The Woolworth Building & 9/11

[wembley9]

Timble is of course correct. You get the speckle pattern with a laser (when it is reflected) but not with other light sources BECAUSE the laser is coherent.

See e.g.
http://isaac.exploratorium.edu/~pauld/s ... eckle.html

Ermm... I don't think he is! From your own link:

"The waves of light from the laser are coherent before they scatter from the rough screen, that is, they are all in phase, the crests of one light wave line up with the crests of all the others. After scattering from the screen the crests no longer line up, the scattered waves interfere constructively to make bright points and destructively to make dark points."

The bold text is the important bit.

I think that supports his point -any scattering produces speckle. You don;t need particles in the air. If you've ever used a laser pointer you will have seen laser speckle yourself - you can't shine it on something out getting speckle.

 

[wembley9]

There are other anomalous lights in other videos.

You still haven't said why you think they're anomalous.
And unless you have a very good reason for believing in a bluey-white laser, it's not laser light.

 

[Bigfoot73]

You still haven't said why you think they're anomalous.

I wasn't aware I'd been asked why they are anomalous.
Anybody reading the last couple of pages would find reason to doubt your confidence in declaring these other lights not to be lasers.
Besides which, I'm not claiming they are. I refer to the lights probably coming from a helicopter seen hovering around the top of the South tower just before it collapsed.
On top of which it is yet to be determined what the Woolworth Building lights actually were. Or what the witnesses were describing if not a missile being launched from the Woolworth Building.
Not to mention the Flight 77 FDR data.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

You still haven't said why you think they're anomalous.

I wasn't aware I'd been asked why they are anomalous.
Anybody reading the last couple of pages would find reason to doubt your confidence in declaring these other lights not to be lasers.
Besides which, I'm not claiming they are. I refer to the lights probably coming from a helicopter seen hovering around the top of the South tower just before it collapsed.

What time was this image captured?

 

[Bigfoot73]

9:59 a.m. , more or less the time the tower collapsed.

 

[wembley9]

Anybody reading the last couple of pages would find reason to doubt your confidence in declaring these other lights not to be lasers.

Where -has anyone suggested a bluey-white laser exists?

 

[Bigfoot73]

Well,if seen through smoky air on an otherwise bright day when the sun was still quite low as filmed on whatever not-very-high resolution camera it was, then perhaps a blue laser might appear white.
I could start so many of my posts with the phrase "as I've said before", and this is yet another: I originally said possibly it's a laser, so I'm prepared to recognise the possibility that it isn't. The text on the orbwar site says it could be some kind of stealth plane, but the point is the behaviour of this light.
As I have also said before we will probably never conclusively determine what was going on here one way or the other. It's the Flight 77 and Flight 93 evidence that carries the most weight, and to me that makes lasers or whatever around the Woolworth Building a peripheral issue.
The primary focus of 9.11 conspiracism is to establish that the official story is a coverup for foul play, getting to the bottom of every last suspicious event would require an in-depth forensic investigation and that is no more likely now than it was 9 years ago.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

The primary focus of 9.11 conspiracism is to establish that the official story is a coverup for foul play...

And here was me thinking that the primary focus of anyone with an interest in 9/11 would be the truth, as opposed to a predetermined theory of what happened.

 

[hokum6]

I've skipped straight to the end of this thread. Is bigfoot actually trying to argue for the existence of a holographic projector?

Nice to see he is up to his usual trick of coming up with ludicrous rubbish and then getting all smug when no one bothers to rebut his stupid arguments. "IT WAS FAIRIES THAT DID IT. DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT, DO YOU SCEPTICS? [insert stream of smilies]"

Funny how it's always us that has to come up with a reply. I'm still waiting from the last thread for his explanation of what happened to the hijacked plane(s) on that day if it was actually a giant plane-shaped missile that hit the Pentagon.

Anyway. That Woolworth building site is funny. "Close-up of the Flash Reveals the Strong Possibility of a Stealth Delivery Vehicle". REALLY? How does it do it that then. Do stealth planes 'flash' like that? Did their cloaking device fail? And 'orbs'. Bloody hell, bigfoot, you're really desperate if you're trying to support 'orbs' as an explanation.

Q: Has anyone seen orbs since 9-11?
A: Yes, they have been spotted in the skies throughout the USA. Usually they are associated with covert chemical spraying of cities, "invisible" weather modification operations, and aerial surveillance.

Oh yes this site seems very reliable and their explanation is completely plausible.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

C'mon hokum6, don't hold back now, why not tell us what you really think.

And I'm not exactly sure about Bigfoot. Sometimes I think he's claiming everything...and yet, nothing. It's a bit like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Hokum I have removed you from my Ignore list, there was no point you being on it since you don't seem to have posted anything since, well, the last time the 9.11 issue flared up.
The only reason you have turned up here now is to slag me off, and the quote you include isn't even of anything I said.

Funny how it's always us that has to come up with a reply.

Who is "us" ? You've only just posted your first comment and it's nothing more than ill-informed unsubstantiated trollism.

And here was me thinking that the primary focus of anyone with an interest in 9/11 would be the truth, as opposed to a predetermined theory of what happened

.
Actually I think that's what I was getting at, it's just that I don't expect the whole truth to be revealed without a very thorough criminal investigation.
Hopefully establishing the falsehood of the official story might lead to political impetus towards launching such an investigation.

Sometimes I think he's claiming everything...and yet, nothing. It's a bit like trying to nail jelly to the wall.

Love it! The mercurial Bigfoot! They seek him here, they seek him there !
Actually it is very hard to take any of the 9.11 incidents from prima facie evidence to comprehensive and convincing conclusion of everything relating to it - there is so much that hasn't come out.
I don't know what happened to the planes or the passengers. I don't know exactly how they got the towers to fall so easily. I don't know what really happened with Flight 93. However I do know that there are enough discrepancies between the official story concerning 77 and 93 and the facts established from mostly official sources to assert there is a coverup.

And I'm not exactly sure about Bigfoot.

In all the 9.11 debates on this forum no sceptic has yet revealed the depth of their scepticism or conceded that the truthers might have a point about something. What usually happens is some poster turns up with a sceptical claim, I counter it and they just disappear off the thread. Collectively the sceptics are just as gelatinous as I am individually.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Wot no sceptics? Looks like I'm right about something then . :smokin:

 

[Timble2]

Most Truthers have nothing useful to conribute to 9 11. The ones who think there's something anomalous about the collapse of the towers and the state of the other impact sites, only demonstrate their total lack of knowledge of physics, chemistry,air traffic control proceedings, structural engineering, or anything else ..and their unwillingness to actually learn anything about these topics which might upset their preconcieved ideas. Most of their anomalies are urban legends or outright lies. The big names are largely deleuded fantasists, preaching to the gullible, or has beens or never wases who never made any real impact anywhere else.


The real question is how the USA security services screwed up so badly. The Truthers making it easier to cover this up by making everyone who tries to investigate it look like a complete nutter.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Most Truthers have nothing useful to conribute to 9 11. The ones who think there's something anomalous about the collapse of the towers and the state of the other impact sites, only demonstrate their total lack of knowledge of physics, chemistry,air traffic control proceedings, structural engineering, or anything else ..and their unwillingness to actually learn anything about these topics which might upset their preconcieved ideas. ...

Call me ignorant, but for me, nothing in the official version, so far, has really explained the total collapse of the two towers.

The rest of the conspiracy stuff pales into insignificance, compared to that central fact.

 

[Timble2]

Sorry that was aimed at the mini-nukes particle beams, missile demolition theorists.

Basically as I understand it

a) The planes compromised the structure which relies unlike most other tall buildings is in effect a stressed steel tube linking to the service core which is also a steel structure. The building survives the initial impact.
b) However extensive fire break out which compromise further the structural strengh of the building, the steel doesn't melt but begins to lose its strenght.
c) The damaged part of the stucture starts to move due to gravity and the ability of the damaged section to support it fails
d) The lower part of the structue is designed to support a fairly static load, not several thousand tons moving down onto it (the force is provided by gravity).
e) The desecending material breaaks the floor below it, which adds the this moving load to the structure below.
f) In effect the debris from top of the buiding punches through the bottom of the building shattering it as it goes. It only stops when the pile of debris reaches the ground and heaps up.

A lot of people treat the building aa a solid block, It's not, it's a hollow tube around central pillar, both made up of smaller units, Once you puncture a tube it becomes a lot easing to collapse it under compresion.

 

[Timble2]

Sorry that was aimed at the mini-nukes particle beams, missile demolition theorists.

Basically as I understand it

a) The planes compromised the structure which relies unlike most other tall buildings is in effect a stressed steel tube linking to the service core which is also a steel structure. The building survives the initial impact.
b) However extensive fire break out which compromise further the structural strengh of the building, the steel doesn't melt but begins to lose its strenght.
c) The damaged part of the stucture starts to move due to gravity and the ability of the damaged section to support it fails
d) The lower part of the structue is designed to support a fairly static load, not several thousand tons moving down onto it (the force is provided by gravity).
e) The desecending material breaaks the floor below it, which adds the this moving load to the structure below.
f) In effect the debris from top of the buiding punches through the bottom of the building shattering it as it goes. It only stops when the pile of debris reaches the ground and heaps up.

A lot of people treat the building aa a solid block, It's not, it's a hollow tube around central pillar, both made up of smaller units, Once you puncture a tube it becomes a lot easing to collapse it under compresion.

 

[wembley9]

Well,if seen through smoky air on an otherwise bright day when the sun was still quite low as filmed on whatever not-very-high resolution camera it was, then perhaps a blue laser might appear white.

Or not. If you have any evidence to support this, or any reason at all to believe that the light comes from a laser, then we can have a discussion. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss.

The text on the orbwar site says it could be some kind of stealth plane, but the point is the behaviour of this light.

That's just silly. There is no resemblance to a stealth plane, which are highly visible in daylight (that's why they only operate at night).
If you're going to start theorising about magic in invisible aircraft without any supporting evidence you might as well bring in aliens, pixies etc.

This is the sort of thing that has so discredited the "9/11 Truth" movement and shows why they have failed to make any dent in the officvial version.

 

[Analis]

Sorry that was aimed at the mini-nukes particle beams, missile demolition theorists.

Basically as I understand it

a) The planes compromised the structure which relies unlike most other tall buildings is in effect a stressed steel tube linking to the service core which is also a steel structure. The building survives the initial impact.
b) However extensive fire break out which compromise further the structural strengh of the building, the steel doesn't melt but begins to lose its strenght.
c) The damaged part of the stucture starts to move due to gravity and the ability of the damaged section to support it fails
d) The lower part of the structue is designed to support a fairly static load, not several thousand tons moving down onto it (the force is provided by gravity).
e) The desecending material breaaks the floor below it, which adds the this moving load to the structure below.
f) In effect the debris from top of the buiding punches through the bottom of the building shattering it as it goes. It only stops when the pile of debris reaches the ground and heaps up.

A lot of people treat the building aa a solid block, It's not, it's a hollow tube around central pillar, both made up of smaller units, Once you puncture a tube it becomes a lot easing to collapse it under compresion.

Which is a perfect example of how offical believers (not sceptics) do exactely what they reproach to truthers. Misunderstanding of the basic laws of physics, logic, science and scientific methodology at large, and of investigation. And relying on debunked stuff or urban legends (extensive fire etc...). Even if all those conditions had been met, the result would be an asymetrical, partial failure. Your theory works... in the case of a controlled demolition.
There are rare examples of spontaneous building collapses, due to fires only, or fire and extensive damage combined (the most recent in Liege, Belgium, on 27.1.2010 :
http://www.bfmtv.com/video-infos-actual ... e-3599341/ ). They all obey to this law : asymetrical, partial collapse.

Their understanding of the crash at the Pentagon obeys to the same principles, as they still believe that the wings folded back. What any secundary school pupil who is not a dunce know is impossible.

For my part, I am very confident that structural engineering supports the controlled demolition. I saw what a structural engineer, dedicated to support the official version (and who prides himself as the most competent debunker of dissident theories in France), had to say - i.e. nothing. Unable to adress any question convincingly, even ridiculed when his calculations were proven to be false, he systematically quits discussions. I'm still waiting an answer to a remark about fires I asked him in Januray... 2009 !

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Misunderstanding of the basic laws of physics, logic, science and scientific methodology at large, and of investigation. And relying on debunked stuff or urban legends (extensive fire etc...).

Their understanding of the crash at the Pentagon obeys to the same principles, as they still believe that the wings folded back. What any secundary school pupil who is not a dunce know is impossible.

I'm probably going to regret this but can you explain what basic laws of physics and logic have been misunderstood in the official version? When has the fact there was an extensive fire in both towers ever been debunked? And what is impossible about the theory of what happened to the wings at the Pentagon?

 

[Timble2]

.
There are rare examples of spontaneous building collapses, due to fires only, or fire and extensive damage combined (the most recent in Liege, Belgium, on 27.1.2010 :
http://www.bfmtv.com/video-infos-actual ... e-3599341/ ). They all obey to this law : asymetrical, partial collapse.

Different type of structure entirely.

And as for your structural engineer he's probably adopted the policy of not debating with timewasters.

 

[Dr_Baltar]

Different type of structure entirely.

Quite so. About 6 storeys high and without a burning plane chucked at it at 500mph.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Before I get stuck into responses to everybody else - Wembley. as I have hinted , alluded to , implied and intimated over several posts I couldn't actually give a flying one what that frigging light is!
For all I know it's the Zeta Reticulan Sceptic Baiting Society again, this time in MIB fancy dress, dropping fireworks out of their UFO. It doesn't matter, and never did. Perhaps you might like to address the issues of the 77 and 93 data, i.e. the evidence that makes it perfectly bleedin' obvious that the offficial story is BS.
Maybe it wasn't a laser, there was no missile launch, none of it. So what?

 

[Ringo]

At the expense of many evenings (when I could be watching Bear Grylls eat weird stuff) would someone please point me to the "official" 77 and 93 data so that I can make up my own mind. I do not want to wade through thousands of pages of text nor do I want to read the "truth" from freedomseekersandpatriots.com. So simply, where is the smoking gun?

I quite agree that there was something amiss with the whole 9/11 thing but I'm of the opinion that the cover up was the Government covering their own tail about their previous/current dealings with the Bin Ladens.

I do not for one second believe that there were any controlled detonations or planned demolitions, lasers or even badgers with tommy guns involved. Two planes crashed into the twin towers. Then they fell down.

The pentagon attack seems dodgy and I'm inclined to think that it wasn't a plane which struck the building.

I am very interested to read the "real" evidence and the defining points and I am quite happily change my mind should the evidence be convincing enough.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Timble, I find it remarkable that you can accuse the truthers of not knowing what they're talking about and then posting that explanation of the towers' collapse.

d) The lower part of the structue is designed to support a fairly static load, not several thousand tons moving down onto it (the force is provided by gravity).

Yes, that static load being the upper structure , which is several thousand tons which has been bearing down on it since it was built.

(the force is provided by gravity).

Yes, the same gravity. Did the damaged floors suddenly become heavier or something ? How did collapsing floors manage to bring down the columns of the outer walls and the cores so completely when they were breaking away from their connections to them, and being vertical they had far greater resistance potential? As David Ray Griffin argued, which is the lower structure most likely to do: put up a lot of resistance to the collapsing floors, put up some resistance, or none whatsoever ? The correct answer is of course the first.
Then there's WTC7, again. Two or three small localised fire which were going out and probably wouldn't have brought it down so quickly and completely had it been made of wood.

 

[hokum6]

I would like to hear bigfoot's explanation of how and why the tower's fell down.

 

[Timble2]

d) The lower part of the structue is designed to support a fairly static load, not several thousand tons moving down onto it (the force is provided by gravity).

Yes, that static load being the upper structure , which is several thousand tons which has been bearing down on it since it was built.

(the force is provided by gravity).

What part of static don't you understand? Once the supporting elements of the damages was sufficiently weakened by the fires, they failed to support the upper part of the building, it moved under the force of gravity. It is no longer a static load, it is a moving load, it drives down into the lower part of the structure loading it beyond the resistance it's capable of exerting, stuctures below break increasing the mass of material that's descending and breaking up the levels below...... It's basically an avalanche. The fact that something's vertical doesn't increase it's resistance, Try standing on the edge of a vertical sheet of paper.

By the way it doesn't come down freefall, if it did it would be a hell of a lot faster.

David Ray Griffin is talking through his arse.

Then there's WTC7? It wasn't one or two small fires, that's a plain lie. There's also a large section of once side of the building gouged away. It burned for hours, the mechanics aren't so clear cut as those of the twin-towers, but they're feasible without controlled demolition.

 

[wembley9]

Before I get stuck into responses to everybody else - Wembley. as I have hinted , alluded to , implied and intimated over several posts I couldn't actually give a flying one what that frigging light is!.... Perhaps you might like to address the issues of the 77 and 93 data, i.e. the evidence that makes it perfectly bleedin' obvious that the offficial story is BS.
Maybe it wasn't a laser, there was no missile launch, none of it. So what?

So you're doing exactly what I pointed out before. As soon as I ask you about something specific, you duck away and change the subject.
You've dropped the missile theory. You now "couldn't give a flying one" to those lights which you thought were so siognificant a few pages back. If we start focusing on the Flight 77 story you will no doubt lose interest in that and start looking at something else.

If you have any actual evidence to discuss, let's discuss it.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Hokum I fail to see how you expect me to respond to any of your posts after what you've had to say about me .
Wembley I haven't dropped the missile theory, and you haven't addressed it.
I don't see anything inconsistent or evasive in my treatment of the lights/lasers issue - there isn't much evidence there one way or the other, and even if it was foul play it's one of the more minor instances of it that day.
I suspect you are being evasive about the Flight 77 issue.
Timble, it's not just me that doesn't believe the official account of the towers' collapse, there's Pietro M too, who succinctly states the case against the official story better than I've done so far. It's transparent incredible hogwash.
This static/moving load thing - how fast were these collapsing floors supposed to be going for the structurally sound floors to give way instantly ?
What do vertical sheets of paper have to do with hundreds of steel beams in a structure built to withstand the impact of a 747?
As for freefall speed, yes they did come down at freefall speed, in about 11 seconds. That was calculated years ago, it's one of the most telling pieces of evidence against the official story.

David Ray Griffin is talking through his arse

What sort of carefully formulated, evidence-backed argument is that supposed to be?
So maybe WTC7 had 3 or 4 small fires, but it wasn't a large section of the builing that was damaged and what gouged it away exactly ? The mechanics aren't anything like as clear cut as the towers at all, and I don't see any feasibility in their spontaneous collapse. The official story does not include explanation of how it happened as far as I'm aware and nor does it explain the demolition engineer's 'crimp' which appeared in the middle of the side of the building.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

... Two planes crashed into the twin towers. Then they fell down.

...

That's true.

Were the planes the actual cause of the towers collapsing? I doubt it.

 

[hokum6]

Hokum I fail to see how you expect me to respond to any of your posts after what you've had to say about me.

I didn't say anything about you, I simply asked you to provide your explanation. Can't you even do that, or are you going to continue ducking questions?

You haven't changed your tune from the last time we got on this nutjob merry-go-round. You're still harping on about WTC7 (it was very much on fire, there was a chunk of the building missing where it was hit by debris, firefighters and police reported hearing it creaking and were warned to stay away as they suspected it was coming down) and still failing to provide any kind of evidence that isn't based on outright lunacy or God of the Gaps hole filling (are you a creationist too?). You can't even provide an unsupported theory which comes close to being sensible.

I'm still waiting from the last thread for you to explain what happened to the missing hijacked planes if missiles were used, how 'they' were able to carry out two record-breaking demolition jobs in one day without any obvious signs of explosives, and also, most importantly, why anyone would even bother to carry out such a complex plot.

Were the planes the actual cause of the towers collapsing? I doubt it.

Well, what do you think did it?