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 dust , collapse , 911 conspiracy theory , wtc , wtc collapse

Reply
Old 19th January 2007, 10:37 AM   #1
uruk
Philosopher
 
uruk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,311
Billowing Clouds of Dust = Total Pulverization = Hog Wash

I grow weary of the "total pulverzation" and the "Pyroclastic" cloud argument.

Here are a couple of videos showing building demolitions where explosive are not used. yet there are billowing clouds of dust.

So explain these CT proponents.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHbC9gc_Ylo
Building collapse with billowing cloud of dust no explosives

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmiApjHn4e8
sequential collapse, cloud of billowing dust, no explosives
__________________
Fourscore and seven years ago I tapped yo mama in a log cabin!

Abe Lincoln
uruk 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 2007, 01:02 PM   #2
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
Very interesting videos. They both look like major screw ups.

A couple of years ago a 9 story building was being demolished with long reach excavators and I happened to walk past when a chunk of concrete was dragged from the top of the building and fell, the sound, dust cloud and vibration were tremendous for what seemed to be a small piece of concrete.
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate
Mancman 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 2007, 01:08 PM   #3
Oliver
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oliver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,396
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Oliver 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 2007, 01:17 PM   #4
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Good find. I would love to see the look on Troothydood1+2=4's face after viewing those videos......someone has got to show him these!
apathoid 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 2007, 01:49 PM   #5
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
apathoid...that is funny, at first I thought you wrote...

"Truthadoodledoo"

This name actually suits him better...lol

TAM
T.A.M. 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 2007, 05:21 PM   #6
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by uruk View Post
I grow weary of the "total pulverzation" and the "Pyroclastic" cloud argument.

Here are a couple of videos showing building demolitions where explosive are not used. yet there are billowing clouds of dust.

So explain these CT proponents.


Building collapse with billowing cloud of dust no explosives


sequential collapse, cloud of billowing dust, no explosives
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?

You have building demolitions and of course you have lots of dust. That is common to every demolition video I've ever viewed, with or without explosives.

If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
Miragememories 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 2007, 05:31 PM   #7
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 27,360
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?

You have building demolitions and of course you have lots of dust. That is common to every demolition video I've ever viewed, with or without explosives.

If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
Hello, and welcome !

Please define "pulverised".
Some idea of particle size would help the discussion move along more clearly.
GlennB 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 2007, 05:33 PM   #8
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Informed Critic

I don't imagine that MM has wasted any time reading Dr. Greening's paper on pulverization (911myths.com, the section "Investigations, more").
pomeroo 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 2007, 05:35 PM   #9
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?

You have building demolitions and of course you have lots of dust. That is common to every demolition video I've ever viewed, with or without explosives.

If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
WTC was not made of reinforced concrete. You are comparing apples to oranges. They were steel with 4 inch lightweight concrete floors. Not the reinforced concrete low rise structures shown in the classic conspiracy videos as examples. Tell me your not so foolish as to suggest that the floors should have collapsed from a quarter mile and landed in a pile like a stack of donuts?
A W Smith 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 2007, 05:43 PM   #10
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 27,360
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
I don't imagine that MM has wasted any time reading Dr. Greening's paper on pulverization (911myths.com, the section "Investigations, more").
We don't know that. Respect for a new poster, please.
GlennB 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 2007, 05:56 PM   #11
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?

You have building demolitions and of course you have lots of dust. That is common to every demolition video I've ever viewed, with or without explosives.

If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Hello, and welcome !

Please define "pulverised".
Some idea of particle size would help the discussion move along more clearly.
Hi Miragememories, welcome.

Once you have defined what you mean by "pulverised" could you please tell me how much explosives it would take to accommodate your definition, that is assuming you believe that this "pulverisation" was caused by explosives rather than gravity, thanks in advance.
stateofgrace 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 2007, 06:01 PM   #12
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,013
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?

You have building demolitions and of course you have lots of dust. That is common to every demolition video I've ever viewed, with or without explosives.

If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
Dust comes from destruction of gravity failure of buildings.

Gravity is used to bring down buildings with or without explosives.

CT idiots do not understand energy!

CT dolts only listen to really dumb people like Dylan of LC fiction and lies.

Gravity kills!

Anyone with any physics background understands how much energy is stored in buildings waiting to make dust and destruction on all below.

Fire destroys building too. Good luck but these video clearly tell all gravity did it! Gravity did 9/11 after huge impacts and fire helped. Clear and easy for those who can understand; hard for those handicapped by ignorance.
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 19th January 2007, 06:02 PM   #13
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?

You have building demolitions and of course you have lots of dust. That is common to every demolition video I've ever viewed, with or without explosives.

If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
I am left very confused by this post. You state that you know why there are dust clouds in both both explosive and non-explosive demos, but then you state that you expect to see intact slabs piled up.
First of all, most of these slabs fell 1000 feet or better, while the concrete from the above videos fell from less than 100 feet and still was pulverized enough to create a huge, billowing dust cloud.
Secondly, the WTC Towers were not a concrete slab design, the concrete was not structural and was not reinforced.
apathoid 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 2007, 06:13 PM   #14
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
I am left very confused by this post. You state that you know why there are dust clouds in both both explosive and non-explosive demos, but then you state that you expect to see intact slabs piled up.
First of all, most of these slabs fell 1000 feet or better, while the concrete from the above videos fell from less than 100 feet and still was pulverized enough to create a huge, billowing dust cloud.
Secondly, the WTC Towers were not a concrete slab design, the concrete was not structural and was not reinforced.
Additionally, the bulk of the dust was made up of gypsum, not concrete.
Arkan_Wolfshade 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 2007, 06:15 PM   #15
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,013
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?

You have building demolitions and of course you have lots of dust. That is common to every demolition video I've ever viewed, with or without explosives.

If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
The WTC was 95 percent air! The 5 ot 7 story pile of rubble was as seen correctly on 9/11. All the concrete was not pulverized except for LC dolts who can not think for themselves, and other CT nut cases.

Here is another building falling just due to fire and gravity, no airplane this time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZ1e3...related&search=

Most of the concrete was not pulverized at the WTC, the dust was mostly wallboard and insulation. You should look up this stuff before you repeat lies; you should learn to think for yourself.
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 19th January 2007, 06:28 PM   #16
uruk
Philosopher
 
uruk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,311
Thanks for posting the vids oliver!
__________________
Fourscore and seven years ago I tapped yo mama in a log cabin!

Abe Lincoln
uruk 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 2007, 06:30 PM   #17
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,013
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.
MM
If you could demonstrate that most of the concrete in the WTC was pulverized then you may have something. Do you have some facts to back up your belief?

if not then heed thy own "Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count."
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 19th January 2007, 06:42 PM   #18
uruk
Philosopher
 
uruk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,311
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?


You have building demolitions and of course you have lots of dust. That is common to every demolition video I've ever viewed, with or without explosives.

If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
I never claimed "total pulverization". Pictures of the debris at ground zero clearly show chunks of concrete of varying sizes.
And the report of the content of the dust at ground zero shows no explosives whatsoever.

Ct'rs point to the billowing dust clouds present during the collapse of the WTC towers as evidence that explosive were used.
Some CT'ers like Judy Wood see the Clouds as vaporising steel due to some space based energy beam weapon.
Our very own Chris sees the dust clouds as proof that a concrete core that had C4 coated rebar was "totaly pulverised"..

They can't fathom that concrete, drywall, and insulation can collide with larger debri to form the billowing dust clouds.

I'm trying to show that billowing dust clouds during a building collapse is not indicative of the presence of explosives or energy beam weapons.

Hope that cleared up a few things.
__________________
Fourscore and seven years ago I tapped yo mama in a log cabin!

Abe Lincoln

Last edited by uruk; 19th January 2007 at 06:53 PM.
uruk 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 2007, 06:55 PM   #19
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,013
Originally Posted by uruk View Post
Ct'rs point to the billowing dust clouds present during the collapse of the WTC towers as evidence that explosive were used.
Some CT'ers like Judy Wood see the Clouds as vaporising steel due to some space based energy beam weapon.
Our very own Chris sees the dust clouds as proof that a concrete core that had C4 coated rebar was "totaly pulverised"..

They can't fathom that concrete, drywall, and insulation can collide with larger debri to form the billowing dust clouds.

I'm trying to show that billowing dust clouds during a building collapse is not indicative of the presence of explosives or energy beam weapons.

Hope that cleared up a few things.
You found proof of dust from gravityfalling buildings! Excellent.

Now CTers who can not think for themselves have to come out and try to defend their fantasy ideas by attacking these videos as not proving anything. They can not calculate the simple energy in the WTC collaspse and not know it was equal to 248 tons of TNT (tons as in 2000 pounds in each ton making it almost 500,000 pounds of TNT) energy just falling down. When will they learn physics? When will they think for themselves; they think they are when will they figure out they are not?

Good videos. Thanks for sharing your find. Watch out for the nut cases on the rise to put down any truth against Dylan the "leader of the pack" of nuts.
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 19th January 2007, 07:08 PM   #20
uruk
Philosopher
 
uruk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,311
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You found proof of dust from gravityfalling buildings! Excellent.

Now CTers who can not think for themselves have to come out and try to defend their fantasy ideas by attacking these videos as not proving anything. They can not calculate the simple energy in the WTC collaspse and not know it was equal to 248 tons of TNT (tons as in 2000 pounds in each ton making it almost 500,000 pounds of TNT) energy just falling down. When will they learn physics? When will they think for themselves; they think they are when will they figure out they are not?

Good videos. Thanks for sharing your find. Watch out for the nut cases on the rise to put down any truth against Dylan the "leader of the pack" of nuts.
I hope they also notice in the second video how the building sequencialy collapsed due the wieght and momentum of the falling debris.


Naw! I don't think they will
__________________
Fourscore and seven years ago I tapped yo mama in a log cabin!

Abe Lincoln
uruk 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 20th January 2007, 01:49 AM   #21
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
 
The Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,158
I've always argued that "Dust Cloud = Result of Collapse" and not "Dust Clout = Cause of collapse"



I don't know why they are still arguing for "Pyroclastic Flows". That is up there with the no plane theories.
The Doc 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 20th January 2007, 06:57 AM   #22
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
According to my calculations, those 104 floorslabs would hit the ground floor at a speed of 106mph in WTC2, and 124mph in WTC1.

Do you think the ground floor would resist 104x 1000 ton floorslabs hitting it at over 100mph, and leave the floorslabs piled up in the lobby, nice and neatly? Or would the mass piledrive into the 7 storey basement and thus be mostly hidden from view?

Also remember the debris was piled approx 30ft above the lobby level:




Mod Warning
I had removed this picture because I thought it was a hotlinking violation, but it turns out that Flickr permits hotlinking, so I've put it back. My apologies!
Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:jmercer
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate

Last edited by jmercer; 21st January 2007 at 06:11 AM.
Mancman 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 20th January 2007, 09:42 AM   #23
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Thanks for the videos, Uruk. They are instructive.

The "billowing" dust in these videos is nothing like that observed on 9/11. Note how it very quickly mixes with the air, and is suspended in the air, indicating a very low-density mixture. Compare that with the very dense dust which falls rapildy on 9/11. Note the "cauliflower" shapes to the 9/11 dust, and the distinct boundry between it and the air. Note how it expands while maintaining the distinct boundry, forming the cauliflower shapes. This can only occur if:

a) the dust mixture is significantly more dense than the air, and
b) the dust mixture is significantly hotter than the air



Furthermore, notice that the dust on 9/11 is produced from the beginning of the "collapse", NOT when "floors hit the ground". Imagining that the floors were pulverized only when they hit the ground is just that, imagination.

As mentioned by a previous poster, notice that on 9/11, when it's over, there is essentially nothing left of the twin towers, relative to their original size. There are no floor assemblies, no steel floor pans, and the amount of concrete that remained macroscopic is less than 1% of the total. As can be seen in the excellent smoldering bomb-crater picture of WTC1 and WTC6 posted above, most of the steel perimeter sections of the north wall of WTC1 went missing. They disappeared. They are not inside the hollowed out WTC6, as can be seen in the arial photos.

As to Greening's paper, it is clearly based on false assumptions. Greening imagines an intact "top block" which crushes down through the undamaged lower structure. He allows for, at most, <20% of the concrete to be pulverized, and only a small amount of the mass to be ejected outside the footprint. This is all very interesting, but bears no resemblance to observed reality.

Last edited by TruthSeeker1234; 20th January 2007 at 10:05 AM.
TruthSeeker1234 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 20th January 2007, 10:19 AM   #24
HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
 
HeyLeroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,567
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
(snip)



Furthermore, notice that the dust on 9/11 is produced from the beginning of the "collapse", NOT when "floors hit the ground". Imagining that the floors were pulverized only when they hit the ground is just that, imagination.
So you're saying that the upper portions of the Twin Towers didn't fall the equivalent distances as seen in the other videos? Why wouldn't they form dust clouds by collapsing onto the rest of the towers below the impact zones?

They should only start kicking up dust when they hit the ground? What's so special about the ground, as opposed tor the solid portions of the Towers below the impact areas?

Watch the video Beachnut posted. Not how the falling wall crumpled as it hit the ground and didn't remain whole for the entire time. It was built to remain strong in an upright position. when tipped it lost almost all of its structural integrity.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
As mentioned by a previous poster, notice that on 9/11, when it's over, there is essentially nothing left of the twin towers, relative to their original size.
Essentially nothing left? Are you hallucinating? There were gigantic piles of rubble that took eight months to clear!


Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
There are no floor assemblies,
As explained, they weren't re-inforced concrete and hit the ground at 100mph+. What did you expect?

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
no steel floor pans,
Each floor had over an acre of rentable space! Are you under the mistaken impression that the each floor was constructed from a single, acre-sized piece of steel?

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
and the amount of concrete that remained macroscopic is less than 1% of the total.
Some evidence for this claim? Any at all?
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
As can be seen in the excellent smoldering bomb-crater picture of WTC1 and WTC6 posted above, most of the steel perimeter sections of the north wall of WTC1 went missing. They disappeared. They are not inside the hollowed out WTC6, as can be seen in the arial photos.
If they "went missing" and "disappeared", who took 'em and how? The Underpants Gnomes?

Your claims make me question your grasp on reality.
__________________
Cows are in large numbers, and do not serve any other purpose, other than to eat grass, and moo -- makaya325
I my kids.
I ♠ my dog.
I ♣ my baby Harp Seal.
HeyLeroy 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 20th January 2007, 10:21 AM   #25
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Thanks for the videos, Uruk. They are instructive.

The "billowing" dust in these videos is nothing like that observed on 9/11. Note how it very quickly mixes with the air, and is suspended in the air, indicating a very low-density mixture. Compare that with the very dense dust which falls rapildy on 9/11. Note the "cauliflower" shapes to the 9/11 dust, and the distinct boundry between it and the air. Note how it expands while maintaining the distinct boundry, forming the cauliflower shapes. This can only occur if:

a) the dust mixture is significantly more dense than the air, and
b) the dust mixture is significantly hotter than the air

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/...son_clouds.jpg

Furthermore, notice that the dust on 9/11 is produced from the beginning of the "collapse", NOT when "floors hit the ground". Imagining that the floors were pulverized only when they hit the ground is just that, imagination.

As mentioned by a previous poster, notice that on 9/11, when it's over, there is essentially nothing left of the twin towers, relative to their original size. There are no floor assemblies, no steel floor pans, and the amount of concrete that remained macroscopic is less than 1% of the total. As can be seen in the excellent smoldering bomb-crater picture of WTC1 and WTC6 posted above, most of the steel perimeter sections of the north wall of WTC1 went missing. They disappeared. They are not inside the hollowed out WTC6, as can be seen in the arial photos.

As to Greening's paper, it is clearly based on false assumptions. Greening imagines an intact "top block" which crushes down through the undamaged lower structure. He allows for, at most, <20% of the concrete to be pulverized, and only a small amount of the mass to be ejected outside the footprint. This is all very interesting, but bears no resemblance to observed reality.

you forgot one very important thing. The dust clouds in those examples didn't include the smoke from fires. Where do you suppose the volume of smoke inside the WTC would go if floors were collapsing 12 feet in just over two or three tenth's of a second?

Last edited by A W Smith; 20th January 2007 at 10:26 AM. Reason: correct fall speed at fire related floors
A W Smith 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 20th January 2007, 10:33 AM   #26
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by HeyLeroy View Post
Essentially nothing left? Are you hallucinating? There were gigantic piles of rubble that took eight months to clear!
It's his superpower dude!
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
TruthSeeker 1234, has the ability to see only fine powder in a pile of debris 8 storys tall.
__________________
Vive la libertÚ!
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 20th January 2007, 10:43 AM   #27
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,013
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Thanks for the videos, Uruk. They are instructive.

The "billowing" dust in these videos is nothing like that observed on 9/11. Note how it very quickly mixes with the air, and is suspended in the air, indicating a very low-density mixture. Compare that with the very dense dust which falls rapildy on 9/11. Note the "cauliflower" shapes to the 9/11 dust, and the distinct boundry between it and the air. Note how it expands while maintaining the distinct boundry, forming the cauliflower shapes. This can only occur if:

a) the dust mixture is significantly more dense than the air, and
b) the dust mixture is significantly hotter than the air

Furthermore, notice that the dust on 9/11 is produced from the beginning of the "collapse", NOT when "floors hit the ground". Imagining that the floors were pulverized only when they hit the ground is just that, imagination.

As mentioned by a previous poster, notice that on 9/11, when it's over, there is essentially nothing left of the twin towers, relative to their original size. There are no floor assemblies, no steel floor pans, and the amount of concrete that remained macroscopic is less than 1% of the total. As can be seen in the excellent smoldering bomb-crater picture of WTC1 and WTC6 posted above, most of the steel perimeter sections of the north wall of WTC1 went missing. They disappeared. They are not inside the hollowed out WTC6, as can be seen in the arial photos.

As to Greening's paper, it is clearly based on false assumptions. Greening imagines an intact "top block" which crushes down through the undamaged lower structure. He allows for, at most, <20% of the concrete to be pulverized, and only a small amount of the mass to be ejected outside the footprint. This is all very interesting, but bears no resemblance to observed reality.
1 percent left. Wrong. You have missed the mark and presented zero facts or evidence. The building left 5 and 7 story high piles of debris spread over 19 acreas over ten times the foot print of the buildings.

You forget that the buildings were 95 pecent air which would leave about 5 stories of junk. Just air. You must not be listening. 5 pecent of the building was solid stuff like steel, concrete, wallboard, ceiling tiles, lights, computers, elevators, glass, aluminum siding, more wall board and rugs and other junk. But still 95 pecent air.

And the next thing is the dust was mostly wallboard and insulation. Concrete was not the bigest part of the dust. Wallboard and insulation was the bigest parts of the dust. The 4 inch light weight floors were not totally gone, not 99 pecent gone.

The total pulverization is a CT idea which helps expose CTers.
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 20th January 2007, 10:45 AM   #28
eeyore1954
Philosopher
 
eeyore1954's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,807
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?

You have building demolitions and of course you have lots of dust. That is common to every demolition video I've ever viewed, with or without explosives.

If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
Why would it be unreasonable for concrete that either fell an average of 700 ft or was crushed by a chaotic mass of thousands and thousands of pieces of debris weighing few hundred thousand tons to break into small pieces. Buildings several stories high cannot be compared to the WTC towers.


Why are you so sure that most of the concrete was pulverized rather than broken into small pieces? Upon what evidence do you base this.
eeyore1954 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 20th January 2007, 10:46 AM   #29
HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
 
HeyLeroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,567
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
It's his superpower dude!
Wow, and I can only pee my name in the snow.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
5 pecent of the building was solid stuff like steel, concrete, wallboard, ceiling tiles, lights, computers, elevators, glass, aluminum siding, more wall board and rugs and other junk.
And almost 3,000 people.
__________________
Cows are in large numbers, and do not serve any other purpose, other than to eat grass, and moo -- makaya325
I my kids.
I ♠ my dog.
I ♣ my baby Harp Seal.
HeyLeroy 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 20th January 2007, 10:55 AM   #30
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Thanks for the videos, Uruk. They are instructive.
<snip>
As to Greening's paper, it is clearly based on false assumptions. Greening imagines an intact "top block" which crushes down through the undamaged lower structure. He allows for, at most, <20% of the concrete to be pulverized, and only a small amount of the mass to be ejected outside the footprint. This is all very interesting, but bears no resemblance to observed reality.
I thought you were leaving?

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Previously, Darth Rotor made statements that I interpereted to be advocating murder. Eventually, he clarified and took it back. Now we have attorney Loss Leader making suggestions such as:



THis came after attorney Loss Leader advised me to break State and Federal laws:



I will have no part of this forum until one of the following two things happens: Loss Leader takes it back and apologizes, or Loss Leader is permanently banned.
Arkan_Wolfshade 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 20th January 2007, 11:47 AM   #31
HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
 
HeyLeroy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,567
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I don't see what point these 2 videos are supposed to illustrate?

You have building demolitions and of course you have lots of dust. That is common to every demolition video I've ever viewed, with or without explosives.

If your drawing a comparison with the WTC collapses, the real issue is with the debris pile which your 'not so great' video examples fail to show.

Videos of similar size buildings that gravity collapsed due to earthquakes show a classic 'pancaked' concrete floor debris pile.

If you can demonstrate that it's normal for most of the concrete in a debris pile to be 'pulverized' after a gravity collapse, then you've made a valid point.

Otherwise, your just wasting time racking up your post count.

MM
Hey, MM, welcome to the forum.

I've used my NWO Invisibility CloakTM to read a few of your posts at LCF.

You wrote a lengthy OP describing how WTC 1 and 2 were demolished with explosives, called "How Did They Do It?, Stealth C D at the W T C" in which you state,

Quote:
What they ignore is there was nothing typical about the 9/11 WTC controlled demolitions other than the rapid freefall collapses.
and
Quote:
The squibs that did occur could have been the result of excess (redundant) explosives.
and
Quote:
Explosive overkill was required in order to fulfill two purposes.
and
Quote:
I certainly don't know the details of their plan, but I certainly believe the logistics were far from insurmountable.
and
Quote:
If you believe, based on the visual evidence of the collapses, the inadequate fires, the limited damage, and the 'make-it-collapse' computer simulations, that the NIST explanation is not credible, you have to conclude somehow the collapses were rigged.
and
Quote:
Any concerns about the required lead time for demolition preparation is not a problem, since bogus tenants could be placed in the towers long before 9/11.

Fake subcontractors could easily have access arrangements setup with building security, allowing them entry to elevator shafts and maintenance service areas.

Basement preparations could be accomplished by a combination of prepped vehicles strategically located and bogus contractors doing preparation under the guise of legitimate construction or repair work.

If you have the financial pockets, it would be easy to arrange just about any access and make it look legitimate.

If you have all the time you need and are effectively invisible, coming and going wherever you wish, you don't need a lot of people in the know.

False individual identification would not be a big problem if the operation is connected to an agency familiar with covert operations such as the CIA
Now, I'd like to discuss this with you, as the logistics of such a plan is the biggest thing that I just can't wrap my mind around. I can't post your work in its entirety, but under fair use, I can post these snippets.

Would you mind starting a new thread with your analysis of the logistics over here? I'd love to hear more of your ideas, and discuss them, but as I've been banned at the LC forum, that's a bit difficult.

Thanks.
__________________
Cows are in large numbers, and do not serve any other purpose, other than to eat grass, and moo -- makaya325
I my kids.
I ♠ my dog.
I ♣ my baby Harp Seal.
HeyLeroy 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 20th January 2007, 11:51 AM   #32
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Note the "cauliflower" shapes to the 9/11 dust, and the distinct boundry between it and the air. Note how it expands while maintaining the distinct boundry, forming the cauliflower shapes. This can only occur if:

a) the dust mixture is significantly more dense than the air, and
b) the dust mixture is significantly hotter than the air
Completely wrong. This image shows two fluids of the same density and at the same temperature.

This has been explained to you before.
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 20th January 2007, 03:32 PM   #33
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Completely wrong. This image shows two fluids of the same density and at the same temperature.

This has been explained to you before.
I see the picture I posted has been cleansed. Mackey, thanks for your picture. What is it? Which way is up? What does it do over time?

I will clarify: If fluid A is poured into fluid B and A sinks to the bottom of B, then A is more dense. If fluid A expands and forms cauliflower shapes while maintaining a distinct boundry, then it has greater pressure/temperature than B.

The picture you posted does not show cauliflower shapes, and it does not show one fluid sinking to the bottom of the other. Would you care to try again?
TruthSeeker1234 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 20th January 2007, 03:50 PM   #34
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
I see the picture I posted has been cleansed. Mackey, thanks for your picture. What is it? Which way is up? What does it do over time?
The picture is of a jet, as one fluid (marked with reflective particles) is pushed into a stationary mass of the same fluid (but not marked with such particles) by a piston. The jet passes through a rigid circular hole, approximately the size of the jet seen at the bottom of the picture. This particular jet is at low Reynolds number, meaning viscosity effects are strong.

What you actually see is a slice through the interacting fluids as illuminated by a "laser sheet," viz. a laser beam split into a thin but wide plane of illumination. This allows you to see the internal streamlines of the flow.

There is no "up" in this picture, since the fluid is all of the same density. There are no net gravitational forces.

What is important to note about this picture is that the boundary between one fluid and another tends to remain distinct. Your assertion that such a boundary could only form if the fluids were (a) different density and (b) different temperature is not only wrong, it is in fact completely backwards. Both of those factors will actually increase the tendency towards mixing.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
I will clarify: If fluid A is poured into fluid B and A sinks to the bottom of B, then A is more dense. If fluid A expands and forms cauliflower shapes while maintaining a distinct boundry, then it has greater pressure/temperature than B.

The picture you posted does not show cauliflower shapes, and it does not show one fluid sinking to the bottom of the other.
The expression "cauliflower shapes" is not a term I've run across in any fluid mechanics textbook or lecture. I hereby issue you a citation for using the No True Scotsman fallacy. The fine is payable to the JREF by the date indicated on the back, or else a warrant will be issued for your ridicule.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Would you care to try again?
Certainly. As you note, I have indeed tried to explain this to you before, and in great detail.

You claim the shape of the dust cloud proves that the cloud was relatively hot and dense, and this is proof that explosives were used to destroy the Towers. This is not even wrong.

The shape of the cloud, as remarked in my post linked above, is due to vorticity. There are numerous sources of vorticity. Heat is one as it leads to a difference in density, composition meaning a difference in density is another, and it does so through Rayleigh-Taylor instability. But, as my picture proves beyond any doubt, there are other sources of vorticity that do not require either such condition. In my picture, the source is mechanical motion. In the WTC collapses, there is once again mechanical motion, created as gravity pulled the structures to the ground. That's what we see.

I say you are "not even wrong" because demolition charges would probably not increase the temperature of the cloud by any appreciable degree. But you would see compression waves, had there been any. We do not. Thus, even if your earlier assertion was correct, your conclusion still does not follow.

I can try yet again if you have more specific questions. Nonetheless, you should by now be well aware that you are not an expert in fluid mechanics, and your assertions about how the cloud should have behaved are completely amateur and therefore likely to be wrong.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 20th January 2007 at 03:56 PM. Reason: clarified Ace's claim
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 20th January 2007, 04:03 PM   #35
uruk
Philosopher
 
uruk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,311
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
Thanks for the videos, Uruk. They are instructive.

The "billowing" dust in these videos is nothing like that observed on 9/11. Note how it very quickly mixes with the air, and is suspended in the air, indicating a very low-density mixture. Compare that with the very dense dust which falls rapildy on 9/11. Note the "cauliflower" shapes to the 9/11 dust, and the distinct boundry between it and the air. Note how it expands while maintaining the distinct boundry, forming the cauliflower shapes. This can only occur if:

a) the dust mixture is significantly more dense than the air, and
b) the dust mixture is significantly hotter than the air

http://www.911review.com/attack/wtc/...son_clouds.jpg
I think your being thrown off by scale and distance. There was much more dust and kinetic energy in the WTC tower collapse. The distance and density gives the dust clouds on 9/11 more of a boundry.

A similar thing happens when you fly into clouds on an airplane. We see a distinct boundry from the ground because of the distance involved but when we fly through the cloud the boundy does not become quite so distincted.


If you look at the video taken from the Trinity Church, when the dust cloud approaches the camera you'll see that the dust cloud begins to resemble the ones seen in the videos I posted.

Quote:
Furthermore, notice that the dust on 9/11 is produced from the beginning of the "collapse", NOT when "floors hit the ground". Imagining that the floors were pulverized only when they hit the ground is just that, imagination.
If you take a closer look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmiApjHn4e8 you'll notice how the dust is produced when the debris collides with each other in the upper floors and not just the ground.

Quote:
As mentioned by a previous poster, notice that on 9/11, when it's over, there is essentially nothing left of the twin towers, relative to their original size. There are no floor assemblies, no steel floor pans, and the amount of concrete that remained macroscopic is less than 1% of the total. As can be seen in the excellent smoldering bomb-crater picture of WTC1 and WTC6 posted above, most of the steel perimeter sections of the north wall of WTC1 went missing. They disappeared. They are not inside the hollowed out WTC6, as can be seen in the arial photos.
If you remeber a building is mostly empty space. The frame work and walls only take up a portion of the total volume of the intact building. It stands to reason, what sense would it make to make a building that is solid throughout it's entire volume. Where would the people and equipment go?

Also remember also that the WTC towers were predominately steel. There was very little concrete used in it's construction. The steel was in the form of beams, which are long thin structures.

Try this, make a tall rectangular box made out of popsical sticks. Measure the volume. Now totaly destroy the structure. Now measure the volume of the pile of popsical sticks. You'll find it to considerably less that the box structure.

And no steel went missing from the WTC site. 200,000 tons of steel went into each towers construction. 400,000 tons of steel was removed from the site.

Quote:
As to Greening's paper, it is clearly based on false assumptions. Greening imagines an intact "top block" which crushes down through the undamaged lower structure. He allows for, at most, <20% of the concrete to be pulverized, and only a small amount of the mass to be ejected outside the footprint. This is all very interesting, but bears no resemblance to observed reality.
I think there has been videos posted elswhere in this forum that shows the upper section of the towers remained relativly intact for quite some time before it comes appart. But even after the structure comes apart the mass is still present. Granted it is a bit more distributed but the mass still remains and so does the momentum. Remember Newton's laws?

Again if you take a look at the video a reposted above you'll see how the falling debri from the upper floors causes the lower floors to collaps also.
__________________
Fourscore and seven years ago I tapped yo mama in a log cabin!

Abe Lincoln
uruk 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 20th January 2007, 04:31 PM   #36
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post


You claim the shape of the dust cloud proves that the cloud was relatively hot and dense, and this is proof that explosives were used to destroy the Towers. This is not even wrong.
You are using the strawman fallacy. I nominate you for ridicule. Here is what I said:

"If fluid A is poured into fluid B and A sinks to the bottom of B, then A is more dense. If fluid A expands and forms cauliflower shapes while maintaining a distinct boundry, then it has greater pressure/temperature than B. "

Knowing that you are an expert in fluid dynamics is what lured me out of JREF retirement. There is nothing wrong with my statements above, and you know it. If one fluid sinks, it is more dense. Therefore, the 9/11 dust was far more dense than air. If it expands, while maintaining a boundry, it is attempting to equalize pressure/temperature.

Perhaps you should clarify your position. Are you suggesting that when one fluid sinks down in another, that this is not an indication of greater density? Are you suggesting that if one fluid expands while maintaining a boundry, this is not an indication of greater pressure/temperature? Or what?

Last edited by TruthSeeker1234; 20th January 2007 at 04:35 PM.
TruthSeeker1234 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 20th January 2007, 04:40 PM   #37
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,381
It seems to me that these two comparisons are apples and oranges. The cloud was composed of solid particles of dust: tiny, yes, and very numerous, but still not a "fluid" per se. Dust suspended in air would behave differently than a true fluid, would it not? Please forgive me if this is a dumb question. I freely admit my ignorance and defer to the experts on this.
__________________
A m°°se °nce bit my sister
jhunter1163 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 20th January 2007, 04:41 PM   #38
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
Ive a question. What happens to the form of a debris and smoke cloud if you take an acre of flat area underneath it and plunge that area to the ground 1/4 mile below?
A W Smith 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 20th January 2007, 04:46 PM   #39
TruthSeeker1234
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,756
Originally Posted by uruk View Post
I think your being thrown off by scale and distance. There was much more dust and kinetic energy in the WTC tower collapse. The distance and density gives the dust clouds on 9/11 more of a boundry.
You're admitting the greater density of the 9/11 dust then? It's important.


Quote:
If you remeber a building is mostly empty space. The frame work and walls only take up a portion of the total volume of the intact building. It stands to reason, what sense would it make to make a building that is solid throughout it's entire volume. Where would the people and equipment go?
I'm quite familiar with the structure of the twin towers. For example, the core structure was cross-braced, and had its own flooring system. RMackey claims that the builders removed the cross-bracing after the building was up, in order to use the steel on a different project.

Quote:
Also remember also that the WTC towers were predominately steel. There was very little concrete used in it's construction.
Well, we've got about 110 concrete floors in each tower, about 4 inches thick, in steel floor pans. What happened to these?

Quote:
And no steel went missing from the WTC site. 200,000 tons of steel went into each towers construction. 400,000 tons of steel was removed from the site.
For starters, please show me evidence for what became of the perimeter sections from the north wall of WTC1. I say it went missing, and I don't care about any paper reports from land fills.


Quote:
I think there has been videos posted elswhere in this forum that shows the upper section of the towers remained relativly intact for quite some time before it comes appart. But even after the structure comes apart the mass is still present. Granted it is a bit more distributed but the mass still remains and so does the momentum. Remember Newton's laws?
Wrong and wrong. No video shows an intact upper block, most of the mass is ejected outside the footprint, where it is no longer available to push down on the building. Greening won't even defend his own assumptions. He will defend his calculations, but not the assumptions upon which his calculations are based.
TruthSeeker1234 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 20th January 2007, 04:49 PM   #40
uruk
Philosopher
 
uruk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 5,311
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 View Post
You are using the strawman fallacy. I nominate you for ridicule. Here is what I said:

"If fluid A is poured into fluid B and A sinks to the bottom of B, then A is more dense. If fluid A expands and forms cauliflower shapes while maintaining a distinct boundry, then it has greater pressure/temperature than B. "

Knowing that you are an expert in fluid dynamics is what lured me out of JREF retirement. There is nothing wrong with my statements above, and you know it. If one fluid sinks, it is more dense. Therefore, the 9/11 dust was far more dense than air. If it expands, while maintaining a boundry, it is attempting to equalize pressure/temperature.

Perhaps you should clarify your position. Are you suggesting that when one fluid sinks down in another, that this is not an indication of greater density? Are you suggesting that if one fluid expands while maintaining a boundry, this is not an indication of greater pressure/temperature? Or what?
Wouldn't disturbed air also cause the dust to billow?
There was a lot of large sized debris falling. Don't you think that all that moving debris would be displacing air and the small particulates floating around in it?
No heat needed.
Try blowing air into a pile of flour.
__________________
Fourscore and seven years ago I tapped yo mama in a log cabin!

Abe Lincoln
uruk 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 08:42 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.