Attention 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

by dmsilev [Subscribe]

Tue May 02, 2006 at 06:16:14 PM PDT

Before posting any more diaries about how
video proved that WTC-7 fell "too quickly" to be a free-fall collapse, please
perform the following experiment:

dmsilev's diary :: ::

Background reading: Chapters 7 and 8 of Halliday
and Resnick

Materials: a bowling ball, a friend, a stopwatch, and a ten foot step
ladder.

Procedure:
First, hold the bowling ball in your hand, gripping it by the
finger holds, holding your arm horizontal. No problem, right? Good.

Now, give the bowling ball to your friend, and have him climb up the
stepladder. Have your friend drop the bowling ball to the ground while timing
the duration of the fall. Hold out your hand in the same position as above, and
have your friend drop the bowling ball onto your hand from ten feet up. Again,
have your friend time the fall.

Analysis:
(a) Compare and contrast the time required for the bowling ball
to reach the floor with your hand in the way vs. without. Include a discussion
of the sources of measurement uncertainty and their magnitudes.
(b) Explain
why you can hold a stationary bowling ball without trouble, but one dropping
from ceiling height will have you in the emergency room for an extensive session
of reconstructive surgery.

Analogies to falling chunks of skyscraper are left as an excercise for the
student.

Writeups are due in 24 hours, or after the casts are removed.

-dms

Tags: 9-11, WTC-7 (all tags)

Permalink |
472 comments

Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always)
| Indented Flat (Always)

Daily Kos Help

Can you tell (49+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, Bob Johnson, Adam B, DelRPCV, Alice in Florida, RunawayRose, Avila, jqb, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, tlh lib, Wee Mama, Shadan7, pdrap, highacidity, socratic, suzq, modchick65, hhex65, by foot, SeattleLiberal, DH from MD, Dood Abides, coigue, AnonymousArmy, ChiGirl88, ek hornbeck, PBen, Arken, Unwieldy List, SheriffBart, wiscmass, Spathiphyllum, tvb, Muwarr90, Kingsmeg, Ky DEM, Yellow Canary, justalittlebitcrazy, Andy30tx, lazybum, DemocraticLuntz, nicejoest, means are the ends, Mia Dolan, urban illinois, RickBoston, lorenzodow, Quicklund

that I've written a freshman physics lab manual?

My apologies to the larger Kossack community. I'm just getting sick and
tired of these 9/11 diaries, over and over and over again.

-dms

by dmsilev on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:12:39 PM PDT

I think a great analogy is the
Space Shuttle (21+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

DelRPCV, RunawayRose, Avila, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, Wee Mama, Shadan7, pdrap, dmsilev, Cedwyn, suzq, modchick65, hhex65, SeattleLiberal, ChiGirl88, wiscmass, Muwarr90, Andy30tx, means are the ends, Mia Dolan, RickBoston

Space Shuttle Columbia was destroyed because it got hit by a piece of
insulation foam at high speed. Not a brick or a girder or even a chair
or something... FOAM.

Please give me a job.
I'm talented.

by Arken on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:15:28 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

It's not intuitive, though
(10+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

RunawayRose, Avila, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, pdrap, SeattleLiberal, ChiGirl88, Arken, means are the ends, Quicklund

People have an intuitive sense of what it would mean to have several
pounds worth of bowling ball slam into your wrist from ten feet up.

A fun actual experiment to try: Attach a cable to a bowling ball (drill
into it, screw in an eyebolt); tie the cable to the ceiling of a
reasonably tall room. Now, sit in a high chair with your back against the
wall. Pull the ball towards you so that it is a couple inches from your
nose. Let go (do not push the ball away). Wait. See if
you flinch. Do you believe in conservation of energy?

Kids, don't try this at home unless supervised by someone who knows
what they are doing.

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:19:34 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Sure, but they also probably
haven't tried it... (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

RunawayRose,
Avila, Eternal Hope, dmsilev, means are the ends

or at least I hope not. But everyone knows that the Columbia got
brought down by insulation foam- although... I bet there are conspiracy
theories about that too. Sigh.

Please give me a
job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:21:55 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

It's even MORE fun if...
(4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Eternal Hope,
Shadan7, highacidity, dmsilev

... the ball is pushed away, with enthusiam and
vigor.

... you, personally, are not sitting in the chair.

Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool all
the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

by Quicklund on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:13:51 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I've sat in that chair
(3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope, highacidity

and I'd have been very unhappy if someone had given the ball a
push.

It's really freaky, actually. You see the ball coming closer and
closer, and your subconcioius is screaming "duck, you fool!". Takes a
fair amount of willpower not to flinch.

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:19:47 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I think I saw that one
done (0
/ 0)

but my brain has only enough memory remainig to store the
monkey-dropped-as-soon-as-the-dart-is-shot experiment.  Which
was way cool, for everybody but the monkey.

But teh bowling ball pendulum, yeah... there interesting way to
put your faith in theory in practice.  ;)

Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool
all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

by Quicklund on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:43:50 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

It's a standard
demo (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
Quicklund

And when I was a frosh, the professor demoed it himself, and
then asked for volunteers from the audience. I was lucky enough to
be one of the chosen (we had quite a few volunteers).

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:46:26 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Pushing the ball away?
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

tvb

Is this the experiment you want people to do when they feel the
urge to post 9/11 conspiracy theory diaries?

'Cuz I know a couple of people who will give that idea 4's.
Just
saying.

by RickBoston on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:18:57 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

And fer Pete's sake, DON'T
SNEEZE (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

highacidity,
dmsilev, Quicklund

Sneezing violently as the ball returns to reach the zenith can result
in your head bouncing off the back wall then flying forward at
heightened velocity to strike the incoming bowling ball, which would
then result in whiplashing your head and neck backward and forcing you
to fall out of your chair.

Painful, to be sure.

And since the ceiling wasn't made to withstand the particular
bowling-ball-with-added-velocity weight and strain, the ball would then
come loose on it's next return trip...and you can assign -- with a
degree of certainty -- the likelihood of the suddenly-unrestrained
bowling ball impacting either the skull, abdomen, or groin area.

Therefore, if you cannot guarantee ~not~ sneezing, you should not try
this experiment.  If you proceed to do so anywhere, have an
assistant on call in case a paramedic is needed, and so that the whole
thing can be filmed and shown to folks here via YouTube.

Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
Downy
wings, but wroth they beat;
Tempest even in reason's seat.

by GreyHawk on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:34:51 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I obey the law of
gravity. (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Eternal Hope

by suzq
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:57:48 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Not a great analogy. (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Ahianne

Best to keep it simple.
And Earthbound.

The loss of the Columbia was caused by damage sustained during launch
when most of the left bipod foam ramp (see below) broke off the main
propellant tank under the aerodynamic forces of launch and struck the
orbiter's left wing leading edge. A thermal protection system (TPS)
panel on the wing was damaged, which allowed the hot gasses of reentry
to penetrate and weaken the wing structure, ultimately causing it to
fail. The vehicle became uncontrollable and was destroyed by the extreme
heat of reentry.

From:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Columbia_disaster

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, & Rice lied to promote
an illegal, aggressive war. Hague 'em!

by Yellow
Canary on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:29:12 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Exactly. A small amount of
debris was enough (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

to eventually cause total failure.

Please give me a
job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:35:10 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

No. Not even close.
(0
/ 0)

The con-theorists are guessing about the behavior of a huge amount
of mass, suddenly unsupported, at the surface of the Earth.
Hence dmsilev's experiment with the bowling ball.

The shuttle failure involves a very small amount of mass causing a
very small amount of damage -- damage that had been known to occur and
was ignored (a process flaw that proved fatal).

That very small amount of damage was enough to cause the failure of
that very large aircraft at the extremely high speed and very large
force of atmospheric re-entry.

The two failures do not resemble each other.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, & Rice lied to
promote an illegal, aggressive war. Hague 'em!

by Yellow
Canary on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:55:47 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Just to underscore the
difference: (0
/ 0)

The foam (a 3 foot piece) tore of during lift-off and struck the
wing.
A small section of the wing was damaged.
Fifteen days
later, during re-entry, at Mach 23, air apparently entered into the wing
at the spot of the damage.  This raised the temperature high enough
for the wing to fail.  Once the wing failed, the rest of the craft
broke apart.

Foam dislodges, hits wing tile, damages it.
Damaged tile allows
enormous heat build-up during re-entry.
Heat destroys wing.

Wingless craft breaks apart.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, & Rice lied to
promote an illegal, aggressive war. Hague 'em!

by Yellow
Canary on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:47:12 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Keep in mind (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Ahianne, dmsilev, SeattleLiberal, Arken

That the "foam" on the external fuel tank is a little more dense than
the styrofoam you're used to.  At about 30 kg/m^3 it is pretty heavy.
The pieces that stripped off of the fuel tank were on the order of a
kg.

Of course, your main point, that stuff moving fast hits hard, is
entirely correct.  I like to make people estimate how far they would
have to fall in order to equal the impact from a car at 5 mph.
Lesson, don't get hit!

(Of course, details matter, but that's a different story).

by zephron on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:39:57 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

But that's a bit
different. (0
/ 0)

All the foam had to do was to dislodge one of the heat-resistant tiles,
which are fragile.  The achilles heel of the system is that losing
one of those tiles causes destruction of the vehicle on reentry.

The Republican party: An alliance of madness and greed.

by jem6x
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:48:55 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

recommended.... (12+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, RunawayRose, Eternal Hope, Shadan7, pdrap, highacidity, dmsilev, SeattleLiberal, coigue, ChiGirl88, tvb, RickBoston

...you're not the only one tired of them! I used to read them and comment
in them but not anymore, they don't learn. It gets tiring rehashing the same
arguments over and over.

However, I did enjoy reading your posts in today's conspiracy theory
diary! Great job!

(And no, I'm not providing a link since I ain't pimping no conspiracy
theory diary. I'm sure someone else will, though.)

by justalittlebitcrazy on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:18:13 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Don't worry about linking to that
diary (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

RunawayRose, Avila, Eternal Hope, justalittlebitcrazy

I already did at up at the top of this post. 300+ comments, so viewer
beware.

I think I'm going to bookmark this and challenge the next set of
conspirists to try the "bowling ball experiment". If nothing else, it'll
keep them away from keyboards for a couple of months...

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:22:16 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I take that back (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, ChiGirl88, Arken

It's now up to 450 comments, and more are still coming in. I didn't
look at the new comments in great detail, but it seems to have
degenerated to "are not" "am too".

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:51:22 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

awww, which one? n/t
(0
/ 0)

weather forecast

The palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of
paradise. - Paine

by Cedwyn on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:47:13 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Link is in the diary
text (0
/ 0)

In the above-the-fold section.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:51:38 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Why are you writing freshman lab
manuals (0
/ 0)

during your postdoc?  Or did you get an Asst. Faculty job
recently?

Get your Free Mac
Mini, you know you want one.

by Bush B
Gone on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:40:56 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Actually, I wrote it (0
/ 0)

back in grad school, during my TA period. The official lab manual
sucked. I mean, it was horrible beyond mortal comprehension. It proved to
be easier to write a new one, from scratch, then to teach around the
problems and faults of the extant version.

Hopefully, there'll be a faculty job in my future, but not yet. Still a
lowly postdoc.

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:44:04 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Oh, that one. (0
/ 0)

Apparently Wonnell and gang re-wrote it about 2 years ago, and I've
heard from people it's still not very good.  You know Wonnell and
gang are running tighter ship these days, making people hand in lab
grades weekly?  Even making the lab training mandatory for
veterans, and all TA's also have to write up their own lab reports and
hand in to those guys.  Not bad for incoming grad students, but for
4th years it's a real PITA.

Get your Free
Mac Mini, you know you want one.

by Bush B
Gone on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:48:49 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Yeah, that one (0
/ 0)

Though Steve did his best to torpedo what I wrote. There are, or
were at least, underground copies floating around the TA offices, but
since it's been 6 or 7 years, attrition has probably taken care of
that.

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:53:20 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Ahhh! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Ahhhh! (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

dmsilev, Cedwyn, SeattleLiberal, Quicklund

Halliday and Resnick!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh!  Ahhhh!  Ieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

by LarryInNYC on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:36:41 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Just be thankful (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

SeattleLiberal

I didn't recommend Kleppner and Kolenkow, or volume I of the Feynman
Lectures, or God help us all, Landau and Lifshtiz.

Haliday and Resnick, especially the H&R&Walker version that I
linked to, is an easy text compared to some of the
"introductory" books out there.

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:40:39 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You could have recommended
Tipler. . . (0
/ 0)

. . . but he probably agrees with them.

Is America finally suffering from Idiot Fatigue?

by LarryInNYC on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:42:58 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Don't ever (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

dmsilev

make fun of Landau & Lifshitz.

Full stop.   >: (

by zephron on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:54:58 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

l was going to say
'Thanks' (0
/ 0)

for the Halliday and Resnick mention. Haven't heard anyone mention that
for many years, but it brings back good memories.

The Republican party: An alliance of madness and greed.

by jem6x
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:53:30 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Better analogy from history
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Eternal Hope

And no one has better history of stupid stunts than the City of
Cleveland.

August
20, 1938-Time Magazine

Atop Cleveland's 52-story Terminal Tower stood Ken Keltner, Indian
rookie, one day last week. One by one he tossed a dozen baseballs down to
the public square 708 feet below. Ten of them missed their mark. Two of
them dropped into the mitts of his Teammates Henry Helf and Frank Pytlak.
Catchers Helf & Pytlak wiped their brows and stuck out their chests.
They had broken the altitude catching record set 30 years ago when Gabby
Street caught a ball thrown from the top of the 550-foot Washington
Monument. Mathematicians estimated the balls' speed at 138 miles an hour.
The balls that missed the mitts bounced six stories into the air.

Then, in 1980, Ted Stepien, then owner of a Cleveland professional
softball team, decided to throw some softballs off the top of the Terminal
Tower.  Joe Posnanski remembers it this
way

Great Stepien Softball Drop of 1980. Local advertising man Ted Stepien
decided to throw softballs off the top of the tallest building in town,
the aptly named Terminal Tower. It was a stunt to promote his professional
softball team, the Cleveland Competitors (who also never won a
championship). Other Stepien stunts included his famed NBA halftime show
"Fat Guy Eating Beer Cans," and once having four NBA coaches in the same
season.

Anyway, in dropping softballs, Stepien managed to break a woman's arm,
bruise a guy's shoulder and smash two cars.

Small things from great heights can do a lot of damage.  It's
gravity and it's the law.

by suzq on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:20:23 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Heh, great image (8+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

RunawayRose, Avila, Ahianne, highacidity, dmsilev, SeattleLiberal, tvb, trashablanca

(I am not even remotely a 9/11 conspiracy theorist but) it was
peculiar that 7 fell.  On the other hand, probably much less
peculiar than the stresses it was subjected to when 1 and 2 fell.

I've always wondered if buildings in dense urban areas were designed to
fail "well", if such a thing is even possible.  I mean, obviously the
buildings are designed to stand under extraordinary stresses, but, purely as
an matter of knowledge, I've been curious if they're designed with failure
modes in mind, like the crumple zones in a car.

I wonder if anyone will show up to criticize your image?  *rubs hands
together eagerly

You can never ask too many questions.

by socratic
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:18:15 PM PDT

I believe you're right.
(6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

DelRPCV, RunawayRose, Avila, highacidity, socratic, SeattleLiberal

I remember reading that structural engineers and architects work to
ensure a skyscraper, if it collapses, will fall as much into its footprint
as possible.

Please give me a job.
I'm talented.

by Arken on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:19:26 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Which, to a layperson..
(9+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

DelRPCV, RunawayRose, Avila, highacidity, dmsilev, Cedwyn, Arken, Spathiphyllum, tvb

..is going to look awfully suspicious.  Which is a shame, because
the skill required to design a building that falls in on itself under
unthinkable circumstances to protect surrounding buildings is
extraordinary.  This is not what
we want a 20, 30, or 100-floor building to do.

You can never ask too many questions.

by socratic on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:22:34 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Yeah, I think it's an amazing
testament (8+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

RunawayRose,
Avila, highacidity, dmsilev, Cedwyn, socratic, Spathiphyllum, Quicklund

to human engineering that so few other buildings were destroyed by
the two towers falling. Imagine how many they could have destroyed if
they fell at an angle!

Please give me a
job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:23:43 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

still unconvinced
(0
/ 0)

The buildings fell with incredible symmetry (vertical) even though
they were subjected to such asymmetrical damage.  Specifically, I
find it hard to reconcile that the steel and concrete failed on all
points in the entire building simultaneously instead of mainly those
points subjected to the collision.

shorter: one would think if you chopped out part of a tree trunk,
that in a windstorm, it would fall to the side with part of its trunk
missing.

If this "falling into footprints" is so apt to happen (designed
into it), why do demolition experts put so much time into perfectly
timed charges?  I have a feeling whatever happened to the WTCs
falling-wise was more the anomoly than the norm.

We were promised a democracy, sold an oligarchy, and
ended up with a kakistocracy...

by topicalstorm on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:55:18 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Uh... that's sort of the
point... (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

they are designed to fall into their footprints in the event of
collapse even if the damage is asymmetrical. Do you think engineers
are stupid enough to just assume damage will hit the entire building
with symmetry?

Please give me
a job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:57:42 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

see the questions
downthread (0
/ 0)

the "falling into footprints" of WTC 1 and 2 is one
question; why WTC7 collapsed 7  hours later and , for example,
WTC 6 was burned up but did not collapse, is another question.
What is the physics explanation? ]

hark! hark! the Clark!!

by Errol on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:02:11 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Because: (0
/ 0)

WTC 7 was full of gas cannisters and was much weaker
structurally than WTC 6.

Iraq War
news and comment.

by Eternal Hope on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 11:09:05 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Not surprising at
all (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

DelRPCV,
Shadan7, SeattleLiberal,
Arken, tvb, justalittlebitcrazy

The side structures of the building were load bearing. The
concrete floors fell straight down a very strong, rectangular
shaped, steel tube, pulling it down as it went. It would have been
unbelievable if the building did topple over, because that would
mean that somehow the collapsing floors somehow moved sideways,
through the structural support of the building walls, until their
center of gravity was outside of the structural frame.

I don't know about the other comments about buildings being
designed to fall into their footprints. I hadn't heard that. But I
do know that the particular design of the WTC was special, and that
design is directly responsible for the way that it
collapsed.

--
"Cheap Labor Conservative"-use the term everywhere

by pdrap on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:10:40 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

The WTC were supported from
the center (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Cedwyn,
lazybum

Forget the pictures of guys riveting up big rectagular steel
lattices.

Think tree trunk surrounded with a *reeeel loooong
talllll* treehouse with several floors.  The treehouse
walls are relatively light because they support nothing.  They
are attached to the tree trunk with horizontal 4x4's.

In teh case of the WTC, the 'tree trunk' was a very strong,
narrow column in the very center of the building.  It held the
elevator shafts and stairways.  Each office floor was supported
from the center out, not from the walls in.

As the fire burned, the supporting steel weakened.
Eventually, the center column softened enough so it could not
hold up all the floors above it.  It failed, and all the floors
collapsed down.

Now supports designed to suspend one story's weight were
supporting 20 stories worth of weight.  Boom, anothe floor
fails, now it's 21 to 21.  boom.  22 to 1.  boom.
boomboomboom.  All the way, staight down to the
ground.

Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool
all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

by Quicklund on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:30:40 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

well (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Quicklund

if the "spine" of the building was truly its center and not its
outer lattice, then it makes much more sense.

I've always been lead to believe it was strong on the outside,
"soft" in the middle.  Thus, if two sides give way, I saw no
reason why the momentum of the structure in that direction
wouldn't fold it in half.  But if it was strongest in the
center...well..that explains a lot.

We were promised a democracy, sold an oligarchy, and
ended up with a kakistocracy...

by topicalstorm on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:48:08 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

When you build somethng
110 stories tall (0
/ 0)

you build it differently from a 5-story building.  The
WTC used a core support design that was a big departure from
standard practiceof the day.  Or so memory tells me ..
trust, but verify.  ;)

Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't
fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's
bookends?

by Quicklund on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:41:34 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

What I heard though is
that it should have (0
/ 0)

Collapsed like phonograph records on a spindle and the spindle
would still be standing in the middle as the floors fell all
around it.

by davidgmills on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:56:30 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Why would it be
standing? (0
/ 0)

When it was at the literal epicenter of a sudden, massive
release of energy?  Laymen call these events
explosions.  There were tons of steel ripping at
the WTC cores.  A record spindle holds up a few grams of
solft vynyl.

Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't
fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's
bookends?

by Quicklund on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:39:28 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

that's a false analogy
though... (0
/ 0)

one would think if you chopped out part of a tree trunk, that
in a windstorm, it would fall to the side with part of its trunk
missing

...a tree trunk collapses and leans over because it is damaged
from the bottom. The towers were damaged from the
top.

The building had nowhere to go but down.

by justalittlebitcrazy
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:56:16 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Incredible symmetry? --
check a photo! (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope, tvb, lazybum

Baltimore
Sun

It's amazing how much bullshit can circulate in the face of
clear, easy-to-find evidence to the contrary (Hint: try Google
Images, trade center collapse).

By the way, the top part rotating like this is perfectly
consistent with it falling straight down. (Hint: nothing is pushing
it significantly to one side.)

Truth first.

by technopolitical on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:17:13 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Osama was trying for a
sideways fall (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Shadan7, highacidity, Arken

As devistating as 0/11 was, Osama's vision was even worse.
The buildings were not yet full, and they did not fall sideways
as Osama hoped.  He was hoping for over 100,000 dead!

Good thing we invaded Iraq instead of getting him, eh?

Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool
all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

by Quicklund on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:18:58 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

And I heard a former DHS
official on NPR today (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Shadan7,
highacidity,
Quicklund

say that the reason there's been such a long time between 9/11
and the next attack is that Osama wants the next one to be far more
spectacular.

Please give me
a job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:20:43 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Could be...part of the
equasion, at least. n/t (0
/ 0)

Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't
fool all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's
bookends?

by Quicklund on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:31:58 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

They've been saying that
for a while. (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis, Quicklund

My opinion is that they are guessing.

Pro-life=Anti-sex

by coigue on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:52:25 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

This was someone highly
critical of Bush. (0
/ 0)

So this is not exactly an administration shill...

Please
give me a job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:58:45 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I totally believe
you. (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Arken, begone

If they WERE administration shills they would have said
that they haven't done it again because of security.

Pro-life=Anti-sex

by coigue on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:15:31 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

So what? (0
/ 0)

The 9/11 conspiracy nuts are also highly critical of Bush,
but that doesn't lend their claims any credence.

by jqb on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 11:06:23 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

What? (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, tvb

Where did you hear that? If Osama wanted the buildings to be full
why didn't he order the attack for 1130am?

How do you know he was hoping for 100k dead?

Let's make rope.

by AnonymousArmy on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:01:12 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

He told me. (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

gkn, tvb

Pro-life=Anti-sex

by coigue on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:16:00 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

this sort of baseless claim
is no better than the (0
/ 0)

ravings of the CTs.  The planners of the attack couldn't
have known that the buildings would fall.  OTOH, then could and
did know how many people would be in the towers at the time they
were struck.  The notion that they hoped to kill far more is
grounded in the severely mistaken belief that "they hate us for our
freedoms".  The WTC was not representative of "our freedoms",
but it was symbolic of the global economic power of the U.S., as the
Pentagon is symbolic of the the global military power of the
U.S.

Know thine enemy.

by jqb on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:56:00 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Larry Silverstein (9+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Adam B, RunawayRose, Eternal Hope, highacidity, dmsilev, Cedwyn, socratic, Arken, tvb

said "pull it"; therefore we have absolute proof that WTC7 was destroyed
by a controlled demolition.  Don't try to contradict this explanation
for his words or else you will demonstrate that it makes no sense
whatsoever be a gullible fool who won't face the truth.

by dtj on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:25:39 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Good Diary. But if you think
... (20+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Bob Johnson, Mike S, RunawayRose, Avila, Eternal Hope, Shadan7, highacidity, dmsilev, SeattleLiberal, AnonymousArmy, ChiGirl88, Rick Oliver, Bouwerie Boy, Arken, gkn, Spathiphyllum, tvb, BobzCat, DemocraticLuntz, Quicklund

...it will persuade those who think it was a plot, then you probably
believe Saddam was hiding all the WMDs in his spider-hole.

Can we hold out
this long?

by Meteor Blades
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:21:24 PM PDT

That smell wasn't poison
gas. (9+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, RunawayRose, Avila, Shadan7, highacidity, ChiGirl88, gkn, lazybum, DemocraticLuntz

He'd just been down there a long time.

Please give me a job.
I'm talented.

by Arken on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:22:45 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Probably not (7+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

RunawayRose, Avila, Shadan7, highacidity, Rick Oliver, Arken, lazybum

But I had to try. Call it a compulsion.

-dms

by dmsilev
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:23:03 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Any idea (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, coigue

if there will be another "official" statement or action taken regarding
what is now almost three 9/11 pod people diaries a day?

Like I've told several of them...

It's really ok to think Bush lihop or even mihop just don't do it here
out loud.

Let's make rope.

by AnonymousArmy on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:05:19 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You and your 'science' (19+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, RunawayRose, Avila, bsmcneil, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, Shadan7, highacidity, dmsilev, ChiGirl88, ZappoDave, Bouwerie Boy, Arken, tvb, FrankFrink, BobzCat, lazybum, DemocraticLuntz, Quicklund

Next you'll tell me that evolution is a fact.

We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of the
realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25, -7.18)

by DH from MD
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:22:42 PM PDT

Nah, I'm a physicist (13+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

RunawayRose, Avila, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, Shadan7, highacidity, SeattleLiberal, DH from MD, ChiGirl88, tvb, FrankFrink, DemocraticLuntz, DirkReinecke

I'm the one telling you the world is round and the Earth goes around the
Sun rather than vice versa.

Though, I guess my colleagues and I do have to take some of the blame for
shooting down the whole 4004 BC thing.

-dms

by dmsilev
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:24:17 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

What, you're saying evolution is
independent (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

RunawayRose, Avila, highacidity, dmsilev, Rick Oliver, DemocraticLuntz

of physics? I think most molecular biologists would beg to differ.
;)

Please give me a
job. I'm talented.

by Arken
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:25:21 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

My department (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, highacidity, SeattleLiberal, Arken, gkn, DemocraticLuntz

is in the middle of moving into a new building which the University
decided to name the "Center for Interdisciplinary Science", with the
mission of "blurring the boundaries between the sciences", so I guess
that means I'll have to learn to talk to biologists.

It'll be like mixers back in high school...

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:28:02 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Hint: Never look them
directly in the eyes (11+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, Shadan7, highacidity, dmsilev, SeattleLiberal, ChiGirl88, gkn, FrankFrink, Quicklund

And remember, they're more scared of you than you are of
them.

Please give me a
job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:30:24 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

As a biologist (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, dmsilev, Arken, gkn

I can verify this.

It is a well known fact, that those people who most
want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. -
Douglas Adams

by SeattleLiberal on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:43:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

They'll outnumber us
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

by two to one, and even that's assuming that we forge an alliance
with the chemists.

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:47:05 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Hey, some of the
neurobiologists (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

dmsilev, SeattleLiberal

might be sorta your types (lots of electricity/potential
energy/maths stuff)...but yes, we would still be scared of you.
Or just ask you to come figure out our kinetics
equations.

Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in
R. To go forward, put it in D. -- TrueBlueMajority

by gkn on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:24:57 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Any Astrobiologists
(0
/ 0)

in the mix?

Pro-life=Anti-sex

by coigue on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:53:44 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Age-old quote (9+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Ahianne, highacidity, dmsilev, Cedwyn, AnonymousArmy, Arken, tvb, FrankFrink, BlueBiker

Biology is really Chemistry.
Chemistry is really Physics.

Physics is really Math.
and Math is really hard.

Get your Free
Mac Mini, you know you want one.

by Bush B
Gone on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:39:21 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Better quote (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Cedwyn, Quicklund

All of science is either physics or stamp collecting

-Rutherford

Good quote

Physics is to math what sex is to masturbation
-Feynman

by zephron on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:44:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

How about (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Rick
Oliver

Physics is Philosophy with Integrals.

Zlatko Tesanovic

Get your Free Mac Mini,
you know you want one.

by Bush
B Gone on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:51:04 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Philosphy? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

blueoasis

Philosphy is too important to be left to the philosophers

-Wheeler (I think)

The thing to remember is that "Philosphy" use to mean what we
call science today, probably most aligned with what we call
"physics", that is the attempt to apply rational thought to the
natural world in a quantitative manner.

This is where the Straussian's get all fucked up!  See,
when Plato talked about "Philospher Kings" he was talking about
me!  Not the shit that passes for "philosphy" these
days (of which Leo Strauss was a fine example).  I'll tell
you right now that the NSF budget would be a little
different!

by zephron on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:02:25 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Funny, I heard that
Rutherford quote (0
/ 0)

attributed to Lord Kelvin.

I wonder if it's just an urban legend...

Please give me
a job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:51:58 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Well (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Arken

there was a poster of that quote hanging in my department.
Although that doesn't prove validity of the author of the
quote itself.

Get your Free Mac Mini,
you know you want one.

by Bush B Gone on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:54:57 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Does this speak to math, or
to Feynman? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

BlueBiker

Perhaps not an exciting date ... I'm just sayin'.

Lincoln said it; Bush proves it: "...but you can't fool
all the people all the time." Are these men the GOP's bookends?

by Quicklund on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:35:20 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

He was to hear the
stories! (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Quicklund

I remember one where he was at an undergrad party wearing his
Nobel on a chain around his neck.  That's one funky
dude.

by zephron on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:57:04 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I love stamp
collecting: (0
/ 0)

I wish I was a gentlewoman Biologist like Darwin. Those were the
fun days (of Biology, Natural History and Geography)

What an adventure was the voyage of the Beagle.

Pro-life=Anti-sex

by coigue on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:55:22 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Nothing wrong
(0
/ 0)

with stamp collecting...

Taxomony is the beginning, but understanding is the goal
;).

by zephron on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:57:43 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I don't know.
(0
/ 0)

I think Darwin's conclusions were unwelcome revelations. I
think that he would have rather remained a
Taxonomist/Geologist.

Pro-life=Anti-sex

by coigue on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:19:56 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Fuller version of the
quote (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope, Arken

GOD is applied POWER
which is applied GOVERNMENT

which is applied POLITICS

which is applied ADVERTISING

which is applied SOCIOLOGY

which is applied PSYCHOLOGY

which is applied BIOLOGY

which is applied CHEMISTRY

which is applied PHYSICS

which is applied MATH

which is applied PHILOSOPHY

which is applied BULLSHIT

by lazybum on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:49:46 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Physicist... (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, dmsilev, tvb

...biologist, dentist, economist.  You're all the same to
me.

We will appoint as...officials, only men that know the law of
the realm and are minded to keep it well. -- Magna Carta, #46 (-6.25,
-7.18)

by DH from
MD on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:42:39 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Until you can (8+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Shadan7, highacidity, dmsilev, SeattleLiberal, coigue, Arken, tvb

prove that Jesus walked the Americas then I will not believe anything
that you tell me.

"I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat.
When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young.
Mideast Vacation.

by Mike S
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:49:25 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Is that the question though?
(0
/ 0)

I thought that the real question was why it fell at all, since it was not
hit.

by karenc13
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:27:50 PM PDT

yes, (0+
/ 0-)

and a good 7 hours after the others fell.
I'd love a
scientific, non-tinfoil explanation.
[it was not contiguous to WTC1 and
2, and WTC 6, also not contiguous, did not collapse though it was
essentially burned up., and sat there as a multi-storied charred shell.

hark! hark! the Clark!!

by Errol on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:54:40 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Here is another one for ya
(2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Eternal Hope, Arken

This is a steel tower set on fire by a welders tourch.  Notice how
much it is bending from the heat and after the fire-fighters spray it with
water it regains its orginal shape.  This pretty much seals the fact that
the fire from the planes caused the demise of the WTF.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0406/319299.html

NO

by tarminian
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:30:02 PM PDT

Jeez I can't spel tonight
(0
/ 0)

Brain not wooorking.....

NO

by tarminian on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:33:00 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You're right (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

CarolynC967, Wbythebay

The conspiracy detonation theory is just crap.

==============================================

They let it happen on purpose.

It was part of the PNAC studies and what they planned to do.

There see? Feel better? It wasn't a conspiracy theory at all, it was an
actual conspiracy.

Face the reality. It's the PNAC plan and it's on to Iran.

by ZappoDave
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:34:23 PM PDT

You're right (I think) (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

AnonymousArmy, ZappoDave, CarolynC967, Wbythebay

My 9/11 questions center around "why" (did it happen to benefit the same
people who neglected to stop it) and not "how" (did the buildings fall).
I'm no as sure as you are that there was complicity
-- big claims need big evidence.  But I don't put anything past these
criminals...denying

by berns19
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:48:55 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

So physicist, why do you give an
example (0
/ 0)

That is not remotely like what happened?

Drop 30 stories on 70 stories and then tell me what happens.

But before you do figure out what makes the 30 stories drop to begin
with.

by davidgmills on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:49:29 PM PDT

I'm sorry, Mrs. Mills...
(7+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, highacidity, dmsilev, Cedwyn, SeattleLiberal, Rick Oliver

David's reading skills aren't up to snuff. He may have to repeat a grade
if he doesn't improve by the end of this term...

Please give me a job.
I'm talented.

by Arken on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:50:49 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Yeah right. I am afraid that they
are. (0
/ 0)

Dropping a ten pound bowling ball on somebody's are from ten feet is
not the same as dropping thirty stories on seventy.

All it does is prove force.  It does not prove how much
force.

by davidgmills on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:55:49 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

No, they aren't the
same. (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Adam B, Avila, highacidity, dmsilev

You might want to go to a dictionary and find the word 'analogy.'

You could be in for some enlightenment.

Please give me a
job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:59:41 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Analogy's are supposed to be
close and similar (0
/ 0)

These fail on both accounts.

I am not saying that he is not right.  All I am saying is that
it doesn't convince me of much because the twothings are way too
dissimilar.

by davidgmills on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:02:32 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Analogy is very
accurate (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Eternal
Hope, Arken, tvb

Mass at rest high up = potential energy
Mass in motion =
kinetic energy

Night and day

Once 30 stories begins to move (even a fraction of an inch) the
lower 70 stories have no more chance of stopping it than your hand
has of stopping the bowling ball from the ceiling.

-2.38 -4.87: Maturity - Doing what you know is right
even though you were told to do it.

by grapes on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:51:13 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Building...bowling ball
(0
/ 0)

Building....bowling ball

Yep, sounds like the same amout of force to me, they weigh about the
same, no?

by ChiGirl88 on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:15:26 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

There's this thing we physicists
study (8+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope, highacidity, SeattleLiberal, ChiGirl88, Arken, tvb, Mia Dolan

called gravity.

You may have heard of it. Isaac Newton and the apple?

-dms

by dmsilev
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:55:36 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

No shit! (0
/ 0)

by davidgmills on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 06:56:22 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Yeah, but progress: (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

SeattleLiberal,
gkn, greenearth, lazybum

Newtonian Gravity:  We can solve the two-body
problem but not the three-body problem.

General Relativity:   We can solve the one-body
problem but not the two-body problem

String Theory:           We
can't even solve the one-body problem : (.

by zephron on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:08:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Don't get me started on string
theory (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope, lazybum

and its descendants.

I'm half-convinced it's the biggest waste of time since
epicycles.

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:14:15 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Maybe. (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

lazybum

It certainly is the quickest way to no career.

But, it does do a half-way decent job of unifying things, sort of.
Of course, anything that doesn't make a single testable
prediction could make the same claim.

by zephron on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:18:06 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Archaeology (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

lazybum

A career in ruins from the start...

Is the quickest way to no career, by ruining it from the
start.

Losing my Enlightenment...

by DirkReinecke on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:44:05 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Here it is (10+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Adam B, Ahianne, highacidity, SeattleLiberal, AnonymousArmy, Rick Oliver, tvb, begone, Mia Dolan, Quicklund

The 30 stories dropped because fire softened the steel floor support.
Each floor was attached into the support system which had an internal
support, and the external walls of the towers.

Now, fire softens the steel, and 30 floors drop. They dont drop onto 70
floors, first the top 30 drop onto the 1 floor below it. You've got 1 floor
supporting 30. Oops, it breaks. Now, that one drops onto the 1 floor below
that. You've got 1 floor supporting 31 floors. Ooops, that one breaks
too.

And so on, all the way down. It's simple to understand, and frankly if
you don't get it, you are beyond help.

--
"Cheap Labor Conservative"-use the term everywhere

by pdrap on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:16:33 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You had a job with the 911
Commission (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

Eternal Hope

Did you not?

by davidgmills on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:33:30 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

In 10 seconds? No resistance from
a lower floor? (0
/ 0)

by greenearth on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:38:26 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Not enough to brake it.
(0
/ 0)

Think back to the bowling ball.

Iraq War news
and comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:07:38 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

given that explanation..
(0
/ 0)

Can you offer an analysis of the following graph, which shows
calculated times it would take for each of the floors to give? here

with more info available at http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Also, are you a physicist, or involved in any scientific
field?

by bvac
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:44:07 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

easy. (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Mia Dolan

Jane doe made it up.

Here is the kicker....

Note, if some part must stop and then restart its descent every
floor, the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds.
Given that the building disintegrated from the top down, it is
difficult to believe there could be much momentum to transfer, anyway.
Also, consider the energy required to pulverize the floor
between each "pancake."  After being pulverized, the
surface-area/mass is greatly increased and the air resistance becomes
significant.  I don't believe this pulverized material can
contribute any momentum as it "hangs" in the air and floats down at a
much-much slower rate than the "collapsing" floors.

Let's make rope.

by AnonymousArmy on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:43:01 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

which (0
/ 0)

which part is made up? You'll have to be more specific. I don't see
how the quoted part kicks anything, which is why I asked for
analysis.

by bvac on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:52:50 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

This part: (1+
/ 0-)

Note, if some part must stop and then restart its descent every
floor, the total collapse time must be more than 10 seconds.

I watched the collapse. It did not stop and restart. Your site is
operating off of a completely false premise.

Iraq War
news and comment.

by Eternal Hope on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:09:14 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

precisely (0
/ 0)

The site isn't mine, I just came across it and brought it up
for discussion. It does take into consideration what you
witnessed, though. Which is where the following graph comes in: here

For it not to stop and restart, each floors supports would have
to fail simultaneously or ahead of time (unlikely), or there would
have to be enough force to pulverize the concrete in the way it
did and compromise the supports of the floor beneath, and also
have enough energy left over to maintain the momentum of a free
fall (unfeasible). That is my understanding of the situation, does
yours differ? Also, are you a physicist or in any scientific
field?

by bvac on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:22:29 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

who is janedoe
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

why should I believe her when she doesn't cite a single
source to back up what she claims.

Further it would mean no structural damage occurred to floors
beneath as multiple floors were impacting above.

Although I'm just a crusty french chef I think it is
reasonable to assume that severe structural dammage was
occurring below the pancaking floors.

Let's make rope.

by AnonymousArmy
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 11:10:32 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

there's (0
/ 0)

no reason to believe this person, but the methodology is
all there to look at yourself. They're only graphs. It doesn't
necessarily mean there was no structural damage to the floors
below, it only means that if there is even a minimum amount of
resistance the fall time would be longer than 10 seconds. Only
in an ideal scenario of all floors failing simultaneously or
ahead of time does the 10 second fall time make sense. So our
understandings of the situation do not differ
greatly.

by bvac on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 11:25:27 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Actually: (0
/ 0)

For it not to stop and restart, each floors supports would
have to fail simultaneously or ahead of time...

That's exactly what happened because there was so much weight
on the floors. They were only designed to hold the floor about
them. I'm not, so I recognize my limitations. I'm simply going
by what Popular Mechanics and the diarist, real scientists, are
saying.

I have no idea who JaneDoe is. Therefore, her case is called
faith-based logic.

Iraq
War news and comment.

by Eternal Hope
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 11:41:56 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

not exactly
(0
/ 0)

If each floor was designed to carry the weight of the
floors above it, I would imagine the collapse would slow down
towards the end, and there would be a stack of floors instead
of a pile of pulverized stuff. That wasn't the case though and
thats not how it was designed. The building contained a
central core, trusses, and cross-trusses holding up the
floors. If there was any resistance at all it would not have
fallen in the time it did. So either all the floors failed at
the same time, or in rapid succession before being collapsed
upon.

The argument doesn't hinge on the person's credibility, it
is simply a chart showing projected times it would take to
fall in different circumstances. It has nothing to do with PM
or the diarist.

by bvac on Wed
May 03, 2006 at 12:22:15 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Actually:
(0
/ 0)

The higher a building falls from, the more it accelerates
the fall due to gravity. Each floor was only designed to
carry the floor above it, meaning there was hardly any
resistance.

Iraq War news and
comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Wed
May 03, 2006 at 03:03:54 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

My favorite part (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

Is that the people who took the seismic data don't see a problem, but
this jerkoff does.  That's awesome.

by Mia
Dolan on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:38:13 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

My favorite (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Mike S, Ahianne, SeattleLiberal, ChiGirl88, tvb, lazybum

is the one where they point to "squibbs" exploding out the side as the
building collapses as evidence of "explosions"...

I suggested they go stomp on a milk carton and tell me where the milk
goes.

by fblau on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:55:56 PM PDT

Still the best (13+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, Avila, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, highacidity, dmsilev, SeattleLiberal, ChiGirl88, Rick Oliver, Arken, tvb, lazybum, Mia Dolan

was the one where the guy said that Stargate SG1 was proof that the
government was capable of a massive cover up.

"I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When
they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast
Vacation.

by Mike S on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:07:45 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

That's a good one (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Ahianne, highacidity

Did they get their list of Cabinet officers from The West Wing?

-dms

by dmsilev on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:15:11 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Hey, that was low :-)
(0
/ 0)

I can't be the only one who wishes the administration on West Wing
were actually running things... geez.

Misled Into War: A
Timeline/DowningStreetMemo.com

by highacidity on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:00:15 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Timeline problem (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Cedwyn, greenearth

I'm not a supporter of this consipracy theory but your thesis has a timeline
problem. The South Tower (which would have had the most impact on Building
7 from falling debris) collapsed at 10:05 am. The North tower about 20 minues
later. Building 7 didn't collapse until 5:20 pm, 7 hours later.

Are you suggesting that if I dropped a bowling ball on my hand from ceiling
height I would not feel any pain for 7 hours?

by Rp on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:58:12 PM PDT

additional questions (3+
/ 8-)

Recommended by:

dsteele2, greenearth, free speach 07

Trollrated by:

Mike S, DelRPCV, jqb, Eternal Hope, coigue, Arken, tvb, BobzCat

yes i see your point, rp.

here are some more i have.  assuming we can still have questions
about nine eleven--or are we forced to accept the government's outrageously
unbelievable "conspiracy theory"?  i know what the tv said over and
over.  but have we reached the point where we must swallow that dung
without even chewing?  in my view, nothing about the government's story
that day makes any sense, if you look at the actual physical evidence we
have.

in human history only three steel frame buildings have fallen because of
fire damage.  all three fell on one day.  nine eleven.

wtc7 fell in near free-fall speed.  no plane hit it.  had some
fires but they were too small and certainly too random to produce an
absolutely perfect "controlled demo" fall.

every cubic inch of that building began to fall at the same time.
no random damage of any kind can produce that effect.

weeks later, sat photos revealed a near molten hot spots under all of the
buildings' debris, including that of wtc7.

indeed, there is only one cause that could produce a fall like that of
wtc7 (excepting an act of god), and that is a carefully planned series of
explosives.

by jaras
hands on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:13:05 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Or (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, Mike S, Avila, Rick Oliver, begone

there was a Stargate in the basement, and someone came through and blew
it up.

BTW, where did you get your info from (I don't see a link) because its
pretty much 100 percent wrong.

by Mia
Dolan on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:18:21 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

what exactly is wrong?
(0
/ 0)

Objective truth is not the same as consensus reality

by djheru on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:19:18 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

OK (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Rick Oliver, begone

No other steel buildings collapsed, every cubic inch began to fall
at the same time, molten hot spots, WTC7 fires being small.  Its
all bullshit propigated by the conspiracy nutjobs.

by Mia
Dolan on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:26:12 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Thanks for clearing this
up. New to this (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

begone

Controversy. I actually just watched Loose Change last wknd at
the urging of a friend from high school.  I don't really
believe the WTC 7 story, but I like to do research before I commit
to one side or the other

Objective truth is not the same as consensus
reality

by djheru on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:44:38 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

But Mia... (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

dmsilev, Bouwerie Boy, Arken, tvb, Mia Dolan, BlueBiker

... did you notice...

There was not a single capital letter in that whole
post!!!!1

Someone disappeared them, I'm sure of it.

Misled Into War: A
Timeline/DowningStreetMemo.com

by highacidity on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:38:04 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

A question. (7+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, Avila, Ahianne, highacidity, coigue, tvb, Mia Dolan

It seems to me that you are not one of the idiots that thinks 1 and 2
were controlled demos. But you do think that 7 was.

So, what is the thinking on this? That the Bush admin and PNAC were
precient enough to know that there would be planes crashed into the two
towers so they planted explocives in tower 7 so they could knock that one
down themselves?

"I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat.
When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young.
Mideast Vacation.

by Mike S
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:25:50 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

7 could be controlled
demolition (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

brady4747

without any connection to PNAC or Bush or whatever - it
could be  about Larry Silverstein  collecting insurance $ -
just a thought

hark! hark! the Clark!!

by Errol
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:59:38 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

So he went in after the
buildings had been (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Mike S, Avila, highacidity, SeattleLiberal, tvb

attacked, planted demolition charges carefully to ensure it was a
safe demolition and then got out and no one found out about it. Yeah.
I'll buy that one.

Please give me a
job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:02:46 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

it was 7 hours plus
after (0
/ 0)

collapse of the two towers. -  how long does it
take to set up a demolition? (i have no idea)
- or, just to push
the Silverstein greed theory a bit, because of the enormous damage
to the other buildings the rest of the site (4, 5, 6) - across the
street from 7 btw, is going to have to be cleared. but 7, still
standing with only "surface" damage, relatively speaking,  will
be enormously expensive to clean up and make usable again because of
the toxic debris; so hey ...;

hark! hark! the Clark!!

by Errol on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:19:43 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

It takes days to set up a
controlled demolition. (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila,
highacidity,
tvb

So your hypothesis just doesn't work.

Please give
me a job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:23:06 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

ok, thanks for
reply (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Arken

n/t

hark! hark! the Clark!!

by Errol on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:27:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

How would he have done
it? (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, highacidity, tvb

Did he know ahead of time that 1 and 2 were going to be
attacked?

Did he run in during the chaos and plant hundreds of
bombs?

"I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat.
When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil
Young. Mideast Vacation.

by Mike
S on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:02:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Hmm... (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Ahianne

Not a conspiracy nut, but... (is this like saying, "now my best friend is
black, but"?)

I thought the issue, inelegantly and inexpertly, raised was that the
collapse was too near free-fall.  Naively, one might think that the
internal structure of the building would impede collapse.  After all, it
was capable of handling the gravitational stress beforehand (and probably a
good fraction more).

As with all things, the devil is in the details.  In this case they
depend upon the details of the failure modes of the steel substructure.
Once the steel begins to plastically deform, my understanding is that it
looses the majority of its strength.  Thus a support structure that
initially was more than sufficient is now deficient by as much as an order of
magnitude.  The result is a rapid collapse.

This is all predicated upon the notion that something initiated a collapse
that lead to such a deformation of portions of the substructure.  If your
tin foil hat has been well fit, this is explosive charges (tin foil is neat!).
If you believe the standard story, it was damage due to the collapse of
the nearby towers.  In either case, once it starts, it finishes in
roughly the same way.  Thus, it seems to me, that it will be difficult to
accurately determine the source of the damage from movies of the fall
itself.

by zephron on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:59:29 PM PDT

The point of the analogy
(3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Ahianne, SeattleLiberal, ChiGirl88

is that once the collapse gets going, there's enough mass in the falling
sections that the lower floors offer little resistance. Yes, they delay the
collapse by a bit, but not enough to be easily measureable by anything
except a very careful timing system. And very careful timing systems were
somewhat lacking on that day.

Also, note the difference between supporting a static load (holding the
ball) and resisting a large dynamic load (stopping the falling ball). Same
object, but the effect on your wrist is very different.

-dms

by dmsilev
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:06:29 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Not quite. (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

dmsilev

The problem is that the "official story" isn't that large chunks of the
twin towers rained down upon WTC-7.  Rather that internal structural
damage did it in (I think, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

So, in this case there we don't win via the large fall down the
gravitational potential that your unfortunate victim (undergrad?) suffers
from during the bowling ball test.  Rather we have a more mundane
situation where his arm just gets tired.

So, what is the stress tensor of a tired arm?  Or for a damaged
building?  If it indeed fell at nearly free-fall (where nearly is say
within 10%, which we should be able to gauge from video and comparison to
loose debri), then this means that the internal support had
failed badly.  As I said previously, there are a number of perfectly
reasonable ways for this to happen, but it is more complicated than just
bowling balls.

By the way, aren't you supposed to like tin foil?  I'm a theorist,
so I'm partial to chalk myself.

by zephron on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:19:47 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

This has been debunked:
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

It
was a combination of debris, a fire that ignited WTC-7, and the
building's structural weaknesses.

Iraq War news
and comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:15:03 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I know it's forbidden (13+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Eternal Hope, Wee Mama, highacidity, dmsilev, Cedwyn, SeattleLiberal, ChiGirl88, Arken, tvb, greenearth, Mia Dolan

I know it's against the rules to "call someone out" and identify a Kossack
by their real name

But I can't resist

I KNOW who dmsilev really is:

Galileo Galilei

UNCLE SAM wants
YOU to help IMPEACH
BUSH

by RumsfeldResign on Tue May
02, 2006 at 06:59:34 PM PDT

Eppur si muove n/t (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Ahianne, Cedwyn, Arken

by dmsilev
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:03:11 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

But it does move! nt (0
/ 0)

UNCLE SAM
wants YOU to help IMPEACH BUSH

by RumsfeldResign on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:09:06 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

First let me state (0+
/ 0-)

That I don't believe the tin foil stuff.  But your analogy doesn't
hold water.  A bowling ball falling through the air doesn't remotely
compare to a skyscraper falling.

Objective truth is not the same as consensus reality

by djheru on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:02:48 PM PDT

I realize it isn't perfect
(2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope

But gravity will move ALL objects toward the center of the earth at
9.8m/s2.

A falling building follows the same laws as a bowling ball. The longer it
falls, the more force it can deliver when it hits something. And not much
would be able to slow the collapse once it started.

It is a well known fact, that those people who most want to
rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. - Douglas
Adams

by SeattleLiberal on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:00:45 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

It's not about physics, though
(4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, Eternal Hope, highacidity, tvb

it's psychological...some people can't deal with a world in which a handful
of fanatics could have caused the destruction of the WTC; they prefer to
believe that an all-powerful cabal controls everything and decided it was in
their interest to allow the U.S. to be attacked this way. I think these people
(the conspiracy nuts) actually take comfort in believing Bush's crowd controls
everything...it's easier than acknowledging the chaotic reality of the
world...

"All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries
whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

by Alice in
Florida on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:05:18 PM PDT

in the same vein (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

vinylgirl, greenearth, Wbythebay

some people cant deal with a world where the government of their country
could have caused the destruction of the WTC.  They prefer to believe
that a group of third world terrorists were able to coordinate one of the
most sophisticated attacks in history without any help from inside. It's
easier than believing that everything you've been taught about America is
false

Objective truth is not the same as consensus reality

by djheru
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:08:49 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I have this psychological
need... (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Eternal Hope,
highacidity, SeattleLiberal

...for convincing evidence before I buy into these
conspiracy theories. A lot of these are based on somebody's wild-assed
guesses about the physical evidence or a few pixels in a photo somewhere.

I can't speak for all the skeptics, but you come up with something more
compelling and I'll listen. Until then...

by m on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:28:54 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Sophisticated attack...
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Mia Dolan

It wasn't. The understanding of the reaction which the US people would
undergo and the effort and vigour with which the US people would wish to
destroy themselves is where the sophistication comes in.

It was well co-ordinated with 25% of the objectives not being achieved
due to interference. The materials required for the execution of the plan
was not difficult to aquire or use.

And I think you will be amazed at what can be achieved in the the third
world.

You know, we are not savages out here, we can do difficult things.

Like type and think rationally and, um stuff like that.

Losing my Enlightenment...

by DirkReinecke on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:51:00 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Yikes! (0
/ 0)

This diary exploded fast. Anyway, I'd like to see a discussion and
physicist's analysis of this:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Particularly the pancake graphs: here
and here

by bvac on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:05:38 PM PDT

You would think the physicist would
be interested (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

greenearth

in this since it starts with billiard balls.

Eight seconds of seismic activity vs. 9.22 seconds for a billiard in free
fall in a vacuum.

by davidgmills on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:31:48 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I watched the collapse.
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

I specificly remember both buildings collapsing a lot faster than the 30
seconds claimed by the website you give.

You and dave have no case.

Iraq War news and
comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:19:21 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I think (0
/ 0)

you are missing the point of the site. It is not claiming that the
buildings collapsed in 30 (or 96) seconds. By all accounts, the South
Tower fell in ~10 seconds. The question raised by the site is why did it
fall at near-free fall speed (9.22 seconds). The 30 second figure is
taking into account the resistance and momentum of the floors, should they
offer any. The scenario in which the fall clocks in at around 10 seconds
involves every floors support failing either simultaneously or ahead of
time.

by bvac
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:37:50 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

The lower floors: (0
/ 0)

They did not offer much resistance at all, because they were designed
to hold up only the next floor. So, the combination of gravity and
downward pressure from the weight of the floor above accelerated the
collapse.

Iraq War news
and comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 11:46:11 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

the floors (0
/ 0)

would provide some degree of resistance, especially at the
beginning. If the floor support failed immediately on impact, there
would not be enough energy to pulverize the concrete and at the same
time maintain the momentum, so there would be an effect similar to
what is shown in the 30-second drop graph. We agree the building fell
in 10 seconds, therefore there had to be no resistance at all in the
fall. If there was no resistance, that means the floor supports had to
fail before they were collapsed upon, or all fail simultaneously. It
is the only physical way for the building to collapse in roughly 10
seconds.

by bvac on Wed
May 03, 2006 at 12:32:13 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Think of a floor having to
hold up 30. (0
/ 0)

When it was designed for one.

Think of the downward pressure it would cause, supported by a
melting beam.

Iraq War
news and comment.

by Eternal Hope on Wed
May 03, 2006 at 03:00:00 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

You might start with (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, Ahianne, DaveV, tvb, BobzCat

Becoming familiar with some of the facts of collapse of WTC 7...

Start here: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf

Get back to us once you've read that.

It makes it pretty clear that the collapse of WTC7 was PROGRESSIVE, not
immediate and catastrophic.

When you can convince me that your credentials for discussing the FACTS are
superior to those of the NIST, I'm all ears.

by fblau on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:06:39 PM PDT

Quit being a snarky asshole and try
to (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

jqb

simulate the problem.

Do some calculations.

Tell us about how hot you think things got.  Tell us why the steel
failed.

I will listen.

Tell us why 7 fell.  No plane hit.

Look I am not a physicist and I don't know but I will listen to anyone who
has put in some time studying the problem.

Here's a thought experiment.  I'm Osama.  I want to bring down
the WTC's.  I come to you to ask how.  You tell me to fly planes
into them.  I want to know your idea will work.  Tell me why it
will.

by davidgmills on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:07:53 PM PDT

I'm being a snarky asshole
(6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope, highacidity, ChiGirl88, tvb, BobzCat

because nothing else seems to get through to you people. As I said
upthread, I'm just sick and tired of seeing the same damned arguments over
and over and over again, with all of the counterarguments tossed aside like
so many irrelevancies.

At least snark seems to provoke a response.

-dms

by dmsilev
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:11:55 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I know you are a physicist
(0
/ 0)

Not a chemist but could it be that the heat necessary to really weaken
the steel came from the alumininum of the planes and iron rust from the
buildings to make a thermite like reaction?

How likely would this be?

by davidgmills on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:50:29 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

sigh... (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

jqb, Eternal Hope, highacidity, hhex65

the STEEL did not NEED to be weakened if the friggin' BOLTS holding
the pieces together failed (due to the insulating foam being
insufficient to withstand the heat from a fully laden plane of jet
fuel.

sheeeeeessssshhhh - i HATE this twisted logic that is based on a
dumbass philosophy professor with a bug up his degree!!!!!!!!!!

going away from this thread now....  i'm NOT going to suffer
fools yet again!

Russ Feingold for
President, 2008

by edrie on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:16:03 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Ready (11+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Mike S, Avila, Eternal Hope, highacidity, dmsilev, hhex65, ChiGirl88, Arken, tvb, begone, Quicklund

Read it slowly.

There were some really tall buildings nearby.

Those really tall buildings were hit by airplanes and
caught fire.

Those really tall (now burning) buildings collapsed.

Parts of those collapsing really tall burning buildings hit
WTC7.

WTC7 burned out of control for a long time and
collapsed.

If it didn't make sense the first time, read it again.

by Mia
Dolan on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:23:24 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

why didn't WTC 6, also
nearby, (0
/ 0)

also collapse? it was burned up, but didn't collapse.

hark! hark! the Clark!!

by Errol
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:29:40 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Every single building on
earth (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, tlh lib

is exactly the same, right?

No?  Ok, then maybe WTC6 had a better design.  Or more
asbestos insulation on the beams.  Or didn't get hit with as much
debris.

by Mia
Dolan on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:34:54 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

if only. WTC 6 hit by
debris (0
/ 0)

from collapsing towers, huge crater in the middle and
enormous fire damage. Also, WTC 6 situated between WTC 7 and the North
Tower, so much closer to the falling debris . But WTC 6 was a much
smaller building (and what was in it?)

hark! hark! the Clark!!

by Errol on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:51:56 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Chuck Norris's tears can
cure cancer (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, tlh lib, highacidity, hhex65, SeattleLiberal

too bad he's never cried.

by Mia
Dolan on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:58:15 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

?is this an analogy? I'm
afraid I don't (0
/ 0)

get it.

hark! hark! the Clark!!

by Errol on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:39:37 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

That's not an
analogy (0+
/ 1-)

Trollrated by:

jqb

That's a dismissal.  I've seen Silverstein on tape say
the decision was made to "pull" the building, and he's talking
about WTC7.  None of these coincidence theorists have
addressed this point.

I can accept the twin towers pancaking.  It's logical.
Steel doesn't have to melt, only soften.  But when
there is stated evidence by Silverstein, they have no excuse not
to accept a "conspiracy" other than obtuseness.

As I tell my students in regards to critical thinking, "Who
killed Julius Caeser?  A conspiracy."

We need to move forward with Mars exploration in
order to rapture the fundamentalists into the heavens... before
they kill us all.

by Ghost of
Godwin on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:11:14 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

You teach a class in
critical thinking? (7+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal
Hope, highacidity,
dnta,
tvb, BobzCat,
DirkReinecke

That is absolutely the most depressing thing I have heard
in a long time.

I personally have addressed that point like three times on
this thread alone.  Silverstein explained that he meant
pull the firefighters because it was not going well and a lot
of firefighters had died already.  "Pull it" is not even
a demolition term.  It makes 100 percent perfect sense
unless you are one of these lying whackjobs.

I really really really feel sorry for your students.

by Mia Dolan on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:20:30 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

WTC 6 (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, jqb, tlh lib, Mia Dolan

didn't have several thousand gallons of combustible fuel stored in
it.

by tvb
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:23:12 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

WTC7 & WTC6 (2+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

brady4747, free speach 07

Trollrated by:

jqb

4.    Parts of those collapsing really tall
burning buildings hit WTC7.
5.    WTC7 burned out of
control for a long time and collapsed.

Actually WTC7 was only lightly hit, and the fires were mostly or
completely burned out by time the collapse started in both buildings. WTC6
was hit by a massively larger amount of debris.

WTC7 did not burn out of control for several hours. The
"out-of-control" part came near the end. Several fire-fighters have said
on record that they could have handled the fires in all three buildings.
In fact in the late 70s or early 80s there was a large fire high up one of
the Twins that was brought under control quickly. I understand the
circumstances are different.

And both buildings were built in the same timeframe by the same people
using the same architects and design.

And Silberstein went on PBS and said over the open airwaves to millions
of people that he ordered the building to be "pulled." And then he watched
them pull it. He said this in plain English. This counts for nothing?

PS Just because someone doesn't agree you is no justification for
insulting them. Truthfully, neither your own step-by-step "explanation"
for us simpletons, or your replies are well informed or address some
seriously-raised questions.

Media has a monopoly on content. Bust the monopoly, good
things happen.

by Jim P
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:04:06 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Well (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, tvb

First of all, you are a liar.  WTC was not lightly hit and did
burn out of control.  I don't know if you got your information from
PrisonPlanet or some other nutjob site, but its not true.  You are
the one insulting the users of this site by spreading this garbage.

Silverstein explained that by pull it, he meant pull the firefighters
out.  Contrary to what the 9/11 liars club thinks, pull it is not a
demolition term.  It counts for nothing.  Unless you are a
serial liar like the people pushing the 9/11 conspiracies.  Then it
doesn't rally matter what the truth is.

by Mia
Dolan on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:19:49 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

liars here and there
aside, (0
/ 0)

the reports i've read said building 7 was "lightly hit"
- so the question is what does that mean? how serioiusly was it hit?
only pic i've seen has a fire burning along one of the middle floors
and no window breakage that i can see.

hark! hark! the Clark!!

by Errol on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:26:19 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

What reports are
those? (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

How about a link?

by Mia
Dolan on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:38:29 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

yes, let me look for
one (0
/ 0)

(have lots of print info because i saved newspapers)
- if i don't get it tonight, i will reply later to this thread, so
you'll see it on your comments page. i want to look for something
authoritative.

hark! hark! the Clark!!

by Errol on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:44:37 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Oh, also (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Mike S, Avila, Eternal Hope

The Ori came from their galaxy through the Stargate in the basement and
blew it up with alien technology causing every square inch of WTC7 to begin
to fall at the same time.

by Mia
Dolan on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:27:38 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Wrong. (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

You're making the assertion that Bush or Cheney blew up the WTC. You
supply the proof.

And why should I listen to you, since you are not qualified by your own
admission?

Iraq War news and
comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:20:43 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

keeping a bowling ball from
falling (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Eternal Hope, DaveV, highacidity, dmsilev

is apparently a practical challenge for bowling ball
manufacturers, too...

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice there is."

by Wee Mama
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:09:15 PM PDT

That work (0
/ 0)

has already been done.

And the conclusions are clear.

That you don't read them is not my problem.

by fblau on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:10:58 PM PDT

I seem to be dumb then (1+
/ 1-)

Recommended by:

free speach 07

Trollrated by:

jqb

(b) Explain why you can hold a stationary bowling ball
without trouble, but one dropping from ceiling height will have you in the
emergency room for an extensive session of reconstructive surgery.

I''ve forgotten my high-school science, but I'd think the bowling ball is
moving with a velocity that makes it's effective weight (mass?) a lot more
than 10 pounds, for starters.

Further, there is no structural underpinning to the arm held out, the
muscles in the shoulder, I'd guess with most people, being too distant from
the hand to enable resistance.

Maybe I'm just missing some snark. My arm is flesh and muscle and bone
hanging out there without support. If it were concrete, and held up by steel,
you're saying there wouldn't be any meaningful resistance?

As a layman, I don't see that the analogy holds.

I am awfully dumb. When I hear and see Silberstein saying, not on
TinHatNews, but on PBS, "Let's pull [Building No 7]...and we pulled it" I get
this crazy idea that he said that and it actually meant something. But I guess
he was just, what?, having fun?, a fit of verbal dyslexia (he meant to say
"It's falling")?

When I hear that there is no record of a building with similar construction
ever collapsing from a fire, and I see video of Madrid's fire where the 3rd
day going the steel frame is glowing white hot and completely standing.
..Well it strikes me odd that only this one building collapsed from
containable fires on two floors.

And when the official investigation into 9/11 offers no unequivocable
reason, just a probability, about how No. 7 collapsed... Well that's not both
odd and deficient?

I have about a 25% consideration that maybe there were bombs planted. Seems
like it wasn't really necessary to guarantee that the buildings collapsed, as
long as they were hit.

If demolition were disproved I wouldn't be surprised. I'd still be
convinced, by the complete lack of air defense on this one day and this one
day only, that someone in our government helped make 9/11 possible.

(Hey anyone remember the Anthrax killer? The one who, presciently, drove
Congress from the Capitol buildings. You know, the one who used a strain
produced only by the US military. Whatever happened to him? Is he drawing a
pension somewhere?)

As to the demolition theory, I've seen a lot of outright crackpot stuff
"supporting" it. On the other hand, I've seen little convincing argument and
much scorn from those who claim it just simply could not possibly have
happened.

Media has a monopoly on content. Bust the monopoly, good
things happen.

by Jim P on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:12:34 PM PDT

a significant difference...
(1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Jim P

When I hear that there is no record of a building with similar
construction ever collapsing from a fire, and I see video of Madrid's fire
where the 3rd day going the steel frame is glowing white hot and
completely standing.  ..Well it strikes me odd that only this one
building collapsed from containable fires on two floors.

as I read it is that at the WTC the jet fuel was dispersed over the
"fuel" (paper, carpets, etc, etc, etc) that was already in the building, so
that the fire at the WTC was hotter than the other sky scraper fires
-

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is."

by Wee Mama
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:23:01 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

the fires burned a short
time (0
/ 0)

and certainly not white hot like seen in the Madrid news
videos. And there are photographs of people standing in the gaping hole in
the main buildings where the flames were before but are, at that moment,
no longer.

Another significant difference: there was no jet fuel in Building 7.
What, sympathetic heat then?

It's been posited that fuel stored in the basement of No. 7 caught
fire, and maybe that's the explanation. But all that's actually been seen
and photographed were two relatively handlable fires on something like the
9th and 14th floors.

And I still want to know how it is that al-qaeda picked just that one
day in years where our air defenses were, oddly, completely disengaged
from their normal functioning. Can someone offer a statistical analysis of
the probability on that?

Media has a monopoly on content. Bust the monopoly, good
things happen.

by Jim P
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:37:42 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Coincidences happen all the
time. (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

That is a fact of life, not evidence or proof of a conspiracy.

There were tons of fuel tanks stored in WTC-7, meaning that they
ignited when the debris rained down on WTC-7.

Iraq War news
and comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:35:33 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Well: (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila

We don't have to disprove the demolition theory. They do. Perhaps you'd
like to step to the plate.

Iraq War news and
comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:33:30 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

See (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

tvb

"GO WATCH THE SOUTH TOWER VIDEO, DAMMIT, YOU CAN SEE DEMOLITION SQUIBS AT
ROUGHLY 4-5 STORY INTERVALS DESCENDING JUST AHEAD OF THE FALLING UPPER
STORIES"

Someone who has never stepped on a milk carton... he expects all the milk
to stay vertical and in the carton below his foot.

Go on David, try it sometime. See if you can keep the milk for squirting
out BELOW your foot.

I dare you.

by fblau on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:13:37 PM PDT

Yeah, but what if the video
(0
/ 0)

showed the milk spraying out before you stepped on the carton?

Objective truth is not the same as consensus reality

by djheru
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:14:40 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Well (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Quicklund

You would have to show the fictional squibbs prior to the airplanes
hitting the WTC for that analogy to hold any, um, milk.

by fblau
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:16:05 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

BEcause (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Eternal Hope, highacidity, SeattleLiberal

"I've seen little convincing argument and much scorn from those who claim
it just simply could not possibly have happened."

That's not how it works.

There is no evidence to support the claim that it happened. None.

That's how science works... Just disproving my theory isn't enough to prove
your own.

by fblau on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:15:08 PM PDT

Ive always thought that the tower
7 (0
/ 0)

assertions were the weakest link in the tinfoil conspiracies.  Now
the Ohio mayor, and the pentagon crash, those are a little more thought
provoking

Objective truth is not the same as consensus reality

by djheru
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:17:14 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

So (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

brady4747

Silverstein saying he ordered building 7 pulled is no
evidence? If you saw the PBS documentary on how the collapse happened, you
saw him say it.

For a building to be "pulled" charges have to be in place already. There
is no way around this. Did the man say this? Yes. Do charges have to be in
place? Yes. If charges are in place in one building is it possible--not
proven, not definite--that they are in other buildings. Yes.

This doesn't go away because you say "it can't be."

Here's how it works: Gather the evidence, apply rigorous analysis, find
out the gaps in your knowledge, do what's possible and smart to fill them,
perhaps one day come to a firm conclusion or a "most likely" case. Neither
those "for" nor "against" have finished the "gather the evidence" part yet.
At this moment, those against are as unscientific in their assertions as the
fully convinced. The real test would have been an examination of the
physical evidence. But that was not possible very quickly after 9/11, wasn't
it?

And I haven't seen the formula yet that can make Silverstein's uncoerced
statement disappear.

Media has a monopoly on content. Bust the monopoly, good
things happen.

by Jim P on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:21:31 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

The Formula is this (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, begone

Silverstein explained that by pulling it he meant pull out the
firefighters.  Pull it is not a demolition term.  It doesn't
mean anything at all in that context.  So Silversteins statement
doesn't mean a thing.   Not a god damn thing.  That's the
formula.

by Mia
Dolan on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:51:29 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Your background in
demolition? (0
/ 0)

Media has a monopoly on content. Bust the monopoly, good
things happen.

by Jim
P on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:20:11 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I told a man to pull it.
(2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Arken, Mia Dolan

He pulled my finger.

Losing my Enlightenment...

by DirkReinecke on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:56:38 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Is there anyone that HASN'T
seen (0
/ 0)

Loose Change?

It raised some questions in my mind, but I found it far from
authoritative.

Objective truth is not the same as consensus reality

by djheru on
Tue May
02, 2006 at 07:24:16 PM PDT

Oh god not that again. (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, ChiGirl88, begone, BobzCat

Sigh.

Please give me a job.
I'm talented.

by Arken on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:24:49 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

More hw for the tinfoil
hatters (7+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, Mike S, highacidity, Cedwyn, SeattleLiberal, ChiGirl88, tvb

watch FRONTLINE's "The man who knew"

about John O'Neill, an FBI Al Qaida expert who quit in disgust when the
Bush administration ignored his warnings that OBL would hit the WTC again. He
was obsessed, and after quitting, got a job in security in the WTC.

He died on 9/11.

He would not have let someone plant bombs.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

Pro-life=Anti-sex

by coigue on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:29:00 PM PDT

No problem with my daughters 7lb
ball (1+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

greenearth

I caught it once and deflected it another time (which slowed it down a heck
of a lot).

I didn't feel like doing (a) in detail and since I didn't have trouble
holding/catching the ball in (b) I don't quite see your point...

Next?

by eAddict on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 07:52:08 PM PDT

Damn there is nothing a
physicist (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Arken, greenearth

hates more than to have someone actually do his experiment and prove it
didn't work worth a damn.

by davidgmills on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:02:21 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

The analogy: (0
/ 0)

The WTC floors were only designed to hold up the floor above them. So,
when the planes hit, the floors had to hold up 30 floors of weight instead
of 1. Furthermore, the steel beams melted, weakening the support for the
building.

Therefore, the WTC collapsed, and the floors below could not break the
fall. Just like you couldn't catch a bowling ball from 10 stories up without
breaking a hand.

Iraq War news and
comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 10:40:40 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

One picky point. (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Errol, SeattleLiberal

The folks you're rebutting are not "9/11 conspiracy theorists," or, more
precisely, we all are 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Everyone agrees that
this was a criminal act perpetrated by two or more people acting in
concert.

The big thing that distinguishes you from them is the question of whether
or not Dick Cheney was one of the conspirators.

Maybe a better term would be "contrarian 9/11 theorists" or
something.

The Republican party: An alliance of madness and greed.

by jem6x on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:07:46 PM PDT

great point (0
/ 0)

i've failed to realize this, but you're absolutely right. "conspiracy
theorist" has such negative connotations, it's used more as an attack than
for what it actually means.

conspiracy: three or more people working together to commit a crime.

So 19 guys with pocket knives, razor blads and mace keychains too
orchestrated this entire thing. That's one hell of a conspiracy
theory.

by OnShakedown on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:10:54 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Really? (0
/ 0)

Says who?

Iraq War news and
comment.

by Eternal
Hope on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 11:34:21 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I call them 'banana
theories' (6+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, jem6x, SeattleLiberal, Arken, tvb, Mia Dolan

after seeing this guy:

In many ways, what they promote is a lot like Intelligent Design.

They begin with the premise that a Ppowerful Entity caused
everything to happen. In this case, it's not God, but rather a cabal or
shadow government or vast conspiracy of dunces or what I don't know. That's
never quite made clears. But whatever it is, it's behind everything.

So. Any evidence that exists, or can be accumulated, or can be construed,
or imagined, or manipulated, will then be interpreted only in a way that
supports the initial leap of faith.

It's the scientific method in reverse.

It's all about the banana.

"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." -- William
James

by BobzCat
on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:10:54 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

A real physicist speaks (0
/ 0)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=professor+jones

by brady4747
on Tue May
02, 2006 at 08:49:21 PM PDT

Yes, that 'real physicist' also got
in trouble (5+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Mike S, Eternal Hope, highacidity, hhex65, begone

for forging results and tried to 'prove' that Jesus walked in America.
Real reputable source there.

Please give me a job.
I'm talented.

by Arken on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:53:37 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

He was at BYU (0
/ 0)

I am pretty sure all Mormons believe(or at least the book of Mormon
says) Jesus came to America.

by brady4747 on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:04:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Mormons might believe it
(3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Eternal Hope,
highacidity, hhex65

but it has nothing to do with physics. He also forged results and
used the work of neo-nazis. He is totally disreputable as is that bigot
Alex Jones who promotes him.

Please give me a
job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:08:07 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

I agree (0
/ 0)

it has nothing to do with Physics. Just like your medical doctor
might be a Christian and believe that people can come back from the
dead.

All religions are kind of wacky in a suspend belief kind of way,
but that doesn't mean some good science can't come from religious
people.

by brady4747 on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:12:37 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Again... (4+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, Eternal Hope, highacidity, hhex65

He forged results.
He consults with nazis and bigots.
He
is not reputable.

Please give me
a job. I'm talented.

by Arken on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 09:14:53 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Try Again (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, highacidity, coigue

I thought maybe someone new had something other than the same old shit.

Stephen Jones is not a real physicist.  He is a physics professor
who wrote an article based on second hand information from holocaust deniers
and nazi sympathizers, faked the peer review on the article, and got
denounced by his university.  He also wrote a paper once explaining
that Jesus lived in North American.

by Mia
Dolan on Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:55:59 PM PDT

[ Parent
]

Enough! I! Can't! Take! Any!
More! (8+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Meteor Blades, Avila, Eternal Hope, highacidity, coigue, tvb, begone, Mia Dolan

Please, for the love of GOD... STOP!!!!!

"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." -- William
James

by BobzCat on
Tue
May 02, 2006 at 08:51:07 PM PDT

This is what Hell is like, isn't
it? (3+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, tlh lib, begone

Endless, mindless, meaningless repetition, sucking us all into a vortex of
emptiness.

I declare this to be the last comment on this thread! Anyone who follows,
abandon all hope!

"Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." -- William
James

by BobzCat on
Wed
May 03, 2006 at 12:04:18 AM PDT

But...I think the trolls are all
abed now (2+
/ 0-)

Recommended by:

Avila, tlh lib

Let's get a little shut-eye, see what the morrow
brings out from the
woodwork.

Whoops; just actually read your comment rather
than being mesmerized
by your pic.

My hope is abandoned.

It is never too late to be what you might have been...George
Eliot

by begone
on Wed
May 03, 2006 at 12:33:50 AM PDT

[ Parent
]

Permalink |
472 comments

Meteor Blades, Bob Johnson, m, RunawayRose, Avila, Eternal Hope, RumsfeldResign, Wee Mama, Shadan7, cookiebear, socratic, SeattleLiberal, DH from MD, Dood Abides, coigue, liberalcheesehead, PBen, Bouwerie Boy, Arken, Unwieldy List, wiscmass, Clember, dougymi, justalittlebitcrazy, lazybum, DemocraticLuntz, Quicklund

Navigation

Menu

Home

radwhitenblu's
Page

Diaries

dKosopedia

Search

Logout

wide narrow

Tools

Your Hotlist

Advertising

Support Bloggers' Rights!

Candidates

Netroots Endorsed

Combined fundraising
page

Jon Tester
Senate
Montana

Francine Busby
House
California 50th CD

Ned Lamont
Senate
Connecticut

Eric Massa
House
New York 29th CD

Joe Sestak
House
Pennsylvania 7th CD

Daily Kos homepage

© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose
without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Privacy Policy

Powered by Scoop.