Hello branw
Almost!

I think you need to get something clear in your mind.
In a recent posting you whinged that:
"In the short amount of time I have been posting in this thread, I have received numerous personal attacks and sarcastic replies to my posts."

If you can leave Your God and your undeniable logic for a minute, I would like to point out that the first person who became sarcastic and irrational in this discussion you joined was you.
Have a look at your reply to Terry Syd 30 Oct 05
Terry had posted some information in a perfectly civil manner.

Your reply dripping with sarcasm and irrational statements included the following:
I just pointed out several and you have not ceded one. If you were truly a rational person you would have either realized the truth I have shown or given me a reason why I am wrong.
You just keep spouting more and more stuff and I suspect there are some things that can't be explained. Does it add up to what you suggest?
Sure, if you only count the crap you want to beleive reguardless of real evidence. In your future debates with people on this matter, will you continue to point people toward the WT-7 stuff that I have just shown cannot be in any way construed as proof or even evidence? The very stuff that was designed to mislead from the very beginning. If you will, then you sir cannot be swayed and you beleive what you beleive because you WANT to. If that is the case then you are an enemy to me and my family...I feel I have tried to reason with you and you are beyond reason, but as always, I could be wrong...That should settle your ridiculous center spire argument though I'm sure you'll continue to use it as your "proof".


So suddenly, because Terry, a Vietnam Veteran, would not agree with your view of things, is an “enemy of you and your family"

And you have even been rude to Neutral!

You sir are a Jack-Ass and an enemy of common sense.

In my mind you have NOT earned the right to talk to members of this forum in this manner.
You seem to be the typical stay at home with the women while the real men go out and defend your right to be a self-righteous idiot type of fellow.
And the God of the Jews which you silly Christians want to claim as your own never had a son. Go ask any Rabbi.

Now, about your thoughts that the USA did not land on the moon...

While it was not put as nicely put as it could have been, there was no sarcasm involved. I will spare you quoting the definition. I meant what I said. Without proof you have nothing. Have you had enough vodka yet? Maybe some Kool-Aid? If you even know what that means.

Why didn't you quote the end of my post where I said "I apologize if I sound too harsh"?

Give one sentence in that post that was irrational.

Where have I mentioned God?

I will quote myself in that post...
"If that is the case then you are an enemy to me and my family"

"If that is the case"

Whether or not he is an enemy to me and my family is yet to be seen.
Anyone who knowingly deseminates false information causing more people to hate this country and giving reasons and excuses to potential terrorists is an enemy to me and my family. I DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE

If Terry truly beleives what he says, and he does not use sources which have been proven to be erroneous, then he is well within his rights and I have no reason to consider him an enemy.

As long as there are plenty of healthy volunteers willing to join the military, they will not take someone in my condition. At least that is what the recruitment officer told me. I guess I could take my guns and my 14 pills a day and go overseas anyway but that doesn't seem logical. Instead I do what I can around here. I volunteer on a weekly basis. I donate to charity on a weekly basis. I'm sure by now you do wish I had been killed Iraq so that I couldn't express my opinion.

Your feeble attempt to insult Christianity does not offend me. Try harder. What was it you were trying to prove again? You can never be too drunk to post on a forum?

I am getting very tired of explaining everything to you. Please ask your mommy to explain my posts to you so that I don't have to post everything twice. Once for the adults and once with smaller words for you. I bet you're a mean drunk. Have another vodka. I think I may have to reinstate my previously withdrawn statement...

"I will no longer be responding to comments made by Tilly pertaining to this debate as they are not intelligent enough for me to waste my time with.

Tilly when you start to lose the debate you begin the personal attacks. It only makes you look foolish and does nothing to further your cause. In fact it furthers mine by showing that you are not capable of having a real debate"


I don't know though, we will see how it goes.

I'll be damn John, maybe you're not what I thought. Show me some more.

Hello John
You are being too hard on the boy.
I do not think branw is a Troll.
Surely you, a born again Vietnam Draft Dodging Hawk understands how the testosterone starts to flow once you are in no danger of suffering the consequences of your ideals.

I guess you are right John, for the sake of the actual debate here I guess I should ignore him.

Anyone interested in an unemotional reporting of the differing views, with numerous links to sources, on the WTC collapses might like to look at the Wikipedia.

For a very thorough study look at 911 Research.

The thing I find easiest to understand yet hardest to explain is the physics of the fall. It is acknowledged by even the most conventional that the buildings came down in little more than the free fall time. Before the buildings moved all the energy they contained was potential due to their height above ground. As they fell all the potential energy would be available to convert to kinetic energy. As they fell in little more than free fall time nearly all the potential energy had to be converted to kinetic energy by the time it got to the ground, yet what we observe with WTC 1 and WTC 2 is a huge ejection of material which appears not at the bottom where the kinetic energy would become available but all the way down. This very rapidly ejected material consists of powdered concrete and chunks of steel as evidenced by the lack of concrete blocks in the rubble and the wide distribution of the steel debris. Where did the energy come from to turn thousands of tonnes of concrete into powder on the way down? Where did the energy come from to hurl the steel so far out?

Are we now moving on from building 7? If so, I just want to clarify my position.... It may be possible that the building was brought down by explosives. I haven't seen any indisputable evidence to support that. Considering myself a logical person, I will not condemn any individual or group of individuals of something so heinous as this without proof, barring a confession. This appears to me to be a witch-hunt.

From a standpoint of my own understanding of comon sense, I would expect a certain few foreign governments to jump at the chance to implicate the United States in a conspiracy of this nature if there were any proof at all. Yet they do not. Having an understanding of the nature of American politics, I would expect senators like Ted Kennedy and former presidential candidate John Kerry to pounce on Bush over this. Yet they do not. Above all, I would have expected to find WMDs in Iraq by now, even if my government had to plant them. This would have been a far easier endeavor and it would have saved them a lot of trouble. And there would be no pesky video to contend with.

I did not come into this forum to insult anyone. My very first post was an attempt to quell the arguing. I have given many explanations for events construed as evidence to support demolition and unless I am mistaken, no one has acknowledged any of them except Neutral with the hydraulic press. This has caused some animosity on my part and I apologize to any one I have offended, including Tilly. I would like to call a truce. We can have this debate without sarcasm and personal attacks by either of us. If you do not want to debate me in this manner, then we can ignore one another.

Do I detect a slight reduction in the pressure that has been building recently ? A moderating of tone by most individuals involved ?
Yes I do . Good, this was getting out of hand.

One problem (only one ?) is that there seems to be a thin line that seperates the inquiry into how a particular thing happened. Why it happened etc and the actual conspiracy theory that someone some where willed it to happen to for whatever reason. This line is pretty vague and discussion of one side of it is getting mixed up with the other side. We then lose sight of the original.
A good old example is the idea that the Sun rotated around the Earth. What is wrong with saying 'no it doesn't' ? That is the start of a reasonable discussion.
However, the Holy Roman Church would have you burned for daring to discuss this as it was against there interest to accept it. So there is (was) a conspiracy on a grand scale to hide the truth. People could get hurt if they investigate.
Problem is, what happens when something looks so fishy that it defies logical analysys ? When things don't fit ?
Let's not degenerate into mud slinging (again) but try to stick to examining the facts-as-stated. Even if we have to agree to disagree. And no one need get burned.
regards
dva

(insert a collective sigh of relief from the silent readers who've been following this thread for so long)

Well put Dva. I would only add, "no it doesn't, because....."

It is good to live in an age and a country where people can express their beleifs without being murdered. Well, in most cases anyway.

The two-party system is a sham. It creates the illusion that the masses have some significant input into the affairs of State. I remember reading through an Army Intelligence quiz and looking at a question that referred to “preserving the two-party system”, not democracy, not republicanism, not the rule of law – but the two-party system.

Do you really believe that a very rich and powerful oligarchy are going to let a bunch of half-educated peons dictate what is going to happen to their fortunes, their bases of power? What would you do if you were in their shoes?

You get to vote for their parties, their candidates. Take your pick; white with black stripes, or black with white stripes.

If you don’t fully appreciate this concept, then get involved in third-party politics. I have been there and done that. The amount of intelligence assets that are deployed is incredible. Dirty tricks, surveillance, hatchet jobs in the media, moles, counter-gangs, squandering of funds, it doesn’t stop until the party is broken. Don’t believe me? – then get off your ass and get involved you pissy little arm chair patriots and find out the hard way.

I have been a lawyer for 20 years and I have run some significant Constitutional cases that challenged the status quo. As I am still a member of the Bar I shall refrain from saying too much, but let me say this – the legal system is not there to defend you from tyranny. It is little more than an extension of the executive, it is part of the system of control. It is often used to break people and organizations that the PTB want destroyed. If you learned something else in school, then it is time you got off your ass and went toe to toe, for years, with the Levithan. Watch the machinations first hand, listen to the lies, notice the winks and nods.

I learned the hard way about the real nature of media control when I was involved with gun control and third party politics. I will never give another TV or radio interview unless it is live, an interview with print media is volunteering for a butchering. The bastards will cut-and-paste anything you say to represent anything they want. Free press, not from the MSM, it is controlled by the same PTB. Get off your ass and find out first hand, put down the remote and get involved.

Conspiracy theories – or truth movement? Do you really believe that the Government would lie about some things, but not about 9-11?

This is not some “anti-American” thing. The people in London have to deal with State terrorism in the form of the London Bombings, the people of Australia have to deal with the Bali Bombings. The PTB are internationalists. They owe no allegiance to some line marked on a map.

I had written an article on gun control in Australia and as a result was phoned by an investigator of the Port Arthur Massacre. I had accepted the Government line that Bryant had committed the massacre. I listened to this “tin foil hat conspiracy theorist” with disinterest, and gave him my address so he could send me some of his research. I took the time to look at it, I took the time to do further research, to read available witness statements, to listen to available tapes, to talk to survivors, to analyze the forensic evidence, to watch available videos – bloody hell! Bryant didn’t do it.

That was my introduction to psy-ops, State terrorism to bring about a political change. In this case significant gun control legislation in Australia. After that awakening it wasn’t so hard to see through the lies of other psy-ops. Wake up, get off your ass and learn how to see what is being hidden in front of you, take the time to do some research, retrain your mind so that you can be self actualizing. So that you can think for yourself rather than have the PTB direct what and how you think.

Some people will always be “blue pill” people, others will take the “red pill”. It will be disquieting at first as illusion after illusion is stripped away, but in the end you will accept, if not become comfortable, with the view from the other side of the looking glass.

branw,

Yes I have moved on to consider the fall of the Twin Towers as well as WTC 7. It is clear that the appearance of the falls is different. There is not much dust from WTC 7. This may well be due to the fact that WTC 7 was smaller and had less weight to support as you have said. It could well be that the immense strength required for the taller towers meant that much more energy would be required to demolish each floor.

The dust that comes from the towers is no ordinary dust. First it comes out horizontally or even upward at high speed and then we see how different this is to the dust we are used to as it begins to fall rapidly. This cloud is extremely heavy. Within seconds the air where the dust cloud appeared is clear again. It must be full of concrete. Yet where is the concrete when it settles? There are no lumps, only dust, so the entire mass of concrete in the building has been pulverized.

How much concrete has been pulverized? Imagine a 100 acre paddock, covered with several inches of concrete. Imagine the energy needed to turn the whole of it into fine dust. Where did the energy come from to do that given that nearly all the potential energy in the building had to be consumed by turning into kinetic energy, as the building fell almost as quickly as in free fall?

Terry, I just don't beleive that every thing that happens is a conspiracy. People have free will. There are occasions when people commit crimes on their own without a conspiracy. The purpose of this debate is to explore the reasons why 9-11 was or was not such.

Neutral, I don't think I would characterize the dust to be as fine as you do. If you take a bag of ready-mix concrete, and toss a handful into the air it stays in the air for quite a while. Especially if it is windy. The available videos are taken from quite a distance relatively speaking. I beleive that most of this dust is more on the order of gravel size or larger. I beleive that the sheer volume of particles combined with the distance the video was shot from gave the apearance of a fine dust cloud. The fact that it fell out very quickly is evidence that the particles were much larger than dust. There are clearly two types of dust as evidenced by the videos. There is the dust that you described which fell rather quickly and then there is the (what I would call fine) dust closer to the ground as seen in the videos of the people running from the gargantuan cloud, that hung in the air for a really long time. Seeing as how both types are concrete, their weights are the same and the only difference can be the particle size.

Please point out at any time if I have missed something which has caused a flaw in my logic. As has been evidenced by the confusion in some of my earlier posts, I sometimes miss things.

The reason for so large a volume of debris shooting in every direction has to do with rebar. If you hold in your hand a cylinder of concrete about the size and shape of a pencil and you attempt to bend it until it breaks, you will likely have two large peices with a small amount of dust and debris generated at the actual breaking point. Now if you have the same cylinder except this time, when it was formed a straightened paper clip was placed in the center. As the concrete cured, it bonded to the metal. Now when you atempt to bend it you will notice it requires much more force. As you increase the pressure you are applying, you are increasing the potential energy. This creates some unintended consequences. You are going to apply a much higher amount of energy which will be expended in the same amount of time as before. The end result is you will be holding a handful of dust and debris, also known as the crumbling effect. The physics behind this is that the metal in the concrete (rebar) forces the energy to be spread out across the entire cylinder instead of just at the point of pressure. The advantage you get is that it will require much more energy to break the concrete but the disadvantage is that once that energy level is acheived, you have total catastrophic failure. Time is a constant. In the case of the towers, instead of increasing the potential energy, the activation energy point was lowered by the fires weakening the structure. The elapsed time is largely irrelevant. I would expect to see a very small difference in free-fall time versus collapse time. Imagine dropping a brick and noting the free-fall time, and then dropping a brick on an empty soda can. The difference in times would be negligible. The amount of potential energy stored in a building of that magnitude is practically unfathomable. This energy is stored in the building from the top all the way to the bottom, not just at the top.

It is my opinion that all governments have some degree of corruption. Such is the nature of the beast. The perfect form of government has yet to be discovered.

branw,

I am glad your logic is undeniable because if we start from the right basis we will get to the right conclusion.

You have missed a couple of points.

You say the dust fell fast which shows that it was not dust but gravel. Certainly gravel will fall faster than fine dust when both are thrown and distributed in a volume of air by hand as you describe. The point you missed is that if the fine dust is not dispersed in a large quantity of air, ie the particles are very close together there is little air to support them. What little air is there is carried down with the dust so that the cloud behaves more like a liquid. Obviously if all the air was excluded the particles would fall like a solid rock. If the concrete was pulverised and thrown out with great force there will be little air involved so would it not fall fast even though very fine?

What would happen if you took double handful of flour and heaved it sideways but did not break it up with your fingers?

There are reports that the dust which settled around the set was in fact very fine, measured in microns, not mm as would be the case with gravel.

You said: "There are clearly two types of dust as evidenced by the videos. There is the dust that you described which fell rather quickly and then there is the dust ... that hung in the air for a really long time."

Well of course there would have been a range of sizes, but what we are seeing here is not two types of dust but two types of behaviour. In the first few seconds we see the dust falling fast. Later, after it has plunged to the ground and swirled up again it still is in a very sharply defined volume. Only later still, after there has been time for this material to be dispersed in the air do we see it hanging in the air like the dust we are used to seeing.

You say: "The amount of potential energy stored in a building of that magnitude is practically unfathomable."

Hardly, wouldn't it be just some constant times mass times average height?

Thank you for supplying the description of the way more energy is needed to break reinforced concrete than plain. That's quite a help. You suggest that because of the high energy level needed to fracture the reinforced concrete it is not surprising that fragments would shoot out with great force.

So now we have three requirements for energy:

1. To bring the building down in close to free fall speed.

2. To pulverise the concrete

3. To throw the mass of concrete out

It has been argued that the potential energy in the building is enough to pulverize the concrete. Let's accept that, though some say it isn't enough.

I remind you that we see a very large proportion of this mass of material thrown out while the building is going down. I also remind you that nearly all the potential energy is required to accelerate the building enough to get it down in near free fall time.

So in round figures we need twice the available potential energy for uses 1 and 2 above.

So where does the energy come from for use 3, to throw the material out?

Would you not agree that there is a large energy shortfall in the gravitational collapse theory?

It is pointless to argue this particular point without quantitative analysis. Neither one of us can say whether there was or wasn't enough energy without numbers. The point I was trying to make when I used the word unfathomable (not uncalculable) was that the amount was so great. The amount of time involved with the freefall is largely irrelevant because the energy required to break the threshhold of activation is much higher that the energy required to continue the reaction. That point is called "activation energy". Once that point is met, the remaining available energy is so immense that little or nothing (at least of the materials involved) will slow it down much. With each passing microsecond, the kinetic energy increases widening further the gap between available energy and activation energy of future concrete smashing. Remember that the nature of buildings is to hold back potential energy. From the time they are erected they are already aproaching activation energy. Every inch of the load bearing structure is already being subjected to potential energy aproaching it's activation energy. Most of the energy required to "break" the building, the entire building, is already there and just waiting to be released by a slight increase in that energy. The majority of energy required to "pullverize" the concrete was already within the concrete itself. The collapse provided the little nudge to complete the reaction. We are talking about an amount of energy considerably smaller than the total required for the afore mentioned "pullverizing". At each moment of pullverization, a relatively tiny amount of energy from the falling mass is used up and the mass, along with it's new addition are allowed to free-fall.

In the videos of the rescue operation and of the cleanup operation, I saw pieces of concrete of all sizes ranging from bus size to dust size and everything in between, including gravel size. You are right about dust falling in the absence of air, but that proves nothing as gravel would act the same way. This however doesn't matter though as I have already described how there was enough energy available. I would assume that with the emmense amount of energy we are talking about, the breaking points would produce a considerable amount of dust.



"I remind you that we see a very large proportion of this mass of material thrown out while the building is going down and nearly all its potential energy is required to accelerate it enough to get it down in near free fall time."

The key word here is "nearly". Without calculating the energy not used in the fall from the difference in time, and the amount of energy required to expell dust, there is no way to say whether there was enough. Put a tablespoon of flour in a balloon. Blow it up. Prick it with a needle. Where did the flour go? Where didn't it go? When you prick the balloon, you apply a tiny amount of energy to surpass the activation energy to trigger the potential energy to convert to kinetic energy. The more air you put in the balloon, the lower the activation energy. This is akin to taller, heavier buildings. The air contained within the balloon, not being able to cope with the dramatically and quickly decreasing volume of it's container is pushed out with great velocity and takes with it, the flour. This is akin to the air between the floors. It appears to me that there was enough.

When you demolish a building with explosives, don't you take out key structural supports? What would be the purpose of placing explosives of sufficient strength as to turn concrete into dust when the goal is just to bring the building down. You can deal with large chunks of concrete later. Even if you did want to break them up on the way down, why would this be a concern with the WTC? Wouldn't the purpose be to make it look like a gravitational collapse? I don't remember ever seeing quite the proportion of dust with any controlled demolishion.

Please clarify your position for me. Were the explosives in the basement, or near the top? Or were they throughout the entire building?

John, as long as we are creating governments they will never be perfect.

branw

quote:

Please clarify your position for me. Were the explosives in the basement, or near the top? Or were they throughout the entire building?

WTC 7 and the twin towers came down in different ways.

WTC 7 collapsed mainly at the bottom. This could have been achieved either by disconnecting all supports throughout the building simultaneously or by a series running up the building. The effect would have been similar. There was a bit of collapse at the very top also, suggesting a slightly earlier charge there.

The twin towers collapsed from the top down. This means simultaneous disconnection did not occur. This must have been done in a series from the top down.

Re why so much of the concrete was so finely pulverised, I agree that no one would want to achieve this but it could be that the core was so astonishingly strong that it was not possible to sever it without consideralbe collateral damage.

Re: "It is pointless to argue this particular point without quantitative analysis. Neither one of us can say whether there was or wasn't enough energy without numbers."

There have been reports which go into the calculation of the energy required to pulverize the concrete, and then to scatter it. So there are numbers to consider. See the 911 website which links to various estimates. The FEMA itself has published their estimate of the potential energy in the buildings as they stood.

The point is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, as you will no doubt recall, but can only be turned from one form into another. So as "most" of the potential energy had to be used to provide the acceleration "little" could be available for other purposes, yet vast amounts were required according to these sources.

I really hope you are right branw and that you can convince me. I don't want to think that hidden in the govt beauracracy there are those who would actually set about such a deception no matter how much they wanted another "Pearl Harbour".

"The point is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, as you will no doubt recall, but can only be turned from one form into another. So as "most" of the potential energy had to be used to provide the acceleration "little" could be available for other purposes, yet vast amounts were required according to these sources."

The opposite of most is not little. Illustrative example: Most of 100 billion, say 99% leaves 1 billion. Individual interpretation defines what little is. As I have demonstrated through my description of my understanding of the physics involved, it would require very little energy (when compared to the total amount of energy involved), or vast amounts (when compared to nothing) to accomplish all the things you have pointed out. I will run a copy of my posts past a physics professor at the local University and see if he agrees. If you have ready access to a physics expert, I encourage you to do the same. It has been a while since I had physics.


Re:
"Re: "It is pointless to argue this particular point without quantitative analysis. Neither one of us can say whether there was or wasn't enough energy without numbers."

There have been reports which go into the calculation of the energy required to pulverize the concrete, and then to scatter it. So there are numbers to consider. See the 911 website which links to various estimates. The FEMA itself has published their estimate of the potential energy in the buildings as they stood."

I realize this. I should have been clearer. It is pointless to argue this particular point without presenting quantitative analysis to support a claim. I apologize but at this time, I barely have time to reply, much less to track down numbers on various websites. We can continue to debate based on our own estimates or if you would like me to consider the actual numbers, please include them with your post along with the reference.


A big problem with my inability to accept your position is that you consider controlled demolition the only possible explanation. (I think this is your position, correct me if I'm wrong.) This casts doubt on your ability to interperate data because I have already shown with building 7 that there are other possibilities. To be a scientist, one must also consider unknowns, a staple for science as a whole. Even if you find something that cannot be immediately explained, it does not necessarily prove your position any more than it proves any other theory. I beleive someone, although I don't remember if it was you, said that all of these things together tell me it was demolition. (paraphrasing) Most of these things have now been explained.

re:

quote:

So where does the energy come from for use 3, to throw the material out?

Neutral,

One factor I haven't seen considered in the gravitational collapse theory is the energy stored as tenison in the concrete columns. Branw touched on it briefly with his crumbling explanation, but the reinforcements in concrete are under tremendous tension while bearing loads. The reinforcements do a major part of the work and act just like springs to store energy. When they are suddenly released they recoil just like springs.

Now let's look at the physics of a building. Think of it as a closed system where all of the forces balance out. Every downward force has to be matched by an upward force to keep the building standing. Downward force is obviously due to Gravity. Upward force is due to Compression (Concrete) reinforced by Tension (Steel). Thus, every bit of potential energy due to Gravity is matched by potential energy due to Compression and Tension. Wow, that's twice the potential energy we thought we had. (actually there's even more since compression and tension are opposing forces of their own)

Ok big deal, I've never seen a chunk of concrete explode on it's own, have you? Well, No. But I have seen what happens when a fully wound watch spring gets released. There's steel wrapped around inside every one of the columns in that building that acts just the same.

Now imagine if you will the following series of events as the building starts to fall,

A column somewhere in the building creaks a bit as the weight from above lessens. A second later it bears the weight of the floors above it as they collapse downward. For a split second the column holds as the forces build, the concrete within instantly crushed to dust. The rebar coiled around the column holds for an instant longer, stretching before snapping like a ruber band. The column explodes like a bomb sending dust flying as the rebar uncoils with terrifying force.

The interesting thing to note here is that there is already energy stored in the column for much of this effect. If you took a saw and cut through the reinforcing coils you'd be in big trouble too. All the collapse had to do was crush the concrete in the column, effectively transferring all of the load in the column to the rebar which isn't designed to take that kind of force. Once the breaking point of the rebar was reached all of the potential energy stored in it was turned to kinetic energy. There's where your horizontal component comes from. It also hepls explain some of the footage that looks like controlled demolition.


Have fun poking holes in this theory if you can.


BTW, if you're wondering what my view on this is, I think that some secrets are simply too big to keep. I don't think it's a conspiracy, I don't think it's a cover up, and I doubt it was a CIA psy-op, (not intentionally anyway, terrorism is a psy-op by nature and the CIA was a leading terrorist training school for years, go figure). I'm certain that there are some stellar examples of government incompetence here somewhere but I doubt we'll ever hear of them. I'm pretty sure there are things we haven't and probably never will be told.