The Best 11 9/11 Questions to 'throw back' at 'Official Believers....!

Originally posted by thedman
Spak Video # 3 - Southwest corner - can see fire on south face,

OK. No one is saying there wasn't fire in there.

heavy smoke pouring out,

Again. heavy smoke does not necessarily mean heavy fire.

as camera pans back can see fire on several floors at southwest corner

Really?



Just to show that the fire doesn't continue to the left of that window.

Spak Video #9

Wow. That's some fire eh? A whole 7 windows worth?



BTW, what's that green flame I caught in my snap shot that happens at the :57 mark that shoots out of the window?

, 10,

Wow. A whole seven windows worth on 1 whole floor.

I bet you'd be scared to enter that building to fight that ferocious fire eh thedman?

11- North face of building , floor heavily involved in fire
in video 11 can see fire on at least 2 floors

OK. So, the fire was on 2 floors and can be seen in 7 windows. Also notice that the fire has moved on from the already burned out windows. I.E. that part of the building would be cooling.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a side note. Going through the clips, I noticed that there is a second or two at the beginning and end of those clips where they edited in fires from other buildings into them. Why the deception?



I can't trust a site that would edit in fires from other buildings to blend them into the beginning and end of those clips to make the fires look bigger.

IMO, 9/11Myths sucks and is a sham.

If Richard Gage did something like that, you guys would be all over it.

reply to post by Griff


"OK. So, the fire was on 2 floors and can be seen in 7 windows. Also notice that the fire has moved on from the already burned out windows. I.E. that part of the building would be cooling. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're so right. The 9/11 commission would have us all believe that these crematorium like fires were burning continuously to explain why the steel joists and beams melted and sagged. In fact, the fires wren't that hot and were never stationary! Its a ridiculous theory.

I'll say it one more time. Up to 9/11 no steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire. Then on 9/11 three did within hours of one another! That fact alone should have peoples internal alarm bells ringing. . .

reply to post by Griff

I bet you'd be scared to enter that building to fight that ferocious fire eh thedman?

Griff, I expected more from you. Kinda below the belt eh? Fires of any size can kill if your not careful. Nothing like going onto a room that only has 7 windows with fire blowing out all of them, without knowing the layout, not being able to see 2" in front of your face, heat so hot your ears are burning, you are so low to the floor you and the carpet are one, searching for anyone that might be trapped while dragging a charged hoseline. I am aggressive firefighter, and from the picture you posted, that fire would give me pause. A picture only give a part of the story. And sometimes it is a very small part. Unless you can speak from experience, maybe you should reserve judgement for those who have been there.

Sorry a tad off topic.

reply to post by six


Fair enough. Maybe my comment was in retaliation from thedman insinuating that I'm slow with his comment "I know thruthers are slow but I'll explain."

Originally posted by thedman

Can you point out this "heavy fire"? Cause all I see is smoke.

I know truthers are rather slow - so will explain.

Let me ask. Why didn't you comment about that? Or is it just that you do expect that from thedman?



[edit on 12/5/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

It's easy to make numbers fit your theory, but they have to have meaning also. Start talking about fluid flow rates and velocities and I might take this problem seriously.

Hey bro, I'm just trying to steer you in another direction. Like you, I'm not the see-all, know-all either.

Anyways, I'm not the one proposing silent thermobarics. You see the problem that you're avoiding is calcs of fluid flow rates and velocities needed to do the work that you're proposing - namely, that these tb's pushed the ext columns out. I think that if you took some of your own medicine, and did this, then you'd realize that while extremely small amounts of explosives, small enough for the sound to be covered up by some catchy dancehouse music ( ) doesn't exactly provide the punch you'd need, right? So you'd need a whole bunch more, like in the other video posted of the cave buster...... and that ain't silent, right?

But like I said, I'm just SUGGESTING another solution to the "pushing" problem.

And if you don't like my extremely simplified calcs, feel free to humiliate me all you want, I just don't care.

But I thought of something else - I forgot to include the restriction of the spandrels above. They were about 1/4 of the heighth of each floor, so you'd have to factor that in.

So if you truly want to discover whether or not what I propose is plausible, go ahead and do whatever calcs you deem appropriate. And if I'm all wet, then you can throw it in my face...... OK?

I believe you to be somewhat honest in your desire to figure out what happened, although obviously, I think you're a little biased to believe the worst from everyone even peripherally involved. So do what I ask and post your results.

Originally posted by Griff

I bet you'd be scared to enter that building to fight that ferocious fire eh thedman?

Instead of speculating, why not take your cues from the firefighters that were actually there?

They said that the building was heavily involved.

Just because videos - taken from exterior - are inconclusive about what was going on INSIDE the building, doesn't mean that their professional opinions should be questioned or thrown out.......

Or do you prefer that when I ask you some questions related to your field, that I should totally disregard anything you say? While I may argue with you - due mainly to my belief that you are not exactly neutral when you give your answers - I DO listen.

Originally posted by cashlink

Thank you Seymour Butz for your wonderful “opinion” however my eyes do not see the floors falling, what I see is the floors being “BLASTED” out of the building, everything is being BLASTED out by explosions and that is my “OPINION”! Those puffs of smokes are call squibs, something well known by demolition experts.

Well, if Griff decides to do the calcs, you may want to rethink what that is.

Opinions aren't worth much, without an explanation of how much explosives would be needed to accomplish what you believe you're seeing. These are sorely lacking from any CT'er. Care to give it the ole college try?

I already gave MY explanation what you see.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


I see explosions, say what you like, but I see explosions truth hurt doesn’t it!
You will not stop the truth from coming out “never. ” I can not understand how you can still defend the lairs.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
I believe you to be somewhat honest in your desire to figure out what happened, although obviously, I think you're a little biased to believe the worst from everyone even peripherally involved.

I think it's just my paranoid mind. And yes. I'll admit I am biased.

So do what I ask and post your results.

I'll try. Maybe I'll get some time today before I leave work.

Also, I didn't mean to belittle you. If it came out that way, my appologies.

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by cashlink

I can not understand how you can still defend the lairs.

I don't defend anyone. The only "lairs" that I see are guys like DRG and Richard "Box Boy" Gage. You're the one defending "lairs".

On the first page, I agreed that the 9/11 CR was a whitewash. I just don't see it as a whitewash of an inside job. So your accusation is baseless.

Originally posted by Griff

Also, I didn't mean to belittle you. If it came out that way, my appologies.

Oh, I'll never feel that way from an internet post, I have a reason for saying that though.

It's my way of baiting you into actually doing the work.

Dangling the carrot, so to speak....

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Or do you prefer that when I ask you some questions related to your field, that I should totally disregard anything you say? While I may argue with you - due mainly to my belief that you are not exactly neutral when you give your answers - I DO listen.

Well, if I claim something and there is video evidence refuting my claim, I would HOPE that you would call me out on it.

I'm sorry but the building was not "fully involved". Nor was there even a single floor that was "fully involved".

Here are 'fully involved" building fires.

www.google.com...,GGLR:2005-51,GGLR:en&q=fully+involved+fire+%2b+picture

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
Buildings are 208' x 208' x 12.7'.

Volume = 549,452.8 ft^3

Area = 208' x 208' = 43,264 ft^2

So if a floor collapsesin .2 seconds, how fast would the air be traveling as it escaped through the gaps between the columns?

Flow rate (Q) = velocity (v) x area (A)

Flow rate also equals volume/time: Q=V/t

Note that V=volume and v=velocity

Q = 549,452.8 ft^3/0.2 sec = 2,747,264 ft^3/sec

Q = vA

v=Q/A

velocity v = 2,747,264 ft^3/sec divided by 43,264 ft^2

velocity = 63.5 ft/sec x 60 sec/min x 60 min/hr x 1 mile/5280 ft = 43.3 miles/hr

43.3 mph is a tad different than your 255 mph.

This is for total air volume.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subtracting out the core volumn we get:

Volume = 549,452.8 ft^3 - 147,421.6 ft^3 = 402,031.2 ft^3

Area = 208' x 208' = 43,264 ft^2 - 11,608 ft^2 = 31,656 ft^2

Q = 402,031.2 ft^3/0.2 sec = 2,010,156 ft^3/sec

velocity v = 2,010,156 ft^3/sec divided by 31,656 ft^2

velocity = 63.5 ft/sec x 60 sec/min x 60 min/hr x 1 mile/5280 ft = 43.3 miles/hr

43.3 mph is a tad different than your 156 mph.

Note that by using the flow rate of the air we get the same number for the velocity whether we subtract out the core or not.

Which is 43.3 mph.

Better?

reply to post by Griff


To be honest, and much to my discredit, I did not read thedmans comment. But tit for tat doent suit you either.

reply to post by Seymour Butz

Wow! Then you haven’t done any research in to 911.

Originally posted by Griff

1-Area = 208' x 208' = 43,264 ft^2

2-43.3 mph is a tad different than your 255 mph.

1-A floor is 208' x 12.7' x 4 sides. = 10566 ft^2

2- so you get 177 mph....

ETA: actually, I forgot to subtract area for the spandrels

1- a floor is 208' x 9.525 x 4 sides = 7924 ft^2

2- so you get 235 mph...

Better?

ETA #2 - it looks like you calculated the air velocity as if it was pushed straight down? rather than through the windows? And in this case, straight down = speed of the collapse?

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Seymour Butz]

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Seymour Butz]

Originally posted by Griff

Well, if I claim something and there is video evidence refuting my claim, I would HOPE that you would call me out on it.

You're forgetting 1 thing.

A LACK of a video fitting your description of what a fully involved building - or as they said - a heavy body of fire, doesn't mean that their statements are in error.

I'll stick with their statements, thank you...

Originally posted by cashlink

 

Wow! Then you haven’t done any research in to 911.

So I take this contentless response to mean that you have no intention to do any calcs that show how much explosives it would take to do what you claim, nor can you even provide a link to someone that HAS done it?

Also, do you understand that your claims that I defend anyone to be baseless? Please explain how, since I agree that the 9/11CR to be a whitewash, that I am blind defender of anyone that has anything to do with that particular document, or retract your claim.

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by Griff

1-Area = 208' x 208' = 43,264 ft^2

2-43.3 mph is a tad different than your 255 mph.

1-A floor is 208' x 12.7' x 4 sides. = 10566 ft^2

2- so you get 177 mph....

ETA: actually, I forgot to subtract area for the spandrels

1- a floor is 208' x 9.525 x 4 sides = 7924 ft^2

2- so you get 235 mph...

Better?

[edit on 5-12-2008 by Seymour Butz]

I will just simplify, what exactly does "4sides" equal. Your eqations lack specifics to justify multiplying 3 dimensions to get a square area instead of a cubed volume.






[edit on 5-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Originally posted by Seymour Butz
1-A floor is 208' x 12.7' x 4 sides. = 10566 ft^2

Area = length x width

Perimeter is 208 x 4

Volume is length x width x height

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

2- so you get 177 mph....

No you don't.

ETA: actually, I forgot to subtract area for the spandrels

1- a floor is 208' x 9.525 x 4 sides = 7924 ft^2

2- so you get 235 mph...

Again. Nope.

Better?

Not at all.

[edit on 12/5/2008 by Griff]