WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) and
(1.10) for details.

It should be noted that this model differs massively from a "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
to the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".

DEMOLITION MODEL

A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows

1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.

3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.

4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.


Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.

Using the elementary motion equation

distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor

[1.1] t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

[1.3] m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is

[1.4] v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)


which follows from the elementary equation of motion

(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)

Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

[1.5] m_k u_k = m_(k-1) v_(k-1)


Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
[1.6] (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)


Solving for the initial velocity u_k

[1.7] u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)


Which is a recurrence equation with base value

[1.8] u_0=0



The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor. Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives


[1.9] WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
where
u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0



Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives


[1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
Where
u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0


REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ", http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM

This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.

g :: Double
g = 9.8

This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
Parameters:
_H - the total height of building
_N - the number of floors in building
_J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)


cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double
cascadeTime _H _N _J = sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g | k-[0..n]]
where
j = _N - _J
n = _N - j
h = _H/_N
u 0 = 0
u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 + 2*g*h )


Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.

wtc1 :: Double
wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.

wtc2 :: Double
wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77

In misc.survivalism wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers.

Sorry, but that is far from good enough. You need to demonstrate much
more than that.

On Mar 13, 1:17*am, wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.


snip

You are in the wrong newsgroup. Take it to alt.conspiracy. Prepare
to be laughed at.

For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews, walls
and coverings stripped out, charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.
were not noticed by the people working there. You might also find at
least one expert on CD that will agree that it is a sane proposition
to do a CD by starting at the top.

BTW the true times of the collapse are right at 16 seconds IIRC.

Harry K

For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews, walls
and coverings stripped out, charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.
were not noticed by the people working there.

Bush's security company following the first failed attempt in 1993?

On Mar 13, 4:06 am, wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld
In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers.

Sorry, but that is far from good enough. You need to demonstrate much
more than that.

Giant pools of molten steel in the basements of all three building
that collapsed weeks later is all you need to prove they were
demolished with thermite/thermate..
It's called a "smoking gun."
www.ae911truth.org

On Mar 13, 8:26 am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:17 am, wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

snip

You are in the wrong newsgroup. Take it to alt.conspiracy. Prepare
to be laughed at.

For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews,

So you know how many it took to do this?

walls
and coverings stripped out,

Not needed.
All access to critical components was available through the elevator
shafts.

charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.

Don't need cable if you have radio controlled charges.

were not noticed by the people working there.

All they had to do wa wear janitor outfits.
Power was shut down at the towers days before the "attack" and all
security cameras were off.

You might also find at
least one expert on CD that will agree that it is a sane proposition
to do a CD by starting at the top.

BTW the true times of the collapse are right at 16 seconds IIRC.

Harry K

You recall wrong.
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot...d-skeptic.html

Thursday, January 31, 2008
Michael Shermer, the Self-Described Skeptic Turns Gullible on 911

Michael Shermer, of Skeptic Magazine, claims to have debunked the 911
Truth Movement. In fact, he doesn't understand it. Shermer tars the
movement with a broad and fallacious brush, absurdly comparing the 911
truth movement with Holocaust denial, a fallacious smear that
misstates the 911 position. Holocaust deniers, in fact, have more in
common with Bush and his defenders: both deny the nature and the scope
of the crime of 911.

No holes, no Holocaust. No melted steel, no Al-Qaeda attack. The
parallels are equal, and equally flawed. And just as I never imagined
that Holocaust denial would wend its way into the mainstream press
(Irving's trial was front page news for months), after my above
conversation with the filmmaker I never imagined that 9/11 denial
would get media legs. But now it has legs for days, and so we have
been forced to provide a public response. To read our complete
analysis of the claims of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, go here.

Michael Shermer, 9/11 "Truthers" a Pack of Liars

At the very outset, Shermer's misstatement of fact discredits his
article. Knowledgeable "truthers" do not deny the existence of "molten
steel", as Shermer says they do. It is the existing video tapes of
molten steel, the existence of molten stee that utterly disproves the
official conspiracy theory of George W. Bush. Steel melts at much
higher temperatures than could possibly have been reached in the brief
and relatively cool fires in all of the towers that fell that day.
This is not a matter of either conjecture or propaganda. It's a matter
of physics.

Shermer's analogy, likewise, collapses. Bush himself, the architect of
what will ultimately prove to be the biggest cover up in history, is
better compared with holocaust deniers than are the growing legion who
demand that the 911 white wash be ended now!

Bush defenders likewise persist in a common fallacy: labeling those
who demand an investigation as "conspiracy theorists". Rather, the
only theory that has been put forward is the outlandish and absurdly
improbable "official conspiracy" theory put forward by George W. Bush.

The "new" slogan --911 denier --has the stench of a right wing focus
group hanging over it like fart in a phone box. 911 denier is intended
to mislead. No one comes up with stuff like that spontaneously. I
suspect Shermer's article is a road test. I will not be surprised to
learn that Shermer was selected to roll out the term because of his
now ill-deserved reputation as a "skeptic".

The tactic is pure propaganda, most certainly the work of a GOP focus
group, a deliberate attempt to connect Bush critics with Holocaust
deniers. Clearly --they believe that if they can do this, they can
discredit the entire "movement" with only two well-chosen words.

Consider this tactic exposed. It's typical GOP bull**** and
propaganda. I will not be surprised to learn that this relatively new
tactic originated inside the White House. And I thought Karl Rove
resigned!! It certainly has a Rovian stench to it.

Until recently, Shermer had played the role of the great skeptic. We
can now put that to rest. No one who buys into the official 911
conspiracy theory could possibly be a skeptic. The better word is
gullible. The dictum of a true skeptic is this:

THOSE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE.

Shermer would have us ignore this important and prudent dictum. He
calls himself a "skeptic". I call him, at best, naive. At worst --
disingenuous.

Bush and his partisans put forward a "theory", an "official conspiracy
theory" for which there is not a shred of hard evidence in support of
it --let alone a proof. The burden of proving --at least supporting --
Bush's idiotic theory rests with Bush. Shermer, a self-professed
"skeptic" should know that. He is no skeptic.

Bush has opposed a Congressional investigation and when the 911
commission was created Bush tried to interfere with it.

(CBS) President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe
Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission
to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept.
11.

Mr. Bush said the matter should be dealt with by congressional
intelligence committeees.

CBS News Correspondent Bill Plante reports that Mr. Bush said the
investigation should be confined to Congress because it deals with
sensitive information that could reveal sources and methods of
intelligence. Therefore, he said, the congressional investigation is
"the best place" to probe the events leading up to the terrorist
attacks.

--CBS News: Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel

snip

On Mar 13, 4:06 am, wrote:
In misc.survivalism wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld
In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers.

Sorry, but that is far from good enough. You need to demonstrate much
more than that.


Maybe you need "peer reviewed" papers.
http://journalof911studies.com/

Ahhh. I see the error:

This

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Should be

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^-N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

It should be raised to the negative Nth power. Hence, your theory is full
of holes.




wrote in message
...
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) and
(1.10) for details.

It should be noted that this model differs massively from a "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
to the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".

DEMOLITION MODEL

A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows

1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.

3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.

4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.


Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.

Using the elementary motion equation

distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor

[1.1] t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

[1.3] m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is

[1.4] v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)


which follows from the elementary equation of motion

(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)

Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

[1.5] m_k u_k = m_(k-1) v_(k-1)


Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
[1.6] (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)


Solving for the initial velocity u_k

[1.7] u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)


Which is a recurrence equation with base value

[1.8] u_0=0



The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor. Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives


[1.9] WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
where
u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0



Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives


[1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
Where
u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0


REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ",
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM

This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.

g :: Double
g = 9.8

This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
Parameters:
_H - the total height of building
_N - the number of floors in building
_J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)


cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double
cascadeTime _H _N _J = sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g |
k-[0..n]]
where
j = _N - _J
n = _N - j
h = _H/_N
u 0 = 0
u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 +
2*g*h )


Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.

wtc1 :: Double
wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.

wtc2 :: Double
wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77

On Mar 13, 11:17*am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 4:06 am, wrote:

In misc.survivalism wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld
In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers.

Sorry, but that is far from good enough. *You need to demonstrate much
more than that.

Giant pools of molten steel in the basements of all three building
that collapsed weeks later is all you need to prove they were
demolished with thermite/thermate..
It's called a "smoking gun."www.ae911truth.org

Well, it would be if they had ever existed. There is a total of zero
eyewitnesses to it. Every so-called eyewitness is another "I know
somebody who said he saw..."

Physics says the molten pool BS is just that _BS_. There is no source
of heat to keep metal molten for very long. There was no source of
heat to being with hot tenough to turn iron molten to begin with.

Harry K

On Mar 13, 9:23*am, reinhardt wrote:
For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews, walls
and coverings stripped out, charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.
were not noticed by the people working there.

Bush's security company following the first failed attempt in 1993?

Errm...Jeez, here I though I said you need to _explain_ it.

Harry K

On Mar 13, 11:37*am, wrote:
On Mar 13, 8:26 am, Harry K wrote:





On Mar 13, 1:17 am, wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

snip

You are in the wrong newsgroup. *Take it to alt.conspiracy. *Prepare
to be laughed at.

For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews,

So you know how many it took to do this?

walls
and coverings stripped out,

Not needed.
All access to critical components was available through the elevator
shafts.

charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.

Don't need cable if you have radio controlled charges.

were not noticed by the people working there.

All they had to do wa wear janitor outfits.
Power was shut down at the towers days before the "attack" and all
security cameras were off.

You might also find at
least one expert on CD that will agree that it is a sane proposition
to do a CD by starting at the top.

BTW the true times of the collapse are right at 16 seconds IIRC.

Harry K

You recall wrong.http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot...l-shermer-self...


snip

And thuis it is that the kooks have to rely on a few hours work to
install invisible charges, in invisible holes that were magically made
in a few hours by a handful of people.

Here is clue. Watch any documentary of the preparation for a building
for a CD and see how wild the CD theories are. Then you might spend a
moment wondering why any sane engineer would set up a CD to begin from
the top down.

Harry K

On Mar 13, 1:17*am, wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) *and
(1.10) *for details.

It should be noted that this model differs massively from a "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). *A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
to the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".

DEMOLITION MODEL

A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows

* * * * 1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

* * * * 2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.

* * * * 3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.

* * * * 4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.

Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.

Using the elementary motion equation

* * distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor

* * * * [1.1] * t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

* * * * [1.2] * T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

* * * * [1.3] * m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is

* * * * [1.4] * v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)

which follows from the elementary equation of motion

(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)

Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

* * * * [1.5] * m_k *u_k *= m_(k-1) *v_(k-1)

Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
* * * * [1.6] * (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)

Solving for the initial velocity u_k

* * * * [1.7] * u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)

Which is a recurrence equation with base value

* * * * [1.8] * u_0=0

The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor. *Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

* * * * [1.9] * WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
* * * * * * * * where
* * * * * * * * * * * * u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) * * *;/ u_0=0

Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

* * * * [1.10] *WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
* * * * * * * * Where
* * * * * * * * * * * * u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) * * *;/ u_0=0

REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ",http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM

This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.

g :: Double
g = 9.8

This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
Parameters:
* _H - the total height of building
* _N - the number of floors in building
* _J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)

cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double
cascadeTime _H _N _J *= *sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g | k-[0..n]]
* * * * * * * * * * * where
* * * * * * * * * * * * j = _N - _J
* * * * * * * * * * * * n = _N - j
* * * * * * * * * * * * h = _H/_N
* * * * * * * * * * * * u 0 = 0
* * * * * * * * * * * * u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 + 2*g*h )

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.

wtc1 :: Double
wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.



wtc2 :: Double
wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For the people buying into the 'conspiracy' go over to
alt.conspiracy. There are many threads there, at least 4 running now
in which all the BS theories are discussed. Of course none of the
conspiracists will believe any of the debunking but it is good for
laughs.

Harry K

On Mar 13, 6:50 pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:37 am, wrote:



On Mar 13, 8:26 am, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 1:17 am, wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

snip

You are in the wrong newsgroup. Take it to alt.conspiracy. Prepare
to be laughed at.

For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews,

So you know how many it took to do this?

walls
and coverings stripped out,

Not needed.
All access to critical components was available through the elevator
shafts.

charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.

Don't need cable if you have radio controlled charges.

were not noticed by the people working there.

All they had to do wa wear janitor outfits.
Power was shut down at the towers days before the "attack" and all
security cameras were off.

You might also find at
least one expert on CD that will agree that it is a sane proposition
to do a CD by starting at the top.

BTW the true times of the collapse are right at 16 seconds IIRC.

Harry K

You recall wrong.http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot...l-shermer-self...

snip

And thuis it is that the kooks have to rely on a few hours work to
install invisible charges, in invisible holes that were magically made
in a few hours by a handful of people.

Who said "hours."
It likely took months to install the charges.

Here is clue. Watch any documentary of the preparation for a building
for a CD and see how wild the CD theories are.

Why would they do it identically?
But demolition experts say, "It was a demolition."
It is in many videos.

Then you might spend a
moment wondering why any sane engineer would set up a CD to begin from
the top down.

Because it had to look like it collapsed from the planes?
It isn't hard to change the sequence of the charges.
Eye witnesses saw and experienced blasts on the lower floors before
the collapses.


Harry K

Those building were white elephants that were going to cost billions
to dismantle.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...&btnG=Sea rch
Watch the video at:
www.ae911truth.org

On Mar 13, 12:23*pm, reinhardt wrote:
For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews, walls
and coverings stripped out, charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.
were not noticed by the people working there.

Bush's security company following the first failed attempt in 1993?

did I say "bush"?
I mean't simon bar sinister

my bad

On Mar 13, 6:43 pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:17 am, wrote:



On Mar 13, 4:06 am, wrote:

In misc.survivalism wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld
In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers.

Sorry, but that is far from good enough. You need to demonstrate much
more than that.

Giant pools of molten steel in the basements of all three building
that collapsed weeks later is all you need to prove they were
demolished with thermite/thermate..
It's called a "smoking gun."www.ae911truth.org

Well, it would be if they had ever existed. There is a total of zero
eyewitnesses to it.

Liar.
There are eyewitnesses, video, and photos.

Every so-called eyewitness is another "I know
somebody who said he saw..."

Liar.
http://youtube.com/results?search_qu...l&search_type=

Physics says the molten pool BS is just that _BS_.

Physics can deny or obfuscate physical evidence?

There is no source
of heat to keep metal molten for very long.

Theramte/Thermite.
If not that then what?
Even the heaet signature photos of the WTC complex shows the high
temps at WTC 7 too.
NASA thermal images.
http://governmentterror.com/#%5B%5BW...%20Spots%5D%5D
From:
http://governmentterror.com/#%5B%5BW...%20Spots%5D%5D

There was no source of
heat to being with hot tenough to turn iron molten to begin with.

Harry K

On Mar 13, 9:53*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:17*am, wrote:





WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) *and
(1.10) *for details.

It should be noted that this model differs massively from a "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). *A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
to the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".

DEMOLITION MODEL

A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows

* * * * 1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

* * * * 2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.

* * * * 3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.

* * * * 4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.

Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.

Using the elementary motion equation

* * distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor

* * * * [1.1] * t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

* * * * [1.2] * T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

* * * * [1.3] * m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is

* * * * [1.4] * v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)

which follows from the elementary equation of motion

(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)

Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

* * * * [1.5] * m_k *u_k *= m_(k-1) *v_(k-1)

Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
* * * * [1.6] * (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)

Solving for the initial velocity u_k

* * * * [1.7] * u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)

Which is a recurrence equation with base value

* * * * [1.8] * u_0=0

The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor. *Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

* * * * [1.9] * WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
* * * * * * * * where
* * * * * * * * * * * * u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) * * *;/ u_0=0

Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

* * * * [1.10] *WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
* * * * * * * * Where
* * * * * * * * * * * * u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) * * *;/ u_0=0

REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ",http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM

This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.

g :: Double
g = 9.8

This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
Parameters:
* _H - the total height of building
* _N - the number of floors in building
* _J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)

cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double
cascadeTime _H _N _J *= *sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g | k-[0..n]]
* * * * * * * * * * * where
* * * * * * * * * * * * j = _N - _J
* * * * * * * * * * * * n = _N - j
* * * * * * * * * * * * h = _H/_N
* * * * * * * * * * * * u 0 = 0
* * * * * * * * * * * * u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 + 2*g*h )

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.

wtc1 :: Double
wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.

wtc2 :: Double
wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For the people buying into the 'conspiracy' go over to
alt.conspiracy. *There are many threads there, at least 4 running now
in which all the BS theories are discussed. *Of course none of the
conspiracists will believe any of the debunking but it is good for
laughs.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


They really are a pathetic bunch, aren't they? They like to focus on
every little nit separately, completely distort it and make outrageous
claims. None of these crackpots has put together a time-line and
story that runs from start to finish explaining what happened that
day. Forget about controlled demolition. What about all the planes
that left 3 airports that day and were flown into the buildings? Who
flew them or is that just a myth too? And if they were part of the
conspiracy, how would anyone know precisely where the planes would hit
the buildings and that the impact would not disrupt the allegedly pre-
planted explosives?

The official explanation does put together a whole picture that makes
sense. For this to have been some govt conspiracy, it would have
had to be the most elaborate one in history. And the funniest part of
all, is these kooks try to blame it on the Bush administration. If
they were gonna pull any conspiracy like this, why didn't they just
put some WMD's in Iraq? That would be child's play compared to what
this alleged 911 conspiracy would have had to entail.

On Mar 13, 9:41 pm, wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:53 pm, Harry K wrote:



On Mar 13, 1:17 am, wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) and
(1.10) for details.

It should be noted that this model differs massively from a "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
to the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".

DEMOLITION MODEL

A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows

1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.

3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.

4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.

Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.

Using the elementary motion equation

distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor

[1.1] t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

[1.3] m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is

[1.4] v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)

which follows from the elementary equation of motion

(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)

Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

[1.5] m_k u_k = m_(k-1) v_(k-1)

Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
[1.6] (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)

Solving for the initial velocity u_k

[1.7] u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)

Which is a recurrence equation with base value

[1.8] u_0=0

The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor. Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

[1.9] WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
where
u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0

Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

[1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
Where
u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0

REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ",http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM

This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.

g :: Double
g = 9.8

This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
Parameters:
_H - the total height of building
_N - the number of floors in building
_J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)

cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double
cascadeTime _H _N _J = sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g | k-[0..n]]
where
j = _N - _J
n = _N - j
h = _H/_N
u 0 = 0
u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 + 2*g*h )

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.

wtc1 :: Double
wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.

wtc2 :: Double
wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For the people buying into the 'conspiracy' go over to
alt.conspiracy. There are many threads there, at least 4 running now
in which all the BS theories are discussed. Of course none of the
conspiracists will believe any of the debunking but it is good for
laughs.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They really are a pathetic bunch, aren't they? They like to focus on
every little nit separately, completely distort it and make outrageous
claims. None of these crackpots has put together a time-line and
story that runs from start to finish explaining what happened that
day. Forget about controlled demolition. What about all the planes
that left 3 airports that day and were flown into the buildings? Who
flew them or is that just a myth too? And if they were part of the
conspiracy, how would anyone know precisely where the planes would hit
the buildings and that the impact would not disrupt the allegedly pre-
planted explosives?

The official explanation does put together a whole picture that makes
sense. For this to have been some govt conspiracy, it would have
had to be the most elaborate one in history. And the funniest part of
all, is these kooks try to blame it on the Bush administration. If
they were gonna pull any conspiracy like this, why didn't they just
put some WMD's in Iraq? That would be child's play compared to what
this alleged 911 conspiracy would have had to entail.


Sure.
If one can't explain every detail then the "official" conspiracy
theory is the truth?
What about the spire?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FWn8QNQWSsY&feature=related

On Mar 14, 8:09 am, "Buck Turgidson" wrote:
Ahhh. I see the error:

This

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Should be

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^-N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

It should be raised to the negative Nth power. Hence, your theory is full
of holes.

Note: sum(k=0)^N is notational shorthand for summing the summand
between k=0 to k=N.


wrote in message

...

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) and
(1.10) for details.

It should be noted that this model differs massively from a "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
to the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".

DEMOLITION MODEL

A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows

1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.

3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.

4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.

Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.

Using the elementary motion equation

distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor

[1.1] t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

[1.3] m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is

[1.4] v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)

which follows from the elementary equation of motion

(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)

Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

[1.5] m_k u_k = m_(k-1) v_(k-1)

Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
[1.6] (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)

Solving for the initial velocity u_k

[1.7] u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)

Which is a recurrence equation with base value

[1.8] u_0=0

The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor. Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

[1.9] WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
where
u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0

Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

[1.10] WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
Where
u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) ;/ u_0=0

REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ",
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM

This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.

g :: Double
g = 9.8

This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
Parameters:
_H - the total height of building
_N - the number of floors in building
_J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)

cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double
cascadeTime _H _N _J = sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g |
k-[0..n]]
where
j = _N - _J
n = _N - j
h = _H/_N
u 0 = 0
u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 +
2*g*h )

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.

wtc1 :: Double
wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.

wtc2 :: Double
wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77

This

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Should be

[1.2] T = sum(k=0)^-N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

It should be raised to the negative Nth power. Hence, your theory is
full
of holes.

Note: sum(k=0)^N is notational shorthand for summing the summand
between k=0 to k=N.


I guess I am full of s*&t. But no less so than the OP.

On Mar 13, 7:26*pm, wrote:
On Mar 13, 6:50 pm, Harry K wrote:



On Mar 13, 11:37 am, wrote:

On Mar 13, 8:26 am, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 1:17 am, wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

snip

You are in the wrong newsgroup. *Take it to alt.conspiracy. *Prepare
to be laughed at.

For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews,

So you know how many it took to do this?

walls
and coverings stripped out,

Not needed.
All access to critical components was available through the elevator
shafts.

charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.

Don't need cable if you have radio controlled charges.

were not noticed by the people working there.

All they had to do wa wear janitor outfits.
Power was shut down at the towers days before the "attack" and all
security cameras were off.

You might also find at
least one expert on CD that will agree that it is a sane proposition
to do a CD by starting at the top.

BTW the true times of the collapse are right at 16 seconds IIRC.

Harry K

You recall wrong.http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot...l-shermer-self...

snip

And thuis it is that the kooks have to rely on a few hours work to
install invisible charges, in invisible holes that were magically made
in a few hours by a handful of people.

Who said "hours."
It likely took months to install the charges.

Here is clue. *Watch any documentary of the preparation for a building
for a CD and see how wild the CD theories are.

Why would they do it identically?
But demolition experts say, "It was a demolition."
It is in many videos.

Then you might spend a
moment wondering why any sane engineer would set up a CD to begin from
the top down.

Because it had to look like it collapsed from the planes?
It isn't hard to change the sequence of the charges.
Eye witnesses saw and experienced blasts on the lower floors before
the collapses.



Harry K

Those building were white elephants that were going to cost billions
to dismantle.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...e+wtc%22&btnG=...
Watch the video at:www.ae911truth.org- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Odd, in over 6 years there have been zero witnesses come forward and
say they saw explosions. What there is is "sounded like explosions"
which is exaclty what a collapsing building would sound like.

The sheer impossibility of preparing a building for a CD without
someone noticing should be your first clue that that is a kook theory.

I am constantly amazed that people will go all around a building
trying to ignore the evidence that is in plain site, i.e., the planes
caused fires which caused the collapse. You will find no _reputable_
engineer that will give any credence at all to a CD.

Harry K

On Mar 13, 9:51*pm, wrote:
On Mar 13, 9:41 pm, wrote:





On Mar 13, 9:53 pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 1:17 am, wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

This model predicts a WTC 1 collapse time of 11.38 seconds, and a WTC
2 collapse time of 9.48 seconds. Those times accurately match the
seismographic data of those events.1 Refer to equations (1.9) *and
(1.10) *for details.

It should be noted that this model differs massively from a "natural
pancake collapse" in that the geometrical composition of the structure
is not considered (as it is physically destroyed). *A natural pancake
collapse features a diminishing velocity rapidly approaching rest due
to the resistance offered by the columns and surrounding "steel mesh".

DEMOLITION MODEL

A top-down controlled demolition of a building is considered as
follows

* * * * 1. An initial block of j floors commences to free fall.

* * * * 2. The floor below the collapsing block has its support structures
disabled just prior the collision with the block.

* * * * 3. The collapsing block merges with the momentarily levitating floor,
increases in mass, decreases in velocity (but preserves momentum), and
continues to free fall.

* * * * 4. If not at ground floor, goto step 2.

Let j be the number of floors in the initial set of collapsing floors.
Let N be the number of remaining floors to collapse.
Let h be the average floor height.
Let g be the gravitational field strength at ground-level.
Let T be the total collapse time.

Using the elementary motion equation

* * distance = (initial velocity) * time + 1/2 * acceleration * time^2

We solve for the time taken by the k'th floor to free fall the height
of one floor

* * * * [1.1] * t_k=(-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

where u_k is the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing floor.

The total collapse time is the sum of the N individual free fall times

* * * * [1.2] * T = sum(k=0)^N (-u_k+(u_k^2+2gh))/g

Now the mass of the k'th floor at the point of collapse is the mass of
itself (m) plus the mass of all the floors collapsed before it (k-1)m
plus the mass on the initial collapsing block jm.

* * * * [1.3] * m_k=m+(k-1)m+jm =(j+k)m

If we let u_k denote the initial velocity of the k'th collapsing
floor, the final velocity reached by that floor prior to collision
with its below floor is

* * * * [1.4] * v_k=SQRT(u_k^2+2gh)

which follows from the elementary equation of motion

(final velocity)^2 = (initial velocity)^2 + 2 * (acceleration) *
(distance)

Conservation of momentum demands that the initial momentum of the k'th
floor equal the final momemtum of the (k-1)'th floor.

* * * * [1.5] * m_k *u_k *= m_(k-1) *v_(k-1)

Substituting (1.3) and (1.4) into (1.5)
* * * * [1.6] * (j + k)m u_k= (j + k - 1)m SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+ 2gh)

Solving for the initial velocity u_k

* * * * [1.7] * u_k=(j + k - 1)/(j + k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+2gh)

Which is a recurrence equation with base value

* * * * [1.8] * u_0=0

The WTC towers were 417 meters tall and had 110 floors. Tower 1 began
collapsing on the 93rd floor. *Making substitutions N=93, j=17 , g=9.8
into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

* * * * [1.9] * WTC 1 Collapse Time = sum(k=0)^93 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
11.38 sec
* * * * * * * * where
* * * * * * * * * * * * u_k=(16+ k)/(17+ k ) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) * * *;/ u_0=0

Tower 2 began collapsing on the 77th floor. Making substitutions N=77,
j=33 , g=9.8 into (1.2) and (1.7) gives

* * * * [1.10] *WTC 2 Collapse Time =sum(k=0)^77 (-u_k+(u_k^2+74.28))/9.8 =
9.48 sec
* * * * * * * * Where
* * * * * * * * * * * * u_k=(32+k)/(33+k) SQRT(u_(k-1)^2+74.28) * * *;/ u_0=0

REFERENCES

"Seismic Waves Generated By Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at
World Trade Center ",http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq...C_LDEO_KIM.pdf

APPENDIX A: HASKELL SIMULATION PROGRAM

This function returns the gravitational field strength in SI units.

g :: Double
g = 9.8

This function calculates the total time for a top-down demolition.
Parameters:
* _H - the total height of building
* _N - the number of floors in building
* _J - the floor number which initiated the top-down cascade (the 0'th
floor being the ground floor)

cascadeTime :: Double - Double - Double - Double
cascadeTime _H _N _J *= *sum [ (- (u k) + sqrt( (u k)^2 + 2*g*h))/g | k-[0..n]]
* * * * * * * * * * * where
* * * * * * * * * * * * j = _N - _J
* * * * * * * * * * * * n = _N - j
* * * * * * * * * * * * h = _H/_N
* * * * * * * * * * * * u 0 = 0
* * * * * * * * * * * * u k = (j + k - 1)/(j + k) * sqrt( (u (k-1))^2 + 2*g*h )

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 1 in SI units.

wtc1 :: Double
wtc1 = cascadeTime 417 110 93

Simulates a top-down demolition of WTC 2 in SI units.

wtc2 :: Double
wtc2 = cascadeTime 417 110 77- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For the people buying into the 'conspiracy' go over to
alt.conspiracy. *There are many threads there, at least 4 running now
in which all the BS theories are discussed. *Of course none of the
conspiracists will believe any of the debunking but it is good for
laughs.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They really are a pathetic bunch, aren't they? * They like to focus on
every little nit separately, completely distort it and make outrageous
claims. * * None of these crackpots has put together a time-line and
story that runs from start to finish explaining what happened that
day. *Forget about controlled demolition. * What about all the planes
that left 3 airports that day and were flown into the buildings? * Who
flew them or is that just a myth too? * And if they were part of the
conspiracy, how would anyone know precisely where the planes would hit
the buildings and that the impact would not disrupt the allegedly pre-
planted explosives?

The official explanation does put together a whole picture that makes
sense. * *For this to have been some govt conspiracy, it would have
had to be the most elaborate one in history. *And the funniest part of
all, is these kooks try to blame it on the Bush administration. *If
they were gonna pull any conspiracy like this, why didn't they just
put some WMD's in Iraq? * That would be child's play compared to what
this alleged 911 conspiracy would have had to entail.

Sure.
If one can't explain every detail then the "official" conspiracy
theory is the truth?
What about the spire?http://youtube.com/watch?v=FWn8QNQWSsY&feature=related- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

One does not have to explain _everything_ but mosst of it does have to
be. If you are paying attention, the kooks explain absolutely
NOTHING. They make assertions with nothing to back them up, ignore
reams of evidence, what they can't ignore they either distort or lie
about.

You are doing a good job of the latter.

Harry K

On Mar 13, 9:35*pm, wrote:
On Mar 13, 6:43 pm, Harry K wrote:





On Mar 13, 11:17 am, wrote:

On Mar 13, 4:06 am, wrote:

In misc.survivalism wrote:
WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld
In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers.

Sorry, but that is far from good enough. *You need to demonstrate much
more than that.

Giant pools of molten steel in the basements of all three building
that collapsed weeks later is all you need to prove they were
demolished with thermite/thermate..
It's called a "smoking gun."www.ae911truth.org

Well, it would be if they had ever existed. *There is a total of zero
eyewitnesses to it.

Liar.
There are eyewitnesses, video, and photos.

Every so-called eyewitness is another "I know
somebody who said he saw..."

Liar.http://youtube.com/results?search_qu...l&search_type=

Physics says the molten pool BS is just that _BS_.

Physics can deny or obfuscate physical evidence?

There is no source
of heat to keep metal molten for very long.

Theramte/Thermite.
If not that then what?
Even the heaet signature photos of the WTC complex shows the high
temps at WTC 7 too.
NASA thermal images.http://governmentterror.com/#%5B%5BW...er%20Hot%20Spo...
From:http://governmentterror.com/#%5B%5BW...er%20Hot%20Spo....



There was no source of
heat to being with hot tenough to turn iron molten to begin with.

Harry K- Hide quoted text -

Thermite/mate if not that then what? You are serious? Clue 1. There
was not moten irong to begin with. Clue 2 there is zero evidence that
there every was thermite/mate there. The kook Jones claiming tests
showed residue ignored the fact that sheet rock contains the same
stuff he tested for.

Thermite/mate? Why would any engineer who was half way sane try to
use something that takes TIME to melt things for a CD that requires
explosions timed to the fraction of seconds?

If you want it to be a CD you have to explain how all the charges,
fuse cord, demoliton required prioe, etc, etc., etc., were done and
noone noticed. It would have taken months just to prepare it.

Harry K

Thermite/mate to melt _and keep molten_ iron? You do understand that
that stuff, although not instantaneous does _not_ last very long?

Sorry the entire "truth" movement is a lie from start to finish.

On Mar 14, 10:21 am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:26 pm, wrote:



On Mar 13, 6:50 pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 11:37 am, wrote:

On Mar 13, 8:26 am, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 1:17 am, wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

snip

You are in the wrong newsgroup. Take it to alt.conspiracy. Prepare
to be laughed at.

For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews,

So you know how many it took to do this?

walls
and coverings stripped out,

Not needed.
All access to critical components was available through the elevator
shafts.

charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.

Don't need cable if you have radio controlled charges.

were not noticed by the people working there.

All they had to do wa wear janitor outfits.
Power was shut down at the towers days before the "attack" and all
security cameras were off.

You might also find at
least one expert on CD that will agree that it is a sane proposition
to do a CD by starting at the top.

BTW the true times of the collapse are right at 16 seconds IIRC.

Harry K

You recall wrong.http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot...l-shermer-self...

snip

And thuis it is that the kooks have to rely on a few hours work to
install invisible charges, in invisible holes that were magically made
in a few hours by a handful of people.

Who said "hours."
It likely took months to install the charges.

Here is clue. Watch any documentary of the preparation for a building
for a CD and see how wild the CD theories are.

Why would they do it identically?
But demolition experts say, "It was a demolition."
It is in many videos.

Then you might spend a
moment wondering why any sane engineer would set up a CD to begin from
the top down.

Because it had to look like it collapsed from the planes?
It isn't hard to change the sequence of the charges.
Eye witnesses saw and experienced blasts on the lower floors before
the collapses.

Harry K

Those building were white elephants that were going to cost billions
to dismantle.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...e+wtc%22&btnG=...
Watch the video at:www.ae911truth.org-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Odd, in over 6 years there have been zero witnesses come forward and
say they saw explosions.

Liar.
http://youtube.com/results?search_qu...s&search_type=

What there is is "sounded like explosions"
which is exaclty what a collapsing building would sound like.

And how many building have you heard collapse that were not using
controlled demolition?

The sheer impossibility of preparing a building for a CD without
someone noticing should be your first clue that that is a kook theory.

Sure.
But we built atom bombs without anyone knowing.

I am constantly amazed that people will go all around a building
trying to ignore the evidence that is in plain site, i.e., the planes
caused fires which caused the collapse.

Sorry, jet fuel fires couldn't have burned hot enough.
NO steel stucture building in history has collapsed from fire.
AND if the did "pancake" where are all the pancakes?
How does a building pulverize to dust at freefall speed?

You will find no _reputable_
engineer that will give any credence at all to a CD.

Harry K

Sure.
www.ae911truth.org

PLEASE stop cross posting to this newsgroup.
"JP" wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 10:21 am, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:26 pm, wrote:



On Mar 13, 6:50 pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 11:37 am, wrote:

On Mar 13, 8:26 am, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 1:17 am, wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade
Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply
characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support
columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns
holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by
the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style
collapse at
near free fall speed.

snip

You are in the wrong newsgroup. Take it to alt.conspiracy.
Prepare
to be laughed at.

For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews,

So you know how many it took to do this?

walls
and coverings stripped out,

Not needed.
All access to critical components was available through the
elevator
shafts.

charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.

Don't need cable if you have radio controlled charges.

were not noticed by the people working there.

All they had to do wa wear janitor outfits.
Power was shut down at the towers days before the "attack" and all
security cameras were off.

You might also find at
least one expert on CD that will agree that it is a sane
proposition
to do a CD by starting at the top.

BTW the true times of the collapse are right at 16 seconds IIRC.

Harry K

You recall
wrong.http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot...l-shermer-self.
...

snip

And thuis it is that the kooks have to rely on a few hours work to
install invisible charges, in invisible holes that were magically
made
in a few hours by a handful of people.

Who said "hours."
It likely took months to install the charges.

Here is clue. Watch any documentary of the preparation for a
building
for a CD and see how wild the CD theories are.

Why would they do it identically?
But demolition experts say, "It was a demolition."
It is in many videos.

Then you might spend a
moment wondering why any sane engineer would set up a CD to begin
from
the top down.

Because it had to look like it collapsed from the planes?
It isn't hard to change the sequence of the charges.
Eye witnesses saw and experienced blasts on the lower floors before
the collapses.

Harry K

Those building were white elephants that were going to cost billions
to
dismantle.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...+the+wtc%22&bt
nG=...
Watch the video at:www.ae911truth.org-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Odd, in over 6 years there have been zero witnesses come forward and
say they saw explosions.

Liar.
http://youtube.com/results?search_qu...s&search_type=

What there is is "sounded like explosions"
which is exaclty what a collapsing building would sound like.

And how many building have you heard collapse that were not using
controlled demolition?

The sheer impossibility of preparing a building for a CD without
someone noticing should be your first clue that that is a kook theory.

Sure.
But we built atom bombs without anyone knowing.

I am constantly amazed that people will go all around a building
trying to ignore the evidence that is in plain site, i.e., the planes
caused fires which caused the collapse.

Sorry, jet fuel fires couldn't have burned hot enough.
NO steel stucture building in history has collapsed from fire.
AND if the did "pancake" where are all the pancakes?
How does a building pulverize to dust at freefall speed?

You will find no _reputable_
engineer that will give any credence at all to a CD.

Harry K

Sure.
www.ae911truth.org

JP wrote:

Liar.
http://youtube.com/results?search_qu...s&search_type=

What there is is "sounded like explosions"
which is exaclty what a collapsing building would sound like.

And how many building have you heard collapse that were not using
controlled demolition?

How many of the people on youtube have been to a cd where they can make an
apt comparison? Again, 'sounded like' does not equal ' sounds the same'.
BTW, I've been present at about half a dozen cd.

The sheer impossibility of preparing a building for a CD without
someone noticing should be your first clue that that is a kook
theory.

Sure.
But we built atom bombs without anyone knowing.

Not in the middle of a publicly occupied structure. Have you ever been to
Hanford, WA or Alamogordo, NM? Yup, it's the same as being in the Twin
Towers.

I am constantly amazed that people will go all around a building
trying to ignore the evidence that is in plain site, i.e., the planes
caused fires which caused the collapse.

Sorry, jet fuel fires couldn't have burned hot enough.

Sure they do.

from
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).
However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames
didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural
strength - and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen
melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief
Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To
Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging
steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when
it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior
engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction.
"And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes
that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked
off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the
metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a
professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one
of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says
that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting
inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings,
including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of
fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for
maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was
the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat
transfer that eventually brought them down."

NO steel stucture building in history has collapsed from fire.

Bwahahahahaha. Prove it.

AND if the did "pancake" where are all the pancakes?

Look up the term "pancaking". It has nothing to do with the shape created,
it has to do with the method of collapse. Surely you can't be serious with
that question Bwahahahahahaha.

How does a building pulverize to dust at freefall speed?

There was no freefall speed.

You will find no _reputable_
engineer that will give any credence at all to a CD.

Sure.
www.ae911truth.org

He said 'credible' not 'k00kable'

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

there are at least 3 people on record as having heard an explosion in
the basement just prior to the plane hitting....

wrote:
there are at least 3 people on record as having heard an explosion in
the basement just prior to the plane hitting....


If it's on the record, what are their names?

wrote in message
...
there are at least 3 people on record as having heard an explosion in
the basement just prior to the plane hitting....

There are at least 3 people who claim they're kidnapped by aliens
on a regular basis, who routinely shove metallic rods up their ass.

Oh dear, I'm starting to sound like "§".

(Oh, and if there HAD been an explosion in the basement prior to
the plane hitting, don't you think a LOT more than just 3 people would
have recalled that?)

wrote:
there are at least 3 people on record as having heard an explosion in
the basement just prior to the plane hitting....

Point one: If they were in the basement, how did they know WHEN the plane
hit?

Point two: Where is this record?

Point three: Just how many explosions have these 'people of record' ever
heard that allows them to distinguish a cd explosion from a jet impacting
the building?

Point four: You stated that they heard 'an explosion'. In a cd, there are a
large series of explosions not just one.

Point five: If your statement isn't what you meant it to be, please do what
you are supposed to do on usenet and include a bit of the text to which you
are replying. In that way, we will know to what your comment was in
reference to.

Point six: Do you really want to be thought of as a k00k?

On Mar 14, 6:44*pm, Dave Grayvis wrote:
wrote:
there are at least 3 people on record as having heard an explosion in
the basement just prior to the plane hitting....

If it's on the record, what are their names?

I purposely didnt list the cite to the story. I got exactly the
reactions I expected. There were actually at least 14 other people,
according to this source. I have seen the names of at least 3.

I dont subscribe to the conspiracy theories which surround 9/11. i
think however if one were to look at bits and pieces of the actual
physical evidence, it becomes harder and harder to believe official
accounts.


In 1964 the government released a report stating jfk was killed by a
lone assasanation. In 1978 the hsca stated kennedy was probably
killed by a conspiracy. govenment reports are wrong. In 15 years,
will a second committee be called to study 9/11 and will their
findings be indentical to the first report or not. Only time will
tell.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3259

On Mar 14, 7:24*pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
wrote:
there are at least 3 people on record as having heard an explosion in
the basement just prior to the plane hitting....

Point one: If they were in the basement, how did they know WHEN the plane
hit?

Point two: Where is this record?

Point three: Just how many explosions have these 'people of record' ever
heard that allows them to distinguish a cd explosion from a jet impacting
the building?

Point four: You stated that they heard 'an explosion'. In a cd, there are a
large series of explosions not just one.

Point five: If your statement isn't what you meant it to be, please do what
you are supposed to do on usenet and include a bit of the text to which you
are replying. In that way, we will know to what your comment was in
reference to.

Point six: Do you really want to be thought of as a k00k?

I know a guy who worked in an office building on wall street. He
knows the exact second of impact. I have a friend that lived up on
canal st., she can recall the exact moment of impact.

Surely if a plane was enough to bring down a building, people in the
building would have no trouble whatsoever being able to recall the
exact second of impact.

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2...el-explosions/

wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:24 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
wrote:
there are at least 3 people on record as having heard an explosion
in the basement just prior to the plane hitting....

Point one: If they were in the basement, how did they know WHEN the
plane hit?

Point two: Where is this record?

Point three: Just how many explosions have these 'people of record'
ever heard that allows them to distinguish a cd explosion from a jet
impacting the building?

Point four: You stated that they heard 'an explosion'. In a cd,
there are a large series of explosions not just one.

Point five: If your statement isn't what you meant it to be, please
do what you are supposed to do on usenet and include a bit of the
text to which you are replying. In that way, we will know to what
your comment was in reference to.

Point six: Do you really want to be thought of as a k00k?

I know a guy who worked in an office building on wall street. He
knows the exact second of impact. I have a friend that lived up on
canal st., she can recall the exact moment of impact.

So... you know a guy and you have a friend. OK. But how does this relate to
the people in the basement knowing when the planes hit?

Surely if a plane was enough to bring down a building,

Which it was.

people in the building would have no trouble whatsoever being able to
recall the exact second of impact.

Point one: In the event of a life threatening event, the last thing I'm
doing is looking at a clock.

Point two: You seem to be having a disconnect that won't allow you to
understand that people in a basement have no reference point to determine
external timelines like distinguishing an explosion from a big jet hitting
the building. Do you even have a clue as to how isolated that basement area
is from where the jet hit?

Point three: You claimed that these three people were 'on record', but you
fail to cite the 'record'. So I guess this is more speculative BS based on
something you read on a k00k-site, or was told to you by the friend of a
friend who is into k00k stuff.

wrote:
On Mar 14, 6:44 pm, Dave Grayvis wrote:
wrote:
there are at least 3 people on record as having heard an explosion
in the basement just prior to the plane hitting....

If it's on the record, what are their names?

I purposely didnt list the cite to the story.

Yes, we noticed. Duh.

I got exactly the reactions I expected.

You mean the reactions of normal people who find such k00k claims
unbelievable? None of which explains why, if such information is real, you
would fail to provide the cite.

There were actually at least 14 other people,
according to this source. I have seen the names of at least 3.

What source. Unless you provide it your claim is just so much fairy dust.

I dont subscribe to the conspiracy theories which surround 9/11. i
think however if one were to look at bits and pieces of the actual
physical evidence, it becomes harder and harder to believe official
accounts.

Bwahahahaha.... you don't believe in conspiracy theories 9/11, but there
are all of these bits and pieces which .......

In 1964 the government released a report stating jfk was killed by a
lone assasanation. In 1978 the hsca stated kennedy was probably
killed by a conspiracy. govenment reports are wrong. In 15 years,
will a second committee be called to study 9/11 and will their
findings be indentical to the first report or not. Only time will
tell.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3259

Nice try, k00k.

Point one: In the event of a life threatening event, the last thing I'm
doing is looking at a clock.

But if you are in a building and hear an explosion, than a few seconds
later that whole building slams into your ears with the sound of the
plane hitting....sequentiially you know something happened
first....make no mistake, people 2 or 3 blocks away felt that plane
hit, you think the people in the basement didnt hear or see whatever
they saw down there, and then felt the plane hit? W ar enot talking
time as in looking at a clock, we are talking a guy on wall st.
hearing it, someone else being so close she felt the shock of the
explosion.....time isnt only measured by a clock, it is measured by
what you are doing when such and such happened....I can tell you
exactly what I was doing priort to hearing jerry garcia had died, I
can tell you the exact instant when I heard what I was doing, but I
sure couldnt tell you whether it was 5:01 or 5:04, but there were 2
distint events and there is no confusion....








Point two: You seem to be having a disconnect that won't allow you to
understand that people in a basement have no reference point to determine
external timelines like distinguishing an explosion from a big jet hitting
the building. Do you even have a clue as to how isolated that basement area
is from where the jet hit?

Considering I took the path train in on several occasions, and was at
the site just a couple of months before shopping downstairs as well as
leaning ont he statue in between the 2, you can safely assume I know
exactly how the set up was....I styed at the marriott there more times
than i can count....Do you have any idea that thousands of people
blocks away as well as in other parts of the building felt the thing
hit? Do you realize how stupid your assertion is that people in the
lowest parts of the buidling didnt feel it? People in the other tower
who faced the one first hit, felt the swa. You are just absurd. You
are in a basement of a house, someone blows off a firecracker
downstairs. Someone hits a window upstairs with a baseball from the
street. You dont think you would hear that glass break? Just imagine
it up to scale, the firecracker is an explosive and the ball is a
plane. My guess is you would hear it.






Point three: You claimed that these three people were 'on record', but you
fail to cite the 'record'. So I guess this is more speculative BS based on
something you read on a k00k-site, or was told to you by the friend of a
friend who is into k00k stuff.- Hide quoted text -

the link was there. I assume if the reader is interested enough they
will go to the link and read it. If it is something they want to know
more about, they will google it and decide for themselves. Nothing
kooky about thinking for oneself and drawing your own conclusion.


I notice you dotn touch the JFK HSCA connection. The warren report in
1964 ruled out any other participant in the shooting or that the
assanation was anything but a lone gunman with no support or
assistance. In 1978 the panel determined it was probable there was a
conspiracy, their findings based on new info as well as a careful
rexamining of the old evidence.

I dont buy into the theories of the US govt haveing something to do
with, or the war machine taking out the towers, but something brought
them down, and I havent seen anything more convincing that it was the
planes vs something else.

I think if al quiada had people in flight school, they coould just of
easily had people studying demolitions. The planning of the
hijackings, etc, was genius in the most evil way. They got a bomb
into the parking area once before, whose to say they didnt bring one
in again? I dont think you give them enough credit. They took out
the towers, they got the pentagon, to this day we dont have osama.
Score one for the bad guy.



- Show quoted text -

On Mar 14, 4:50 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 14, 7:24 pm, "Dave Bugg" wrote:
wrote:
there are at least 3 people on record as having heard an explosion
in the basement just prior to the plane hitting....

Point one: If they were in the basement, how did they know WHEN the
plane hit?

Point two: Where is this record?

Point three: Just how many explosions have these 'people of record'
ever heard that allows them to distinguish a cd explosion from a jet
impacting the building?

Point four: You stated that they heard 'an explosion'. In a cd,
there are a large series of explosions not just one.

Point five: If your statement isn't what you meant it to be, please
do what you are supposed to do on usenet and include a bit of the
text to which you are replying. In that way, we will know to what
your comment was in reference to.

Point six: Do you really want to be thought of as a k00k?

I know a guy who worked in an office building on wall street. He
knows the exact second of impact. I have a friend that lived up on
canal st., she can recall the exact moment of impact.

So... you know a guy and you have a friend. OK. But how does this relate to
the people in the basement knowing when the planes hit?

Surely if a plane was enough to bring down a building,

Which it was.

people in the building would have no trouble whatsoever being able to
recall the exact second of impact.

Point one: In the event of a life threatening event, the last thing I'm
doing is looking at a clock.

Point two: You seem to be having a disconnect that won't allow you to
understand that people in a basement have no reference point to determine
external timelines like distinguishing an explosion from a big jet hitting
the building. Do you even have a clue as to how isolated that basement area
is from where the jet hit?

Point three: You claimed that these three people were 'on record', but you
fail to cite the 'record'. So I guess this is more speculative BS based on
something you read on a k00k-site, or was told to you by the friend of a
friend who is into k00k stuff.

Loser.
This person was 6 basement levels down.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0

-
Loser.
This person was 6 basement levels down.http://youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and even if she is confused about the bomb, as Dave is going to say,
by daves logic, they wouldnt have felt or heard a thing in the
basement....

so either way, this is a bad interview for dave......

so it had to have been a bomb in the basement right? Cause dave, you
know there is now way the plane coulda shook an elevator in the
basement? Isnt that what you said in one of you carefully numbered
points up above?

So which is it, did a bomb go off, or do you far less about the layout
of the WTC than you wanted us to think.

You can have it both ways. Which one are you going to admit to being
wrong about?

-

For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews, walls
and coverings stripped out, charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.
were not noticed by the people working there. *You might also find at
least one expert on CD that will agree that it is a sane proposition
to do a CD by starting at the top.



why would you need all those people and all that time and money?
Surely they could fly a romte plane into one of those vegas casinos
and get it to fall right in on top of itself. 2 buildings in a row
falling straight down like that?

Looks like CD people should be out of work. Entire crews, miles of
fuse wasted. According to you, all it takes to drop 2 of the worlds
biggest into one of the most jam packed cities in the world is a
plane.

On Mar 14, 10:46*am, JP wrote:
On Mar 14, 10:21 am, Harry K wrote:





On Mar 13, 7:26 pm, wrote:

On Mar 13, 6:50 pm, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 11:37 am, wrote:

On Mar 13, 8:26 am, Harry K wrote:

On Mar 13, 1:17 am, wrote:

WTC Towers: The Case For Controlled Demolition
By Herman Schoenfeld

In this article we show that "top-down" controlled demolition
accurately accounts for the collapse times of the World Trade Center
towers. A top-down controlled demolition can be simply characterized
as a "pancake collapse" of a building missing its support columns.
This demolition profile requires that the support columns holding a
floor be destroyed just before that floor is collided with by the
upper falling masses. The net effect is a pancake-style collapse at
near free fall speed.

snip

You are in the wrong newsgroup. *Take it to alt.conspiracy. *Prepare
to be laughed at.

For a CD you have to explain how months of work, entire crews,

So you know how many it took to do this?

walls
and coverings stripped out,

Not needed.
All access to critical components was available through the elevator
shafts.

charges placed, miles of fuse cord, etc.

Don't need cable if you have radio controlled charges.

were not noticed by the people working there.

All they had to do wa wear janitor outfits.
Power was shut down at the towers days before the "attack" and all
security cameras were off.

You might also find at
least one expert on CD that will agree that it is a sane proposition
to do a CD by starting at the top.

BTW the true times of the collapse are right at 16 seconds IIRC.

Harry K

You recall wrong.http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot...l-shermer-self...

snip

And thuis it is that the kooks have to rely on a few hours work to
install invisible charges, in invisible holes that were magically made
in a few hours by a handful of people.

Who said "hours."
It likely took months to install the charges.

Here is clue. *Watch any documentary of the preparation for a building
for a CD and see how wild the CD theories are.

Why would they do it identically?
But demolition experts say, "It was a demolition."
It is in many videos.

Then you might spend a
moment wondering why any sane engineer would set up a CD to begin from
the top down.

Because it had to look like it collapsed from the planes?
It isn't hard to change the sequence of the charges.
Eye witnesses saw and experienced blasts on the lower floors before
the collapses.

Harry K

Those building were white elephants that were going to cost billions
to dismantle.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...e+wtc%22&btnG=...
Watch the video at:www.ae911truth.org-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Odd, in over 6 years there have been zero witnesses come forward and
say they saw explosions.

Liar.http://youtube.com/results?search_qu...s&search_type=


Speaking of liars. Did you just look in the mirror?

I am on dial-up so don't go to u-tube. I will bet, though, that that
is the u-tube one that was altered by the truth kooks to add
explosions - a known fact.

What there is is "sounded like explosions"
which is exaclty what a collapsing building would sound like.

And how many building have you heard collapse that were not using
controlled demolition?

Errm...I can name 3 right off.

Curious: Just what do you think a floor collapsing and beams breaking
_does_ sound like? A feather pillow being squeezed?

The sheer impossibility of preparing a building for a CD without
someone noticing should be your first clue that that is a kook theory.

Sure.
But we built atom bombs without anyone knowing.


You didn't know we build A bombs? Wow! What logic, boggles the mind.

I am constantly amazed that people will go all around a building
trying to ignore the evidence that is in plain site, i.e., the planes
caused fires which caused the collapse.

Sorry, jet fuel fires couldn't have burned hot enough.
NO steel stucture building in history has collapsed from fire.

Wrong, examples have been posted in this forum repeatedly for over 6
years.

AND if the did "pancake" where are all the pancakes?
How does a building pulverize to dust at freefall speed?

??? Floors collapsed in pieces down upon one another and where in the
hell do you get "pulverized to dust"? Yes some of the concrete would
have but take a look at the stuff being hauled out. The dust clouds
were from things being pulverised, yes, but it wasn't ALL pulverised.
And just what do you think would happen to a chunk of concrete falling
hundreds of feet?


You will find no _reputable_
engineer that will give any credence at all to a CD.

Harry K

Sure.www.ae911truth.org- Hide quoted text -


You can rely on anything with 911 truth in it to be all lies, inuendo,
distortions and very little logic thought.

Harry K

On Mar 14, 6:56 pm, "
wrote:
-

Loser.
This person was 6 basement levels down.http://youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and even if she is confused about the bomb, as Dave is going to say,
by daves logic, they wouldnt have felt or heard a thing in the
basement....

so either way, this is a bad interview for dave......

so it had to have been a bomb in the basement right? Cause dave, you
know there is now way the plane coulda shook an elevator in the
basement? Isnt that what you said in one of you carefully numbered
points up above?

So which is it, did a bomb go off, or do you far less about the layout
of the WTC than you wanted us to think.

You can have it both ways. Which one are you going to admit to being
wrong about?

Congratulations from your posts you have scored a 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and
finished with a brilliant 9 from the following list.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who
are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies
for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no
matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they
have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you
listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say
"no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they
have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous
length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise
their determination to the principle of questioning everything,
they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about
the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui
bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance
of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have
eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be
the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are
attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce
positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the
impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which
means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui
bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the
principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the
small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by
the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any
alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have
no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the
respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by
anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that
the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a
matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course,
they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for
apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy
theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be
without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of
the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see
3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by
"swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond
to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed
to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having
remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel
on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the
account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in
timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same
kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account
clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it
is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either
relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.
This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna
station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and
demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some
weight (because it's "happened before".) They do not pause to reflect
that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more
unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which
they make comparison, or that the fact that something might
potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other
than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the
body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are
producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which
need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most
important thing about these people is that they are people entirely
lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad
one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot
tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always
come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over
again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac,
then at very least, a bore.

Harry K