It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

page: 19
7
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


what do you mean "cherry picking" the west wall? that's where the feature which proves demo is.

i suppose i'm "cherry picking" the wtc complex, too, and i should be generalising and talking about every building that ever collapsed as being exactly the same conditions and features. it doesn't matter that the observed affect is only observable on one side. it is NOT POSSIBLE in a natural collapse, PERIOD.

FACT: the debris shooting out of the building on the west wall outpaces the freefalling debris for some segments, WELL after the collapse has begun.

should i highlight again that you said "i KNOW that is at the beginning of the collapse".

well, i proved you wrong, and i keep proving you wrong, because, it's not me that;s proving it, it's reality that's proving it.




posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


well, at least your doing some real research now.
the hiring practices of the sixties were not the same as those of today. people didn't need degrees in order o get a job. they only needed to show ability (awe, the good old days).
so, while you may contend this or that, i contend that laffoley is an honest man whom i liked very much. i would say he is a visionary genius. he's like 70 years old, and he can talk about his lofty ideas expressed in his art until you can't listen anymore. a real dynamo.
whatever.
what paul laffoley said has no bearing on the physical evidence i am repeatedly showing you, though.
maybe he's lying through his teeth. i seriously doubt it, as he has told his story in MANY places, and it never changes (unlike arguing with a shifty debbie). the point of me posting the account of my meeting with him was to document it. the reader can decide for themselves whether they trust his information or not. i tend to believe him for the most part.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

the hiring practices of the sixties were not the same as those of today. people didn't need degrees in order o get a job. they only needed to show ability

i contend that laffoley is an honest man whom i liked very much.

what paul laffoley said has no bearing on the physical evidence i am repeatedly showing you, though.

maybe he's lying through his teeth. i seriously doubt it, as he has told his story in MANY places, and it never changes. the point of me posting the account of my meeting with him was to document it. the reader can decide for themselves whether they trust his information or not. i tend to believe him for the most part.


I don't want this to degenerate into a dispute. Lafolley is probably a great guy. Still, I'd bet dollars to donuts he has embroidered an uneventful job as a draftsman for a firm doing designs for the WTC into a controversial high intrigue story.

This happens all the time when someone is around an historical event or name celebrity. People exaggerate, enhance or fabricate stories drawing themselves into the Eye of the Storm.

You're right about architectural firm hiring practices. People did get entry level jobs back when specialty training was not widespread. But I'll guarantee the mosque and palace building bin Ladens over in Saudi Arabia never were anywhere near the WTC when it was in the design stage.

Future terrorism boss Osama bin Laden was only 7 years old when Lafolley worked on the WTC designs. No indication his family was thinking about blowing up American landmarks back in 1964.

Interesting to watch how mythology develops right before our eyes.


M



[edit on 27-11-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

what do you mean "cherry picking" the west wall? that's where the feature which proves demo is.



That's right. Cherry picked.

Here's where you've debunked yourself though.

Your statement that the "squibs" shouldn't out-accelerate the free falling debris is correct. However, this isn't what your gif shows.

It shows that the fall rate,or speed, during a very brief period (about .3 seconds?) to be about the same.

What you have cherry picked here is a moment in time where the fall speed of both about equals each other. All this does is fool the uneducated CTers that you have "proof" of something.

Your gif would be a decent way of determining a very rough acceleration comparison ONLY if both pieces are observed from a dead stop. But since they are already in motion, a much more detailed analysis is needed.

For it is inescapably true for someone who claims to have "some" knowledge of physics, such as yourself, that if object 1 starts in motion first ( the floors blowing air out from between them, or "squibs") and accelerates at .6g; and is followed by object 2 ( the free falling debris ) which accelerates at .95g, then there WILL be a time at which their RATE of speed will be roughly equal.

What you need is:

1- an analysis of the "squibs", noting their progression floor by floor (feet) by using pixel analysis, and noting the time it takes to move x far. this will give you a graph that will give you an acceleration curve that you can show on a graph for all to see.

2- do the same for the debris.

3- determine if you are correct.

You are left with a few options here:

a) admit that you know nothing of physics and were spoofed by "those damn fool conspiracy websites", and that you never produced this gif to begin with.

b) admit that you know nothing of physics and fooled yourself.

c) admit that you indeed know enough about physics and used your rather primitive knowledge to try and spoof ATS users.

All options prove my sig line correct.......



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


here's the thing.
the whole excuse that the debunker camp has use to explain these jets of debris, is that somehow air was concentrated through the hvac or elevator shafts, and then jetted out across the floor (debunkers don't believe in pressure equalisation, apparently) in a concentrated air flow.
this phenomena could supposedly pass down forty stories ahead of the collapse front through overpressure created in a "syringe" effect.

that's always been a desperate stretch at best.

the gif i pointed out shows that the whole floor on that side was blowing out debris, yet the concentrated jet manages to "stay focused" in the obvious extreme turbulence.

it isn't about the velocity of the jet plume, it is about it's location. there is nothing left on the inside to concentrate an airflow at that point in the collapse, as the adjacent ejecta illustrates.

please stick to the arguments, and stop trying to pidgeon-hole me as knowing something or nothing about physics. i'm willing to discuss, but only with people who are willing to focus on arguments, and leave their personal assessments of my resume and abilities out of it.

the ejecta wave from the inside goes in fits and starts, and at during at least one period, is seen significantly out-accelerating the freefalling debris.

i can see it, i don't need to quantify it for MY satisfaction. measure it yourself, if you want to prove me wrong.

why don't you defend NIST's model of the wtc7 "exterior deformation" vs. the ruler straight sides seen in the videos of the collapse, now?
and, explain the 2.28 seconds of freefall of wtc7 as possible using gravity alone, while your at it?

and, while your at it, explain why none of you debunkers has even touched the "core" argument? that being, the rate of descent of ALL three collapses. i have shown features traveling down the inside faster than stuff traveling on the outside.

you have labeled me a fraud, and now, either a simpleton or a charlatan. i tire of your insults, inuendo and defamation of my character. you can stop it, now, thank you very much. i don't like "telling" on people, but you're really starting to press my nerve. please moderate yourself.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   


watch it folks. about half way through the gif, you see the wave of ejecta out accelerate the freefalling debris.
this is from the west face of wtc1 (and i still don't see how that's "cherry picking"? what, because there's four sides, and i'm only concentrating on the one where the phenomena is visible? debunkers never cease to amaze me by the stretches they'll make to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear), and apparently, wtc2 exhibited similiar behaviour, except for two thirds of the descent. more to come on that as i find time to ferret it out.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I will ask AGAIN: Can you provide the page number that says the steel never reached over 250C? I am going by THEIR statement that the fires reached upwards of 1000C in areas, and the steel lost its structural integrity at 600C, and I already gave you the page number that shows this.


A simple google search with the key words "NIST wtc steel samples" brings up their metallurgical study. Of which this portion is included.


Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 °C.
These areas were:
• WTC 1, east face, floor 98, column 210, inner web,
• WTC 1, east face, floor 92, column 236, inner web,
• WTC 1, north face, floor 98, column 143, floor truss connector
Other forensic evidence indicates that the last example probably occurred in the debris pile after collapse.
Annealing studies on recovered steels established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to
alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of
steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence
of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.


wtc.nist.gov...

Don't ask me to do your homework for you again.


I thought you claimed to have read the report?

Also notice that only the inner web reached temperatures greater than 250C. What was the temperature of the flanges?

If you don't know what I'm talking about. An "I" or "H" beam has the inner web...this part (l)...and the flanges...this part =


Then you just contradicted yourself. Both Eagan and NIST agree that temperatures only need to reach 600C or so for steel to lose its structural integrity.


And again you are confusing fire temperature and steel temperature (btw...steel doesn't lose it's structural integrity at 600C...it loses half of it's structural integrity). Let me put it this way. A Bic lighter's flame temperature (the fire) is ....


A Bic flame burns at 1977 C or about 3590 F


wiki.answers.com...

Steel melts at a considerable lower temperature than this.....


It melts at about 1300 °C (2400 °F).


wiki.answers.com...&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=Melting_point_of_steel

Now, I dare you to film yourself melting a steel paperclip with a Bic lighter. Go ahead and prove me wrong.


In case you don't realize it, if you're really arguing on such a incredible microscopic level of detail where you absolutely have to know the exact fuel to area dispersement ratio within the building, it's more of a mark of desperation, then it is anything else.


Desperation? When the point is that you claim Eager is irrefutable and his whole theory is founded on there being this fuel rich fire. Please. The only desperation is you trying to weasle out of this.


The jet fuel set the buildings on fire. If you can't grasp that concept then this discussion is about to go nowhere fast.


And NIST found only 2 partial samples of steel that reached above 250C. We now have a conundrum, eh?

[edit on 27-11-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob

it isn't about the velocity of the jet plume, it is about it's location.

please stick to the arguments,


Your arguments has changed though. First you posted a gif that you say that shows the "squibs" out accelerated the debris. In this post, you've completely disregarded making that argument. Quit jumpimg around.

So do you agree, or do you not agree that your gif does not show what you claim it does?


and stop trying to pidgeon-hole me as knowing something or nothing about physics.


You're the one that set yourself up as having enough expertise in physics to be considered as some type of authority on the subject of physics and acceleration analysis.

Therefore, I'll attack your misrepresentation of your authority as I see fit, for all to see and understand. If you have a problem with that, then you should refrain from making the argument from authority fallacy, unless you want to first do the 3 step analysis that I outlined.

Your choice.


measure it yourself, if you want to prove me wrong.


Nah, I've already shot enough holes in your statements for rational people to investigate further.

Plus, shifting of burden ring a bell?


why don't you defend NIST's model of the wtc7 "exterior deformation" vs. the ruler straight sides seen in the videos of the collapse, now?


Cuz I haven't looked into it yet. I'm expecting that this is the same misrepresentation that tezza reported on during his experience with Gage's lecture. Namely, that he uses the undamaged models for comparison with reality, rather then the one that incorporates the damage.


and, explain the 2.28 seconds of freefall of wtc7 as possible using gravity alone, while your at it?


I already did, earlier in this very thread. So no need.


that being, the rate of descent of ALL three collapses. i have shown features traveling down the inside faster than stuff traveling on the outside.


More cherry picking then? And you're proud of this?


you have labeled me a fraud, and now, either a simpleton or a charlatan.


And rightly so. I've exposed you as such. You have several options. You must pick one.


i tire of your insults, inuendo and defamation of my character. you can stop it, now, thank you very much.


I'll continue as I see fit.

Sorry if that bugs you. But if you decide to set yourself up as some sort of authority, then you mustn't get all pissy when I show your errors for all to see.

Notice how I did that though. I first attacked the argument you made with your gif - sucessfully, since you haven't defended it - and then came to the conclusion that you are NO authority.

That's how life works.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
about half way through the gif, you see the wave of ejecta out accelerate the freefalling debris.


You don't get it do you? A gif doesn't give the data you claim it does.

At what % of g was the debris descending?

And the "squib" wave?

If you can't answer this and show your work, then it is nothing but a bare assertion fallacy.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
And NIST found only 2 partial samples of steel that reached above 250C. We now have a conundrum, eh?


Nope.

NIST's report doesn't rely on steel temps at 600C.

Viscoelsatic creep to the point of failure can happen after an hour to steel if it's loaded enough at temps as low as 200C.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Nope.

NIST's report doesn't rely on steel temps at 600C.

Viscoelsatic creep to the point of failure can happen after an hour to steel if it's loaded enough at temps as low as 200C.


You said the magic words. Where did this significant load come from?



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

You don't get it do you? A gif doesn't give the data you claim it does.


"bare assertion fallacy." i'm not exactly sure what that means, but i will assume it means the same thing that mmichael and many debunkers do all the time. i call it (baseless) authoritative pronouncements.
the two rates can both be measured from that gif. i didn't actually measure how fast things are going, but that is not even important, it is the relative accelerations between the two that matter. it is clear to see that the inside expulsions outpace the freefalling debris for a period.
it can be measured from the gif, and so, if a bare assertion fallacy means what i think it means, then, you're wrong (again).



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
At what % of g was the debris descending?


100% minus air resistance (air resistance being highly negligible due to mass vs. surface area of the perimeter panels, weighing in at several tons, each). if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't ask this question.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And the "squib" wave?


squib wave? when did i say squib wave? oh, right. never.
the wave i speak of, is more properly the "crush front". the lowest point of ejecta visible shooting out from inside the tower. the "squib" ("dust plume") i pointed out is a feature seperate from the downward progress of the ejecta, the "EJECTA WAVE".


Originally posted by Joey CanoliIf you can't answer this and show your work, then it is nothing but a bare assertion fallacy.


i think you bare ass-ertioned yerself, there.



[edit on 27-11-2009 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Approximate three hour fire on and around the 11th floor of WTC in 1975 and no collapse. According to Fire Chief, the fire was "like fighting a blow torch."
"Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat."
And yet, no collapse. How much weight is there to the building above the 11th Floor?

www.historycommons.org...

South Tower burns for 56 minutes on 9/11 and collapses.
North Tower burn for 102 minutes on 9/11 and collapses.
How much weight is there to the building above the 90th floor? Obviously, a helluva lot less than the weight above the 11th floor.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by billybob

it isn't about the velocity of the jet plume, it is about it's location.

please stick to the arguments,


Your arguments has changed though. First you posted a gif that you say that shows the "squibs" out accelerated the debris. In this post, you've completely disregarded making that argument. Quit jumpimg around.


please quote me on this. it's only one page back.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So do you agree, or do you not agree that your gif does not show what you claim it does?


i stand by everything i typed.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Therefore, I'll attack your misrepresentation of your authority as I see fit, for all to see and understand. If you have a problem with that, then you should refrain from making the argument from authority fallacy, unless you want to first do the 3 step analysis that I outlined.

Your choice.


i don't have a problem with it. the evidence is all like ispa loquitur, and i don't need you to set my goal posts. you are not worthy. i have posted hard evidence, and i stand by it.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by billybob
measure it yourself, if you want to prove me wrong.


Nah, I've already shot enough holes in your statements for rational people to investigate further.

Plus, shifting of burden ring a bell?


no, sounds like debunker debating tactic rhetoric. i'm only interested in exposing rational people to the data. people like you are mere propagandists pissing in the wind.


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by billybob
why don't you defend NIST's model of the wtc7 "exterior deformation" vs. the ruler straight sides seen in the videos of the collapse, now?


Cuz I haven't looked into it yet. I'm expecting that this is the same misrepresentation that tezza reported on during his experience with Gage's lecture. Namely, that he uses the undamaged models for comparison with reality, rather then the one that incorporates the damage.


well, bad guess, but anyway, here you go....
nist's computer model of how the tower would look given their scenario of collapse:



and, what it actually looked like:





Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by billybob
and, explain the 2.28 seconds of freefall of wtc7 as possible using gravity alone, while your at it?


I already did, earlier in this very thread. So no need.


impossible acceleration for an unassisted collapse. please paste your explanation into your reply so i can tear it up like a kleenex in a snot storm. if you are going to try the typical, "it was just the curtain wall, as the interior had collapsed earlier" thing, then save it, 'cause all the floor joists were attached to the "curtain wall", and it is impossible for the interior to fall without extensive visible deformation of the exterior COLUMNS and walls, and more importantly, even IF the walls were standing all by themselves and the entire interior is missing, there must STILL be SOME resistance from the wall itself. NOTHING can fall through itself faster than it can fall through air.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by billybob
that being, the rate of descent of ALL three collapses. i have shown features traveling down the inside faster than stuff traveling on the outside.


More cherry picking then? And you're proud of this?


i get that quotes can be "cherry picked" to skew perception of the intent of the speaker, but i have NO IDEA what the heck you are talking about when we are talking about raw data and science.



Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by billybob
you have labeled me a fraud, and now, either a simpleton or a charlatan.


And rightly so. I've exposed you as such. You have several options. You must pick one.


right back at ya. you've only proved that you can dodge and shift around the real issues. i don't have to pick anything. i am confident that anyone with a half a brain who reads these exchanges will get the proper understanding of the issues at hand.
once again, this is not about me. it is about the evidence. (and not YOUR interpretation of the evidence, if i could cut you off at the kness)


Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by billybob
i tire of your insults, inuendo and defamation of my character. you can stop it, now, thank you very much.


I'll continue as I see fit.

Sorry if that bugs you. But if you decide to set yourself up as some sort of authority, then you mustn't get all pissy when I show your errors for all to see.

Notice how I did that though. I first attacked the argument you made with your gif - sucessfully, since you haven't defended it - and then came to the conclusion that you are NO authority.

That's how life works.


no, that's how the mind of a propagandist works. i welcome people pointing out my errors. you have pointed out ZERO errors. "bare assertion fallacy"?
and, just so you know. continue as you see fit, but if you keep it up with the personal mudslinging, i will call for moderation. i'd rather we just duke it out mano a mano de facto.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by billybob]



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
i didn't actually measure how fast things are going


Then you have failed in your analysis, since.....


but that is not even important,



Your claim depends on it.

The fact that you don't see this yet again proves my sig line.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
this is not about me. it is about the evidence.


Exactly.

And you have admitted to NOT measuring the speed, and by the lack of evidence to the contrary, neither have you done the accel measurements.

So again, bare assertion.

And again, you have proven my sig line.



posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
You said the magic words. Where did this significant load come from?


Did you forget about the plane impacts?

NIST estimates what kind of increased loads the remaining columns took after that event.

And then viscoelastic creep unloads the 250C columns and transfers their load too onto other remaining columns.

Then the trusses pull in the exterior columns, which shortens them slightly, and their loads are transferred also.

It's a whole series of events, not a single factor.

Do you understand now how you've been lied to when "these damn fool conspiracy websites" tell you that the columns didn't get to 600C, so they couldn't have collapsed?



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


your signature line your so proud of is a bad joke. a "bare assertion fallacy" (i looked it up, and it's what i thought it was. "truth" by pronouncement).

once again, the relative accelerations are what is relevant. the actual speed is not important for THIS argument. the fact that the debris coming from the inside travels earthward faster than the debris falling through air is enough.
it is simple to see in the gif.

anyway, it is measurable, so unless YOU measure it, you're just howling at the moon with your demands for (irrelevant) data from me.

once again:



it is CLEAR AS DAY to see that the leading piece of debris is a large chunk of perimeter columns(weighing tons, and therefore not subject to much resistance from air). it is also CLEAR AS DAY that it was the first thing to be ejected from that side, meaning it has been accelerating at G in freefall for several storeys, and it is CLEAR AS DAY that the spew coming out the side outpaces it.

when you see a race, do you need to make a graph to see which car is catching up to which car?

'cause, it's CLEAR AS DAY that the inside catches up to the the external debris, and then lags a bit behind again. during the period where it catches up, it is out-accelerating gravity.



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Did you forget about the plane impacts?


No I didn't.


NIST estimates what kind of increased loads the remaining columns took after that event.


Yes, and the estimation is what? 15% of one wall and a few core columns. Since the safety factor was well over this, obviously they stood.


And then viscoelastic creep unloads the 250C columns and transfers their load too onto other remaining columns.


You'll actually have to prove that steel unloads from viscoelastic creep at temperatures of 250C and this increase in load. I'm hard pressed in finding this phenomenon. All I can find are things that say high temperature, but nothing that states at what temperature steel turns viscoelastic vs. load.

Nor can I find it in the NIST report. Any help?


Then the trusses pull in the exterior columns, which shortens them slightly, and their loads are transferred also.


So, big strong columns lose their strength through viscoelasticity at 250C but the flimsy floor trusses had enough strength to pull anything in at far higher temperatures?

Seems extremely contradictory to me. Especially when the trusses are what lost the fireproofing and would have been at temperatures far greater than 250C.


It's a whole series of events, not a single factor.


Yet this chaotic series of events happened not once but twice?


Do you understand now how you've been lied to when "these damn fool conspiracy websites" tell you that the columns didn't get to 600C, so they couldn't have collapsed?


Just a reminder. I don't listen to anyone. I make up my mind and research on my own.


[edit on 28-11-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Nov, 28 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
I'd just like to throw this in about the creep:

NCSTAR 1-6C
Page 17
"Creep: Steel creeps at elevated temperatures (T >/= 350C)."

"For 350C less than or equal to T less than or equal to 550C, creep strain is underestimated with a(T) by Eq. (7-d). However, the differences is small, and creep strains for temperatures below 500C are usually negligible."



NCSTAR 1-3D
Page 130
"Creep tests were conducted at temperatures 400C, 500C, 600C and 650C."

Page 138
"Note also that the functional form of Eqs. 6-5 and 6-6 does not capture THE SMALL STRENGTH INCREASE caused by dynamic strain aging at temperatures less than 300C."

Page 152
"Of course, creep at temperatures less than about 400C is insignificant, so the specifics of the behavior at low temperatures will not affect the measurable strain."



Then we take the above and actually remember it and look at the core column temps they are estimating in NCSTAR 1-5G, page 118:

"The temperature axis has a range from 0-750C. SOME OF THE CORE COLUMNS SHOW TEMPERATURE VALUES THAT ARE HIGHER THEN 750C, which results in a break in the time-temperature profile."

And if we look at the pretty pictures starting on page 120 it seems they're saying more than half of the core columns reached over 400C to be able to experience creep.




top topics



 
7
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join