum.

My brother .. I can cite many fires in high-rise buildings .. RAGING fires that burned for many hours without collapsing or buckling in the slightest.

An addition problem for the cartoon theory is that the relatively small fires were LOCALIZED .. does that mean anything to you?

You haven't backed your "relatively small fires" jibba jabba up in the slightest.

Even if one were to believe the cartoon theory, how would localized fires distribute melting/weakening properties throughout the entire building?

They didn't.

Assuming the cartoon theory, wouldn't localized fires cause weakening in the columns nearest the fires thus causing the building to collapse towards the sides where the fires were .. instead of a controlled uniform pancaking equally througout the building.

No because the mass of the floors above shifted the load to the outer perimeter columns. Which would have caused them to buckle inward, not outward.

*I can't believe this guy actually invoked the B-25. The brain boggles.

[White Doors]

My brother .. I can cite many fires in high-rise buildings .. RAGING fires that burned for many hours without collapsing or buckling in the slightest.

The 'Towering Inferno' doesn't count. Although I do suspect that was a little before your time.

Who gives out 'degrees' in IT anyways? Isn't it a degree in Computer Science?

[White Doors]

This issue is a wonderful examination of human fraility.

Translation - he da man

[kimmy]

A supertanker that collides with a sail boat is not going to experience a significant reduction in speed even if there is a theoretical loss of energy.

Yes it will, and again demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the science. The towers collapsed from the top which would not have created a "supertanker collidong with a sailboat scenario" .. in fact it would have been the other way around.

The top 25 floors of the building falling onto the floor below them would only be slowed minimally by the added mass. Anybody who successfully completed junior highschool should be able to see why, but let's review anyway:

Conservation of momentum says: m1*v1 = m2 * v2

m1 = mass of 25 floors of building; v1 = velocity before impact with the floor below them.

m2 = mass of 26 floors of building; v2 = velocity after impact.

Solving for v2/v1 shows that the added mass slows the downward avalanche by only 3.9%.

Even if one were to believe the cartoon theory, how would localized fires distribute melting/weakening properties throughout the entire building? Assuming the cartoon theory, wouldn't localized fires cause weakening in the columns nearest the fires thus causing the building to collapse towards the sides where the fires were .. instead of a controlled uniform pancaking equally througout the building.

The perimeter columns of the WTC do not support the vertical load, they resist lateral forces such as wind.

The fact that one side of the perimeter columns was damaged while the others were not doesn't affect the direction the tower falls.

The center column is the one which carried the vertical load. If it was damaged enough to prevent it from supporting the weight, then the building falls, and it falls downward.

And the perimeter columns (remember, the ones that prevent lateral forces from tipping the building over) act to *ensure* that the building doesn't go sideways as it comes down.

-k

[Riverwind]

Who gives out 'degrees' in IT anyways? Isn't it a degree in Computer Science?

A degree in IT is not much more than a technical college diploma. It is unlikely that he actually had to take a physics course or anything else that would make him remotely qualified to make the definitive pronouncements on science that he makes.

The ego mania associated with truthies is amusing. They all seem to be quite full of themselves and brag about their credentials and connections as if they actually think it will make their absurd arguments less absurd.

[M.Dancer]

Another poser bites the dust

[M.Dancer]

Mind you, you CAN get an IT degree from................

......DeVry!

[Canadian Blue]

Anybody who claim's a B25 will cause the same amount of damage as a 767 when rammed into a building obviously isn't that gifted in the rational and logical explaination's department.

I can rest in the knowledge that like the fraud of Saddam with WMD, the fraud of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes", the fraud of the Niger documents, the fraud disclosed in the Downing Street Memo, the fruad of the aluminum tube "evidence", the fraud of the toppling of Saddams statue, the fraud of Jessica Lynch, the entire fraud of the invasion of Iraq, and various other frauds uncovered during the fake "war on terror" ...

This too will come to light.

Same with the holocaust, Elvis, UFO's, the Roswell Incident, and the Kennedy assassination.

This issue is a wonderful examination of human fraility.

Well yeah, it show's are people can be duped by a few nutbar "experts" who are shunned by all of the real expert's, yet some people still believe the nutbar's because they can't seem to get a grip on the fact that 9/11 was caused by some pissed off muslim's.

[PolyNewbie]

Kimmy:Conservation of momentum says: m1*v1 = m2 * v2

m1 = mass of 25 floors of building; v1 = velocity before impact with the floor below them.

m2 = mass of 26 floors of building; v2 = velocity after impact.

Solving for v2/v1 shows that the added mass slows the downward avalanche by only 3.9%.

There is the fact that the floors were converted to dust and that takes up some ouf this energy. This would have slowed the collapse by an additional few seconds and would prevent a free fall rate of collapse.

The idea of pancaking is pure fiction and that is quite obvious from the video, but if pancaking did occur it could not collapse through the building straight down if the perimeter columns broke during the collapse (which they did)

The top of the tower collapsing down on the remainder of the tower forms an unstable system. The top of the tower could not possibly fall through the rest of the building. As soon as one side started experiencing a little more resistance that the other side due to the "pancaking", the center of gravity for the top part of the building would shift causing more rotation and the building would go through the air rather than through the building because the air offers less resistance to the falling mass than the remainder of the building (which was intact).

Besides we have all seen the videos, none of this happened because its obvious from the videos that there were big chunks of building blown both upward and outward and this could only be caused by explosions. Things do not fall upward.

See Collapse Video Closeup

CanadianBlue:Well yeah, it show's are people can be duped by a few nutbar "experts" who are shunned by all of the real expert's,

You are talking out of your rectum (again). These engineers that support the official version are very few in number and would not debate the 911 scholars on this. The 911 scholars have been calling them out and leaving open challenges. None of these guys is going to answer any questions.

[PolyNewbie]

Riverwind:A degree in IT is not much more than a technical college diploma. It is unlikely that he actually had to take a physics course or anything else that would make him remotely qualified to make the definitive pronouncements on science that he makes.

...from a guy who doesn't know the difference between Newtonian and relativistic physics and gets basic free body diagrams wrong. Everything Riverwind has said about physics has been wrong ! So far everything blackascoal has been saying is fundamentally correct.

Riverwind:This happens because once one support collapses the load shifts to the undamaged supports and causes them to collapse almost immediately.

Not evenly as I have already pointed out. The load becomes less evenly distributed among the supports and that makes a straight down collapse less possible. So you are wrong again.

The top of a building collapsing through its remainder is fundamentally an unstable system and that is just using sophisticated terminology to describe common sense. The instability of the system means that the building top cannot continue falling though the building itself.

[Canadian Blue]

Two members of the group, Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds, left the Scholars due to disagreement with the organization, objecting in particular to the Scholar's rejection of their 'no plane' theories (theories arguing that no planes hit the World Trade Center).[8] However, st911 co-founder, co-chair and webmaster James Fetzer has recently spoken and written positively about Judy Wood's views - a piece by Fetzer on the st911 website argues that the Scholars should now broaden their research to consider the possibility that "directed energy...space based" weapons or "mini-nukes" were used to bring down the World Trade Center [9]. Steven E. Jones and others have criticised the mini-nuke claims.[6][7] Jones later resigned over the issue of the "star wars beam weapons" as a plausible theory [10].

A giant frigian phaser beam.

As for Steven Jones:

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU