|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Semper Libčr® .
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:39 am Post subject: Re: Questions which are Unanswered on 911 |
 |
|
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Ksc7k.22623$Jx.4766@pd7urf1no...
| Quote: |
"Semper Libčr® ." <.nopolicestates????!?~Hj77@freedom4all.org> wrote in
message news:ZbY6k.357$2G6.117@edtnps83...
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about what we see in this
video.... Start it at 2:15 if you don't want to hear all of the
eyewitness
testimony about bombs going off all over the place - including a group
of
fire fighters describing "demolition charges" they heard before the
collapse..
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsdglv3dS8
I believe the people heard "popping" sounds and could easily be mistaken
for
demolition charges. But mistaken they are.
Rivets popping, and floors slamming on each other is what they heard.
Nothing more.
|
Yeah, but we're not talking about "popping" sounds from a collapse.... We're
talking about large explosions that were felt, in some cases before the
collapse... even in the basement of the WTC... Its pretty easy to decern a
pop from explosives, and certainly fire fighters would know the difference,
so consider these statements:
Lou Cacchioli, Firefighter in WTC 1: At that point, Cacchioli found one of
the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor ...
"Tommy Hetzel was with me and everybody else also gets out of the elevator
when it stops on the 24th floor," said Cacchioli, "There was a huge amount
of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no
sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that
sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and
stalled the elevator.
"Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and were able to pry open the
doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I
am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the
staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me. "I somehow got into the
stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct
down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about
two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My
God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html
"My story was never mentioned in the final report
[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf] and I felt like I was
being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out.
They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they
wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't
let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims
and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11
Commission. The whole experience was terrible." Louie Cacchioli, fire
Evans: "...then somebody said that they saw an airliner go into one of those
towers. Then, an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much,
much lower down and I don't know what caused that."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bbc_evans.wmv
"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from
building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there
were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
Some more video clips...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_firefighters_explosion.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.msnbc.2.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FDNY-explosions.mov
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.the.explosion.blew.wmv
| Quote: |
Many of your assumptions are wrong.
|
Please don't patronize me... I have a background in engineering, and I've
studied this matter for a long time. Personally, I think anyone who thinks
fire on a few floors can cause an entire building to fall like any of the
three that fell that day is a loon - particularly so for WTC7... Every model
of engineering I've looked at says that even if it were possible to cause a
cascade collapse (which means we ignore the 47 vertical towers that were the
backbone of the towers), the fall would take no less than 90 seconds... Its
not hard to figure out... you know the weight of the building, and you know
approximately how much energy you need to break metal from the mass of the
structure. The building's frame gets stronger as you near the foundation, as
the metal tapers from about five inches think at the foundation, to about a
quarter of an inch at the top... These buildings are built to withstand
earthquakes, fires and high winds... and the towers were even overbuilt to
withstand multiple impacts from a four engine 707.
Not only did this massive HEAVY DUTY construction steel frame mysteriously
offer little more resistance than air.... the top portion of the building
STILL had enough momentum to cause a 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude seismic wave...
So you have to account for this massive amount of extra energy in a model
that fits that.
| Quote: |
While the steel didn't melt it was
softer from the heat and will parts of the support wiped out the
additional
stresses would have buckled the structure.
|
Only the critically heated portion would have buckled, assuming you could
get a structural steel frame that hot (with kerosene in an oxygen starved
environment), with its ability to dissipate heat. Then you've got all that
unheated structure offering the same resistance to collapse, and the totally
unlikely scenario of a collapse creating a 'dead centre perfect' vector
through the path of greatest resistance... This kind of stuff is kooky to
engineers who know anything.... A worst case scenario would be the top part
of the structure would lean over, then fall...
| Quote: |
While the first floor collapsing may have been uneven, each subsequent
floor
is designed to distribute the load. After a few floors collapsed, it
would
be straight down by design. A domino effect with floors slapping and
rivets
popping all over.
Anyone thinking people ran up to the floors with demolition charges after
the planes hit is truly off the deep end.
|
I don't know anyone who is saying that.... Its easy enough to get into the
maintenance crawl spaces and set up charges.... You don't need to do every
floor, and you don't need to do them the same day..... I suppose it would be
rather obvious that it was an inside job if the person who ran security had
some tie to the government - so do you know if there is one or not?
And AGAIN, I ask for an explanation for what we can see, starting at 2:15 of
the following video... Was that debris cloud caused by popping rivets, ya
think? I thought some of you "experts" might have come up with something to
explain it.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsdglv3dS8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Al Dykes
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:31 am Post subject: Re: Questions which are Unanswered on 911 |
|
|
In article <W1E7k.849$2G6.695@edtnps83>,
Semper Libčr® . <•nopolicestates????!?~Hj77@freedom4all.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Canuck57" <dave-no_spam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Ksc7k.22623$Jx.4766@pd7urf1no...
"Semper Libčr® ." <.nopolicestates????!?~Hj77@freedom4all.org> wrote in
message news:ZbY6k.357$2G6.117@edtnps83...
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about what we see in this
video.... Start it at 2:15 if you don't want to hear all of the
eyewitness
testimony about bombs going off all over the place - including a group
of
fire fighters describing "demolition charges" they heard before the
collapse..
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsdglv3dS8
I believe the people heard "popping" sounds and could easily be mistaken
for
demolition charges. But mistaken they are.
Rivets popping, and floors slamming on each other is what they heard.
Nothing more.
Yeah, but we're not talking about "popping" sounds from a collapse.... We're
talking about large explosions that were felt, in some cases before the
collapse... even in the basement of the WTC... Its pretty easy to decern a
pop from explosives, and certainly fire fighters would know the difference,
so consider these statements:
|
Any time you see an ellipsis ("..."), in the quotes someone gave you,
someone in the "Truth Movement" has deleted some text that make it
clear that the fireman, Cacchioli, for instance, was talking about the
collapse of a building, not a man-made demolition.
So much for "truth".
You may have "a background in engineering" but you've been lied to on
the facts of WTC so the conclusions you have come to are invalid. I've
appended a long list of instances of lies from the "ruth Movemet" at
the botom of yoiur text.
As an engineer, you should appreciate that.
These people are speaking of sounds made by a building
collapsing. Many of them were in the North tower when the South tower
collapsed. They herd loud noises but they didn;t know it was a tower
falling because their radios weren't working.
Any place you see an ellipsis
When you read an entire transcript for any of these people, it
generally becomes clear that what they heard was anything BUT man-made
explosion foillowed by collapse.
Below is the way to find thee full text transcripts for the firemen
and other.
I've read lots of them in full text.
You haven't.
And remember. the word "Explsion" is just a loud noise and if the
members of the "Truth Movement" ever learn what is meant by "simile"
and metaphor" and how they were used when eyewitnesses to WTC
described what they saw, the entire movement would blow away in a
pyroclastic cloud with a noise like a freight train.
Summary spreadsheet names & statements: http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/WTC7_Eyewitnesses.xls
Full text transcripts for those names: http://preview.tinyurl.com/36rak3
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/
nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
Lookup for a few non-fireman transcripts:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=016182179862191393560%3Ahx2yxincxdu
....
| Quote: |
And AGAIN, I ask for an explanation for what we can see, starting at 2:15 of
the following video... Was that debris cloud caused by popping rivets, ya
think? I thought some of you "experts" might have come up with something to
explain it.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsdglv3dS8
|
I don't know what that is but I know it's not man-made demolition.
I may get an answer from someone that has an encyclopedic knowledge of
the thousands of hours of video shot from all angles at WTC. We can
get a better idea of what it is.
None of the video has the sound of a man-made exposion.
The 1993 bombing (about 1,000 pounds of TNT) wasn't powerful to do any
structural damage to a tower yet it was heard inside all the WTC
towers and for blocks around. Nothing like that was heard on 9/11. On
9/11 there were countless video cameras running. None of them caught
the sound of demolition explosions.
| Quote: |
Lou Cacchioli, Firefighter in WTC 1: At that point, Cacchioli found one of
the only functioning elevators, one only going as high as the 24th floor ...
"Tommy Hetzel was with me and everybody else also gets out of the elevator
when it stops on the 24th floor," said Cacchioli, "There was a huge amount
of smoke. Tommy and I had to go back down the elevator for tools and no
sooner did the elevators close behind us, we heard this huge explosion that
sounded like a bomb. It was such a loud noise, it knocked off the lights and
stalled the elevator.
"Luckily, we weren't caught between floors and were able to pry open the
doors. People were going crazy, yelling and screaming. And all the time, I
am crawling low and making my way in the dark with a flashlight to the
staircase and thinking Tommy is right behind me. "I somehow got into the
stairwell and there were more people there. When I began to try and direct
down, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about
two minutes later, although it's hard to tell, but I'm thinking, 'Oh. My
God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!'
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html
"My story was never mentioned in the final report
[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf] and I felt like I was
being put on trial in a court room," said Cacchioli. "I finally walked out.
They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they
wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn't
let me do that, I walked out. ... It was a disgrace to everyone, the victims
and the family members who lost loved ones. I don't agree with the 9/11
Commission. The whole experience was terrible." Louie Cacchioli, fire
Evans: "...then somebody said that they saw an airliner go into one of those
towers. Then, an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much,
much lower down and I don't know what caused that."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/bbc_evans.wmv
"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from
building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there
were about ten explosions." [Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html
Some more video clips...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_firefighters_explosion.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.msnbc.2.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/FDNY-explosions.mov
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/911.wtc.the.explosion.blew.wmv
Many of your assumptions are wrong.
Please don't patronize me... I have a background in engineering, and I've
studied this matter for a long time. Personally, I think anyone who thinks
fire on a few floors can cause an entire building to fall like any of the
three that fell that day is a loon - particularly so for WTC7... Every model
of engineering I've looked at says that even if it were possible to cause a
cascade collapse (which means we ignore the 47 vertical towers that were the
backbone of the towers), the fall would take no less than 90 seconds... Its
not hard to figure out... you know the weight of the building, and you know
approximately how much energy you need to break metal from the mass of the
structure. The building's frame gets stronger as you near the foundation, as
the metal tapers from about five inches think at the foundation, to about a
quarter of an inch at the top... These buildings are built to withstand
earthquakes, fires and high winds... and the towers were even overbuilt to
withstand multiple impacts from a four engine 707.
Not only did this massive HEAVY DUTY construction steel frame mysteriously
offer little more resistance than air.... the top portion of the building
STILL had enough momentum to cause a 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude seismic wave...
So you have to account for this massive amount of extra energy in a model
that fits that.
While the steel didn't melt it was
softer from the heat and will parts of the support wiped out the
additional
stresses would have buckled the structure.
Only the critically heated portion would have buckled, assuming you could
get a structural steel frame that hot (with kerosene in an oxygen starved
environment), with its ability to dissipate heat. Then you've got all that
unheated structure offering the same resistance to collapse, and the totally
unlikely scenario of a collapse creating a 'dead centre perfect' vector
through the path of greatest resistance... This kind of stuff is kooky to
engineers who know anything.... A worst case scenario would be the top part
of the structure would lean over, then fall...
While the first floor collapsing may have been uneven, each subsequent
floor
is designed to distribute the load. After a few floors collapsed, it
would
be straight down by design. A domino effect with floors slapping and
rivets
popping all over.
Anyone thinking people ran up to the floors with demolition charges after
the planes hit is truly off the deep end.
I don't know anyone who is saying that.... Its easy enough to get into the
maintenance crawl spaces and set up charges.... You don't need to do every
floor, and you don't need to do them the same day..... I suppose it would be
rather obvious that it was an inside job if the person who ran security had
some tie to the government - so do you know if there is one or not?
|
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Al Dykes
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: Re: Questions which are Unanswered on 911 |
|
|
In article <ZbY6k.357$2G6.117@edtnps83>,
Semper Libčr® . <•nopolicestates????!?~Hj77@freedom4all.org> wrote:
| Quote: |
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question about what we see in this
video.... Start it at 2:15 if you don't want to hear all of the eyewitness
testimony about bombs going off all over the place - including a group of
fire fighters describing "demolition charges" they heard before the
collapse..
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=gqsdglv3dS8
|
It's freeze-frame from the first moments of the South tower collapse.
You should be suspicious when anyone shows you a frame without giving
you a link to the original video for context. As an engineer, you
should appreciate that.
The "Truth Movement" never does that.
Lots of smoke got pumped out the bottom when the south tower
collapsed. I've seen video of that from a couple angles.
It was witnesses by thousnds of people that were too close up. It was
caught on countless video camers.
Nobody saw or heard any noises consistent with man-made demolition.
It's not on any of the countless video cameras in use.
The bullshit about "only shown once" may be true but I wouldn't bet on
it and it's a big "so what" since all the networks had hundreds of
hours of more interesting material to use in repeats.
This is just more bullshit from people that use the word, "truth" much
to much.
--
Al Dykes
News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
- Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Peter Webb
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Questions which are Unanswered on 911 |
|
|
..
| Quote: |
Please don't patronize me... I have a background in engineering, and I've
studied this matter for a long time. Personally, I think anyone who thinks
fire on a few floors can cause an entire building to fall like any of the
three that fell that day is a loon - particularly so for WTC7... Every
model
of engineering I've looked at says that even if it were possible to cause
a
cascade collapse (which means we ignore the 47 vertical towers that were
the
backbone of the towers), the fall would take no less than 90 seconds...
Its
not hard to figure out... you know the weight of the building, and you
know
approximately how much energy you need to break metal from the mass of the
structure.
|
I can put your mind at rest on this one.
When a building falls in a pancake collapse (which everybody seeme to agree
happened), then the collisions between the floors are what are called
"inelastic", ie kinetic energy is not preserved. Momentum is conserved,
however.
The building would not fall any faster if the frame had been destroyed by
explosives, as this would not affect the momentum equation by anything other
than a microscopic amount - the energy required to break a steel beam is
many orders of magnitude less that the gravitational energy released when a
large building collapses.
I am surprised that some-one with a "background in engineering" would be
unaware of how to model inelastic collisions, and would not know that the
determinant is conservation of momentum, not conservation of energy.
My own calculations show that the further building has fallen, the closer
the equations of motion are to free fall. After the first few floors, it is
essentially free fall.
So you can put all this nonsense behind you. If you have an analysis which
depends upon the energy requirements to snap the beams, then its wrong. Post
it and I can show you where the mistake occurs.
| Quote: |
The building's frame gets stronger as you near the foundation, as
the metal tapers from about five inches think at the foundation, to about
a
quarter of an inch at the top... These buildings are built to withstand
earthquakes, fires and high winds... and the towers were even overbuilt to
withstand multiple impacts from a four engine 707.
Not only did this massive HEAVY DUTY construction steel frame mysteriously
offer little more resistance than air.... the top portion of the building
STILL had enough momentum to cause a 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude seismic wave...
So you have to account for this massive amount of extra energy in a model
that fits that.
|
Well, post your model.
That's one of the very, very strange things about the cranks who believe
that there must have been explosions, because the buildings fell too fast,
is that I have never seen any calculation of how fast the building should
have fallen if it was simply a pancake collapse with no explosions.
Without such a calculation showing how fast they should have collapsed
without explosives, I can't see how anybody could claim they fell too fast.
You have an "enginnering background", you appear to believe this strange
story, and you specifically say the buildimgs fell too fast, and you say its
easy to figure out the correct time it would take the buildings to fall (45
seconds).
So could you show us the calculations that produce this figure of 45
seconds, or indeed any calculation on how fast the buildings "should" have
collapsed?
TIA
Peter Webb |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
