4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 11367
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-1968) not displayed.
.
.
.

#1969. To: postpunk (#1967)
that doesn't answer the question

The question was why FEMA concluded something. They didn't conclude anything.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:06:25 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1970. To: war (#1968)
jokes are fun!
32 feet per second per second is acceleration due to gravity, i.e. speed increases (not fixed in respect to barreling toward mama earth)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:11:53 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1971. To: postpunk (#1970)
32 feet per second per second is acceleration due to gravity, i.e. speed increases (not fixed in respect to barreling toward mama earth)

I just typed that.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:16:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1972. To: war (#1969)
the question concerned provenance of the sulfur that contributed to the eutectic reaction in steel retrieved from wtc7.
are you claiming none was found?

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:16:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1973. To: war (#1945)
Nope. I never claimed that I was but I do have a background in basic physics.
But, in re WTC, when I weigh engineering factors and I am given the opinion of some structural engineer and some by a pastor or a radio talk show host whom do you believe I am going to give more weight to? When I read the opinion of an engineer regarding what happened versus some Moonbat on the internet whose only retort is that I am a government shill, whom do you believe I will give more weight to?

A simple yes or no would have been sufficient. LOLOL

mininggold posted on 2009-03-31 15:16:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1974. To: war (#1971)
speed is distance per second; acceleration is distance per second per second and is the second derivative of a motion curve, remaining constant when an object is subject to gravity only (no additional forces)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:19:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1975. To: war (#1964)
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, and James R. Gourley
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40
Received: March 17, 2008 | Revised: April 02, 2008

5. Essentially in Free Fall NIST: [Question:] “How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)— speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?” [Answer:] …As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that: “… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation. Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos” [3].

We agree with some of this, that the building “came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” This is an important starting point. (Because of obscuring dust clouds, it is difficult to determine the exact fall times, but the statement that the buildings “came down essentially in free fall” seems correct when accelerations are viewed, for the WTC Towers and also for WTC 7.) [13, 14] Further, we agree with NIST that “the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance” to the fall – but we ask – how could that be? NIST mentions “energy of deformation” which for the huge core columns in the Towers would be considerable, and they need to be quantitative about it (which they were not) in order to claim that the “intact structure” below would not significantly slow the motion. Beyond that, NIST evidently neglects a fundamental law of physics in glibly treating the remarkable “free fall” collapse of each Tower, namely, the Law of Conservation of Momentum. This law of physics means that the hundreds of thousands of tons of material in the way must slow the upper part of the building because of its mass, independent of deformation which can only slow the fall even more. (Energy and Momentum must both be conserved.)

Published papers have argued that this negligence by NIST (leaving the near-free-fall speeds unexplained) is a major flaw in their analysis [13, 14]. NIST ignores the possibility of controlled demolitions, which achieve complete building collapses in near free-fall times by moving the material out of the way using explosives. So, there is an alternative explanation that fits the data without violating basic laws of physics. We should be able to agree from observing the near-free-fall destruction that this is characteristic of controlled demolitions and, therefore, that controlled demolition is one way to achieve complete collapse at near free-fall speed. Then we are keen to look at NIST’s calculations of how they explain near-free-fall collapse rates without explosives. We await an explanation from NIST which satisfies Conservation of Momentum and Energy for the rapid and complete destruction of all three WTC skyscrapers on 9/11, or a discussion of alternative hypotheses that are consistent with momentum and energy conservation in these near-free-fall events.

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:21:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1976. To: war (#1969)
not conclusions, son, evidence

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:21:56 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1977. To: war (#1971)
3. Pancake Theory Not Supported
NIST: “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers… Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon” [3].
Agreed: the “pancake theory of collapse” is incorrect and should be rejected. This theory of collapse was proposed by the earlier FEMA report and promoted in the documentary “Why the Towers Fell” produced by NOVA [7]. The “pancake theory of collapse” is strongly promoted in a Popular Mechanics article along with a number of other discredited ideas [8, 9]. We, on the other hand, agree with NIST that the “pancake theory” is not scientifically tenable and ought to be set aside in serious discussions regarding the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC 7.

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:23:15 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1978. To: war (#1971)
only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:24:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1979. To: postpunk (#1974)
speed is distance per second; acceleration is distance per second per second and is the second derivative of a motion curve, remaining constant when an object is subject to gravity only (no additional forces)

Free fall speed has a direct correlation to the accelerative force of gravity...
You cannot claim that an object fell at free fall speed while also claiming that it did not accelerate as such.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:24:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1980. To: war (#1965)
The indisputable facts are that all three towers collapsed into their own footprints on that day, that no plane hit WTC 7 that day, that the fires burning inside WTC 7 were hardly overwhelming, and no steel- framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire before or after 9/11 all lead me to the conclusion that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition.
If it flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, dabbles like a duck, has feathers like a duck, and leaves little duckie droppings behind it as it walks around the pond in the middle of the local park, I'm going to call it a duck. The collapse of WTC7 shares all of the qualities of a controlled demolition, and I'm going to call it a controlled demolition.
By the way, who started the whole "honey pot" regarding the speed of the fall of the building? That doesn't strike me as terribly relevant, being as the speed of the implosion can be controlled by the timing of the charges. There's been a TON of "honey pots" spread all around 9/11, all carefully placed by those who wait for people to mention one of them, so that the disinformationistas can then jump up and exclaim "No! That ONE ITEM is NOT TRUE! Therefore EVERYTHING they say is WRONG WRONG WRONG". Well, sorry Charlie, I'm not going to play that game. You know and I know that WTC 7 is the weakest link in the official story and the "smoking gun" that points out what really happened that day, and more and more people are wising up to that fact. Bummer for you.
Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise.

Elliott Jackalope posted on 2009-03-31 15:24:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1981. To: war (#1971)
CONCLUSIONS

We have enumerated fourteen areas where we are in agreement with FEMA and NIST in their investigations of the tragic and shocking destruction of the World Trade Center. We agree that the Towers fell at near free-fall speed and that is an important starting point. We agree that several popular myths have been shown to be wrong, such as the idea that steel in the buildings melted due to the fires, or that the Towers were hollow tubes, or that floors “pancaked” to account for total Tower collapses. We agree that the collapse of the 47-story WTC 7 (which was not hit by a jet) is hard to explain from the point of view of a fire-induced mechanism and that NIST has refused (so far) to look for residues of explosives [3, 22, 27]. Our investigative team would like to build from this foundation and correspond with the NIST investigation team, especially since they have candidly conceded (in a reply to some of us in September 2007): “…we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse” [25].

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:25:57 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1982. To: Elliott Jackalope, war (#1980)
If it flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, dabbles like a duck, has feathers like a duck, and leaves little duckie droppings behind it as it walks around the pond in the middle of the local park, I'm going to call it a duck. The collapse of WTC7 shares all of the qualities of a controlled demolition, and I'm going to call it a controlled demolition.

bttt!

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:27:47 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1983. To: litus (#1978)
only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?

It's in those Chinese made toaster ovens at Walmart. They can really stand up to the heat. LOL

mininggold posted on 2009-03-31 15:28:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1984. To: mininggold (#1983)
FOFL!!

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:28:21 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1985. To: litus (#1978)
only a tiny fraction of steel was analyzed from the WTC Towers, and none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?

That's a decptinve statment...not all the steel was supporting...

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:30:45 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1986. To: war (#1953)
13odd seconds is not freefall speed. So, that's a non starter right there.

AH! Finally you commit to a specific collapse time, after several weeks of posturing on your part, that's amazing.
Anyways, since the free fall speed from the top of the towers would be 9.2 seconds, how do you account for the destruction of 100 floors of undamaged steel and cement in 3.8 seconds?
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-31 15:30:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1987. To: litus (#1975)
The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40

Youn do realize that I already posted this?

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:31:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1988. To: war (#1904)
Uh no...but the load bearing capabilities of the structure holding up that mass certainly changed...the floor was ssuspended between two support structures...

Oh, so you think the columns became wet noodles too? Probably becasue of that fire, huh? The same fire that won't melt your steel grill but will cause sky scrapper strength quality steel to turn into wet noddles? You better find another excuse, that one won't work.
God is always good!
RickyJ posted on 2009-03-31 15:31:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1989. To: war (#1985)
Doesn't look at all deceptive to me.
Nothing in that statement states anything with regard to all the steel...supporting."

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:33:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1990. To: FormerLurker (#1986)
AH! Finally you commit to a specific collapse time, after several weeks of posturing on your part, that's amazing.

WTF are you babbling about, Moonie. Not only have I stated that on here several times...I've stated it for YEARS.
Dude...it's obvious that through our exchanges, you either don't read what I post or you are of such obvious derangement that you don't comprehend what you read.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:34:10 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1991. To: litus (#1989)
Nothing in that statement states anything with regard to all the steel...supporting."

WQhy would any other steel need to be analyzed?
BTW, if you want to bicth and moan about the clean up speed then I would be in agreement. I beleive ti's criminal that the greedheads were talking about rebuilding the site within a day of the attack and that they tried to thwart the recovery so that they could start construction.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:36:18 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1992. To: RickyJ (#1988)
Oh, so you think the columns became wet noodles too?

Huh?
You need to start subtitling your responses. I can't read Moronese.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:37:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1993. To: FormerLurker (#1986)
Anyways, since the free fall speed from the top of the towers would be 9.2 seconds, how do you account for the destruction of 100 floors of undamaged steel and cement in 3.8 seconds?

Huh?
The 13 seconds, dickweed, was for WTC 7... More proof that you're functionally stupid.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:39:12 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1994. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1980)
that the fires burning inside WTC 7 were hardly overwhelming

Lie.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:39:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1995. To: war (#1979)
speed has a direct correlation to the accelerative force of gravity

way past correlation, we're talking cause and flipping effect, pal!

You cannot claim that an object fell at free fall speed while also claiming that it did not accelerate as such.

yes, i erred, hopefully not a capital offense.
whatsoever i cannot claim, that sentence above does not help to disconfuse matters.
acceleration = faster (increasing speed)

postpunk posted on 2009-03-31 15:40:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1996. To: war (#1991) (Edited)
none of the WTC 7 steel was analyzed by NIST. What happened to the rest of the steel from the crime scene?

That's a decptinve [sic] statment [sic] ...
WQhy [sic] would any other steel need to be analyzed?

You're joking, right? You didn't just ask "why should a criminal investigation investigate the location and debris within and surrounding the area of a crime scene?"

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:41:25 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1997. To: postpunk (#1995)
we're talking cause and flipping effect

Neither your cause nor your effect are steeped in anything remotelyuresembling reality.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:44:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1998. To: litus (#1996)
You're joking, right?

Nope.
You are claiming that a controlled demo;lition occurred. To use one of your fellow Moonbat's phraseology...you can't even support he "effect" of a CD which makes your argument of "cause" moot.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:46:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#1999. To: war (#1994)
Here's some pictures of the WTC 7 fires.

Here's some pictures from an overwhelming tower fire, in China this last February.

One collapsed, the other didn't. Compare, contrast, discuss.
Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise.

Elliott Jackalope posted on 2009-03-31 15:47:48 ET (6 images) Reply Trace Private Reply
#2000. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1999)
I postred a video on here that shows WTC 7 burning out of control. I also posted a photo showing smoke pouring from the entirity of the South face if WTC7...

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:50:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2001. To: war (#1998) (Edited)
War: WQhy [sic] would any other steel need to be analyzed?
[NOTE to War: No steel, whatsoever, from the WTC7 was analyzed]
You're joking, right? You didn't just ask "why should a criminal investigation investigate the location and debris within and surrounding the area of a crime scene?"
War: Nope. You are claiming that a controlled demo;lition occurred. To use one of your fellow Moonbat's phraseology...you can't even support he "effect" of a CD which makes your argument of "cause" moot.

So, you are admitting that the investigation into the fire and collapse of a skyscraper, which could have led to the deaths of hundreds of people, began, at the outset, with the presumption that the CRIME SCENE was not, in fact, a crime scene. The authorities (police, FBI, CIA, etc.) ruled out a crime had occurred from the outset, prior to conducting any investigations, gathering evidence, and speaking to witnesses could have occurred. From the moment of the CRIME...it was deemed "accidental" in nature, and the authorities subsequently only followed policy and procedures for accidents!
Yet this was a crime of infamous proportions!

litus posted on 2009-03-31 15:50:15 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2002. To: war, Elliott Jackalope (#2000)
I postred a video on here that shows WTC 7 burning out of control.

You're a liar. You posted a picture of Building 5 and called it Building 7. Building 5 was engulfed in flames, yet didn't collapse.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-31 15:54:02 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2003. To: war (#1993)
The 13 seconds, dickweed, was for WTC 7... More proof that you're functionally stupid.

How long did it take for WTC 1 and WTC 2 to collapse then? BTW, do you have a source for your claim that it took WTC7 13 seconds to collapse? From what I've seen, it takes less than half that time for it to collapse in slow motion.
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-31 15:56:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2004. To: FormerLurker, litusm Elliott Jackalope, Litus, wudidiz (#2002)
War is either senile or he needs a new pair of eye glasses.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 15:56:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2005. To: Elliott Jackalope (#1999)

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:57:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2006. To: FormerLurker (#2003)
How long did it take for WTC 1 and WTC 2 to collapse then

Asked and answered.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:58:22 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2007. To: FormerLurker (#2003)
BTW, do you have a source for your claim that it took WTC7 13 seconds to collapse? From what I've seen, it takes less than half that time for it to collapse in slow motion.

read the thread. I'm done repeating myself.

war posted on 2009-03-31 15:59:06 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2008. To: FormerLurker (#2002)
You're a liar. You posted a picture of Building 5 and called it Building 7. Building 5 was engulfed in flames, yet didn't collapse.

Dickhead...that was posted when you said that none of the WTC buildings were engulfed in flames...

war posted on 2009-03-31 16:00:05 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2009. To: war, FormerLurker, Elliott Jackalope, Litus, wudidiz (#2004)
Analysis of WTC's north tower collapse indicative of controlled demolition.
Analysis Of WTC Collapse -

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-31 16:07:04 ET Reply Trace Private Reply

.
.
.
Comments (2010 - 2261) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um

The Open Civil Engineering Journal, 2008, 2, 35-40

CONCLUSIONS