WTC7

[Q24]

I read it and paid plenty of attention. It was written very well actually. You interpret it as a blueprint for future nefarious action, but it wasn't. It was an assessment.

If you read ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ and paid plenty of attention, then why do your words not reflect the content? Why do you say the objective was simply “a military response” and that four crashed planes was “sufficient” pretext? Is that what the document says? Is it?

Not only do you ignore what is actually written and replace it with a strawman, but then also confuse my interpretation of the document – “a blueprint for future nefarious action”?? That made me chuckle. No, what the document details are Neocon aims, their stark fear of a declining U.S. military and global influence since end of the Cold War, their concern for the future pre-eminence of America itself and what it would take for a rapid turnaround of the situation. It shows in clarity the benefit that an attack would bring; the Neocon motive for a false flag.

Is it that those implications terrify you so much that you cannot bear to see it?

The version of 911 that you have convinced yourself of.

We were discussing viability of the WTC demolitions. Can you describe exactly what you find “impossible” about that, or not? So far you have shown that you cannot. The reason you cannot is because you know there is a solution to any supposed impossibility. The impossibility you allege is just an imaginary defense/comfort blanket.

NIST produced a range of models per industry standards and none of them were a perfect match with the exact details of the day. They were tasked not only with producing a probable collapse sequence for the buildings, but also to provide recommendations for improving general building codes and standards.

Reproducing every single detail of the event is virtually impossible and getting close would require an unreasonable amount of resources. It is obvious that this was a terrorist attack. NIST wasn't tasked with refuting conspiracy theorists and they weren't given an unlimited budget for that accomplishment. If they had been, they could have.

Your criticisms of NIST are misplaced and uninformed. If you want to create an exact physics model, feel free to spend your time and money on such a project. This wasn't the job of NIST. You need to get that through your skull before you can move forward.

It was you who referred to “physics” and “inevitable” collapses. Then soon as I refer you to the most accurate physics model available which shows the collapses were not inevitable, you want to write it off. Truly brilliant… and typical. Thus the reason you state “inevitable”, is nothing to do with “physics” but a desired belief.

I didn't crap all over Bazant's theory.

Yes, you really did…

“The fact is that the upper and lower blocks are indeed destroying each other at equal rates”

~booNy

“I am indeed saying that the upper and lower blocks are destroying each other at equal rates.”

~booNy

“the upper block and lower block are experiencing the same amount of damage throughout.”

~booNy

“The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down…”

~Bazant

Then realizing this, you flip-flopped your argument to say that whilst the blocks, “are destroying each other at equal rates”/“experiencing the same amount of damage”… they were actually… not. It’s amazing how one can hold two contradictory positions like that. And even then your adapted argument/explanation is at complete odds with how Bazant sees it.

Your statements above are correct. The one mistake you made was to then attempt to shift your position back in line with the ‘authoritative’ theory rather than having strength of mind to hold your ground.

Now I know how much people like to whinge about ‘misquoting’ when I use their own words against their argument so I will invite anyone interested to read from post #828 of this thread to understand the full context of booNy’s statements and position.

Bazant’s treatment of the upper block as nigh on indestructible alone shows this is no “limiting case”.

A limiting case is a best case scenario which would be the most resistant to global collapse. Even in this limiting case global collapse was a foregone conclusion. There was no stopping it once it started.

There are two separate issues here which you still fail to grasp: -

1. putting an immediate halt to downward movement of the upper block after a fall through any number of storeys (Bazant provides the best case for this scenario, which of course is unrealistic and will never occur).
   
2. accounting for a gradual loss of momentum and impact force through deterioration of the upper block (Bazant provides the worst case for this scenario, which of course is realistic and did occur).
   

It is not conservative/limiting, for survival of the lower block, to simultaneously apply the entire impact force of a nigh indestructible upper block directly to the most vital structure that was holding the building up (as 1. above). What an utter nonsense. If you expect there was any chance of the upper block falling through one storey and then stopping dead, then I can see it would make sense. But that was never going to happen.

It is the same difference as being hit on the head with a hammer or having an equivalent mass/speed of metal shavings dropped on you. The first is indeed best case for halting movement of the object, but is terrible for your survival. The second will not bring an instant halt to the moving object, but I like your chances better.

You just need to understand what exactly Bazant is providing the “best case” for.

Oh and I certainly never said he did or even attempted to calculate the actual conditions.

You can label it favoritism all you want, but until you or someone else can produce something that actually refutes it, Bazant's papers stand uncontested.

It is not my opinion but that of a U.S. attorney involved in the peer-review process. If you actually read what he said – it is not permitted to fairly contest Bazant’s paper. To anyone informed, your request above is entirely disingenuous.

Here it is again: -

“As will become apparent below, the rules at JEM that govern other authors do not apply to Dr. Bazant.”

~James Gourley, U.S. attorney

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Please read and take on board.

Of course you won't. Just like you avoid other points that have been made over and over again. Just like you avoid describing exactly how Bazant doesn't account for Newton's third law according to your claims.

Why are you lying? I have never avoided anything. I go out of my way to explain points where some would not speculate. I took considerable time and numerous posts to spell out to you how Bazant circumvents Newton’s third law (and the other points you mentioned). To say that I avoided it… ? That is dishonest. If you still don’t understand or agree with what I said then fair enough, but don’t spiel off a list of accusations that you know very well are not true.

How much of your life are you intending to waste in pursuit of this nonsensical conspiracy anyway?

I happen to think it is quite worthwhile

[flyingswan]

Why are you lying? I have never avoided anything. I go out of my way to explain points where some would not speculate. I took considerable time and numerous posts to spell out to you how Bazant circumvents Newton’s third law (and the other points you mentioned). To say that I avoided it… ? That is dishonest. If you still don’t understand or agree with what I said then fair enough, but don’t spiel off a list of accusations that you know very well are not true.

Why are you lying? All you've done is point to Bazant's conclusion that the lower block is more damaged than the upper block and claim that this is wrong because it doesn't match your limited understanding of Newton's laws. You completely ignore Bazant's calculations leading to this conclusion, because you simply can't follow them. You are unable to point to a single point in those calculations where any of Newton's laws are circumvented.

A textbook example for Dunning and Kruger.

[Q24]

Why are you lying? All you've done is point to Bazant's conclusion that the lower block is more damaged than the upper block and claim that this is wrong because it doesn't match your limited understanding of Newton's laws. You completely ignore Bazant's calculations leading to this conclusion, because you simply can't follow them. You are unable to point to a single point in those calculations where any of Newton's laws are circumvented.

A textbook example for Dunning and Kruger.

Typical flyingswan drivel.

1. Whatever you think of my argument, it does not amount to avoidance.
   
2. You attempt to conceal the complete points of my argument (which actually includes physical observation and non-partisan physics models along with Newton’s third law), please read from post #828.
   
3. You forever fail to understand it is not the calculations per se that are a problem, but the assumptions they are based upon.
   

In all, it would be of use if you tried to understand the argument and what is said, instead of coming up with your strawman positions. What do you think you are ‘debunking’? I explain the actual issues and it’s as though you’re responding to someone else, or at very least completely miss the point.

[flyingswan]

1. Whatever you think of my argument, it does not amount to avoidance.
   
2. You attempt to conceal the complete points of my argument (which actually includes physical observation and non-partisan physics models along with Newton’s third law), please read from post #828.
   
3. You forever fail to understand it is not the calculations per se that are a problem, but the assumptions they are based upon.
   

You're certainly avoiding any attempt to look at Bazant's paper in any detail. Your argument amounts to saying that you don't believe the conclusion therefore there must be something wrong somewhere, you just can't say where.

Your "physical observation" leads a lot to be desired. You just say "look at this video", but you can't point out in any detail what exactly is in the video that supports your argument.

You have failed to come up with Bazant making any such assumption. His relevant calculation is in the appendix to this paper.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476%20WTC%20collapse.pdf

[booNyzarC]

If you read ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ and paid plenty of attention, then why do your words not reflect the content? Why do you say the objective was simply “a military response” and that four crashed planes was “sufficient” pretext? Is that what the document says? Is it?

Not only do you ignore what is actually written and replace it with a strawman, but then also confuse my interpretation of the document – “a blueprint for future nefarious action”?? That made me chuckle. No, what the document details are Neocon aims, their stark fear of a declining U.S. military and global influence since end of the Cold War, their concern for the future pre-eminence of America itself and what it would take for a rapid turnaround of the situation. It shows in clarity the benefit that an attack would bring; the Neocon motive for a false flag.

Is it that those implications terrify you so much that you cannot bear to see it?

What is so difficult for you to understand? The crashing of the planes into the buildings would have been a sufficiently "catastrophic and catalyzing event" in and of itself.

We were discussing viability of the WTC demolitions. Can you describe exactly what you find “impossible” about that, or not? So far you have shown that you cannot. The reason you cannot is because you know there is a solution to any supposed impossibility. The impossibility you allege is just an imaginary defense/comfort blanket.

I said virtually impossible. By that I mean that it is so close to impossible that it becomes implausible in my opinion. You really are struggling with some basic concepts here Q24.

It was you who referred to “physics” and “inevitable” collapses. Then soon as I refer you to the most accurate physics model available which shows the collapses were not inevitable, you want to write it off. Truly brilliant… and typical. Thus the reason you state “inevitable”, is nothing to do with “physics” but a desired belief.

What is so difficult to understand here? NIST provided a range of models per industry standards. None of the models were perfect representations of every exact detail. Given more time and resources, NIST could have further refined the models to approach increasing degrees of accuracy, but the models they worked with were sufficient for determining a probable collapse sequence and for delivering recommendations to improve building codes and standards. That is what they were tasked to do. That is what they accomplished.

The inevitability of collapse is based on the actual conditions present, not on an effort to model those conditions.

Yes, you really did…

“The fact is that the upper and lower blocks are indeed destroying each other at equal rates”

~booNy

“I am indeed saying that the upper and lower blocks are destroying each other at equal rates.”

~booNy

“the upper block and lower block are experiencing the same amount of damage throughout.”

~booNy

“The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down…”

~Bazant

Then realizing this, you flip-flopped your argument to say that whilst the blocks, “are destroying each other at equal rates”/“experiencing the same amount of damage”… they were actually… not. It’s amazing how one can hold two contradictory positions like that. And even then your adapted argument/explanation is at complete odds with how Bazant sees it.

Your statements above are correct. The one mistake you made was to then attempt to shift your position back in line with the ‘authoritative’ theory rather than having strength of mind to hold your ground.

Now I know how much people like to whinge about ‘misquoting’ when I use their own words against their argument so I will invite anyone interested to read from post #828 of this thread to understand the full context of booNy’s statements and position.

Bazant’s treatment of the upper block as nigh on indestructible alone shows this is no “limiting case”.

No, I really didn't crap all over Bazant's theory. My statements do not disagree with Bazant in any way. If you would actually quote Bazant fully, you'd possibly realize that.

The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down is demonstrated by the condition of the dynamic equilibrium of compacted layer B, along with an estimate of the inertia force of this layer due to vertical deceleration or acceleration; [see Eq. (10) and Fig. 2(f) of Bažant and Verdure (2007)]. This previous demonstration, however, was only approximate since it did not take into account the variation of crushing forces F

_c

and F'

_c

during the collapse of a story.

An accurate analysis of simultaneous (deterministic) crush-up and crush-down is reported in Bažant and Le (2008) and is reviewed in the Appendix, where the differential equations and the initial conditions for a two-way crush are formulated. It is found that, immediately after the first critical story collapses, crush fronts will propagate both downward and upward. However, the crush-up front will advance into the overlying story by only about 1% of its original height h and then stop. Consequently, the effect of the initial two-way crush is imperceptible and the original hypothesis that the crush-down and crush-up cannot occur simultaneously is almost exact.

What you seem to really struggle with there is that the upper block is continuing to grow as it essentially absorbs the mass of each successive floor in the collapse. And even though the destructive waves do propagate into both the upper and lower sections, the primary forces are taking place between the crush down front and the next floor that it impacts.

There are two separate issues here which you still fail to grasp: -

1. putting an immediate halt to downward movement of the upper block after a fall through any number of storeys (Bazant provides the best case for this scenario, which of course is unrealistic and will never occur).
   
2. accounting for a gradual loss of momentum and impact force through deterioration of the upper block (Bazant provides the worst case for this scenario, which of course is realistic and did occur).
   

It is not conservative/limiting, for survival of the lower block, to simultaneously apply the entire impact force of a nigh indestructible upper block directly to the most vital structure that was holding the building up (as 1. above). What an utter nonsense. If you expect there was any chance of the upper block falling through one storey and then stopping dead, then I can see it would make sense. But that was never going to happen.

It is the same difference as being hit on the head with a hammer or having an equivalent mass/speed of metal shavings dropped on you. The first is indeed best case for halting movement of the object, but is terrible for your survival. The second will not bring an instant halt to the moving object, but I like your chances better.

You just need to understand what exactly Bazant is providing the “best case” for.

Oh and I certainly never said he did or even attempted to calculate the actual conditions.

You just aren't getting it. I'll try to make this as basic as possible.

Prior to collapse initiation the velocity of the upper block is 0.

Once initiated, the upper block accelerates due to gravity.

If the upper block has any remaining momentum after breaking through the next floor, its velocity is now greater than zero and it continues to accelerate downward due to gravity.

Force is equal to mass times acceleration.

If the upper block is increasing in mass (by essentially absorbing the mass of the each failed floor) and increasing in speed (due to momentum plus gravity) its destructive force is likewise increasing as the collapse progresses.

Your hammer and metal shavings analogy does not apply here.

It is not my opinion but that of a U.S. attorney involved in the peer-review process. If you actually read what he said – it is not permitted to fairly contest Bazant’s paper. To anyone informed, your request above is entirely disingenuous.

Here it is again: -

“As will become apparent below, the rules at JEM that govern other authors do not apply to Dr. Bazant.”

~James Gourley, U.S. attorney

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

Please read and take on board.

Do you notice that he is crying about being supposedly mistreated instead of addressing the content of Bazant's rebuttal to his uninformed criticisms? Boo freaking Hoo

Why are you lying? I have never avoided anything. I go out of my way to explain points where some would not speculate. I took considerable time and numerous posts to spell out to you how Bazant circumvents Newton’s third law (and the other points you mentioned). To say that I avoided it… ? That is dishonest. If you still don’t understand or agree with what I said then fair enough, but don’t spiel off a list of accusations that you know very well are not true.

I'm not lying. Bazant doesn't circumvent Newton's third law and you've never been able to point out where exactly he supposedly does this. Your cherry picked and incomplete quoting of him serves only to illustrate your personal bias and inability to address the whole of his paper.

[Q24]

You're certainly avoiding any attempt to look at Bazant's paper in any detail. Your argument amounts to saying that you don't believe the conclusion therefore there must be something wrong somewhere, you just can't say where.

Endless strawman arguments - “don't believe the conclusion therefore there must be something wrong”. When in fact it is, “there is a lot wrong in the assumption compared to reality therefore the conclusion cannot be applied to 9/11”.

Your "physical observation" leads a lot to be desired. You just say "look at this video", but you can't point out in any detail what exactly is in the video that supports your argument.

No, more of your lies - I indicated the exact second in that video where the collapse momentum appears to slow.

You have failed to come up with Bazant making any such assumption. His relevant calculation is in the appendix to this paper.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476%20WTC%20collapse.pdf

Refer to any one of my previous dozens of posts on the subject of Bazant’s assumptions.

There is one new point we haven’t been over a thousand times…

How did that ‘spire’ of core columns pass through the ‘intact’ upper block?

It must be around sixty storeys tall.

So come on, explain how a solid object passed through the ‘intact’ upper block which supposedly was not destroyed until ground level

[booNyzarC]

No, more of your lies - I indicated the exact second in that video where the collapse momentum appears to slow.

At 22 seconds in

if I'm not mistaken? Exactly how are you determining that the collapse momentum appears to slow at that point?

Refer to any one of my previous dozens of posts on the subject of Bazant’s assumptions.

There is one new point we haven’t been over a thousand times…

How did that ‘spire’ of core columns pass through the ‘intact’ upper block?

It must be around sixty storeys tall.

So come on, explain how a solid object passed through the ‘intact’ upper block which supposedly was not destroyed until ground level

When are you going to differentiate between Bazant's limiting case and the actual event? You keep interchanging the two. You argue that Bazant's model is false because we can clearly see that the real world event doesn't match the model. You are comparing apples to oranges. When are you going to stop doing that?

Of course Bazant's paper doesn't mimic the exact characteristics witnessed in the actual collapse. The actual collapse was not the same best case scenario that Bazant presented. In terms of global collapse, the reality was worse.

[Q24]

What is so difficult for you to understand? The crashing of the planes into the buildings would have been a sufficiently "catastrophic and catalyzing event" in and of itself.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."

Imagine 9/11 with the plane crashes and no building collapses.

Now consider 9/11 as it actually was, with the building collapses.

Which is best match to the damage and casualties of Pearl Harbor?

The requirement was, “like a new Pearl Harbor”.

The requirement was not, “booNy’s far less severe version of Pearl Harbor”.

I said virtually impossible. By that I mean that it is so close to impossible that it becomes implausible in my opinion. You really are struggling with some basic concepts here Q24.

This must be the fourth or fifth time of asking…

What specific part of the WTC demolitions do you find “virtually impossible” and why?

The inevitability of collapse is based on the actual conditions present, not on an effort to model those conditions.

How do you know the actual impact and fire conditions present were sufficient to cause collapse? NIST proved there is a large range of impact and fire conditions which do not cause collapse.

No, I really didn't crap all over Bazant's theory. My statements do not disagree with Bazant in any way. If you would actually quote Bazant fully, you'd possibly realize that.

Your previous statements do not sit with the quote you provided at all. The whole point of Bazant’s quote is to claim that the upper and lower blocks are not destroyed at equal rates; the complete opposite of your statements.

What you seem to really struggle with there is that the upper block is continuing to grow as it essentially absorbs the mass of each successive floor in the collapse. And even though the destructive waves do propagate into both the upper and lower sections, the primary forces are taking place between the crush down front and the next floor that it impacts.

No, I haven’t even spoken about the growing mass (not block) at and above the collapse front. It is not possible to discuss that until you acknowledge that the upper block deteriorated at an equivalent rate to the lower block. Which… you did acknowledge in your statements… but since stepped back from. Though to be honest, I knew that’s what you would do.

And you are still talking about literal “floors” aren’t you? Screw the floors – the core structure was continuous throughout height of the building and that is what held the building upright.

If the upper block is increasing in mass (by essentially absorbing the mass of the each failed floor) and increasing in speed (due to momentum plus gravity) its destructive force is likewise increasing as the collapse progresses.

Your hammer and metal shavings analogy does not apply here.

You are missing the point. See above – we cannot treat the growing mass the same as a rigid block. The block can only decrease whilst the debris mass increases. Then what do you want dropping on your head – a solid rock or equivalent mass of sand? The two are very different.

You need to re-acknowledge there was no nigh indestructible upper block throughout collapse.

Then we can talk about the mass that is still left falling.

Do you notice that he is crying about being supposedly mistreated instead of addressing the content of Bazant's rebuttal to his uninformed criticisms? Boo freaking Hoo

You said we need to refute Bazant’s theory in a respected journal.

I pointed out that it is not permitted to fairly refute Bazant’s theory.

Your response is “Boo freaking Hoo”.

This only shows that your original request was disingenuous.

Bazant doesn't circumvent Newton's third law and you've never been able to point out where exactly he supposedly does this.

Compare your own previous statements, which correctly apply Newton’s third law, to Bazant’s quote - completely contradictory.

[TSS]

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor."

Imagine 9/11 with the plane crashes and no building collapses.

Now consider 9/11 as it actually was, with the building collapses.

Which is best match to the damage and casualties of Pearl Harbor?

The requirement was, “like a new Pearl Harbor”.

The requirement was not, “booNy’s far less severe version of Pearl Harbor”.

How do you know that the use of the phrase "like a new Pearl Harbour" isn't just a catch all phrase for the profound shock needed to push through an agenda? No where in that sentence does it hint at what level of destruction is needed, or body count, it could just merely mean that just like Pearl Harbour, you need an equal amount of profound shock on the public!

[skyeagle409]

The fact that entire floors were empty, giving a more than accessible option in which to get inside the building and plant explosives where required.

It's moot because thousands of people were killed.

Over 2000 people were inside the WTC buildings

[Q24]

At 22 seconds in

if I'm not mistaken? Exactly how are you determining that the collapse momentum appears to slow at that point?

That’s the one.

I am using my eyes to determine that the collapse momentum slows – the collapse begins, speeds up, and at 0:22 slows down. Though you and Swanny obviously don’t have great eyesight, so let’s do it another way…

The collapse begins at approximately 0:17

The halfway point in collapse is at approximately 0:22

The rest collapses by approximately 0:32

The first half of collapse is approximately twice as fast as the second half – thus clear loss of momentum.

The actual collapse was not the same best case scenario that Bazant presented. In terms of global collapse, the reality was worse.

Oh so you think it best for survival of the towers that the core columns are destroyed rather than left standing?

How bizarre

[Q24]

How do you know that the use of the phrase "like a new Pearl Harbour" isn't just a catch all phrase for the profound shock needed to push through an agenda? No where in that sentence does it hint at what level of destruction is needed, or body count, it could just merely mean that just like Pearl Harbour, you need an equal amount of profound shock on the public!

Perhaps. Though when it states, “like a new Pearl Harbor”, I think that is a hint that the damage, casualties and shock level (which are surely interlinked) should be equivalent.

You are right though, it does not specifically detail the “level of destruction” or “body count” required (other than it should be, “like a new Pearl Harbor”). There is another document from Neocon circles two years prior. The following comes under the sub-heading, “Imagining the Transforming Event”: -

“An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America’s history … Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm

It’s a little more specific.

That particular document is discussing how best to avoid such an attack (the author was no part of the 9/11 false flag). But it does, like ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’, set out the effect that such an attack would have – a benefit to the Neocon military agenda.

[booNyzarC]

Your previous statements do not sit with the quote you provided at all. The whole point of Bazant’s quote is to claim that the upper and lower blocks are not destroyed at equal rates; the complete opposite of your statements.

Wrong. And I'll get to your other points later, but this is key to the discussion.

You are equating destroyed at equal rates to mean the same thing as crushed up and crushed down at equal rates. They are not the same. The confusion most likely stems from usage of the word "crush." A better way to describe it would be closing the gap between itself and the next intersecting floor.

In order for the gap between floors to be closed in either direction (1) the supports between the floors must be compromised, and (2) one or both of the intersecting bodies must move toward the other in some way and (3) be compelled by some force.

In the case of a collapse like this, the upper mass is in motion and compelled by the force of gravity. The extent to which the gaps between floors above the collapse zone can be closed is limited to the resistant force exerted by the supports of each successive floor. As soon as those supports are compromised, the "crush up", or the closing of the gap between itself and the next intersecting floor above, stops. The extent to which the gaps between the floors below the collapse zone is complete because once the supports are compromised, there is nothing of substance stopping the downward motion until the next floor is reached; thus closing the gap.

Do you think that you can manage to make this distinction and understand the underlying core points that this illustrates?

[skyeagle409]

It's a little more specific.

That particular document is discussing how best to avoid such an attack (the author was no part of the 9/11 false flag). But it does, like 'Rebuilding America's Defenses', set out the effect that such an attack would have – a benefit to the Neocon military agenda.

That doesn't make any sense considering that:

Panetta: Military cuts to hit 'all 50 states'

The Pentagon proposed budget cuts on Thursday that would slash the size of the U.S. military by eliminating thousands of jobs, mothballing ships and trimming air squadrons in an effort to shift strategic direction and reduce spending by $487 billion over a decade.The funding request, which includes painful cuts for many states, sets the stage for a new struggle between President Barack Obama's administration and Congress over how much the Pentagon should spend on national security as the country tries to curb trillion-dollar budget deficits.

My link

Will Obama's military cuts hurt the economy?

The plan would cut defense spending by 10 percent over the next decade, and there are worries that this could harm our ability to recover from the recession and potentially lower long-run economic growth.

My link

Because of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the government must now shell out millions upon millions of dollars each year to support veterans who were affected by those wars, which is beyond the billions upon billions of dollars already spent and the loss of lives that were the direct result of those wars.

That doesn't sound like very good reasons to fly aircraft into buildings or crash them into the ground.

Edited April 22, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

You are equating destroyed at equal rates to mean the same thing as crushed up and crushed down at equal rates. They are not the same. The confusion most likely stems from usage of the word "crush." A better way to describe it would be closing the gap between itself and the next intersecting floor.

You sound very much like someone trying to fight their way out of a contradiction, and failing. Of course "crush up/down" is the same as "damage up/down" (this is even what Bazant means when using the term "crush"). I don't accept your explanation at all and neither does it make sense. Apart from that…

I’m not really happy talking about “floors” and “gaps” because once again, it is neither of these holding the building upright – it is the continuous core columns through the structure that must be overcome. I’ll have to assume that by “floors” and “gaps” you mean the length of column that buckles and moves downward. That is the only way I can make sense of your description.

In the case of a collapse like this, the upper mass is in motion and compelled by the force of gravity. The extent to which the gaps between floors above the collapse zone can be closed is limited to the resistant force exerted by the supports of each successive floor. As soon as those supports are compromised, the "crush up", or the closing of the gap between itself and the next intersecting floor above, stops.

I stopped your quote above at this point to add – if the “crush up” stops in that moment, due to the columns immediately below being compromised, then likewise does the “crush down” stop. You would probably say (if I’m understanding the rest of what you said), “no, because gravity continues the downward motion of the compromised columns” – but this is wrong because it is always momentum of the upper block (which is already faster than gravity can accelerate the compromised columns from a standing start) driving the compromised columns downward.

The upper block, lower block and debris between all come together in the same moment and equal and opposite damage must occur. So long as those three elements of the building are always in contact (which they have to be because it is a continuous structure) and momentum of the upper block is driving the collapse (not just gravity accelerating the newly compromised columns from a stand still at each… “floor”), there will always be equal and opposite damage.

[skyeagle409]

The Tale of Fire and Steel

"Explosives used to demolish steel are called ‘linear-shape charges," says Bill Moore, of Brandenburg Industrial Service Co., and former president of the National Demolition Association from 2003-2005.

"They cut steel like a hot knife through butter and leave a very distinctive looking cut plus a copper residue. Just putting explosives on a piece of steel would do nothing unless the amount was huge.

That huge amount would have blown out every window in Manhattan from the sound pressure."

My link

Once again, where is the evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings? Did someone blow up the explosives evidence? Apparently the investigators who have examined the WTC wreckage and structure could find no evidence of pre-weakening nor anything else related to a controlled demolition of the WTC buildings.

That would explain that after more than 10 years not one government official has been arrested for blowing up the WTC buildings and why nosy news reporters could find no evidence either, but foreign terrorist have been arrested for the 9/11 attacks.

Edited April 22, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

Apparently the investigators who have examined the WTC wreckage and structure could find no evidence of pre-weakening nor anything else related to a controlled demolition of the WTC buildings.

Look at the state of it: -

That is not natural, but indicative of melting/explosive damage.

And NIST’s own John Gross posing with the piece!

The evidence is in plain view, some just prefer not to see it.

[skyeagle409]

Look at the state of it: -

That is not natural, but indicative of melting/explosive damage.

And NIST's own John Gross posing with the piece!

The evidence is in plain view, some just prefer not to see it.

That is not evidence that explosives were used.Look at the bent beam below that panel. What does that tell you?

Edited April 22, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

That is not evidence that explosives were used.Look at the bent beam below that panel. What does that tell you?

As I said - the evidence is in plain view, some just prefer not to see it.

The photo shows a hulking great piece of melted steel and you want to look at "the bent beam below that panel".

Classic.

[skyeagle409]

As I said - the evidence is in plain view, some just prefer not to see it.

The photo shows a hulking great piece of melted steel and you want to look at "the bent beam below that panel".

Classic.

Look at the beam below. It is clearly evident that it suffered from heat deformation and I assume it is part of what that person is holding. Bending from a force without heat or should I say, annealing, would have cracked the flange. What makes you think the guy is holding melted steel?

Now, where is your evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings? It has been more than 10 years and yet, no evidence has surfaced.

A Tale of Fire & Steel

Another demolition expert who worked at Ground Zero also finds no trouble debunking the claim of explosives.“Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event,” says Brent Blanchard, senior writer for www.implosionworld.com. “You just can’t clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days. I just can’t see how it happened that way.”

Moore adds to the counter demolition theory.

“Implosions are initiated by weakening structural members with explosives,” he explains. “The steel in the WTC buildings was weakened not only by the crash but by the intense heat from the jet fuel fire. Thus, instead of explosives, fire was used to weaken the steel. Once the steel gave, the weight of the upper floors collapsed onto the lower floors, thus creating a domino effect.

Some of the steel inspected was bare, the foam fireproof completely absent from the components. The theory is that the impact from the jets “blew” the foam off the steel, making it more susceptible to heat or destroyed completely by the crashes.“The fireproofing material I’ve seen sticks very well and a ‘jolt’ would not knock it off,” says Moore. “If the steel was directly hit knocking off the fireproofing, then the steel would have been damaged and weakened, as well.”

Dr. Saeed Mirza, professor of civil engineering and applied mechanics at McGill University, Montreal, Canada, agrees that the fire was enough to initiate total structural failure.

“At temperatures of 120 degrees C (248 F) until 300 degrees C (500 F) or so, there is no change in the properties of steel or concrete, no loss of strength. Beyond that, steel loses strength. At 800 to 1,000 degrees C (1,472-1,832 F) it is 20 percent of what it should be.

Gravity of the situation

The dynamics of the collapses are unique to all three WTC buildings in that they collapsed into their own footprints in less than 16 seconds. How could these buildings collapse so quickly? Wouldn’t there be some resistance to a freefall at the rate of gravity?

“We think the idea that the collapse was essentially a free fall is incorrect,” comments Dr. Louis F. Geschwindner, PE and professor of architectural engineering, Pennsylvania State University. “The part of the tower above the zone of plane damage started down when the remaining strength at the damage location was exceeded. The structure below provided upward resistance but not enough to overcome the progression of failure directly under it. “As the failure propagated down, the failed elements added to the mass acting downward, increasing the load incrementally as the mass traveled down. This pattern occurred all the way down, increasing at the rate of gravity.”

My link

Still no evidence that explosives were used.

Edited April 22, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

Over 2000 people were inside the WTC buildings

In the years, months and weeks leading up to 9/11 the towers were nowhere near operating at capacity.

Entire floors stood empty, their exposed ceiling beams visible from the floor.

There were very few full time tenants.

This leaves more than enough opportunity for explosives to be planted.

Tell me again why this is moot because people were killed? Your logic is inexplainable.

[Wandering]

That doesn't make any sense considering that:

[/b]

Because of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the government must now shell out millions upon millions of dollars each year to support veterans who were affected by those wars, which is beyond the billions upon billions of dollars already spent and the loss of lives that were the direct result of those wars.

That doesn't sound like very good reasons to fly aircraft into buildings or crash them into the ground.

How nice it must be to live in your world Skyeagle...Of course, you are the only person there....

The Government was not trying to make money off this. Of course the Government has to hand out money. How does it do that? By borrowing more money from the banks.

Win for the banks.

Yet Weapons Manufacturers are still making more money than they did pre 9/11. Imagine if since 2001 we hadn't had 9/11, hadn't had any wars in the Muslim countries. The world would be an extremely quiet place right now. A beautiful place. No reason to stockpile weapons.

Win for the Weapons Manufacturers.

[Stundie]

Then, you must understand that they are not demolition experts.

What the hell are you talking about?? Where the hell I have ever quoted or misunderstood that A&E for 9/11 truth??

Sorry but you are going mental here, lets take a look at the evidence of how this merry go round of pure delusion from the very best place, the start.

You...."The engineers are not demolition experts."

Me....."Whoever said they were?? "

You...."You have been using them as references as if they were."

Me....."Sorry but you are a desperate liar, I have never once said or referred to Architect or Engineers as demolition experts. Please find the quote you terrible liar, you won't find it because all you have done is used your imagination to equate an argument that I have never made."

You...."I said that you used them as IF they were demolition experts. Once again, you have goofed."

Me....."Please point out where I have SUPPOSEDLY used them (A&E for 9/11 Truth) as IF they were demolition experts. "

You...."You used them as references, am I correct??"

Me....."No, you are not correct. This is why you can't point out "where I have SUPPOSEDLY used them (A&E for 9/11 Truth) as IF they were demolition experts." because you have imagined that I referenced them as demolition expert. In other words, you have lied and not for the first time either.

And now you come out with this..."Then, you must understand that they are not demolition experts."

Why do I need to understand they are not demolition experts when I never argued they were and I'm fully aware and already understand that they are not demolition experts?? hahahahahahahaha!!! Fricking hilarious!

Yet you have invented this position where some how you have imagined in a distance galaxy in what passes for thinking, that I think A&E 9/11 truth....are demolition experts!!

Its all inside your head, you are arguing with yourself because as we are all aware, including my so called dumb twoofin toofer butt, that A&E9/11 are NOT demolition experts.

In your own imagination you obviously believing you are smashing down those toofing twoofers but you ain't arguing with da twoof, just a figment of your imagination that even the most laser beaming tin hat wearing no planer would envious to posses!

I have provided the specifics on what it takes to bring down a building in a certain way. People think that you can just place explosives in a steel-framed building and it is going to collapse the way they want.

And hilariously, people think that you can set fire to a building and it will collapse just like a implosion directly into it's own footprint, symmetrically or and create invisible super destructive upper blocks.

Based on a third world sweat shop building and an over pass.

Remember, a steel-framed building is not affected in the same way as a wood-framed building, and I posted the photos to show that even though steel-framed buildings were bombed, they still remained standing whereas a wood-framed building would have been blown apart.

Oh thanks for reminding me, I honestly thought that all buildings were effected in the same way, cause like in my twoofer mind, I thought a paper framed building would be affected the same way as a steel or wood framed building, I didn't think materials as different as steel, wood, paper, liquorice, cotton buds, semtex, ice, bananas framed buildings were affected in different ways?

Not so much a bible of knowledge, more like a bible of obvious under parable pointless!

Anyway, I posted photos that show steel framed buildings with much worse damage and bigger and longer fires still remained standing, where as wood frame buildings, well you bought that up for some odd reason.

To demolish a steel-framed building you must pre-weaken the structure and the explosives fires must remain securely attached to the structure otherwise don't expect the building to collapse the way you want and as I have said before, it takes many weeks of no planning and preparation just to demolish a steel-framed building smaller than the WTC buildings and because not all steel-framed building are built of the same designs is another reason why it takes long-termed no planning and preparation. To think that you can just place explosives set fire in a steel-framed building and expect to blow it to pieces is pure Hollywood stuff.

Err! Fixed that for you!

It would have taken many months to pre-weaken and prepare the WTC buildings for demolition, a process that could not have been done without disturbing normal operations within the WTC buildings. Any explosives attached to structural beams above the 77th floors would have either been dislodged from the structural beams after the impacts and would not have been effective in blowing apart the structure because once again, the explosives must remained attached to structural beams to be effective and that is if the explosives were not already detonated by the impacts and resulting fires.

Well it doesn't take many months to pre weaken or that long to prepare WTC for demolition, you believe that a demolition wasn't needed therefore no explosives, where as if I said that they place one explosive device in the building, or even rigged a single floor, then it would have still been effective by your own logic, because you believe it collapsed without no explosive.

It another inventive argument you've created, another Wurzel Gummage and being burnt down Champ along with Aunt Sally whose being BBQ with your flame thrower of debunking logic.

If fire is so effective at demolishing building and making them collapse into it's own footprint, all those weeks of planning are a waste of time and demolition companies would be rushing to use it, it would save them an absolute fortune, fires are easy to prepare aren't they and have the job done within hours.

The problem is as we all know, fires....they are a bit crap at making buildings collapse!

Thats my bible of the obvious!

Despite what some may think, thermite is a very poor and ineffective substitute for the C4 explosive, which is normally used by demolition companies, so why did someone come along and claim that thermite was used to bring down WTC buildings? Because someone found traces of thermite within the building, but the thermite can come from other sources, so finding thermite was not evidence by any means that explosives were used. I posted those videos where 175 pounds of thermite was unable to burn through a small steel box beam despite care in packing the material around the beam and another case where 1000 pounds of thermite was unable to burn a vehicle in half and yet we are lead to believe that thermite is what brought down the WTC buildings.

People need to get away from the Hollywood frame of mind in regards to the collapse of the WTC buildings.

I know, my Hollywood twoofer fantasy delusions, I imagine that some men covertly placed wireless remote explosive charges and thermite devices which they slowly set of and demolish the WTC 7 which comes down at free fall speed for a short period as the devices cut all the structural support and make the WTC7 come down at near free fall speed into a nice debris pile, explaining all the eyewitness accounts of explosions.

In your reality based version of event, fires burned so hot for 1 and 7 hours in the buildings, that aluminum or melted glass started glowing bright orange in the day light from one of the buildings and because it was mixed with carpets and stuff and gypsum from the drywall, it them creates a thermite reaction, cause every knows that if you start a fire with some aluminum and gypsum, that you get thermite, and with the added continuing fire, it fell down at free fall speeds for a short period as the building is burning hotter than Dante inferno after curry night, into a nice debris pile into it's own footprint, and all the eyewitness accounts of explosions were steel crane snapping, cable cars, people throwing themselves off the buildings and Dr Pepper cans exploding in a vending machine.

Its a good job you have a grip on reality. lol

Edited April 22, 2012 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

In the years, months and weeks leading up to 9/11 the towers were nowhere near operating at capacity.

The fact tha more than 2000 people occupied the WTC buildings before the impacts is really what matters.

Edited April 22, 2012 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

People who have never heard a real bomb explosion can easily confuse other sounds as explosions.

And people who were not at GZ can easily confuse the explosions they saw, heard and felt as other sounds.

Especially internet warriors!