Press Conference Yesterday (9/9/10) on 9/11 findings

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

No way am I giving you the name I used (my first and my mothers maiden) as I want my details to remain ... proof they do not check ...

But you had to use borrowed credentials anyway... so, really... yours is only proof that they don't check that the credentials are tied to the right name.

Oh! rubbish ... there proceedure is plainly flawed, deeply so ... I pointed that out ... how in Gods name that is a "strawman" is beyond me.

Strawman because you're attacking YOUR argument not mine.... you do it so much I'm not surprised you don't realize any more.

Grow up B'man ... their proceedure is flawed ... showing that is not some sort of debate tactic, it is a FACTUAL thing !!!

Yes, because they don't have 'consensus' the science is flawed.

A "presentation tool" is still NOT how real, good, articulate science is demonstrated.

No, but once the science is done and you're making a presentation of the findings, does NOT detract from the facts that experimentation and observation contradicts NIST's hypothesis. Therefore NIST IS WRONG. End of story.

They did NOT change things because people make semantic points ... they change them because they got proven WRONG ???

Because the WORD they used to describe the effect is wrong... that is all.
So, being wrong because of a word used is arguing semantics... nothing more. No matter how many pages you spend spinning that to be something else doesn't change that it's purely semantics.

By failing in that they show themselves to be fraudulent and low standard scientists ... they lost credibility before they even started.

Remember when Jones got fired for making his scientific paper about the metal spheres?? Whose credibility does that detract from?

Why does that not tell you something about their underlying "raison d'être" ... that the whole movement is about appealing to non-scientific thinkers and wholly "avoiding" the known method of proving scientific theories or evidence ???

Because 90+% of the population are not scientific thinkers... but I also gotta question why the debunkers ONLY focus on gage and not the several dozen PEER_RVIEWED papers that he has linked on his site??
Why you focus on the powerpoint and not the science behind it??

Why you'll use principles of physics like momentum, while forgetting different laws of physics that once applied cause the 'theory' to violate observable facts and experimentation??

That's because the anti-truths are exactly that/... NOT interested in truth. Pro-government lies and propaganda. You point out areas where they are wrong, and then chastise them for correcting their mistakes... why are you not holding NIST to the same standard?? (answer : Their REPUTATION gives their argument weight, though I expect you'll deny this.)

In nine years they have deliberately AVOIDED legitimate rigourous peer-review like the plague ... WHY B'man ???

Wrong... you've been on the site, you've done your best to debunk them... why are you intentionally ignoring those peer-reviewed papers??

And NIST did in fact present to science ... they published a proper scientific report which has been CITED (a guarantee of veracity in science) in many other reports, articles and conference proceedings !![/quote!]

Like I've pointed out before... NIST in ANY other case has done good work... SO, because of their built up reputation people will look past the video evidence that shows the contrary to their theory, and they trust NIST to have performed the proper experimentation to validate their hypothesis.

That this continues to be ignored in the face of such simple to debunk ways amazes me...

Rubbish ... "paths of least resistance" IS an electrical concept ... as gravity has no "paths", just down ... always down !!!

As for the guff about a chair ... that takes no account of scale.

Scale matters !!!

You're deliberately missing the point here... and you're making this another strawman... nobody IS SAYING gravity is taking a path. You are though. Why are you knowingly and deliberately trying to confuse these issues??

You KNOW that we're talking about the path the OBJECT will take, not the path GRAVITY will take. Gravity CAN be used to project something horizontally... that doesn't mean that GRAVITY changes... no matter how much you try to make it like that's what anyone is trying to say...

Your contradicting yourself ... not a few words ago you said it did !!!

No... there's NOT ANY contradiction, beyond your attempt to confuse gravity and the objects gravity is exerting it's force onto.

Wrong ... no semantics, for it it the twoof camp that has been loudly and vociferously shouting "own footprint" for years ... do not deny it !!!

I'm NOT denying it... but it's a semantic argument, OF COURSE debris is going to fall beyond the footprint of the building, especially with 110 floors or debris piled up.

Which video "analysis" ... a twoofer one ... like "that" counts in the real world !!!

So, if NIST showed the same analysis it would count, but because (insert ad hom here) it's not??

Again, calling you out.

Did the falling section just hover instead ... it clearly hit/fell/whatever semantic wording you wish the lower ... that is collision !!!

Do you actually believe your own nonsense?? Throw jargon around and hope it sticks time, eh??

YES, the building DROPPED... BUT there was NO collision. The floor below had been displaced and so instead of a reduction in acceleration rate, the building continued at the SAME RATE. Like with your famous verinage, the acceleration rate is around 60-70% of gravity UNTIL it starts crushing the lower section of the building, then that acceleration rate drops to 40 or less% of gravity. It's measurable EVEN with the links you posted. Instead, the towers collapsed smoothly with 60% of gravities acceleration, meaning there was 40% of that energy in 'work' crushing offices, desks, dividing walls, etc...

Yes, B'man because using SPECUALTIVE news report during the chaos of the day is absolute truth ... and you say I'm using a strawman !!!

Actually, this is a strawman in itself. The second clip was the police talking to the command over the radio saying they arrested the 2 men, and after the chase the van exploded. No speculation. I even gave you the timestamps.

Regardless my point that eyewitness accounts (whether real or turning out to be wild speculation brought about by fear and panic) are STILL not "characteristics" of explosives.

Stop dodging ... Gage in his moronic list said HIMSELF that eyewitness reports are characteristic of explosive demolition ... that is the real strawman here !!!

Besides, please explain exactly how explosions in a VAN somehow prove explosion INSIDE a building ???

First, YOURS is the strawman, because you're saying the 'eyewitnesses' are not a characteristic... instead of the WITNESSED effect of explosions within the building.

Second, it proves that there were secondary explosives... something denied by NIST... and all the anti-truths, and puts validity to the eyewitness accounts, that you'll only give to those that don't say something opposing the official view.

Chandler is a moron whose equations are waaay off !!!

But the experimentation supports his claims... so, what does that say??

Your right I don't "like" them ... they have shown themselves to be charlatans speaking FAR FAR FAR outside their spheres of expertise ... I find that dodgy, for they fail in authority ... but I mostly do not like them for they are fleecing money from people to fund a petition that will, most likely, NEVER end ... and ****ting on the memory of those that suffered that day !!!

Why should I like frauds ???

But you ignore the rest of them claiming they are all fake ... and the peer-reviewed papers they've written... who gage as the public face then takes and presents to audiences around the world... but because he's making presentations he gets debunked...

Concrete whilst strong in compression is known as a BRITTLE substance ... your personal little "BAHAHAHAHA!!!!" counts for nothing, because you have given no further information regarding the type, thickness and context of concrete in this account.

I laugh because you make it sound MUCH more brittle then it is... distorting reality to suit your views. I didn't clarify further, because I don't have the specific information of the mixture of the concrete...

The concrete used in the WTC floor-pans was LIGHTWEIGHT and in a thin layer just 4" thick ... much easier to pulverise than other types of concrete ... my point stands !!!

No, the concrete mix at 4-6" (because of the metal form the concrete is poured onto has ~\_/~\_/ type of formation). You're making a false assumption though, that 'thinner = weaker'... the thinner pours are because of a stronger composition and that it ties into the metal form, which is resting on a horizontal truss system... In most concrete buildings it's an 8-12" (used to require 18"), that have rebar reinforcement.

The actual strength of the concrete is only modestly weaker with a 4"-6" resting on a truss then a free standing 8-12" reinforced with rebar, BUT because it rests on a truss system becomes just as strong as the thicker pours. Ask a concrete company in your area.

Oh, and the other modest misunderstanding... the only places that have thicker concrete are mechanical floors, because of the weight of the machines. Those floors were poured double-thickness.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

No, B'man if you don't even know and use the right "buzzwords", how can anyone trust your grasp further ... by not even using the correct terminology is shows you do not know the subject ... it is not a semantic point ... it show an articulation with the subject at hand.

BUT by focusing ON the buzzwords rather then the physical reality, the argument is on the semantics rather then the facts... you're debunking the map not the terrain.

What exactly is "anal" about using factual points ???

Factual points of semantics being brought up to levels that can only be described as anal.

Oh! yes it does B'man, for years Da Twoof have been loudly shouting "squibs, squibs, demolition squibs ... inside jobby-jobby pwoof" ... now they are back-tracking to isolated ejections and you think that still means demoltion squibs.

Way to go defending an obvious retraction !!!

No... it's a simple semantic correction to say that there are 'ejections' that could be squibs but COULD be something else that is unknown... that's a level of honesty that goes beyond the government apologists. Where you call it 'back tracking' I call it being more specific... now instead of saying 'looks like squibs', it's being more accurately described as 'isolated ejections', which you'll simultaneously describe as the debris projected from the collapsing structure... which is a lie on your part because YOU KNOW that this is two different effects.

Again, it's a matter of semantics... nothing more.

How so ???

It is entirely RELEVANT ... for if the visible puffs are some sort of demolition squib ... there are TOO FEW by many magnitudes !!!

Buildings the size and weight of the WTC Towers can simply not be taken down by the very few "squibs" seen ... end of !!!

But it's a strawman to say that it's argued that those are CAUSING the building to collapse... nobody has said that. People HAVE compared these ejections / squibs TO those that are visible in known controlled demolitions.

Yes B'man, we do not know the "exact" origins of those isolated ejections but we do know Boyles Law and those isolated ejections act exactly as predicted according to said law !!!

Scientific principle shows that a descending mass will compress the air held within unless in an open structure.

Yes... but you're deliberately missing the point that makes this air pressure invalidated... that is the OBSERVED fact that there is supposed 'pressure buidup' through an area that has a pressure relief.

Why so ???

In what direction is the descending mass coming ... that's correct ... down ... so for what possible reason would air pressure not be down too ???

Did you expect it to go up ???

No, I wouldn't expect it to go up, but at parts IT DOES GO UP. that's why the hypothesis is wrong because observation shows otherwise. I've tried to explain this no less then 50 times, linked to the video no less then 10 times, and still you're trying to say it's boyle's law, when the observation shows that this cannot be the case because these ejections are coming out in a way that defies it being pressure... which is that at points it's observed these ejections going UP TOWARDS the collapse wave.

SO, once again, boyle's law in this case is being used to explain a situation comparable to blowing up a previously popped balloon. If there's pressure release then you can't have any significant pressure buildup.

So, this air pressure theory is violated by the observable facts.

(Btw, you can still use the syringe)

Yes, but only once you've got the stopper past the hole in the side... but what you're trying to pass off is like saying that in spite of the hole that you could buildup pressure enough to make a second hole, in spite of the first hole acting as a pressure relief.

What's this habit of calling every argument a strawman ... WTF are you on about ... what would be the point of "squibs" if not to cause structural failure.

Because you continuously invalidate YOUR arguments rather then the presented arguments... that's the definition of a straw man.

Look how long you defended your poor understanding of how missiles work regarding the Pentagon damage, that despite absolute plethoras of articulate information showing no missile ... you came back with some really nonsensical arguments because you just want it to be so, a missile at the Pentagon ... no matter how illogical it fitted you needed to negate real information, so you automatically just argued against ... and mostly from ignorance.

No, for the majority of that time I was defending how INCONCLUSIVE EITHER case was... I also argued that it was IRRELEVANT to the totality of the information because the pentagon attack even being as described did not change that it was an inside job... So, your point here is another fallacious argument, putting words into my mouth...

And you keep calling me the strawman ...

Bercause YOUR CONSTANTLY attacking the wrong argument... constantly. I'll say A, you come back and say A+1 is false because of X... which would be fine if I was arguing A+1 rather then A.

That you've demonstrated that you're smart enough to know the difference shows that you're doing this deliberately and dishonestly.

Prove it ... I know you can't and won't ... for NOTHING about those defy any part of the science of fluid dynamics.

This is just drivel B'man ... it's not even coherent.

Air is EASILY COMPRESSABLE ... what about that do you not understand !!!

Again, I NEVER SAID THAT... you're attacking YOUR argument, not mine... So yes, you're making a fallacious argument... I'll keep pointing these out until you start addressing the points not YOUR version of my points.

Air pressure is the FORCE exerted by the WEIGHT of a COLUMN of AIR above a particular location.

A column of air 1 SQUARE INCH measured from sea level to the top of the atmosphere would weigh approximately 14.7 POUNDS.

Making I standard atmosphere (1atm) = 14.7 pounds per square inch (14.7 psi)

14.7 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH.

Pressure x Volume is a CONSTANT ... so if you HALVE the volume, you DOUBLE the pressure.

Cram twice as much air into one floor as was initially there and you will achieve a pressure of 2atm = 29.4psi which is therefore equal to 14.7psi of OVERPRESSURE ... and so forth !!!

Volume is ALWAYS inversely proportional to pressure ... it is not hard to do.

So for you to say it is impossible is nonsense B'man ... air is EASILY compressible and even if some dropped can easily be raise again.

It's impossible because you're neglecting the pressure release... You cannot blow up a balloon with a hole in it...not without blocking the hole... and because the ejections happen BEFORE the building collapses, as well as in a sequence that violates this concept that it is air pressure... it can be concluded that IT IS NOT AIR PRESSURE BUT SOMETHING ELSE!!!!

Show me where I am "lying" ... that is a completely libelous, for it is a known FACT that if you halve the volume you double the pressure.

Gravity - You know that the OBJECT follows the path of least resistance to gravity (so, if you have a 4 legged chair, and pull out the legs the LEAST resistance to gravity is the side with no legs, exception counter-balancing OR so that you're so close to the structural limit that the remaining legs fail (not the case with the WTC either way)). Then you lie and say that people are arguing that it's gravity taking paths.

Just to provide one example of your lies... and libel is only a charge if it's inaccurate...

That is a known, established and proven scientific fact since 1662.

I told no lie there B'man ...

I didn't say you were lying about boyles law... another fallacious / strawman argument. I'm sure if I point these out enough times you might start attacking the actual points rather then your version of my points.

 

[505]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

Ok, I'll explain it like this :
The main 9-11 inside trader went and purchased options on multiple companies

Prove it.

...SO, BECAUSE this suspect did not 'profit' he did not meet the conditions the FBI had set forth to investigate profiteers.

Uhm... the report specifically mentioned that the person responsible for the UAL puts was investigated. You say that this person was responsible for 90% of the suspicious trading, and that he was NOT investigated. Why do they say he was investigated if he wasn't? Where did you get the information that he was not investigated?

It's like, lets say your security system at home is ONLY hooked up to the doors of the house... if someone broke in through a window they would not be creating the conditions for the alarm to go off.

Your analogies still suck. Sorry but they do.

but the reality is that this is false, that those 115000 shares were put options.

Prove it.

Ok... the BBC presenter did not say 'it's on the verge of collapse' she reported IT DID COLLAPSE INTO IT"S OWN FOOTPRINT.

Stop LYING. Nowhere in that report did she say the words "INTO IT'S OWN FOOTPRINT" Nowhere. You deliberately spin stuff into things that absolutely did NOT happen. Time and time again you embellish things. Stop.

This was 20 min BEFORE it collapsed... so, that MEANS that SOMEONE gave the report that the building HAD COLLAPSED and HOW IT COLLAPSED BEFORE it actually did collapse. So, we're not talking about someone 'guessing', we're talking about an individual that had made a FALSE REPORT that wound up being true... can't blame the newscaster, they just read the teleprompter.

Let's see what the report actually DID say... shall we?

- "Details are VERY sketchy at this point"
- "Not the first building to suffer as a result of the tower collapses"
- "Marriott building collapsed from tower debris"
- "Fears of possible further collapses"
- "Other buildings in the area evacuated"

Sorry but I'm afraid that REVEALING and/or incriminating and/or suspicious details are absent from the report. I have asked you this before, but do you ever actually source check anything? You seem to parrot the conspiracy whackos and their sites/vids pretty consistently, and many times you "remember stuff" that wasn't there or you have the entire gist backwards from reality.

So. When was the last time you actually watched the BBC report? When was the last time you saw some troofer youtube crying foul about it?

How is this out of the ordinary?? Well... for starters. The person that called in this (at the time) false report HAD TO HAVE KNOWN HOW the building was going to collapse. They could not have KNOWN that it was going to collapse into it's footprint...

lol.

Probably not with a brush... but you don't just use a brush or a roller to paint stuff... and using an airless sprayer, YES... you could put it on 5 inches thick if you really wanted (though the boss would probably freak out over wasting material... even with standard materials)...

Fair enough... this much I can agree with.

An airless sprayer will 'feather out' as you're spraying. Some particles won't stick and will drop into dead space (areas that are inaccessible by anyone short of cutting walls)...

Ok, and wouldn't it also be safe to say that all of these pieces that fall into "dead space" would be of a random nature? As in, some pieces would be large, some small... not ALL the same general thickness?

Not necessarily, because it's still a chemical reaction... and the vast majority would have reacted.

Huh? You think you can spray on thermite with a spray gun... have chunks and pieces and dust falling off in the process into "dead space"... and somehow the reaction consumes all of the larger chunks... while simultaneously leaving behind a bunch of single-paint-layer-thin chips of "evidence"? :shock:

on a closer look, the actual countdown rests on the credibility of a single individual

Uhm. Do you know how many people have scanners? Can you fathom how many people were listening in on the activity going on down there that day? Don't you think in an area as large as NYC that somebody ELSE probably would have heard it too?

Yes, but only once you've got the stopper past the hole in the side... but what you're trying to pass off is like saying that in spite of the hole that you could buildup pressure enough to make a second hole, in spite of the first hole acting as a pressure relief.

Wait. You really think that? Ok very very simple one here. I build turbo car parts as a side hobby. One of the most common parts is a boost controller. One of the key components of my controller is a bleed hole in the body. Without sidetracking on the details of why this bleedhole is important, the fact is that it IS there and it is significant. Guess what Mcfly?... the line with the bleedhole in it STILL sees boost.

Taking it one step further... I have popped vacuum lines clean off of the intake manifold on several occasions. Guess what?... system STILL sees boost. Oh and as a topper... I was tuning a buddies car on the dyno a couple years ago. It overboosted about a half bar and he had some cheap silicone vac lines on there. The manifold popped several lines off, in succession, over a period of about 3 or 4 seconds.

Your idea that a single window blowing out would prevent OTHER windows from blowing out (while pressure is increasing to boot) is, quite simply, idiotic. Sometimes you need to go past elementary school analogies like balloons to understand complex situations.

You cannot blow up a balloon with a hole in it...not without blocking the hole... and because the ejections happen BEFORE the building collapses, as well as in a sequence that violates this concept that it is air pressure... it can be concluded that IT IS NOT AIR PRESSURE BUT SOMETHING ELSE!!!!

You can't blow up a balloon with a hole in it, so it can be concluded that it was controlled demo. lol. Great logic. :clap:

you're neglecting the pressure release...

She isn't neglecting anything. You, on the other hand, are drastically overestimating what a single window will offer as far as a "pressure release", while at the same time drastically underestimating the mass and potential of the falling "plunger".

 

[505]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

(so, if you have a 4 legged chair, and pull out the legs the LEAST resistance to gravity is the side with no legs, exception counter-balancing

Still using the chair? Mcfly... for the hundredth time... it isn't a four legged chair. It isn't a tiny little thing on your computer screen. It was a 110 story building and each floor was an acre. The beams EACH weigh thousands of lbs.

...so close to the structural limit that the remaining legs fail...

Much closer to reality.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

Prove it.

Ok, once again...
Put/Call Ratio Definition | Investing Answers
Profiting From Disaster? - CBS Evening News - CBS News
Operations Research Management Science - Prediction Models
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/cjonline_oddjump.html (cached)
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/bloombberg_20suspicious.html (cached)
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/ict_blacktuesday.html (cached)
Suspicious profits sit uncollected / Airline investors seem to be lying low
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/telegraph_profitsofdoom.html (cached)
Suspicious trading points to advance knowledge by big investors of September 11 attacks (discusses the terms of the investigation)
SEC wants data-sharing system / Network of brokerages would help trace trades by terrorists

Happy reading...

Uhm... the report specifically mentioned that the person responsible for the UAL puts was investigated. You say that this person was responsible for 90% of the suspicious trading, and that he was NOT investigated. Why do they say he was investigated if he wasn't? Where did you get the information that he was not investigated?

Yes, it also specifically mentioned that he was vindicated because of the lack of ties to al-quaida... though he does have ties to ol'CIA-da.

Your analogies still suck. Sorry but they do.

The analogy is to illustrate the principle behind what I'm talking about.

Prove it.

It's in the previous list.

Stop LYING. Nowhere in that report did she say the words "INTO IT'S OWN FOOTPRINT" Nowhere. You deliberately spin stuff into things that absolutely did NOT happen. Time and time again you embellish things. Stop.

Oh... oops you're right... neither of them say that it collapses into it's footprint. They do say explicitly that it HAS collapsed, and even take a guess at the numbers of casualties, but you're right... I don't suppose you'd care to establish that this was a matter of intentional dishonesty rather then a misstatement?

Let's see what the report actually DID say... shall we?

- "Details are VERY sketchy at this point"
- "Not the first building to suffer as a result of the tower collapses"
- "Marriott building collapsed from tower debris"
- "Fears of possible further collapses"
- "Other buildings in the area evacuated"

Details very sketchy, but even with the building in the skyline, they BOTH say definitively that it HAD collapsed...
The clip does start "more on the latest building collapse, we're talking about the solomon brothers building collapsing, and indeed it has."

So, whatever other details were 'sketchy', that detail was VERY clearly stated.

So. When was the last time you actually watched the BBC report? When was the last time you saw some troofer youtube crying foul about it?

You do know that it wasn't before 2005 before someone caught this little detail, right?? I don't expect anyone was ever supposed to bring this up again, that's why the 'debunkings' focus on the woman reading her script rather then the people WRITING that script, or better the source on the ground that called in that report.

Ok, and wouldn't it also be safe to say that all of these pieces that fall into "dead space" would be of a random nature? As in, some pieces would be large, some small... not ALL the same general thickness?

I could agree random, but the sizes would all be relatively small. Same concept as with spray paint... it's not 100% of the material that does stick to the wall, but the actual particles will still be fairly small, albeit randomly sized and shaped... to be fair, this is just a best guess that I could make on the assumption that the findings is accurate.

Huh? You think you can spray on thermite with a spray gun... have chunks and pieces and dust falling off in the process into "dead space"... and somehow the reaction consumes all of the larger chunks... while simultaneously leaving behind a bunch of single-paint-layer-thin chips of "evidence"? :shock:

Wait wait.... how to phrase it better... any bit that is in contact with the reaction would be consumed... I think we can agree with that... but only the smaller particles as the building started to collapse would be blown around and eventually out of the building along with all the dust and debris... any larger pieces that didn't initially react quite likely staying within the confines of the structure... at the same time would have to consider that there were only X number of dust samples that were collected and retrieved for testing... I'm sure out of the all the dust that settled that SOME larger pieces MAY have been in there and just swept away with the rest... I must note again that we're getting into layers of speculation here... even IF what was collected was accurately analyzed, which I'm not 100%, I still somewhat believe that Stephen Jones was only half right, that it was a sol-gel, but probably of a different composition then his determination of the thermitic mix...

Uhm. Do you know how many people have scanners? Can you fathom how many people were listening in on the activity going on down there that day? Don't you think in an area as large as NYC that somebody ELSE probably would have heard it too?

Number of scanners within range * number of channels to listen to * the number of people listening at the time * chance that a person would make the connection that the countdown was FOR WTC7... So, ya, I mean it's possible, but that's why I'm willing to drop that, because while there were cops and firefighters pushing people back moments before the building collapsed, and they said how the building was going to blow up (maybe poor word choice only), that only having the one individual who said he heard a count down...

Wait. You really think that? Ok very very simple one here. I build turbo car parts as a side hobby. One of the most common parts is a boost controller. One of the key components of my controller is a bleed hole in the body. Without sidetracking on the details of why this bleedhole is important, the fact is that it IS there and it is significant. Guess what Mcfly?... the line with the bleedhole in it STILL sees boost.

Taking it one step further... I have popped vacuum lines clean off of the intake manifold on several occasions. Guess what?... system STILL sees boost. Oh and as a topper... I was tuning a buddies car on the dyno a couple years ago. It overboosted about a half bar and he had some cheap silicone vac lines on there. The manifold popped several lines off, in succession, over a period of about 3 or 4 seconds.

Hmm... interesting point... and you may force me into apologizing to I_gaze for parts. Since I've only got junior apprentice level mechanical skills I may need a bit of clarification (Ie : I can change a tire, brakes, oil, and a select few other mechanical tasks on a vehicle, boosting is not one of them.).

First, could you link to a diagram for this in which you could illustrate this for me? I tried looking into it myself, and this would save me from learning all the jargon, cause it's quite a bit beyond the scope of my understanding.

When you say 'the bleedhole sees boost' you mean pressure? If so, is this like a pressure release? Is it an actual open hole, or does it only release pressure once it's beyond a certain threshold?

Are the multiple independent sections that build pressure? Is this while the motor is running?

I could probably put more then 20 questions on this... but ultimately, is this situation specifically relevant? Because the assumption of air-pressure buildup is essentially the assumption that this pressure built up within the elevator shafts and stairwells (both in the middle sections of the building), that as the structure above is crushing down, builds up significant enough pressure to blow through the door, through the section of building, while maintaining enough force / pressure to blow out the window with a brief cloud of debris.

There are MANY issues with this, beyond the simple analogy I had given... another problem is that the structure is hardly air tight... I mean, there's alot of room for air to move before it would gather compression enough to blow out windows. Not to mention that a 'chaotic' collapse wave wouldn't act necessarily as a good stopper as in the syringe example. Further, it's a different situation if we're talking the floors that are in the process of collapsing, which gets confused in with the apparent squibs, but also raises another way that pressure could be released... and that's as the windows are being shattered from the collapsing debris.

So, ultimately, I fail to see how these ejections could be simply air pressure... especially now that it's been pointed out that there was some similar ejections BEFORE the structure even started collapsing.

While I'm intrigued by this concept, and will wait to hear clarification, I do suspect that with that type of closed system like in a vehicles engine, it might not be specifically relevant beyond that it shows that my point was flawed in it's description.

I don't mind being proven wrong...

Your idea that a single window blowing out would prevent OTHER windows from blowing out (while pressure is increasing to boot) is, quite simply, idiotic. Sometimes you need to go past elementary school analogies like balloons to understand complex situations.

Not that the window breaking would prevent other windows from blowing out... more like that the pressure realease of blowing out the window on 20th floor, would provide a release for pressure as the collapse wave comes down... but what is observed is that the ejection on the 40th floor while the collapse wave is at 60... (the numbers are arbitrary). So, there was pressure buildup that had forced through a window (though the hypothesis is that this presure buildup is happening mainly in stairwells and elevators), a second before the pressure built up at the 40th floor to bust through a window there...

Maybe if it was different stairwells, so it would be two separate atmospheres, so to speak...
I suggest muting the audio... terrible soundtrack, but this is precisely the points I'm trying to make.

You can't blow up a balloon with a hole in it, so it can be concluded that it was controlled demo. lol. Great logic. :clap:

No no no... I would laugh at myself if that's what I said, here's how I would correct "...concluded that the air pressure hypothesis does not stand to what is observed."

She isn't neglecting anything. You, on the other hand, are drastically overestimating what a single window will offer as far as a "pressure release", while at the same time drastically underestimating the mass and potential of the falling "plunger".

No, overall, I've been trying to say that 'air pressure' is not a viable explanation given the observed facts.

Meanwhile, she is applying the law of conservation of momentum, while ignoring the law of conservation of energy.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

Still using the chair? Mcfly... for the hundredth time... it isn't a four legged chair. It isn't a tiny little thing on your computer screen. It was a 110 story building and each floor was an acre. The beams EACH weigh thousands of lbs.

That's why scaling up it becomes a 47 legged chair that still only had about 3 legs 'cut'... maybe on the top floors each beam would weigh thousands of pounds... near the bottom each beam was probably closer to tens of thousands of pounds... regardless.

I was simply trying to illustrate the concept that once you are falling towards the missing leg in the chair, you're gaining momentum and speed from gravities energy... TO STOP moving in that direction you would have to exert an equal and opposite force to counteract.... OR to quickly kick out the remaining legs so you fall straight down. The principle doesn't change, though the numbers and sizes of materials would change through scaling.

Much closer to reality.

According to NIST in either building

Well... I can only find tower 2 at the moment, but as you can see, there's only a fraction of the supporting columns that were damaged, in tower 1 the damage was similar but different locations.

So, there's 40 columns, that are still good, (plus most of the outer columns)... do you really believe that the building was engineered so that it the building was within 20% of it's load limits (assuming 10 damaged columns no longer supporting weight)??

Just to say, I really don't think that the damage to 10 core columns would have been enough to cause the rest to fail... of course, the fire... well, beyond those damaged columns, would have to account for the time it took the fire to engulf the column, burn through the fire rating (Core columns have a 2 hour fire rating minimum... so... probably 45 minutes before that's done), and then heat the metal to failure... but that neglects the part that as portions of the building start to collapse, the rest seems to start collapsing with it, almost inexplicably. Further, there's no sign of collision between the higher floor dropping and the concrete ceiling of the floor below it.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

But you had to use borrowed credentials anyway... so, really... yours is only proof that they don't check that the credentials are tied to the right name.

Yes, B'man I borrowed credentials ... but they still NEVER verified whether they WERE "tied" to me ... an easy thing for them to find out.

It still demonstrates that, although they claim authority in having "qualified" people on their list ... this shows they have no RIGHT to claim such authority, for they do NOT properly check people out.

For if they did they would have found out that those are NOT the qualifications I hold !!!

It still shows they FAILED to properly verify whomever signs that petition.

Why are you still defending it ???

Why aren't you angry and annoyed at them ... it is after all THEIR faulure to do proper searches that leads to people like me showing that they lack in standard ???

Strawman because you're attacking YOUR argument not mine.... you do it so much I'm not surprised you don't realize any more.

Rubbish ... stop twisting ... for I am clearly and unequivocably showing they have LOW standards of verification ... that's it !!!

Trying to twist that into some semantic argument show it is in fact you whom is commiting the strawman.

Showing anothers genuine fault, flaw or failure is NOT a strawman ... never has been ... never will be !!!

Yes, because they don't have 'consensus' the science is flawed.

Yes, B'man because "consensus" IS agreement ... without consensus there is no wide-scale acceptance in the scientific field.

Scientists will only agree with stuff they find believable and provable, they show that by consensus.

Just because you do not see that nor understand it does not mean it is not an accepted and authorative proof of science.

Consensus is NEEDED in science for it to hold true ... end of !!!

No, but once the science is done and you're making a presentation of the findings, does NOT detract from the facts that experimentation and observation contradicts NIST's hypothesis. Therefore NIST IS WRONG. End of story.

No, B'man ... that is not how science is truly done.

What Gage and gaggle have done is DELIBERATELY avoid legitimate peer-review and instead presented junk science to a lay audience, uneducated and unqualified enough NOT to know the difference.

They have still utterly failed to present for peer-review any of their work, which would be a guarantee of accuracy FIRST !!!

Then, and ONLY then, can you "present" in an easy manner to the lay audience.

Dodge all you want B'man ... they still FAILED a gazillion percent to prove their theories scientifically first ... they completely by-passed that process ... something which "should" make you wonder why ???

Because the WORD they used to describe the effect is wrong... that is all.

Crap ... and you know it !!!

They SHOULD have double-checked, triple-checked first !!!

Considering that this event supposedly involved the deliberate murder of innocent people. the onus and responsibility lies HEAVILY on their shoulders to make sure every damm thing they say holds absolute truth.

Low standards are low standards ... period !!!

So, being wrong because of a word used is arguing semantics... nothing more. No matter how many pages you spend spinning that to be something else doesn't change that it's purely semantics.

No, it is NOT B'man ... it shows you have done PROPER and DEEP checking and verifying first ... you have done your homework FIRST !!!

Or do you not think accurate information counts ???

Remember when Jones got fired for making his scientific paper about the metal spheres??

Jones got early retirement for deliberately avoiding the peer-review process ... and it had NOTHING to do with the "spheres" guff !!!

Jones took the retirement package effective from January 2007 and the spheres guff came out in May.

BYU professor in dispute over 9/11 will retire | Deseret News

Why do you never double-check that what your writing is accurate ???

His stuff is guff ... even his other professors, better qualified than him think so too ...

"Dear Editor,
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"
BYU Civil and Environmental Engineering

"I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims" "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." -
A. Woodruff Miller, Department Chair, BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
BYU Civil and Environmental Engineering

Ask them !!!

Whose credibility does that detract from?

His !!!

Because 90+% of the population are not scientific thinkers...

So what ... you STILL need prove scientific theories "scientifically" first.

Once you have done that there is nothing preventing you presenting in a simplified manner for a lay audience AFTER ... but you STILL need to have it demonstrated true FIRST !!!

but I also gotta question why the debunkers ONLY focus on gage and not the several dozen PEER_RVIEWED papers that he has linked on his site??

We are talking about Gage here and now ... that does NOT mean we ignore the rest, seriously you can only talk about one thing at a time.

You said earlier on in this discussion that if someone could show that Gage and his work was wrong, then you would stop using him as a source.

This discission is therefore ABOUT Gage then ... how does that mean we are only focusing on him ???

But what several dozen peer-reviewed papers does he have ???

The CORRECT answer is NONE !!!

Gage has produced NOTHING ... show me one single paper Gage has written and subjected to peer-review ???

Why you focus on the powerpoint and not the science behind it??

There IS no science behind it !!!

Why you'll use principles of physics like momentum, while forgetting different laws of physics that once applied cause the 'theory' to violate observable facts and experimentation??

Rubbish, but do feel free to show which "laws" were violated ... you can't and won't ... guaranteed !!!

why are you not holding NIST to the same standard?? (answer : Their REPUTATION gives their argument weight, though I expect you'll deny this.)

NIST do not need to be criticized like Gages Gaggle do ... NIST have done nothing that avoided scientific standard or principle ... feel free again to point out where they have ???

Please do, feel free to demonstrate where they avoided scientific inquiry from other qualified people ... the report is out there in FULL for examination, and a 10,000 report chock full of calculus, differential equations and analysis is hardly unscientific and a wee bit more that a Powerpoint !!!

So please do show where they need be held to the same standard as a pathetic presentation of Gages ???

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

Wrong... you've been on the site, you've done your best to debunk them... why are you intentionally ignoring those peer-reviewed papers??

They do NOT have legitimate peer-review papers !!!

That you fail to see that is entirely your own wilful ignorance ... but please do show where they meet the necessary standard to be called peer-reviewed ???

So far, all the shining lights of Da Twoof have ONLY managed the stupendously craptacular feat of getting "published" in Jones' OWN pet Journal and a pay-to-publish sham vanity one.

But B'man please do point out exactly HOW a Journal set up to showcase your OWN work, "reviewed" ( I use the term most loosedly) by YOUR friends ... NONE of whom are qualified in the field ... is legitimate "review" ???

Do you know what you completely fail to realise, is that this SHOWS how uncredible they are ... Jones starts his OWN personal "Journal" and is identified as an editor, and the journal amazingly "publishes" his paper.

Wow !!! ... such an accomplishment to get your own paper published in your own online journal, looked over by your own supporters ... this journal that was expressly created to push your own theories !!!

Who are the "peers" who "peer reviewed" his paper.

Why ... fellow members of his pro-conspiracy organization.

How amazing that they would "agree" with him.

Come on now, just how credible is that ???

So, in the REAL world, the only places that Jones can get his pro-conspiracy paper published is in journals created by himself and others of his own pro-conspiracy group for the purpose of publishing pro-conspiracy papers written by members of the same conspiracy-pushing group.

Interesting, huh !!!

A Journal specifically "CREATED" by Jones to publish pro-conspiracy papers ... and who, amazingly, is creator and editor and author and you find that okay as "legitimacy" ... please tell me your standards and skepticism is greater than that ???

How legitimately peer-reviewed is all that then ???

I'll tell you ... NONE !!!

Here is links to real, legitimate, relevent, authoriative, respected Journals ... show me where ANY of Da Twoof have managed to get work here ...

51 construction Journals ...
JournalSeek Search Results

116 civil engineering Journals ...
JournalSeek Search Results

282 mechanical engineering Journals ...
JournalSeek Search Results

That's right ... NONE !!!

Like I've pointed out before... NIST in ANY other case has done good work... SO, because of their built up reputation people will look past the video evidence that shows the contrary to their theory, and they trust NIST to have performed the proper experimentation to validate their hypothesis.

Stop being so naive B'man, yes, they have a good reputation but that is NOT enought to keep it if they ever produced bad work ... science is DEMONSTRATED and the fact that their analysis here HAS been looked at globally WITHOUT comment shows consensus in science.

Science and analysis have to be CONTINUAL ... technique and science is always FORWARD moving ... you do not just "rest" on your laurels, you have to SHOW that you still have got the goods !!!

Building codes HAVE been changed to reflect the findings ... so how anybody can think reputation alone is enough it incredible ignorance of how bodies like this function and how reputation is continually earned.

That this continues to be ignored in the face of such simple to debunk ways amazes me...

Which just demonstrates your ignorance of how these things work, outside your imaginings !!!

You're deliberately missing the point here... and you're making this another strawman... nobody IS SAYING gravity is taking a path. You are though. Why are you knowingly and deliberately trying to confuse these issues??

Rubbish ... I am just showing how correct terminology, at least, shows some familiarity with the topic at hand.

Using words at complete varience shows ignorance ... period !!!

You KNOW that we're talking about the path the OBJECT will take, not the path GRAVITY will take. Gravity CAN be used to project something horizontally... that doesn't mean that GRAVITY changes... no matter how much you try to make it like that's what anyone is trying to say...

Objects are always subject to gravitational force ... end of !!!

Rubbish to say gravity can be used to project horizontally ... as that is ANOTHER force ... gravity is always JUST down.

Lateral forces are not gravity ... any object propelled up, sideways will always eventually come under the CONSTANT downwards pull of gravity.

Gravity is really quite a weak force, that is why you can easily jump, but you cannot maintain that resistance AGAINST it, gravity is always, at all times working to pull down ... so lateral forces can for a short time propel sideways but they always soon come down ...

Please B'man stop just speculating about things you know nothing about ... your embarassing yourself here !!!

No... there's NOT ANY contradiction, beyond your attempt to confuse gravity and the objects gravity is exerting it's force onto.

Wrong B'man I clearly showed how YOU had contradicted yourself in the space of one sentence ... your attempting to dodge again ... your not very good at it, I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly
you fall towards the path of least resistance

Originally Posted by BmanMcfly
Of course gravity doesn't take paths

I'm NOT denying it... but it's a semantic argument.

Maybe not you personally, but I did say the "twoof camp" B'man.

Methinks, the over-interpreted semantics come more from you !!!

So, if NIST showed the same analysis it would count, but because (insert ad hom here) it's not??

Again, calling you out.

Please show me and everyone else here on which planet WHY an amateur YooToob from an anonymous source somehow should be classed as any kind of analysis ???

But yes, if NIST did come to the same conclusion it would have the standard of proper analysis behind it ... shame they didn't ... yours must be wrong then !!!

YES, the building DROPPED... BUT there was NO collision.

So it did just hover gently over ... convincing the rest somehow to collapse ... give me a break !!!

The frickin' thing dropped and frickin' HIT the rest ... that IS a collision !!!

Instead, the towers collapsed smoothly with 60% of gravities acceleration,

For what possible reason do you expect the rate to be more ... how much resistance, according to YOUR brilliant physics understanding should it be ???

Why should the collapse be faster than 30-40% ???

Explain ... you can't and won't be able to, for it is well within reason.

meaning there was 40% of that energy in 'work' crushing offices, desks, dividing walls, etc...

And how MUCH more "work" do you want before you believe collapses can and do happen quickly ???

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

Actually, this is a strawman in itself.

And how so B'man ... or are early newsreports always 100% accurate ???

The second clip was the police talking to the command over the radio saying they arrested the 2 men, and after the chase the van exploded. No speculation. I even gave you the timestamps.

But you can't and won't be able to show FURTHER information regarding this, will you ???

If this van actually exploded there should and will be MORE reports, photographs and videos, won't there ???

And IF there were arrests and actual explosives there WILL be a trial and further proof ... so got any ???

Nah! ... didn't think so !!!

First, YOURS is the strawman, because you're saying the 'eyewitnesses' are not a characteristic... instead of the WITNESSED effect of explosions within the building.

No, B'man ... it was Gage whom classed eyewitness reports as characteristics ... they aren't !!!

Eyewitness accounts are just eyewitness accounts ... "characteristics" are PHYSICAL evidence, such as detonation cord, blasting caps, measurable brisance, etc ... not testimony !!!

Second, it proves that there were secondary explosives... something denied by NIST... and all the anti-truths, and puts validity to the eyewitness accounts, that you'll only give to those that don't say something opposing the official view.

Wrong B'man it "proves" nothing !!!

Eyewitness accounts WITHOUT further physical proof is just speculation.

After all in real explosive events there is always a left-over of HARD physical evidence ... here is a wee hint ... NONE was ever found.

And because of the known and common reliance of language usage of similies and metaphors when explaining events ... you DO need more than someone "saying" they heard explosions.

You do understand this, don't you ???

That just because something goes "BOOM" does not automatically mean bomb ... you do know this !!!

But the experimentation supports his claims... so, what does that say??

No it doesn't, his claims are simplistic and take no account of scale ... it says he is an idiot !!!

It saddens me that you cannot see this, beyond saddens in fact !!!

But you ignore the rest of them claiming they are all fake ...

So what, they are all fakes or idiots or grapsing sods using a tragedy for personal gain ... they deserve more than ignorance !!!

and the peer-reviewed papers they've written...

What peer-review anything have they written ???

To date B'man, nine years later, Da Twoof have NEVER managed anything as competent as get a legitimate paper to legitimate review ... EVER !!!

Jones personal site ones and a pay-to-publish vanity one are NOT legitimate peer-review ... why do you not get this simple fact ???

who gage as the public face then takes and presents to audiences around the world... but because he's making presentations he gets debunked...

No ... he gets debunked because he is WRONG ... real science shows him wrong ... it is not any personal feelings against the man, but rather his whole demise is just not factual.

He is wrong ... that is it !!!

I laugh because you make it sound MUCH more brittle then it is... distorting reality to suit your views.

And how exactly did I make it sound more brittle, I just wrote ...

"Concrete may be stong in compersion ... but it is also very brittle.

Try dropping a concrete block from height, guess what, it breaks apart quite easily and makes lots of dust "

... what exactly about that makes it sound "more" brittle ???

No, the concrete mix at 4-6" (because of the metal form the concrete is poured onto has ~\_/~\_/ type of formation). You're making a false assumption though, that 'thinner = weaker'...

I did no such thing B'man, I clearly said it had thinner concrete poured over floor pans without reinforcement and as such is easier to pulverise, I said NOTHING about "weaker".

Falling hundreds of feet creates friction ... friction is quite good at reducing things to dust.

Do not put words in my mouth ... it actually makes you the liar !!!

the thinner pours are because of a stronger composition and that it ties into the metal form, which is resting on a horizontal truss system...

Lightweight concrete is LESS dense than normal or reinforced ... so it is not a "stronger" composition at all ... it has the SAME strenght as other forms, but by having less density than usual it is easier to fragment and pulverise.

http://www.nrmca.org/aboutconcrete/cips/36p.pdf

And I never mentioned anything about strength B'man ... it was about how easy concrete is to pulverise ... it is, and considering how much other more easily broken up materials were available seems concrete is not the only consideration ...

WTC Dust Composition

World Trade Center Dust Analysis Offers Good News For New Yorkers

News Archive - The Earth Institute, Columbia University

Oh, and the other modest misunderstanding... the only places that have thicker concrete are mechanical floors, because of the weight of the machines. Those floors were poured double-thickness.

Funny how you missed out the part of my post where I said the core had thicker ...

"thicker layers in the floors of the core areas."

S'funny that !!!

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

BUT by focusing ON the buzzwords rather then the physical reality, the argument is on the semantics rather then the facts... you're debunking the map not the terrain.

Your the one hung up on semantics ... I was just showing that by NOT using the CORRECT buzzwords shows unfamiliarity with the subject matter ... knowing CORRECT terminology is NOT sematical !!!

Factual points of semantics being brought up to levels that can only be described as anal.

What a full-on dodge of the very real realtity that people should KNOW the subject they are pronouncing and passing judgement on !!!

Facts are facts ... pointing out their LACK of that is not a point of semantics !!!

No... it's a simple semantic correction to say that there are 'ejections' that could be squibs but COULD be something else that is unknown...

Wrong again B'man ... they STILL should have looked at real demoliton squibs before pronouncing ... to later change when shown they have zero similarity to ... and now to go now another speculatory path, just shows they are bumping their gums without qualification nor verification by other known relevent experts.

Why do you defend such weak stuff ???

that's a level of honesty that goes beyond the government apologists.

Too funny ... and bet you have no idea why !!!

Where you call it 'back tracking' I call it being more specific...

And once again reality gets twisted to suit !!!

Your fully entitled you your own opinion here B'man, but considering how often you get scientific principle wrong, I am afraid it counts for diddly-squat !!!

now instead of saying 'looks like squibs', it's being more accurately described as 'isolated ejections', which you'll simultaneously describe as the debris projected from the collapsing structure... which is a lie on your part because YOU KNOW that this is two different effects.

Again, it's a matter of semantics... nothing more.

Squibs are squibs ... anything else is a dodge ... those isolated ejections were either caused by demoliton squibs in relation to bringing the structures down or they aren't ... so which is it ???

More importantly though ... how come Gage and Gaggle can not point out (if they are not now "squibs") what they stand for or mean ???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)

But it's a strawman to say that it's argued that those are CAUSING the building to collapse... nobody has said that.

You jest surely !!!

:doh

For YEARS you lot have been shouting "look squbs ... incontrovertiable pwoof of controlled demo " ... are you just being deliberately stupid here or what ???

"Squibs are "blasting caps (initiators) used in the explosive industry to set off high explosives"
9-11 Research: Squibs

"There appears to be an explosion or squib ejection that is way below where the first plane impacted!! It is also prior to either tower collapse!"
Explosion/Squib seen in newly available 9/11 video prior to either tower collapse!!?? | 911Blogger.com

"A squib is a demolition term for the unique plume of smoke seen immediately after an explosion."

People HAVE compared these ejections / squibs TO those that are visible in known controlled demolitions.

Your twisting again, for twoofers say those ARE squibs ... this is you just being revisionist with the reality B'man, for there are thousands of images and videos out there from every shade of twoofer going whom all loudly say ARE ... not just "comparable"

9/11 squib evidence photographs - Google Search
9/11 squib evidence - Google Search

Yes... but you're deliberately missing the point that makes this air pressure invalidated... that is the OBSERVED fact that there is supposed 'pressure buidup' through an area that has a pressure relief.

WTF are you talking about ... what "relief" ???

The buildings covered an ACRE floorspace over 110 floors ... how much cubic VOLUME of air do you reckon that is ... and you seriously think that a mere handfull of two second bursts at random intervals is going to significantly de-pressurize ???

B'man, you grasp of science and ability to think something fully through is appalling ... it really is !!!

Like you wee fantasy about the possibility of using foreign troops to covertly plant thermite/explosives/Fairy Dust ... is just your brain flying with a possibility WITHOUT critical analysis ... and although you said you did not buy into that possibility, the mere reality that you even "thought" it, does show how your mindset finds possibilities to hold real validity instead of subjecting them to further critical thought.

In regard to foreign troops on WHAT planet does the orders of teh US gubmint supercede their own, and for what reason would these other foreign sovereign nations do the US's bidding anyway regarding a civil matter as well as a criminal one !!!

You see B'man this is what you do ... you just run with your ideas WITHOUT the necessary further thinking, and we all see it day-in-day-out !!!

When will you learn that possibilities are NOT the same thing as probabilites ... just because something is possible does not mean it is practical or probable or likely ... learn the difference ... please !!!

No, I wouldn't expect it to go up, but at parts IT DOES GO UP. that's why the hypothesis is wrong because observation shows otherwise.

Sweet frickin' Jesus ... is it truly possible to be this simplistic !!!

B'man, please, please, please, pretty please go back to school for a while, take a few science based classes and then come back and see if you would ever make this kind of deeply, deeply flawed statement again ... please !!!

Just because some is "observed" going up due to the fact that air movement can be up, sideyways and down does NOT show this wrong ... for the VAST humungous majority is still going down ... that air EDDIES and currents does not show this wrong !!!

Aaaaarggggghhhh ... really !!!

I've tried to explain this no less then 50 times, linked to the video no less then 10 times, and still you're trying to say it's boyle's law, when the observation shows that this cannot be the case because these ejections are coming out in a way that defies it being pressure... which is that at points it's observed these ejections going UP TOWARDS the collapse wave.

No, B'man it is YOUR understanding that is wrong here !!!

Just because YOU in scientific ignorance do not know and understand what you are "observing" does not negate the principle at work ... ever.

You are using nothing more than ignorant observation, which like seeing the sun "move" across the Earth yet it is us moving, is not the articulate and factual explanation.

That is illiterate ... sorry !!!

Boyles Law does apply here ... but until YOU grasp that then this is another endless carousel ride of ignorance for you I am afraid !!!

SO, once again, boyle's law in this case is being used to explain a situation comparable to blowing up a previously popped balloon. If there's pressure release then you can't have any significant pressure buildup.

Bollocks !!!

Air is easily compressable ... end of !!!

As long as structure was still falling there was always greater build-up than "release".

So, this air pressure theory is violated by the observable facts.

No, not observable facts B'man just ignorant observation !!!

What's this B'man ...



You can still see the VISIBLE over-pressurization (shockwave, blast wave or whatever you want to call it) DESPITE it being in the open air ... but it is STILL air being compressed, that is how explosives and explosions work, a massive instantanious over-pressure wave because air is always easy to compress.

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

Because you continuously invalidate YOUR arguments rather then the presented arguments... that's the definition of a straw man.

No, B'man it is because it is the only logical fallacy you think you have any understanding of ... that your understanding is flawed escapes you.

You've made the simple mistake of by thinking you've learned a little you "know" a lot ... it is an error many make whilst engaging in debate.

Just for an amusing little change how about calling all my arguments by some other fallacy ... "strawman" is well past its sell-by date now !!!

No, for the majority of that time I was defending how INCONCLUSIVE EITHER case was...

No, B'man you weren't, this is your revisionist version again.

You, by way of no real or relevent understanding were arguing against something you wanted to be so ... despite a whole raft of REAL facts presented to you on numerous occasions.

You resisted logic and factual information because you personally preferred your own version of events ... stop with the "Devil's Advocate" stuff ... it doesn't wash !!!

Bercause YOUR CONSTANTLY attacking the wrong argument... constantly. I'll say A, you come back and say A+1 is false because of X... which would be fine if I was arguing A+1 rather then A.

No, that is just your defensive stance kicking in ... I am attempting to show you that it is your understanding that is false ... now, I don't "blame" you, for you get ALL your information straight from conspiracy sites ... but here's the thing B'man, those sites lie ... a lot !!!

That you've demonstrated that you're smart enough to know the difference shows that you're doing this deliberately and dishonestly.

No, B'man I do have abetter and more articulate understanding of some of these things ... you are the one arguing from ignorance.

Like when I point out to people that there is no such thing as "pods" on those aircraft, as oft regurgitated from that error-laden crap "Loose Change" (I only use that because it was the first mocumentory out there, and as such, despite your personal denial of ever having watched it, STILL where most took ... and fully believed the claim) ... I denied it, NOT because I am a debunker, but rather through career and personal knowledge and expertise instantly knew, it was the wing fairing.

As I have often said ignorance is NOT a good place to argue from ... and you mostly too often, do that !!!

Nothing dishonest in that B'man !!!

It's impossible because you're neglecting the pressure release...

Rubbish ... there was never going to be enough "release" to prevent over-pressure.

Those readily observed "isolated ejections" were negligable overall

You cannot blow up a balloon with a hole in it...not without blocking the hole... and because the ejections happen BEFORE the building collapses, as well as in a sequence that violates this concept that it is air pressure...

The buildings were NOT balloons, and yes you can eternally keep pumping air in and whilst only SOME escapes it cannot last as a round ballon, but NOTHING stops continual pressure.

But, which ejections ... where ???

it can be concluded that IT IS NOT AIR PRESSURE BUT SOMETHING ELSE!!!!

Says you, whom I am sorry to say, must be "the" most scientifically illiterate person of my aquaintace ... how many times has your grasp been shown lacking for you to realise that you cannot talk about things you patently do not understand and be taken seriously.

Please, take me up on my suggestion of going back to school ... for until then I know of no way to get you to see it is your grasp at fault !!!

Then you lie and say that people are arguing that it's gravity taking paths.

No B'man I most certainly did not lie ... people (including you) have THEMSELVES stated that gravity takes "paths" ... how is repeating what others themselves said me lying ???

Just to provide one example of your lies... and libel is only a charge if it's inaccurate...

Are you saying you NEVER EVER EVER said "paths of least resistance" in relation to gravity ???

So how have "I" lied ... so yes, it is libel against me then !!!

I didn't say you were lying about boyles law... another fallacious / strawman argument. I'm sure if I point these out enough times you might start attacking the actual points rather then your version of my points.

Oh! yes you did !!!

 

[505]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

Ok, once again...
Put/Call Ratio Definition | Investing Answers
Profiting From Disaster? - CBS Evening News - CBS News
Operations Research Management Science - Prediction Models
CJOnline.com | The Topeka Capital-Journal | Exchange examines odd jump 09/19/01 (cached)
U.S Under Attack (cached)
Black Tuesday: (cached)
Suspicious profits sit uncollected / Airline investors seem to be lying low
Telegraph | Money | Profits of doom (cached)
Suspicious trading points to advance knowledge by big investors of September 11 attacks (discusses the terms of the investigation)
SEC wants data-sharing system / Network of brokerages would help trace trades by terrorists

Happy reading...

Thanks. I just wasted half an hour reading your links, and I must say that I am completely shocked to find that NONE of them mention anything even CLOSE to "90% of ALL the trading was done by ONE person".

Yes, it also specifically mentioned that he was vindicated because of the lack of ties to al-quaida... though he does have ties to ol'CIA-da.

Why do you keep forgetting the other part?... yes they said it was found that he had no "conceivable ties" to al queda, but it was also said that his investing strategy did not line up with someone that was using foreknowledge of the attacks to make a buck.

Oh... oops you're right... neither of them say that it collapses into it's footprint. They do say explicitly that it HAS collapsed, and even take a guess at the numbers of casualties, but you're right... I don't suppose you'd care to establish that this was a matter of intentional dishonesty rather then a misstatement?

More like intentional stupidity. You throw in details that are 100% NOT TRUE, and then go "see... SEE?!?!?! they said INTO FOOTPRINT!!! How could they KNOW it was INTO FOOTPRINT unless they were IN ON IT?!?!?!" Then you still believe the crapola you created when someone shows you the inaccuracies of your original statement. This is why I fear you will NEVER get it. You can't let go of wrong conclusions even when the original reasons for coming to it are proven wrong.

Details very sketchy, but even with the building in the skyline, they BOTH say definitively that it HAD collapsed...

So? You love the little kids analogies so here's one you can maybe understand. You ever play the game where someone on one end of a group whispers a word to the person next to them, then the next person whispers the word they hear to the next person, and so on? Sometimes the word ends up being completely different.

With that in mind, how many people do you think that info went through before the reporter said it? Do you think it's even remotely possible that the original eyes on the ground said "is collapsing" and it ended up getting reported as "has collapsed"? Nope, way more likely that the evil NWO tipped off the press... ya know... since nobody was watching that area and all... they wouldn't want the "shock and awe" of building 7 going down to be missed by all of their would-be terror victims. :roll:

I could agree random, but the sizes would all be relatively small. Same concept as with spray paint... it's not 100% of the material that does stick to the wall, but the actual particles will still be fairly small, albeit randomly sized and shaped...

Ever tried to use spraypaint to make a 0.5" coating? Your theoretical 0.5" coating would be more like a foam, and in that case, you would end up with entire CHUNKS falling off... not just little chips that are all about the thickness of a rolled/brushed layer of paint and/or primer.

I must note again that we're getting into layers of speculation here...

And that is my goal here... to get you to see how much SPECULATION your theory includes.

So, ya, I mean it's possible, but that's why I'm willing to drop that

Ok.

Hmm... interesting point... and you may force me into apologizing to I_gaze for parts. Since I've only got junior apprentice level mechanical skills I may need a bit of clarification (Ie : I can change a tire, brakes, oil, and a select few other mechanical tasks on a vehicle, boosting is not one of them.).

No problem.

First, could you link to a diagram for this in which you could illustrate this for me? I tried looking into it myself, and this would save me from learning all the jargon, cause it's quite a bit beyond the scope of my understanding.

I'll try to keep it simple, but if you need further clarification of anything just let me know.

So, starting with the air filter, the air goes through a pipe, through the throttle body, and into the manifold. The manifold splits it to however many cylinders the engine has. Since the manifold is under vacuum, it is used for sensors and accessories that require vacuum to operate (the booster unit for your power brakes works off of a large hose hooked to the manifold). On a turbocharged vehicle, these lines all get pressurized as soon as the pressure from the turbo negates the vacuum created by the engine (one-way check valves are used to protect components like the brake booster).

When you say 'the bleedhole sees boost' you mean pressure?

Yes.

If so, is this like a pressure release?

Yes.

Is it an actual open hole, or does it only release pressure once it's beyond a certain threshold?

It is an actual open hole.

Are the multiple independent sections that build pressure?

No. They are all tied into the same "plenum".

Is this while the motor is running?

Turbochargers can not build pressure while the engine is off.

I could probably put more then 20 questions on this... but ultimately, is this situation specifically relevant?

More relevant than a balloon with a hole in it.

Because the assumption of air-pressure buildup is essentially the assumption that this pressure built up within the elevator shafts and stairwells (both in the middle sections of the building), that as the structure above is crushing down, builds up significant enough pressure to blow through the door, through the section of building, while maintaining enough force / pressure to blow out the window with a brief cloud of debris.

That is the obvious route that I can see... although in something as chaotic as those collapses I am sure there could be other routes for the pressure to take.

There are MANY issues with this, beyond the simple analogy I had given... another problem is that the structure is hardly air tight... I mean, there's alot of room for air to move before it would gather compression enough to blow out windows. Not to mention that a 'chaotic' collapse wave wouldn't act necessarily as a good stopper as in the syringe example.

First, the "not a good stopper"... I disagree. I saw an interview with firefighters where he said his crew measured 14 floors compacted into EIGHT FEET. That's a hell of a compressive force there.

Second, I bet the "popping" psi of those windows is lower than you might first think.

While I'm intrigued by this concept, and will wait to hear clarification, I do suspect that with that type of closed system like in a vehicles engine, it might not be specifically relevant beyond that it shows that my point was flawed in it's description.

What I was trying to demonstrate for you is that in some cases, it is VERY possible to have a (constant or rising) pressure source blow out a line, then another, and another... not all at once, but in succession.

Not that the window breaking would prevent other windows from blowing out... more like that the pressure realease of blowing out the window on 20th floor, would provide a release for pressure as the collapse wave comes down...

And that is exactly what I am telling you I have witnessed with my own eyes. Boosted system, blown line, still boosted, another blown line (even with the first pressure release), still boosted, another blown line (even with the first and second pressure release).

Maybe if it was different stairwells, so it would be two separate atmospheres, so to speak...

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

Thanks. I just wasted half an hour reading your links, and I must say that I am completely shocked to find that NONE of them mention anything even CLOSE to "90% of ALL the trading was done by ONE person".

That's not the part you were supposed to be reading about... why do you guys always do this... ask a question and then say "oh, this doesn't answer a different question."

Why do you keep forgetting the other part?... yes they said it was found that he had no "conceivable ties" to al queda, but it was also said that his investing strategy did not line up with someone that was using foreknowledge of the attacks to make a buck.

THAT was the part you wasted a half hour reading but missed out on......

More like intentional stupidity. You throw in details that are 100% NOT TRUE, and then go "see... SEE?!?!?! they said INTO FOOTPRINT!!! How could they KNOW it was INTO FOOTPRINT unless they were IN ON IT?!?!?!" Then you still believe the crapola you created when someone shows you the inaccuracies of your original statement. This is why I fear you will NEVER get it. You can't let go of wrong conclusions even when the original reasons for coming to it are proven wrong.

THEY SAID IT COLLAPSED!!!! That's like with JFK in australia they announced that Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested a day early... before ANYONE had ever heard the name... The BBC had a 'false start' on the news... got the time zones messed up.

And you're spinning this even further seemingly saying I'm accusing the two people reading the teleprompter...

Of COURSE I"M NEVER going to get you to realize this, you can't even keep a straight line straight.

With that in mind, how many people do you think that info went through before the reporter said it? Do you think it's even remotely possible that the original eyes on the ground said "is collapsing" and it ended up getting reported as "has collapsed"? Nope, way more likely that the evil NWO tipped off the press... ya know... since nobody was watching that area and all... they wouldn't want the "shock and awe" of building 7 going down to be missed by all of their would-be terror victims. :roll:

Oh, so, it was 'phone game'... and you don't think that people taking in news reports don't WRITE DOWN what's being reported?? Make sure they got it right???

If that's your opinion of the media, kids playing phone game until it's 'news time'... then why ask for MSM sources ever?

Ever tried to use spraypaint to make a 0.5" coating? Your theoretical 0.5" coating would be more like a foam, and in that case, you would end up with entire CHUNKS falling off... not just little chips that are all about the thickness of a rolled/brushed layer of paint and/or primer.

Ok, but this 'paint' is the consistency of a gel, almost what you would expect wet rubber to look and feel like... (for the fireproofing, and since it's 'sol-*gels*', it's fair to assume a similar consistency, maybe different feel)... I'm talking from experience with fireproofing, and I used spray paint because I figured you'd have experience with that... same concept, different material.

And that is my goal here... to get you to see how much SPECULATION your theory includes.

Ok
- In dispute : sol-gel incendiaries found in the dust, and how that would get planted without anyone knowing.
- Known : Human traits of doing what you're told at work without asking too many questions.
- Known : Contract with Turner construction for precisely this kind of work in an appropriate time frame (I've linked it at least a dozen times, but

- speculation : That workers would be given a 'new product' to install, most likely with an airless compressor, because that's what's used to spray certain types of fireproofing... the other option would be a 'hopper' (where the liquid falls into a nozzle propelled with an air compressor), and had performed the job as instructed never knowing, and if told it's met with 'this is a new product, top of the line'.

I'll try to keep it simple, but if you need further clarification of anything just let me know.

Thanks, that's the simplest example I found. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the breather hole simultaneously allows air in if there's vacuum from the manifold, and ensures that there's a limit to the pressure that can build up coming from the wastegate actuator? (though I still don't quite get how it fits in, but that's fine)

Yes.
Yes.
It is an actual open hole.
No. They are all tied into the same "plenum".
Turbochargers can not build pressure while the engine is off.

Ok, thanks...

More relevant than a balloon with a hole in it.

Ya, more relevant, I'll give you that. Of course, that is not the ONLY factor which disproves this 'air pressure' hypothesis.

That is the obvious route that I can see... although in something as chaotic as those collapses I am sure there could be other routes for the pressure to take.

Now, if we're talking about the windows blowing out while directly under the collapse wave, yes... I could see that as well. But this is not the effect we're trying to explain.

First, the "not a good stopper"... I disagree. I saw an interview with firefighters where he said his crew measured 14 floors compacted into EIGHT FEET. That's a hell of a compressive force there.

Yes, but that is going to provide a different effect then the 'single window expulsion of debris'.

Second, I bet the "popping" psi of those windows is lower than you might first think.

Yes, which further supports the unlikely hood of 40 floor away ejections moments before the 20 floor away ejections from the collapse wave. Those weren't 'bullet proof glass' afterall.

And that is exactly what I am telling you I have witnessed with my own eyes. Boosted system, blown line, still boosted, another blown line (even with the first pressure release), still boosted, another blown line (even with the first and second pressure release).

All that's left is the one that ejects before the collapse starts...

Now, what would cause such a high level of focused pressure in such specific areas as a single window?? because we're talking air pressure that might have had to remain so 'focused' traveling several hundred feet to the nearest window without dissipating enough to, say, break 2-3 windows simultaneously...

Wouldn't air pressure mainly focus in the areas being directly 'compressed'?? It seems that the buildup of actual pressure through stairwells, the doors maybe closed, but not always air tight... I'm just saying, that it's not as simple as a 'hose', because filling up a hose that's an acre around with the type of pressure to break windows... we're talking EXTREMELY focused ejections given the scale of the building and the absurd levels of air pressure needed.

 

[505]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

That's not the part you were supposed to be reading about... why do you guys always do this... ask a question and then say "oh, this doesn't answer a different question."

Good lord. You can't even remember history from late LAST WEEK... even when you can easily go back and check. Let's review...


You said:

"Yes, and those 'published results' are a FRACTION of the facts. That's my point."

I replied:

"And why is that suspicious? The FBI does an investigation, and the commission reports their results. Do you expect the FBI to provide EVERY minute little detail?"

To which you replied with:

"Ok, I'll explain it like this :
The main 9-11 inside trader went and purchased options on multiple companies and in the direction their stock would go in the event of the coming 9-11."

Then I said:

"Prove it"

As in, prove that the "main inside trader was responsible for most of the suspicious trading" assertion was factual.

THAT was the part you wasted a half hour reading but missed out on......

B- dodge there. Plenty of effort, but lacking in execution.

THEY SAID IT COLLAPSED!!!! That's like with JFK in australia they announced that Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested a day early... before ANYONE had ever heard the name... The BBC had a 'false start' on the news... got the time zones messed up.

Only when you ignore the fact that everyone in the immediate area could tell that the building wasn't going to stand.

And you're spinning this even further seemingly saying I'm accusing the two people reading the teleprompter...

My apologies, I misspoke... the reporters weren't "in on it"... but there was still a grand ol' conspiracy and they were hapless pawns.

Of COURSE I"M NEVER going to get you to realize this, you can't even keep a straight line straight.

lol. After re-reading the above sequence of quotes, are you still sure it's ME that's having trouble keeping up?

Oh, so, it was 'phone game'... and you don't think that people taking in news reports don't WRITE DOWN what's being reported?? Make sure they got it right???

Wah... it was a simple analogy... wah.

lol.

Ok, but this 'paint' is the consistency of a gel, almost what you would expect wet rubber to look and feel like...

wtf? First it's foam. Then it's spraypaint. Now it's gel. Make up your mind already, and then we can talk about the FACT that NONE of them can cut the beams in a perfect controlled demo fashion like you are claiming they did. None.

Ok
- In dispute : sol-gel incendiaries found in the dust, and how that would get planted without anyone knowing.
- Known : Human traits of doing what you're told at work without asking too many questions.
- Known : Contract with Turner construction for precisely this kind of work in an appropriate time frame (I've linked it at least a dozen times, but
- speculation : That workers would be given a 'new product' to install, most likely with an airless compressor, because that's what's used to spray certain types of fireproofing... the other option would be a 'hopper' (where the liquid falls into a nozzle propelled with an air compressor), and had performed the job as instructed never knowing, and if told it's met with 'this is a new product, top of the line'.

Your first "known" there says a lot. I am never a mindless drone at any job. I don't just "do what I am told". The fact that you think this way explains why you are so easily duped by the likes of jones/jones/gage.

Your second "known" is garbage. It's a work order for work on a single floor... FOUR and a HALF ****ING YEARS before the attacks! They rigged it up with super thermite back in 1997? lol. That is so amazingly retarded Mcfly. Sorry, get back to me if that ever amounts to any sort of proof.

Lastly, the speculation you come to is not surprising, but is based on complete crapola.

Thanks, that's the simplest example I found. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the breather hole simultaneously allows air in if there's vacuum from the manifold, and ensures that there's a limit to the pressure that can build up coming from the wastegate actuator? (though I still don't quite get how it fits in, but that's fine)

Yes the breather will allow air in when the manifold is under vacuum. Kinda backwards on the other part though... the manifold gets pressurized when the turbo spins up. The wastegate is the device that uses the vacuum/boost... it doesn't create it. When the pressure in the manifold increases, the wastegate opens, diverting air around the turbine section of the turbo (slowing it down), which lowers the boost going to the manifold.

With a boost controller we are basically putting in a controlled restriction that keeps the wastegate actuator from seeing part of the pressure that is in the manifold. This "tricks" the turbo into providing more boost. The system is responsive so on a good setup you can spin the turbo up to the target boost level very quickly, and make it level off perfectly where you want it and hold there 'til redline.

A boost controller will have a ball and spring, or a computer controlled solenoid acting as the main component that allows the user to tune the boost level. The bleedhole is what we use for "spike control" (spike is where you spin the turbo up too fast and overshoot your target boost level, and then level off quickly back to the target).

Again, I didn't want to bore you too much with the details of exactly WHY the bleedhole is important... that wasn't the point of my post. You seemed to think that it was impossible to build pressure when there was a relief point, which is exactly what the bleedhole on my MBC does. The wastegate actuator still sees enough boost to open even with the bleedhole.

Now, if we're talking about the windows blowing out while directly under the collapse wave, yes... I could see that as well. But this is not the effect we're trying to explain.

With all of the different elevator shafts, some connecting upper floors to lower floors, others connecting upper floors to middle floors, etc... all of the possible combinations of closed and open stairwell doors... all of the different floor plans... I can imagine just about any combination of random popping due to the pressure of the collapsing structure.

Can you say the same for YOUR theory? Can you even explain WHY your "squibs" are so random? Why there are so few if they are supposedly causing or aiding in the collapse? Why nobody was deafened by explosives?

Yes, but that is going to provide a different effect then the 'single window expulsion of debris'.

Elaborate.

Yes, which further supports the unlikely hood of 40 floor away ejections moments before the 20 floor away ejections from the collapse wave. Those weren't 'bullet proof glass' afterall.

- Express or freight elevator shaft ends at "collapse floor minus 40", so a window pops.
- Blown open window acts like bleedhole.
- Pressure continues to increase as collapse wave progresses downward and grows.
- Open stairwell door on "collapse floor minus 20" allows growing pressure to blow out window, regardless of lower bleedhole.

Again. Can you use YOUR theory along with the observed facts and come to a cohesive conclusion? Or are you just going to cry "we need a new investigation"?

Now, what would cause such a high level of focused pressure in such specific areas as a single window?? because we're talking air pressure that might have had to remain so 'focused' traveling several hundred feet to the nearest window without dissipating enough to, say, break 2-3 windows simultaneously...

Your turn. Why are there so few and what is the point of blowing out a single window on a random floor to try and cause a "perfect free fall demolition"?

 

[BmanMcfly]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

Good lord. You can't even remember history from late LAST WEEK... even when you can easily go back and check. Let's review...

Well, if that's what you meant then why didn't you say that instead of the vague 'prove it'?

Only when you ignore the fact that everyone in the immediate area could tell that the building wasn't going to stand.

The thing is, had they taken the time to examine the report, and the NYC skyline, they could have determined that they were jumping the gun on their reporting... that said, do you really have any PROOF that this was the case??

I'll let the first responders say it in their own words (2:15 is of particular interest for WTC7):
We Were Also Killed on 9-11

wtf? First it's foam. Then it's spraypaint. Now it's gel. Make up your mind already, and then we can talk about the FACT that NONE of them can cut the beams in a perfect controlled demo fashion like you are claiming they did. None.

- No, I never said 'foam'... the firespray that I first described is a type of gel when it's wet and dries into a rubber-like texture
- Spraypaint was to illustrate how paint particles don't all stick to the wall
- Gel is the type of incendiary supposedly found

Yes, but gravity COULD NOT pulverize the concrete as it did either... so, something in between must be the reality.

Your first "known" there says a lot. I am never a mindless drone at any job. I don't just "do what I am told". The fact that you think this way explains why you are so easily duped by the likes of jones/jones/gage.

Ok, if that IS the case, then you're in the 'exception' to this rule... though I suspect that you are this way more then you realize, are your own boss, or your job requires that extra level of attentiveness and understanding.

I'll give the example of the bank teller... most often if a task goes beyond the scope of 'what they are told' they send the customer to the manager... they don't ask what goes on in the managers office, they don't NEED to know to do their job...

Your second "known" is garbage. It's a work order for work on a single floor... FOUR and a HALF ****ING YEARS before the attacks! They rigged it up with super thermite back in 1997? lol. That is so amazingly retarded Mcfly. Sorry, get back to me if that ever amounts to any sort of proof.

Explain, WHY is it retarded?? Without mention that these contracts were continuous throughout the years...I just wanted to save space.

Lastly, the speculation you come to is not surprising, but is based on complete crapola.

Opinions vs facts though .

With all of the different elevator shafts, some connecting upper floors to lower floors, others connecting upper floors to middle floors, etc... all of the possible combinations of closed and open stairwell doors... all of the different floor plans... I can imagine just about any combination of random popping due to the pressure of the collapsing structure.

Except UNLIKE the breather hole, this pressure would be SO significant as to travel THROUGH the section of the building while maintaining laser like concentration.

Can you say the same for YOUR theory?

I don't really have a theory as to WHY they are their... only pointing out that they ARE there, and air-pressure is a stretch to say the least in explaining these ejections...

YouTube - Visible Explosion at World Trade Center!

How does the air-pressure explain the one at 0:59 mark??

Can you even explain WHY your "squibs" are so random?

No, because I don't know the origins...

Why there are so few if they are supposedly causing or aiding in the collapse?

That's several assumptions rolled into one...

Why nobody was deafened by explosives?

If we're assuming that there was actual explosives, they wouldn't be planted in plain sight... they would be hidden behind drywall or concrete walls (like in elevator shafts)... I am guessing that could mitigate the sound levels.

Elaborate.

Of course air pressure as 2 floors pancake is going to shoot out mainly outwardly... hence the pulverized debris shooting out in all different directions simultaneously.

This is a different effect then the sporadic, single window ejections that are being called squibs.

- Express or freight elevator shaft ends at "collapse floor minus 40", so a window pops.

That would be the TOP of the elevators... all the shafts went down to the bottom.

- Blown open window acts like bleedhole.
- Pressure continues to increase as collapse wave progresses downward and grows.
- Open stairwell door on "collapse floor minus 20" allows growing pressure to blow out window, regardless of lower bleedhole.

Again. Can you use YOUR theory along with the observed facts and come to a cohesive conclusion?

My 'theory' is trying to piece together all the available information as best I can... I'm willing to speculate on things more then others, but just because I know I'm being lied to does not necessarily mean I know the full truth of the matter.

Or are you just going to cry "we need a new investigation"?

At this point, before a new investigation we need an independent fact-finding committee to sort through the facts, the lies, distortions, disinformation, misinformation, etc... AND THEN have a proper investigation that isn't politically motivated to come to a pre-determined solution.

Your turn. Why are there so few and what is the point of blowing out a single window on a random floor to try and cause a "perfect free fall demolition"?

The point I'm trying to make is to disprove this 'air-pressure' concept... but if we're going to assume they have explosive origins... well, it's a large building, I'm guessing that you could have a good deal of explosions going off cutting columns, etc... that didn't break ANY windows...

Now, let's assume again that I'm right for a second, that it was elaborately planned from the takeoff of the planes to the collapse... knowing the story was to be 'fire induced collapse'... well, It'd be a reasonable assumption that these people had planned to induce the collapse as to make it look natural, using just the right explosives at just the right places in order to create the desired effect...

 

[I_Gaze_At_The_Blue]

Re: Point by point analysis ...

That's why scaling up it becomes a 47 legged chair that still only had about 3 legs 'cut'...

Wrong B'man ... that is NOT how you scale up.

It would still be a four-legged chair just much bigger, but still in proportion.

B'man, if you don't even understand that then seriously ....

maybe on the top floors each beam would weigh thousands of pounds... near the bottom each beam was probably closer to tens of thousands of pounds... regardless.

Are you seriously contending that lower level beams were in orders of magnitudes of tens of times bigger ???

So why is there still pretty much the same open areas and space available at lower levels if the steel beams and columns were tens of times larger ... it was not a pyramid, which is how it would need be to have lower beams so much larger.

In reality 14 different grades of steel was used ranging in strength from 36ksi to 100ksi, so where is the magnitudes of size differences you claim ???

(Ksi is a measurment of stress rated in kilo(pound)-force-per-square-inch and is the MAXIMUM pressure a material can resist)

Units: K

undicisettembre: "Whistleblower" WTC Blueprints Corroborate NIST, Debunk CT Claims

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05157.pdf

I was simply trying to illustrate the concept that once you are falling towards the missing leg in the chair, you're gaining momentum and speed from gravities energy... TO STOP moving in that direction you would have to exert an equal and opposite force to counteract.... OR to quickly kick out the remaining legs so you fall straight down. The principle doesn't change, though the numbers and sizes of materials would change through scaling.

B'man all this is a completely useless analogy ... do you know that !!!

It means nothing, it demonstrates nothing, well except a certain real ignorance of physics, it proves nothing.

It is as much use as a poster on another forum trying (hoplessly) to show that you could compare the turn of Flight 77 as akin to turning a circle over a chair ...

"A spiral means you don't take your eyes off of what you're going to hit? Do me a favor: look at a chair in your house, now turn 270 degrees without taking your eyes off that chair."

This again takes zero account of scale ... the plane is big, the sky is big so the resulting turn is also big, whilst still being 271° ...

Using very small scale examples like this does NOT count ... it is wholly unrealistic.

Now common sense may tell you that if you build a desk of a certain size, and if you built it a hundred times bigger it would be a hundred times stronger ... when the reality is the size to weight ratio is never exponentionally equal !!!

So common sense is wrong in that case as when dealing with complex physics you need more than a common sense understanding.

Another way your three-legged chair doesn't work is because that is removing support at ground level on a corner, and is closer to more like what happens when the ground shifts during an earthquake.

Well... I can only find tower 2 at the moment,.

Trust you to use a very misleading image to show what was damaged ... here is some better ones from your own source ...

So, there's 40 columns, that are still good, (plus most of the outer columns)... do you really believe that the building was engineered so that it the building was within 20% of it's load limits (assuming 10 damaged columns no longer supporting weight)??

B'man ... do you know the difference between dead, live and dynamic loads ???

For until you do there is no way you will fully grasp this ... buildings are NOT designed to accept the loss of so much support never mind resist the overwhelming forces of DYNAMIC loads.

Just to say, I really don't think that the damage to 10 core columns would have been enough to cause the rest to fail...

And what education or expertise leads you to this conclusion ???

of course, the fire... well, beyond those damaged columns, would have to account for the time it took the fire to engulf the column, burn through the fire rating (Core columns have a 2 hour fire rating minimum... so... probably 45 minutes before that's done), and then heat the metal to failure...

You are aware that fire-proofing is ONLY effective if whole and undamaged ... do you seriously expect it to have survived in those areas intact ???

If even just cracked it WILL allow heat to transfer through.

Your viewing everything very one-dimentionally ... as in the buildings have fire-proofing, that fire-proofing is rated at x times, therefore the fires could not have affected in that x time.

Do you not see how simplistically black-and-white that thinking is ???

but that neglects the part that as portions of the building start to collapse, the rest seems to start collapsing with it, almost inexplicably. Further, there's no sign of collision between the higher floor dropping and the concrete ceiling of the floor below it.

Inexplicably to you maybe ... but to the rest of this planets engineering and scientific communities fully within reason.

And tell me for what reason do you think that you can SEE through an enormous dust cloud to definatively say there was no collision ... do you have x-ray vision or visual acuity outwith normal human ability ???