ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Frederic Henry-couannier , wtc demolition

Reply
Old 8th January 2010, 03:20 PM   #1
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
henryco's new paper

Hello,

I tried to announce this a week ago:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/Pancake_GB.html

Was it on the wrong thread?

F

Mod Info
Hi henryco,

This post and the previous one I deleted are off-topic for the thread. But I approved the post this time since you seem to have missed the private messages I sent you.

The best thing would be for you (or someone who knows the topic) to start a new thread.


ETA: nevermind

Split from: New Thread to Discuss The Excellent Analysis of Jones latest paper.
Posted By:Gaspode

Last edited by Gaspode; 12th January 2010 at 05:31 AM.
henryco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2010, 07:41 PM   #2
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Hello,

I tried to announce this a week ago:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/Pancake_GB.html

Was it on the wrong thread?

F

Mod InfoHi henryco,

This post and the previous one I deleted are off-topic for the thread. But I approved the post this time since you seem to have missed the private messages I sent you.

The best thing would be for you (or someone who knows the topic) to start a new thread.
Posted By:Gaspode

I bookmarked the paper....at first read I don't understand why you believe the "ejections" must have come from air pressure alone....why couldn't they come from collisions during the collapse?
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 08:55 AM   #3
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Collisions would not account for ejections of solid matter ahead of the collapsing front. They could only act at the speed of gravity. Over-pressurization would occur much more quickly.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 09:15 AM   #4
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 869
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Collisions would not account for ejections of solid matter ahead of the collapsing front. They could only act at the speed of gravity. Over-pressurization would occur much more quickly.
It just shows how off the rails the twoofer claims of how the air ejections=explosives going off=ext columns being flung out.

If the air being squeezed out from between the floors and through the windows is from explosive, and the explosives are responsible for these ext columns hitting the Winter Garden, then it should be easy to see in videos these columns being propelled at the very instant this air is being ejected. If explosives were indeed responsible, then it MUST be when these air ejections are seen, since any rational person realizes that the impulse can't come later.(of course THAT'S the point. Twoofs aren't rational)

But instead, we never see that. We see the air ejections progress down the building, and the ext columns still firmly in place, and not yet moving.

Ok, so now they'll claim that those were "turning the floor into dust", and the explosives that blew the columns came an instant later and were obscured by the dust clouds. So how does that work when the floors are gone, and the falling floors would have "wiped away" any charges that could have been attached to the inside of the ext columns?

There's just zero consistency from these morons. Not even Tony Szamboti seems to be able to meet that rather important criteria.
Seymour Butz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 09:37 AM   #5
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,818
wrong again, lefty:
Ejections due to collisions belong in the F=K*X part of the equation, where K is the spring rate of the material section. When a steel beam (or any elastic material) is compressed, bent, stretched, or otherwise distorted, it stores energy as E=1/2K*X2.
It follows from that that the acceleration resulting, when the spring is released, is a=K*X/m, where m is the mass of the ejecta, X is the deflection of the distorted part, and K is spring constant. This can be many times g, and if it acts opposite g, can even fling stuff upwards.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 09:47 AM   #6
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
wrong again, lefty:
Ejections due to collisions belong in the F=K*X part of the equation, where K is the spring rate of the material section. When a steel beam (or any elastic material) is compressed, bent, stretched, or otherwise distorted, it stores energy as E=1/2K*X2.
It follows from that that the acceleration resulting, when the spring is released, is a=K*X/m, where m is the mass of the ejecta, X is the deflection of the distorted part, and K is spring constant. This can be many times g, and if it acts opposite g, can even fling stuff upwards.
This is why you can shoot a rubber band up.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 12:29 PM   #7
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Another delusional paper proves there are a few fringe conspiracy minded people who don't care if they publish total nonsense.

What was the total joules in the collapse?

What did the authorities say when you presented this poppycock? What did the Journal of Engineering Mechanics say? Working on your Pulitzer package?

Last edited by beachnut; 12th January 2010 at 12:41 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 01:39 PM   #8
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Collisions would not account for ejections of solid matter ahead of the collapsing front. They could only act at the speed of gravity. Over-pressurization would occur much more quickly.
Just noticed this post....

I don't know....I am not expert in fluid dynamics or turbulence but I would think that huge columns falling onto and dislodging the still attached columns, floor trusses, etc could cause some pretty forceful collisions....

I could be wrong here though....
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 01:41 PM   #9
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
wrong again, lefty:
Ejections due to collisions belong in the F=K*X part of the equation, where K is the spring rate of the material section. When a steel beam (or any elastic material) is compressed, bent, stretched, or otherwise distorted, it stores energy as E=1/2K*X2.
It follows from that that the acceleration resulting, when the spring is released, is a=K*X/m, where m is the mass of the ejecta, X is the deflection of the distorted part, and K is spring constant. This can be many times g, and if it acts opposite g, can even fling stuff upwards.
Ah yes.....that makes sense......that could cause some ejections I would imagine....
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 03:08 PM   #10
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
It follows from that that the acceleration resulting, when the spring is released, is a=K*X/m, where m is the mass of the ejecta, X is the deflection of the distorted part, and K is spring constant. This can be many times g, and if it acts opposite g, can even fling stuff upwards.
The spring effect is not readily apparent in the collapses. As best I understand what you have posted, this should, if it could accelerate downward motion, have shot some items out ahead of up upward through the dust plumes. This is not observed. Further, when a spring is released, it tends 9from what I have observed in real life)to follow the path of least resistance, which, in this case, would be horizontal.

It is unlikely that a great deal of potential energy was released by collision of steel-with-steel, since so much of it was layered with concrete.

The only effect I can easily model in my head resylting from the elasticity of steel would be to increase the stresses placed on concrete slabs. This may, then, be the "missing energy" that some of the less mentally stable twoofers rant about when they discuss the pulverisation of the concrete.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 03:23 PM   #11
Alferd_Packer
Philosopher
 
Alferd_Packer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,746
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
It is unlikely that a great deal of potential energy was released by collision of steel-with-steel, since so much of it was layered with concrete.
We are talking about the exterior columns. They were not "layered with concrete."

imagine that as the bulk of the colapsing floors and top of the building dropped, it wedged the exterior walls outward while the floor connections would have pulled them inward, buckling the exterior columns like a bow. when the floor conections and the column connections fractured a lot of energy would have been released.
__________________
No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

Last edited by Alferd_Packer; 12th January 2010 at 03:24 PM.
Alferd_Packer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 03:43 PM   #12
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,818
Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer View Post
We are talking about the exterior columns. They were not "layered with concrete."

imagine that as the bulk of the colapsing floors and top of the building dropped, it wedged the exterior walls outward while the floor connections would have pulled them inward, buckling the exterior columns like a bow. when the floor conections and the column connections fractured a lot of energy would have been released.
In controled demolition, management of the gravitational; energy (PE due to position) is the easy part. It's all those pesky springs that cause the problems. That's one reason why, on the occasions they do demolish steel-framed buildings, they do so much cutting of steel to weaken the structure-and why they get paid the big bucks...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 04:30 PM   #13
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
The towers were different. The floor-to-perimeter connection was a lot weaker than in conventional structures. The perimeter columns supported each other and the floors were more spacers than an integrated part of the structure of the perimeter clumns.

When collapse started, any pulling-downward-and-inward was overcome by the great pass of debris trying to spread laterally against the resistance of the perimeter columns. Thus we have a fluid mass contributing to the ejection of perimeter columns, probably levering three-piece segments of the perimeter outward a couple of floors ahead of the collapsing front. This would accelerate the rate of collapse slightly. The increase in falling mass would also over-pressurize the interior of the building below the collapsing front, but not greatly. This is why the "squibs" start out as whisps of dust and gradually fill up with matter.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2010, 04:39 PM   #14
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
wrong again, lefty:
Ejections due to collisions belong in the F=K*X part of the equation, where K is the spring rate of the material section. When a steel beam (or any elastic material) is compressed, bent, stretched, or otherwise distorted, it stores energy as E=1/2K*X2.
It follows from that that the acceleration resulting, when the spring is released, is a=K*X/m, where m is the mass of the ejecta, X is the deflection of the distorted part, and K is spring constant. This can be many times g, and if it acts opposite g, can even fling stuff upwards.
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
This is why you can shoot a rubber band up.
Or why hitting a nail off center can send it flying. Which is why you're supposed to wear goggles when hammering a nail.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 06:24 AM   #15
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
I still do not see how the springing properties enter into the picture to any great extent in the towers. They may be more significant in re WTC 7, in which all the columns were already under a great deal of stress as built.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 07:26 AM   #16
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
I still do not see how the springing properties enter into the picture to any great extent in the towers. They may be more significant in re WTC 7, in which all the columns were already under a great deal of stress as built.
Energy in columns do not dissipate immediately after the load has been released. Think of how a spring behaves. This is what the towers will do.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 03:05 PM   #17
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
Energy in columns do not dissipate immediately after the load has been released. Think of how a spring behaves. This is what the towers will do.
So am I correct in assuming the ejections can indeed be caused by collisions and not necessairly by air pressure alone?
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 03:17 PM   #18
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
So am I correct in assuming the ejections can indeed be caused by collisions and not necessairly by air pressure alone?
The steel ejections were not caused by air pressure at all. The dust plumes, concrete and maybe even furniture could be caused be ejected by air pressure.

Do a sanity check if you don't believe me. The velocity of the air pressure would need to be nigh on super-sonic to cause a steel column to be thrown outwards.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 03:20 PM   #19
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,818
Originally Posted by newton3376 View Post
So am I correct in assuming the ejections can indeed be caused by collisions and not necessairly by air pressure alone?
indeed- they mostly are due to collisions. Windows (of which most of the facade was made) breaks at considerably lower load than steel and aluminum, and will act as a pressure relief...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 03:32 PM   #20
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
Energy in columns do not dissipate immediately after the load has been released. Think of how a spring behaves. This is what the towers will do.
I still see the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as more resembling the rersults of a mub slide or turbidity flow than they do the release of a spring.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 03:46 PM   #21
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
I still see the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 as more resembling the rersults of a mub slide or turbidity flow than they do the release of a spring.
The mud slide is a decent analogy (or avalanche) as the collisions (to make a complex problem simple) is what causes the next set of solid objects to move.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 05:12 PM   #22
metamars
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
Hello,

I tried to announce this a week ago:
http://www.darksideofgravity.com/Pancake_GB.html
Dr. Greening gave a lengthy reply on The 911 Forum
metamars is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 05:13 PM   #23
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,818
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
The mud slide is a decent analogy (or avalanche) as the collisions (to make a complex problem simple) is what causes the next set of solid objects to move.
Not a bad way to describe it at all. I'll accept that.
Pretty close call, Lefty...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 05:21 PM   #24
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,788
Originally Posted by metamars View Post
Dr. Greening gave a lengthy reply on The 911 Forum
Without reading Dr G stuff, it will say the paper is woo.

When will the OP paper be published in a real journal?

Is the 911 Forum quiet? Have the sincere 911 researchers boken a big story of delusoins, or returned to reality?

Last edited by beachnut; 13th January 2010 at 05:37 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 05:33 PM   #25
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,858
The floor slabs progressively collapsed inside the columns (the window squibs slightly behind the free falling perimeter columns sections ) The unsupported perimeter columns then toppled outwards. Like balancing one stick at the end of another stick. They distanced out as far as they were high. 40-50 stories 5-600 hundred feet at Winter Garden.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=149420

Last edited by BasqueArch; 13th January 2010 at 05:39 PM.
BasqueArch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 11:15 PM   #26
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
The steel ejections were not caused by air pressure at all. The dust plumes, concrete and maybe even furniture could be caused be ejected by air pressure.

Do a sanity check if you don't believe me. The velocity of the air pressure would need to be nigh on super-sonic to cause a steel column to be thrown outwards.
I thought about this for a while and now I feel kind of silly...

Yeah the air pressure would have to be ridiculous to throw those columns....
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th January 2010, 11:32 PM   #27
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
More importantly, only a shock wave could have done such -- and only high explosives could create a shock wave.

But if there were high explosives large enough to throw those pieces, then they would have thrown smaller pieces much farther. Think of all the windows. Think "shrapnel." Odds are that anyone within a klick or so would have been cut to bits, and we wouldn't have gotten any close up footage since the cameras would all have been destroyed.

I covered this in my whitepaper, years ago, pages 96-98. The minimum size for an explosive to throw those columns is in the neighborhood of 800 kg. That's a heck of a big bomb. No way that happened. The lethality radius for a comparable bomb (the Mk. 84) is approximately 400 meters...

In contrast, since the largest pieces of steel flew the farthest, that means the distance is drag-limited, or caused by retained spring energy per pound, or both, since these mechanisms favor larger pieces. Both are also totally consistent with an explosives-free, unsuspicious collapse.

That's all there is to it. The "paper" in question is nothing new at all, just a retread of stupid ideas we retired years ago.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 12:48 AM   #28
moorea34
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 157
I've done an answer to this 'paper'...

http://bastison.net/APPROXIMATIONS/a...tions.html#B13

You can translate the page with the button at the end of the page...

It's part of this : www.bastison.net





The translation works with Internet Explorer, I don't know with others navigators

Last edited by moorea34; 14th January 2010 at 12:50 AM.
moorea34 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2010, 03:03 AM   #29
240-185
Muse
 
240-185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Without reading Dr G stuff, it will say the paper is woo.

When will the OP paper be published in a real journal?

Is the 911 Forum quiet? Have the sincere 911 researchers boken a big story of delusoins, or returned to reality?
henryco will NEVER publish in a real journal since he believes his works are rejected by peer-reviewers because they are too "innovative". I am serious.
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh*

My 9/11 Crackpot Index
240-185 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 02:07 AM   #30
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by 240-185 View Post
henryco will NEVER publish in a real journal since he believes his works are rejected by peer-reviewers because they are too "innovative". I am serious.
For an unknown reason, i was not informed that my post was published on Jref until yesterday monday 18th. I did not received the messages sent to me before. I will start by answering as soon as possible Dr Greening explanations on the 911 forum.

I will never publish in a peer-reviewer journal, not because i'm too innovative for them but because its a feodal system completely under control of various lobbies and i dont want to waste my time.

Frederic Henry-Couannier
henryco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 03:50 AM   #31
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
It just shows how off the rails the twoofer claims of how the air ejections=explosives going off=ext columns being flung out.

If the air being squeezed out from between the floors and through the windows is from explosive, and the explosives are responsible for these ext columns hitting the Winter Garden, then it should be easy to see in videos these columns being propelled at the very instant this air is being ejected. If explosives were indeed responsible, then it MUST be when these air ejections are seen, since any rational person realizes that the impulse can't come later.(of course THAT'S the point. Twoofs aren't rational)

But instead, we never see that. We see the air ejections progress down the building, and the ext columns still firmly in place, and not yet moving.

Ok, so now they'll claim that those were "turning the floor into dust", and the explosives that blew the columns came an instant later and were obscured by the dust clouds. So how does that work when the floors are gone, and the falling floors would have "wiped away" any charges that could have been attached to the inside of the ext columns?

There's just zero consistency from these morons. Not even Tony Szamboti seems to be able to meet that rather important criteria.
These explosions are destroying part of the core of the tower in advance. this is just as in controlled demolition except that these "squibs" are here much more powerful and the ejecta much more massive: i measured 160km/h : trully explosive...I see no evidence that there are not also columns being ejected inside the cloud.but may be these are just mistimed. Another front of much morepowerfull explosions follows.

Fred
henryco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 04:07 AM   #32
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
The ejections, whatever the mechanism behing them (springs or whatever you want) mean that the collapse has progressed too rapidly: only pressure or shockwaves (as in avalanche) can progress faster than allowed by gravity and conservation of momentum, not successions of collisions.
Moreover if there was a collapse started in advance in the core of the tower, it would not manifest itself on the West face only but also on the North face.
At last a localized collapse on the West face is completely nonsense since it would require all floors to be fracturated in two pieces in their bulk while the the bolt and welding at the extremities of the trusses are much weaker.

F
henryco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 04:08 AM   #33
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
These explosions are destroying part of the core of the tower in advance. this is just as in controlled demolition except that these "squibs" are here much more powerful and the ejecta much more massive: i measured 160km/h : trully explosive....
Fred
Yes, as explosive as a sneeze

Major fail. Explosive velocity is several orders of magnitude faster than that.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 04:21 AM   #34
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
The ejections, whatever the mechanism behing them (springs or whatever you want) mean that the collapse has progressed too rapidly: only pressure or shockwaves (as in avalanche) can progress faster than allowed by gravity and conservation of momentum, not successions of collisions.
You're getting lost in translation here. I don't know what you mean? It's pressure, exactly like you've said that is responsible. Not shockwaves. The overpressure in the building blew out fresh air intake ducts. These ducts have been shown to be in the exact location of these alleged "squibs".

edit: nevermind Dave explained. waves propagating in a medium etc.

Last edited by Furcifer; 19th January 2010 at 05:22 AM.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 04:56 AM   #35
240-185
Muse
 
240-185's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 510
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
I will never publish in a peer-reviewer journal, not because i'm too innovative for them but because its a feodal system completely under control of various lobbies and i dont want to waste my time.

Frederic Henry-Couannier
My bad, you also mentioned that reason.
BTW, stundied.
__________________
Like a toy, the black dinosaur walked towards a Goomba and asked him: "What do Truthy Chain Chomps say when they bark? Twoof! Twoof! Twoof!" *badum pschhh*

My 9/11 Crackpot Index
240-185 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 05:11 AM   #36
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,719
Originally Posted by henryco View Post
The ejections, whatever the mechanism behing them (springs or whatever you want) mean that the collapse has progressed too rapidly: only pressure or shockwaves (as in avalanche) can progress faster than allowed by gravity and conservation of momentum, not successions of collisions.
Wrong. Consider an impact on the upper end of a vertical steel column. How fast does the effect of that impact propagate down the column? The answer is, at the speed of sound in steel, rather than at a velocity/time profile determined by the acceleration due to gravity. Therefore, a succession of collisions between extended objects can propagate downwards faster than a 1G acceleration velocity profile.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 05:17 AM   #37
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Wrong. Consider an impact on the upper end of a vertical steel column. How fast does the effect of that impact propagate down the column? The answer is, at the speed of sound in steel, rather than at a velocity/time profile determined by the acceleration due to gravity. Therefore, a succession of collisions between extended objects can propagate downwards faster than a 1G acceleration velocity profile.

Dave
Oh, I get it. Thanks for the translation.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 08:13 AM   #38
Sam.I.Am
Illuminator
 
Sam.I.Am's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,627
Quote:
i measured 160km/h : trully explosive...
That works out to 44.4 meters per second. Compare that to conventional TNT at 6,900 meters per second. Still want to stick to the term "Truly Explosive" to describe it?
__________________
"Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"...

About my avatar.
Sam.I.Am is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 08:46 AM   #39
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Wrong. Consider an impact on the upper end of a vertical steel column. How fast does the effect of that impact propagate down the column? The answer is, at the speed of sound in steel, rather than at a velocity/time profile determined by the acceleration due to gravity. Therefore, a succession of collisions between extended objects can propagate downwards faster than a 1G acceleration velocity profile.
Dave
It's a joke a suppose! sound or any deformation of the steel will not pulverize concrete projecting massive debris at 160km/h several floors in advance! simply ridiculous...
henryco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2010, 08:59 AM   #40
henryco
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 155
Originally Posted by Sam.I.Am View Post
That works out to 44.4 meters per second. Compare that to conventional TNT at 6,900 meters per second. Still want to stick to the term "Truly Explosive" to describe it?
No problem since
1) its also a typical velocity for squibs in controlled demolition...
remember that any jet is decelerated thery fast in the air and here might be up to 20 meters away from its source.

2) I see no other really convincing explanation for such speeds here

F H-C
henryco is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.