The Obligatory 9/11 Thread Part II

[atrasicarius]

If a 20 ton section of column was 500 feet up and inside the core of the WTC and welded above and below and on all sides with horizontal beams then it COULD NOT FALL. Now SUPPOSEDLY mass came from above and forced it down. But we aren't told how much ENERGY WAS REQUIRED TO BEND ALL OF THAT STEEL but we are supposed to BELIEVE that it could all fall down. So we have all of this semantic debating bullshit based on grossly incomplete data and some people want to imply they are intelligent while ignoring the data which accurate physics would require. We aren't even told the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers by Official Sources. The best source is supposed to be a programmer in Sweden, like that isn't INCREDIBLY STUPID all by itself.

Oh jesus christ, dude...
The towers DID fall. Therefore, NO MATTER WHAT ELSE HAPPENED, their potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. It doesnt matter if they collapsed due to fire or explosives or space lazors or the big bad wolf huffing and puffing. They DID collapse, so their potential energy WAS released.

Psicky, since you didnt respond to this, I'm assuming we finally reached something we can agree on. I'd like to take it a step further. As I've shown, the energy released during the collapse of the buildings was somewhere around 94 tons of TNT. You can argue that it's less if you want, but as I also showed, you cant make it less enough to make a significant difference. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you agree that 94 tons of TNT would be enough to destroy the buildings. This energy would have been release in a roughly quadratic fashion due to acceleration. Therefore, at some point during the collapse (and remember, there WAS a collapse), there would have been enough energy available to crush whatever resistance was in the way. You with me so far? What we're arguing about is whether that point was immediately after the collapse started, or whether some outside energy was needed to get to that point. You get all that? Try reading it a couple times just to make sure before you respond.

[Durro]

!

MODNOTE Psikeyhackr, Despite the fact that I've cautioned you personally about personal attacks/insults on 3 occasions and also requested to ALL members in this thread to refrain from personalizations and insults in general modnotes, you have continued to post comments such as :- Keep coming up with more pointless drivel. Maybe you can come up with something funny. That didn't even qualify as entertainment. TOO DUMB! It ain't my fault that you think you are intelligent because you can do mathematics. and in particular, Of course, that is all you have the wit to dish out. Consequently, you have now earned a formal warning for personal attack/insult. I suggest that you dial things back a bit and address the arguments, not the people making them, or run the risk of further sanctions. Members with questions about moderation can PM myself or another Mod, or raise the issue in our Feedback thread, but I ask that we don't derail this thread with discussion about moderation. Durro

[Kat Dorman]

But components must actually sustain DAMAGE.

I want to get your opinion on connection failure. If a vertical support is held in position by some connection (pinned, glued, etc), is it acceptable for the connection to fail?

Example: vermicelli used for vertical support of tiles, the end of each pasta strand krazy-glued to top and bottom surfaces of tile. Or an epoxy bead, maybe flexible. I can try to make the bonds stronger than the pasta but, short of drilling inset holes in the tile, it's possible a bond will fail in rotation or tension without snapping the strand. I really don't want to drill hundreds of tiny, precision holes. Ideas?

[psikeyhackr]

But components must actually sustain DAMAGE.

I want to get your opinion on connection failure. If a vertical support is held in position by some connection (pinned, glued, etc), is it acceptable for the connection to fail?

Yes, breaking connections would require energy slowing the falling mass.

psik

[psikeyhackr]

Curiously the NCSTAR1 report NEVER specifies a total for the concrete.

Why is that curious? If the people writing the report understood how progressive collapse happens, they may well have felt no need to give specific figures. Their audience wasn't necessarily conspiracy theorists. CTs should understand that not everything in the world is about them.

In 10,000 pages they couldn't specify the total for the concrete but they have they amount of luggage in the airplanes. ROFL

But I bet you never checked to even know about that.

Why don't you try writing a computer program on 109 masses floating in the air without support and compute the collapse time just on the basis of the conservation of momentum. That would take very little engineering knowledge. I bet even you could do it.

But then how do you explain some of the collapse time estimates for the real buildings being less than that of a magical structure which can only be simulated in a computer? Explaining that must take REAL ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE. Mabe the NIST could do it. But all they say is, "global collapse was inevitable". And by magic people believe them. Truly amazing.

Did anyone mention the girders that skittered into the Winter Garden?

Who gives a damn about conspiracies, there is physics to be had?

Or is intellectual name calling all you can come up with.

psik

[byofrcs]

Curiously the NCSTAR1 report NEVER specifies a total for the concrete.

Why is that curious? If the people writing the report understood how progressive collapse happens, they may well have felt no need to give specific figures. Their audience wasn't necessarily conspiracy theorists. CTs should understand that not everything in the world is about them.

In 10,000 pages they couldn't specify the total for the concrete but they have they amount of luggage in the airplanes. ROFL

But I bet you never checked to even know about that.

Why don't you try writing a computer program on 109 masses floating in the air without support and compute the collapse time just on the basis of the conservation of momentum. That would take very little engineering knowledge. I bet even you could do it.

But then how do you explain some of the collapse time estimates for the real buildings being less than that of a magical structure which can only be simulated in a computer? Explaining that must take REAL ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE. Mabe the NIST could do it. But all they say is, "global collapse was inevitable". And by magic people believe them. Truly amazing.

Did anyone mention the girders that skittered into the Winter Garden?

Who gives a damn about conspiracies, there is physics to be had?

Or is intellectual name calling all you can come up with.

psik

If the floor loading is exceeded on one floor then unless the rubble magically gets removed, the rubble will exceed the floor loading of the next floor and so on down. The rubble chooses the path of least resistance and simply smashes down each office floor.

The outside supports were not continuously welded in one long strips but were made up of sections bolted together. They will fail if unsupported at the welds and bolts and we see this in videos.

As for the "Did anyone mention the girders that skittered into the Winter Garden?" I don't know as I think they were panels not girders.

[econ41]

I cannot resist. I must post this.
Here's a quote from Professor Richard Feynman; "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong!" :

Nice quote. What if the experiment is bogus, which is the case here?

Why degrade a fine scientist like Feynman by including him in such an idiotic bit of lying propaganda.

[ConnyRaSk]

Nice quote. What if the experiment is bogus, which is the case here?

Why degrade a fine scientist like Feynman by including him in such an idiotic bit of lying propaganda.

Because there is such a lack of rational thinking on the part of controlled demolition deniers on this thread, and as a service to the many lurkers, I choose to quote him, a deep thinker; Professor Richard Feynman again:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong!" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g[/youtube]

[aspire1670]

Nice quote. What if the experiment is bogus, which is the case here?

Why degrade a fine scientist like Feynman by including him in such an idiotic bit of lying propaganda.

Because there is such a lack of rational thinking on the part of controlled demolition deniers on this thread, and as a service to the many lurkers, I choose to quote him, a deep thinker; Professor Richard Feynman again:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong!" :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g[/youtube]

Now all you have to do is provide the evidence that the WTC had parts of it's structure removed to allow demolition charges to be placed and you're home and dry.

ETA. Do you have a YouTube video showing the demolition charges being placed?

[Weaver]

Plus provide the evidence on how the calculable sum mass of thermXte was smuggled into the building and emplaced.
Plus provide the evidence of a mechanism by which it would survive the airplane impact and subsequent fire.
Plus provide the evidence for the initiating, timing, power, etc devices to set off the charges at the right time.
Plus provide the evidence for the remote control system.
Plus provide the evidence that the demolition charge initiating mechanisms had enough discrimination to start the collapse EXACTLY AS IF THEY WEREN'T THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE - starting in the precise location as observed, and so neatly replicating a non-demolition collapse.

I'll wait ...

And before you quote Feynman at us again, consider that YOU may be the one with the deeply flawed theory, though it seems beautiful to you; and that the experiment you show demonstrates that nothing of the sort actually happened at the WTC.

[tolman]

ConnyRaSk,

People are supposed to sit through a 15 minute video to see that it's possible to melt or soften steel?

Why not summarise the points, then people can get some idea, not only about which points you think are relevant, but also the amount of knowledge and understanding you have of what you claim is important.

Where are you alleging that deliberate weakening of the steel took place?
If it's in the area of the impacts, could those areas have been known about precisely enough in advance?
Wouldn't the fires set off anything flammable in the vicinity pretty much straight away?

How many connections would have needed to be accessed in order to do the necessary weakening, even allowing for potential failures of charges to go off?

Surely, various conspiracy theorists make a big deal about how immensely strong the building was, and claim that as a case against collapse from damage and fire, but wouldn't that equally apply to demolition, requiring large numbers of connections to be compromised in order to ensure collapse?

And if collapse had to appear to start in a particular area which wouldn't be known precisely before the impacts, that would involve further multiplication of charges.
How is access supposed to have been obtained to all the necessary locations in both towers without anyone noticing?

And all that for a plan which could quite easily have been replaced by one causing greater loss of life, while being far simpler?
Had there been two or three airliners crashing on large public gatherings, or some symbolic occasion (or both), people wouldn't be asking "Why didn't they attack the World Trade Center?" any more than they're currently asking "Why did no-one attack the Sears Tower, or the Yankee Stadium, or Times Square at New Year, or a grand 4th of July parade?".
As a justification for war, numerous other outrages would have been as good, and possibly rather better, for any conspiracy with the power to simply get hold of a few planes at chosen times/places.

[ConnyRaSk]

http://www.net4truthusa.com/wtcdemolition.htm: BTW I cannot copy all of the fotos and illustrations mentioned. For that you'd have to go to the website.


The preparation for a controlled demolition requires much advance planning. If the WTC was demolished as many have alleged, then the explosives and cutting charges would have had to have been put in place in ADVANCE of the False Flag Operation. I have consulted with an ex-GI who was a demolitions expert during the Vietnam War in order to construct these diagrams from his hand-drawn illustrations.

In order to have a building fall into its own shadow, multiple charges had to have been placed in the core structure of the building WELL in advance of the "attack". The planes hitting the buildings in this case was merely a diversionary tactic - done in order to have something OTHER than the OBVIOUS to blame the collapse on, and a scenario never before experienced in this country, so that the "average Joe" would have no prior recollection of a previous event to lend credibility for calling the "official" explanation "bogus".

A simplified diagram shows the placement of the Thermate "cutting" charge (green lines) and the explosive (brown). The detonators for the cutting charges and the explosive are wired separately to a computer console (wires A and B respectively) which controls sequence and timing of detonations.

The charges have to have been placed (there had to be hundreds - if not thousands of such charges) on each of the 47 box columns in several places up the total length of the towers. Since the CORE of the building constituted the majority of the support for the building, contrary to those who have argued that this could not have been done without someone becoming suspicious, I must make the following statement: I worked for IBM Wall Street for 15 years, and was often in the WTC to service multiple customers there. The CORE of the building could be easily accessed from the central elevator bank, and the service conduits which are similar in nature to the access crawl-ways in a prison building (see: "Escape From Alcatraz").

The sequence of the demolition starts from the top down. Each of the sets of charges are set off in sequence. All the charges on the same floor have to be ignited simultaneously. The cutting charges on each support are ignited first. This high-temperature charge DOES NOT explode; it merely slices the support column (red) and the molten steel (pink) flows from the "cuts". This molten steel collected at the base of each tower, and there was so much of it that it held the extremely high temperature (thermal inertia) and appeared to "burn" for three months after the collapse.

A fraction of a second after the cutting charge is ignited and the steel is LIQUEFIED, a small explosive (C-4 or Semtex) placed at the apex of the cut (left side of diagram) is detonated. This explosive DOES NOT have enough power to cut or bend the steel; its purpose is to "kick" the severed piece of I-beam or support structure away from the cut - in similar manner as a lumberjack would fell a large tree with a chain saw.

Forty-seven (one for each support column) such small explosions must happen simultaneously on each of the floors where the explosives are placed.

The separation of the cut section from the load-bearing column generates even more molten "slag", which could explain the molten steel seen pouring out of the side of the towers in the Video Documentaries .

Molten steel pouring out of WTC tower shortly after plane impacted the building. Since such a short time had elapsed from the time of the impact until this phenomenon was observed, one can only conclude that since jet fuel (kerosene) can not reach combustion temperatures required to melt steel, that some other incendiary force must have been at work here. The molten steel from Thermate "cutting" charges flowing across the concrete floor from the core of the building would adequately explain how molten steel could be observed flowing out the side of the building. The FACT that what you see here is in fact molten steel and NOT kerosene (jet fuel) on fire is the FACT that LIQUID KEROSENE DOES NOT BURN unless it is SPRAYED or WICKED into an absorbent material such as a cotton wick. This is why kerosene (not GASOLINE) is used in home space heaters.

After the wedge-shaped section is blown clear of the support column (or I-Beam) there is no support for the structure above, and the building (floor) begins to fall. A fraction of a second later, and BEFORE the ceiling of the floor above impacts the floor of the floor below, this sequence of cutting and separation charges is initiated on a lower floor. In real-time, this forms the APPARENCY of a "pancake" of all the floors, but in reality, the collapse is NOT a result of the lower floors collapsing because they have to bear the weight of the collapsed floors above.

The sequential detonation of charges removes the floor below PRIOR to the impact of the floor above, and the cumulative result is that the entire building enters a state of simultaneous free-fall, falls very quickly - with speeds approaching that of true free-fall, and properly done, will fall into its own "shadow" or "footprint" - as was the case with ALL THREE buildings: WTC 1 & 2 and WTC Building #7.

The irrefutable evidence for a controlled demolition is my observation of the evidence that is "in plain sight" in the photo below. To my knowledge, no one else has made this observation although this photo is widely circulated on the Internet.



The photos above are ABSOLUTE PROOF that Thermate was used to cut the core support columns. The rescue operations shown here are PRIOR to the cleanup. People who REFUSE to believe what their eyes tell them will no doubt argue that this support column was cut by a welder during the cleanup operation. However, a PROFESSIONAL welder who is cutting steel for scrap removal would NOT make more work for himself by cutting the steel at a perfect 45-degree angle as shown in the photo above - it is "the long-way around" to make such a cut. In addition, a cutting torch operates by heat AND pressure of the gas. If you've ever watched a welder cut an I-beam with a torch, you NEVER see melted steel dripping off the cut as you do in this photo - a cutting torch ejects the metal away from the flame and thereby cuts a "slot" in the metal. Note that the 45-degree angle cut on this box column is completely consistent with the demolition sequence described above, and the presence of molten steel "slag" on the edges on the OUTSIDE of the box-beam is IMPOSSIBLE to do with a cutting torch unless you were cutting it from the INSIDE. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the steel dripping along the edges of this beam was cut with high-temperature cutting charges such as Thermate or Thermite as is consistent with standard operating practice of professional demolition teams. Since these charges would have taken a considerable time to plan, and WEEKS - if not MONTHS - to put in place, is IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the World Trade Center was INTENTIONALLY DEMOLISHED, there was PREMEDITATION and COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE, and the planes that hit the towers were a DIVERSIONARY TACTIC as alleged.

Use of explosives on steel causes an effect known to metallurgists as "twinning" - and is easily detectable with a laboratory test. Unfortunately, these tests can never be done (unless someone has a piece of steel from the towers - or a bit of the "slag") because all the steel was hauled away to Asia to be recycled into - whatever. This removal of forensic evidence from WTC was said to have been done to clear the way for rescue operations, but forensics were NEVER done on the WTC steel. In legal circles, removing evidence from a crime scene is called "obstruction of justice" and is, in itself a felony. Whatever excuse was used to remove steel from the WTC site, there were no casualties in WTC-7, which had been evacuated that morning. Why did the insurance companies that paid Mr. Silverstein BILLIONS of dollars, not DEMAND that a forensic investigation of the crime scene be done. For that matter, what the HELL happened with the NYS Attorney General, the Arson Inspector, and the Manhattan District Attorney? I'll tell you what I think - I think they were all either paid off by the CIA "Men-In-Black" - or threatened with death - Shades of Operation Phoenix.

Source: http://www.net4truthusa.com/wtcdemolition.htm: BTW I cannot copy all of the fotos and illustrations mentioned. For that you'd have to go to the website.

[Weaver]

Gee, if only someone had addressed all of the points in that massive screed before ... oh, yeah, that's right, we've already done it here ourselves!

Typical denialist crap - when one cannot make any headway and are asked to provide EVIDENCE, instead back up months or years and repeat the same unfounded, unsupportable allegations one has made in the past; try the "Baffle 'em with Bullshit" approach. Because eventually people will get sick and tired of repeating the same arguments over and over, and debunking the same claims over and over, and the denialist can "win".

By the way, that last sentence is probably the strongest evidence available that the writer is a complete nutjob - allegations that the CIA is paying off public officials within the US to cover up a massive operation like he posits must have existed, and allusions to "Operation Phoenix" - which has NOTHING IN THE FUCKING WORLD to do with threatening to assassinate public officials, but instead was a wartime operation targeting and eliminating the enemy, his support structure, and support infrastructure.

[tolman]

I cannot copy all of the fotos and illustrations mentioned. For that you'd have to go to the website.

Why, if someone was cutting supports in a WTC tower with the intention of collapsing it, would they not simply cut floor connections in a limited number of places, leading to a pancake collapse of the floors and then having the resulting loss of lateral stiffening causing failure of the tube structures by buckling?
Even if that wasn't what happened in reality, it would seem to have been an entirely plausible failure mechanism for the structure, consistent with impact damage and fire, and one involving far less work than the more outlandish conspiracy mechanisms
Cutting floor connections would need no explosives to move anything sideways, nor would it need triggering to be simultaneous - gradual failure would seem to lead to the same overall effect with less risk of discovery and more realism.

Still, I suppose unlike normal people, conspiracy fantasists actually seem to think 'more complication'=='better', and imagine conspiracies run by people just like them.
Given two possible explanations, one that involves chopping every vertical column in a hundred pieces, and one that seems to involve a fraction of the work, the fantasist thinks the first one is more plausible, or at least is the furthest away from a reasonable explanation.

Or could it be that if it was actually shown to be possible to cause complete failure by sabotage of a relatively low number of horizontal floor connections, to admit that possibility when anything more complicated is on the table would be anathema to many fantasists, as it's getting far too close to a natural explanation?
After all, to admit that limited deliberate damage could cause a collapse would be to open the door to the possibility of limited non-deliberate damage also causing collapse.

[Dudely]

Psicky, since you didnt respond to this, I'm assuming we finally reached something we can agree on. I'd like to take it a step further. As I've shown, the energy released during the collapse of the buildings was somewhere around 94 tons of TNT. You can argue that it's less if you want, but as I also showed, you cant make it less enough to make a significant difference. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you agree that 94 tons of TNT would be enough to destroy the buildings. This energy would have been release in a roughly quadratic fashion due to acceleration. Therefore, at some point during the collapse (and remember, there WAS a collapse), there would have been enough energy available to crush whatever resistance was in the way. You with me so far? What we're arguing about is whether that point was immediately after the collapse started, or whether some outside energy was needed to get to that point. You get all that? Try reading it a couple times just to make sure before you respond.

psikeyhackr, this is important. Please respond.

[aspire1670]

http://www.net4truthusa.com/wtcdemolition.htm: BTW I cannot copy all of the fotos and illustrations mentioned. For that you'd have to go to the website.


The preparation for a controlled demolition requires much advance planning. If the WTC was demolished as many have alleged, then the explosives and cutting charges would have had to have been put in place in ADVANCE of the False Flag Operation. I have consulted with an ex-GI who was a demolitions expert during the Vietnam War in order to construct these diagrams from his hand-drawn illustrations.

In order to have a building fall into its own shadow, multiple charges had to have been placed in the core structure of the building WELL in advance of the "attack". The planes hitting the buildings in this case was merely a diversionary tactic - done in order to have something OTHER than the OBVIOUS to blame the collapse on, and a scenario never before experienced in this country, so that the "average Joe" would have no prior recollection of a previous event to lend credibility for calling the "official" explanation "bogus".

A simplified diagram shows the placement of the Thermate "cutting" charge (green lines) and the explosive (brown). The detonators for the cutting charges and the explosive are wired separately to a computer console (wires A and B respectively) which controls sequence and timing of detonations.

The charges have to have been placed (there had to be hundreds - if not thousands of such charges) on each of the 47 box columns in several places up the total length of the towers. Since the CORE of the building constituted the majority of the support for the building, contrary to those who have argued that this could not have been done without someone becoming suspicious, I must make the following statement: I worked for IBM Wall Street for 15 years, and was often in the WTC to service multiple customers there. The CORE of the building could be easily accessed from the central elevator bank, and the service conduits which are similar in nature to the access crawl-ways in a prison building (see: "Escape From Alcatraz").

The sequence of the demolition starts from the top down. Each of the sets of charges are set off in sequence. All the charges on the same floor have to be ignited simultaneously. The cutting charges on each support are ignited first. This high-temperature charge DOES NOT explode; it merely slices the support column (red) and the molten steel (pink) flows from the "cuts". This molten steel collected at the base of each tower, and there was so much of it that it held the extremely high temperature (thermal inertia) and appeared to "burn" for three months after the collapse.

A fraction of a second after the cutting charge is ignited and the steel is LIQUEFIED, a small explosive (C-4 or Semtex) placed at the apex of the cut (left side of diagram) is detonated. This explosive DOES NOT have enough power to cut or bend the steel; its purpose is to "kick" the severed piece of I-beam or support structure away from the cut - in similar manner as a lumberjack would fell a large tree with a chain saw.

Forty-seven (one for each support column) such small explosions must happen simultaneously on each of the floors where the explosives are placed.

The separation of the cut section from the load-bearing column generates even more molten "slag", which could explain the molten steel seen pouring out of the side of the towers in the Video Documentaries .

Molten steel pouring out of WTC tower shortly after plane impacted the building. Since such a short time had elapsed from the time of the impact until this phenomenon was observed, one can only conclude that since jet fuel (kerosene) can not reach combustion temperatures required to melt steel, that some other incendiary force must have been at work here. The molten steel from Thermate "cutting" charges flowing across the concrete floor from the core of the building would adequately explain how molten steel could be observed flowing out the side of the building. The FACT that what you see here is in fact molten steel and NOT kerosene (jet fuel) on fire is the FACT that LIQUID KEROSENE DOES NOT BURN unless it is SPRAYED or WICKED into an absorbent material such as a cotton wick. This is why kerosene (not GASOLINE) is used in home space heaters.

After the wedge-shaped section is blown clear of the support column (or I-Beam) there is no support for the structure above, and the building (floor) begins to fall. A fraction of a second later, and BEFORE the ceiling of the floor above impacts the floor of the floor below, this sequence of cutting and separation charges is initiated on a lower floor. In real-time, this forms the APPARENCY of a "pancake" of all the floors, but in reality, the collapse is NOT a result of the lower floors collapsing because they have to bear the weight of the collapsed floors above.

The sequential detonation of charges removes the floor below PRIOR to the impact of the floor above, and the cumulative result is that the entire building enters a state of simultaneous free-fall, falls very quickly - with speeds approaching that of true free-fall, and properly done, will fall into its own "shadow" or "footprint" - as was the case with ALL THREE buildings: WTC 1 & 2 and WTC Building #7.

The irrefutable evidence for a controlled demolition is my observation of the evidence that is "in plain sight" in the photo below. To my knowledge, no one else has made this observation although this photo is widely circulated on the Internet.



The photos above are ABSOLUTE PROOF that Thermate was used to cut the core support columns. The rescue operations shown here are PRIOR to the cleanup. People who REFUSE to believe what their eyes tell them will no doubt argue that this support column was cut by a welder during the cleanup operation. However, a PROFESSIONAL welder who is cutting steel for scrap removal would NOT make more work for himself by cutting the steel at a perfect 45-degree angle as shown in the photo above - it is "the long-way around" to make such a cut. In addition, a cutting torch operates by heat AND pressure of the gas. If you've ever watched a welder cut an I-beam with a torch, you NEVER see melted steel dripping off the cut as you do in this photo - a cutting torch ejects the metal away from the flame and thereby cuts a "slot" in the metal. Note that the 45-degree angle cut on this box column is completely consistent with the demolition sequence described above, and the presence of molten steel "slag" on the edges on the OUTSIDE of the box-beam is IMPOSSIBLE to do with a cutting torch unless you were cutting it from the INSIDE. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the steel dripping along the edges of this beam was cut with high-temperature cutting charges such as Thermate or Thermite as is consistent with standard operating practice of professional demolition teams. Since these charges would have taken a considerable time to plan, and WEEKS - if not MONTHS - to put in place, is IRREFUTABLE PROOF that the World Trade Center was INTENTIONALLY DEMOLISHED, there was PREMEDITATION and COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE, and the planes that hit the towers were a DIVERSIONARY TACTIC as alleged.

Use of explosives on steel causes an effect known to metallurgists as "twinning" - and is easily detectable with a laboratory test. Unfortunately, these tests can never be done (unless someone has a piece of steel from the towers - or a bit of the "slag") because all the steel was hauled away to Asia to be recycled into - whatever. This removal of forensic evidence from WTC was said to have been done to clear the way for rescue operations, but forensics were NEVER done on the WTC steel. In legal circles, removing evidence from a crime scene is called "obstruction of justice" and is, in itself a felony. Whatever excuse was used to remove steel from the WTC site, there were no casualties in WTC-7, which had been evacuated that morning. Why did the insurance companies that paid Mr. Silverstein BILLIONS of dollars, not DEMAND that a forensic investigation of the crime scene be done. For that matter, what the HELL happened with the NYS Attorney General, the Arson Inspector, and the Manhattan District Attorney? I'll tell you what I think - I think they were all either paid off by the CIA "Men-In-Black" - or threatened with death - Shades of Operation Phoenix.

Source: http://www.net4truthusa.com/wtcdemolition.htm: BTW I cannot copy all of the fotos and illustrations mentioned. For that you'd have to go to the website.

At first I was and then I just . You have demonstrated the devastating consequences of Dunning-Kruger effect yet again.

[psikeyhackr]

Psicky, since you didnt respond to this, I'm assuming we finally reached something we can agree on. I'd like to take it a step further. As I've shown, the energy released during the collapse of the buildings was somewhere around 94 tons of TNT. You can argue that it's less if you want, but as I also showed, you cant make it less enough to make a significant difference. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you agree that 94 tons of TNT would be enough to destroy the buildings. This energy would have been release in a roughly quadratic fashion due to acceleration. Therefore, at some point during the collapse (and remember, there WAS a collapse), there would have been enough energy available to crush whatever resistance was in the way. You with me so far? What we're arguing about is whether that point was immediately after the collapse started, or whether some outside energy was needed to get to that point. You get all that? Try reading it a couple times just to make sure before you respond.

psikeyhackr, this is important. Please respond.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p695772

Computing the potential energy of some masses at some heights without computing the energy required to destroy the structures below which are supporting that mass is nonsense. The distance h must be empty space.

psik

[aspire1670]

Psicky, since you didnt respond to this, I'm assuming we finally reached something we can agree on. I'd like to take it a step further. As I've shown, the energy released during the collapse of the buildings was somewhere around 94 tons of TNT. You can argue that it's less if you want, but as I also showed, you cant make it less enough to make a significant difference. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you agree that 94 tons of TNT would be enough to destroy the buildings. This energy would have been release in a roughly quadratic fashion due to acceleration. Therefore, at some point during the collapse (and remember, there WAS a collapse), there would have been enough energy available to crush whatever resistance was in the way. You with me so far? What we're arguing about is whether that point was immediately after the collapse started, or whether some outside energy was needed to get to that point. You get all that? Try reading it a couple times just to make sure before you respond.

psikeyhackr, this is important. Please respond.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p695772

Computing the potential energy of some masses at some heights without computing the energy required to destroy the structures below which are supporting that mass is nonsense. The distance h must be empty space.

psik

Physics: ur doin it rong.

[econ41]

Nice quote. What if the experiment is bogus, which is the case here?

Why degrade a fine scientist like Feynman by including him in such an idiotic bit of lying propaganda.

Because there is such a lack of rational thinking on the part of controlled demolition deniers on this thread, and as a service to the many lurkers, I choose to quote him, a deep thinker; Professor Richard Feynman again:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong!" :

Conny - you have been around this topic for a long time. Way back in history you even made some contributions to the debate. Contrast the last year or two where you simply make snide insulting remarks and spam the thread with rubbish.

No point repeating the Feynman comment as if it is relevant to either the first lying video or the latest long bit of crap you posted with the ridiculous photo. Gawd the photo is self rebutting to anyone who understands cutting by oxy-acetylene OR thermic lance (tho' I hesitated to name the last one for obvious reasons ) Whether "thermic lance" or not it certainly aint thermite.

!	MODNOTE The report regarding this post has been dealt with and closed. Durro

[Dudely]

Psicky, since you didnt respond to this, I'm assuming we finally reached something we can agree on. I'd like to take it a step further. As I've shown, the energy released during the collapse of the buildings was somewhere around 94 tons of TNT. You can argue that it's less if you want, but as I also showed, you cant make it less enough to make a significant difference. Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that you agree that 94 tons of TNT would be enough to destroy the buildings. This energy would have been release in a roughly quadratic fashion due to acceleration. Therefore, at some point during the collapse (and remember, there WAS a collapse), there would have been enough energy available to crush whatever resistance was in the way. You with me so far? What we're arguing about is whether that point was immediately after the collapse started, or whether some outside energy was needed to get to that point. You get all that? Try reading it a couple times just to make sure before you respond.

psikeyhackr, this is important. Please respond.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/consp ... ml#p695772

Computing the potential energy of some masses at some heights without computing the energy required to destroy the structures below which are supporting that mass is nonsense. The distance h must be empty space.

psik

The fact that your model did not lead to a progressive collapse bellies why it does not actually model anything of value. You can't cause damage to multiple floors most of the way up a steel and concrete structure and expect the collapse to just STOP after a few floors. 15 floors crashing down on one floor is more than enough to knock the whole thing down- as seen in the dozens of videos of the collapse. At no point in the building was a floor able to sustain the weight of 15 floors directly on top of it even as a static load. the event was too dynamic and too large scale to properly have all of the variables accounted for in a few paper loops and washers.

Additionally, in 100+ posts you have yet to actually contribute to or even mention a theory on the collapse of the WTCs. This is a discussion of 9/11, not a discussion of a model made with paper and washers.