Cliftin Cloud Edited North Tower Collapse: North Tower Radio Antenna Antenna Slow Motion Review Download
Maxwell Bridges
Part 1/4. Mr. Ron Morales wrote: "Since there’s absolutely no reason to accept Maxwell as an expert on anything relevant, any claims he makes without evidence can be summarily dismissed. Maxwell’s unsubstantiated, amateur speculation is evidence of absolutely nothing relevant."
Turnabout is fair play. But the executive summary is that Mr. Morales' grasp of high school algebra and physics is demonstrated to be so weak that it permits summarily dismissing any opinions of his into fire durations or the viability of nuclear mechanisms. Much worse for Mr. Morales, is that he demonstrates response-after-response major flaws in his debating techniques that are a discredit to his character and to the entirety of this "9/11 Debates" forum, AS WILL BE SUBSTANTIATED.
I wrote: "The NIST reports were not 'about the collapses of the buildings' (as phrased by Mr. Morales.) They were scope limited to 'the INITIATION of the collapses of the buildings.'"
Mr. Morales countered: "The reports were about the collapses. Their WTC7 report gave an account of the entire collapse."
The NIST report on WTC-7 has major issues in its own right that are a topic unto itself. The one I like best is when they use averaging of the accelerations of three stages to be able to report how the first 18 stories collapsed slower than free-fall in order to disguise the fact that the second of these stages represented 8 stories adn over 100+ feet of downward acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall.
Mr. Morales continued: "But NIST said that they could not give a detailed account of the Towers’ collapses after they had initiated because there would have been too many unknown variables to provide a complete, detailed account of the entire collapse. But once the collapses began, gravity and the forces involved would explain the rest of the collapses in general."
Bad sign: Mr. Morales swallows NIST's lame excuses unquestioned and unchallenged.
I wrote: "[NIST] did not discuss energy requirements for pulverization."
Mr. Morales countered: "Much smaller buildings gravitationally collapsing have pulverized concrete. Much more massive buildings would obviously have more energy to do so even more completely. So this is irrelevant."
No, it remains relevant. Pay attention to the words "gravitationally" and "pulverized". The first word implies under the forces of gravity. Certainly, much smaller buildings when assisted at the start by earthquakes or controlled demolition at the foundation have then used gravity to destroy the remainder.
"Pulverization" is a subjective term and implies "to turn into powder or fine dust." The finer the dust, the more energy is required to create it. The ratios of fine dust to course dust is what should attract one's attention. The ratio of fine-to-course are always vastly smaller when controlled demolitions were not involved, but 9/11's ratios are excessively large even by controlled demolition standards.
I wrote: "[NIST] did not discuss meaningfully why the collapses were near gravitational acceleration."
Mr. Morales countered: "They were clearly not near gravitational acceleration. Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true."
Here's where Mr. Morales gets his reputation dinged.
WTC-1: 1,368 ft (417.0 m)
WTC-2: 1,362 ft (415.0 m)
gravity: a = 9.8 m/(s^2)
d = (1/2)a(t^2)
t = sqr(2*d/a)
t1 = sqr(2*417/9.8) = 9.22 seconds
t2 = sqr(2*415/9.8) = 9.2 seconds
The upside of the high school math above is that gravity acting on an object (e.g., billiard ball) dropped from the top of each tower would have that object reach the ground in t1=9.22 seconds and t2=9.2 seconds, respectively.
NIST reports that the two towers collapsed in 11 seconds (WTC-1) and 9 seconds (WTC-2). "These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A)."
http://www.nist.gov/.../disasterst.../wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
NIST confirms my statement: WTC-1 fell at ~NEAR~ gravitational acceleration. But what's up with WTC-2 falling ~AT~ gravitational acceleration?!!
Indeed, Mr. Morales, "repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true."
The significance of "gravitational acceleration" in this discussion is that ~all~ of the potential/kinetic energy of a tower's collapse is consumed by its acceleration to the earth at 9.8 m/(s^s). None of the energy of the collapse is available to (a) destroy structure in the path of greatest resistance, (b) pulverize content, or (c)_ eject content laterally. Thus, energy had to added that heretofor hasn't been accounted for by NIST and the government.
I wrote: "[NIST] did not discuss debris being ejected."
Mr. Morales countered: "They wouldn’t need to since that would have nothing to do with why the building collapsed, and such lateral ejection is easily understandable given the gravitational energy involved."
In for a penny, in for a pound. Mr. Morales demonstrates a complete lack of understanding for high school physics in his uttered falsehoods. If no additional energy is added to the system and if kinetic energy from the collapse is used to eject debris, the collapse would be slowed from its gravitational acceleration.
I wrote: "Fire investigators were not allowed to investigate."
Mr. Morales counters: "Prove it."
Based on the deceit displayed above, this challenge appears to be just busy work. But here's an entrance to the rabbit-hole:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/restrictions.html
// End Part 1/4
Maxwell Bridges Part 2/4. I wrote: "And after all of this time, has Mr. Morales addressed the "steel doobies"? Nope. First brought to his attention on January 28, 2013. Then again on January 30, 2013 (for Keoki's and your benefit.)"
Mr. Morales responds: "What 'steel doobies?' I Googled the expression and found nothing."
Let's ignore Mr. Morales' surely attitude, because he ultimately found the comments from me that explain what they were: "An assembly for the exterior wall of the towers consisted of three vertical beams attached together by three horizontal spandral pieces. A "steel doobie" is one of these wall assemblies rolled up around the beams with bent spandrels acting like bands around a cigar."
Mr. Morales analysis thereof consisted of: "So what?" Not surprising given his demonstrated grasp of high school physics. What is surprising is that he quotes from posting that spells out the significance.
I continued: "One of [the steel doobies] rested against a building on Liberty Street and was augered into the ground a little bit."
Mr. Morales analysis thereof consisted of another "So what?" in the middle followed by the challenge: "Obviously Maxwell can’t prove this."
Ho-hum. Obviously, Mr. Morales didn't look at the picture. Or he is playing games.
I wrote: "In order for this to have been possible, the steel doobie had to be rolled at some point in time prior to hitting the ground."
Mr. Morales oh so cleverly and masterfully responded: "Once again since Maxwell is an amateur who has been proven wrong in his claims time and time again, there’s no reason to accept any claim of his as to what was or what was not possible. The images he links prove nothing, and obviously don’t point to directed energy weapons. Once again Maxwell is grasping at straws and relying on his trusty 'I don’t understand this, therefore it somehow supports directed energy weapons somehow' argument from ignorance fallacy."
Woo-hoo!!! How quaint? Mr. Morales sinks to new lows in discrediting himself and his beloved 9/11 Debates forums.
NIST, as shown above, has proven my claims to be correct and Mr. Morales' claims incorrect. Therefore using his own reasoning, there's no reason to accept any claim of Mr. Morales. And this revelation into Mr. Morales' character can be applied directly to the other sentences within the very same paragraph.
For instance, my images prove that anomalous "steel doobies" were created, to be sure, before they hit the ground. The directional forces required to do so are not readily apparent if one limits their thinking to energy only coming from gravity.
Mr. Morales writes: "[The images of the steel doobies] obviously don’t point to directed energy weapons."
Without further qualification, this is a purposeful complete misrepresentation of my views and is an attempt to lump me into Dr. Wood's DEW camp. No, my position is that "neutron nuclear DEW" devices were the primary mechanisms of destruction, whereby the side-effects of the neutron bomb portion of such devices being intense heat and a tactical blast wave easily explains how the steel doobies were created. [The DEW portion of the device had the task of directing the highly energitic neutrons out of the way.]
I offered the respectful challenge: "Please, explain to me how downward-acting gravity managed to apply horizontal forces on these vertical assemblies to get the steel doobies to roll up (and wilt its ends in last picture)."
Mr. Morales incoherent response that further demonstrates no understand of basic physics was: "Maxwell has already noted laterally ejected debris. Lateral trajectories involve horizontal force. Duh. Once again, the massive kinetic energy involved could easily account for lateral trajectory of debris."
At the risk of repeating myself, the massive kinetic energy involved from gravity has already been 100% accounted for in the gravitational acceleration. Only extra energy from other sources (that neither Mr. Morales nor the government will admit to) can account for the lateral trajectory of debris.
I wrote: "My premise? These were relatively close to the neutron DEW detonation. The intense heat softened the spandrels in an instance then the blast wave exhibited horizontal forces that wrapped them up around one of the beams before the assembly/doobie was ejected and fell to the ground."
Mr. Morales counters this with a strawman: "Any blast wave near the building sufficient to pulverize hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete would have wiped out people standing around nearby. That obviously didn’t happen."
Mr. Morales demonstrated poor grasp of high school physics makes him a very poor candidate to trust for his views on nuclear physics. The deceitful frame he tries to build is around much larger mini-nukes, and doesn't go near any conceivable variants of "neutron bombs"
Mr. Morales attempts a pitch-perfect smearing of me by associating me with Dr. Wood, whose book and website he's probably never read: "And except for the fantasy world of Judy Wood and Maxwell, there is no such thing as a directed energy weapon that pulverizes concrete and starts fires that last for weeks."
Neutron nuclear DEW devices have not been proposed or promoted by Dr. Judy Wood. They are my premise though. And it is precisely the nuclear component thereof that has a side-effect that can pulverize concrete. The probability was large of some of the tandem devices failing to reach their expected yields and going into "nuclear fizzle", which explains hot-spots that lasted for months. Fukushima, anyone?
In the next posting from Mr. Morales, he tries to get more on board with neutron devices. I wrote: "What is the neutron bomb? Descrbed most simply, it is a thermonuclear device which kills by "enhanced radiation" (ER), i.e. a relatively more deadly emission of radiation during the initial detonation of the warhead."
Mr. Morales responded with: "Yup. That would have killed a lot of people by radiation in the area. Since no one died from radiation poisoning, then we can exclude a neutron bomb from being used on 9/11."
Agreed. We can exclude conventional battlefield neutron bombs from being used on 9/11.
Mr. Morales continued with: "And [neutron bomb] also don't pulverize hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete while leaving steel mostly intact except for some bending."
In the framework of Mr. Morales strawman about battlefield neutron bombs, what he writes is true.
But the proper framework is "neutron nuclear DEW" that has the capability of directing the highly energetic neutrons and by extension portions of the heat and blast wave. Think of it as a shaped nuclear charge with a tactical yield.
Mr. Morales wrote: "Maxwell can't decide what caused the collapses. Sometimes he talks about nuclear bombs. Sometimes he talks about directed energy weapons. Sometimes he talks about nuclear directed energy weapons that don't exist."
The above is a deceit filled paragraph. Since entering this forum, I have consistently only championed "neutron nuclear DEW." If I've talked about nuclear bombs, it was to inform by way of comparison, but not to propose as theories for 9/11. Likewise for DEW without any qualifiers. I have ~NEVER~ talked about "nuclear directed energy weapons."
// End Part 2/4
Maxwell Bridges Part 3/4. I wrote: "The anomaly to be considered was the ~DURATION~ of under-rubble fires."
Mr. Morales offered the hypnotic suggestion: "Already addressed many times."
I wrote: "The context for Mr. Morales extract is a section titled "A 'pollution event'"."
Mr. Morales responded: "Yes, and they cited burning fuel as a source of the underground fires."
I clarified: "The context of this passage does not have any reference to duration, and in fact the first two "pollution events" were over in a couple of hours."
Mr. Morales responded with deceitful games: "Changing the subject, a favorite truther technique. My citation of this study was to counter Maxwell's claim that the earlier reference to a 2010 paper citing 200,000 of burning diesel fuel from ruptured storage tanks was some "disinformation" (as he claimed) manufactured in 2010. I then cited a study in 2003 and a news article three months after 9/11 that repeated the same thing. I obviously contradicted Maxwell's claim and the best he can do here is change the subject."
No. Let's unwind Mr. Morales' spin. I repeat the original subject: "The anomaly to be considered was the ~DURATION~ of under-rubble fires." Mr. Morales cited a 2010 paper that attributed those fires to burning diesel fuel from ruptured storage tanks. I didn't trust that piece of information from that 2010 source [but worked with it anyway], so Mr. Morales then cited a 2003 that repeated the same thing. Kudos to Mr. Morales for being able to locate sources further back in time. Only in Mr. Morales mind, however, was the subject changed from "under-rubble fires."
I wrote: "The question becomes: how long can 180,000 gallons of fuel burn in an intense fire."
Mr. Morales continues with his faulty hypnotic suggestion: "Already addressed. Once again, I never claimed that only diesel fuel burned."
I never said that Mr. Morales claimed that only diesel fuel burned, so Mr. Morales is deceitfully putting words into my mouth, but let's ignore this.
Here's the simplification to the "he-said, she-said."
A. Mr. Morales stated that diesel fuel and office furnishing were what caused under-rubble fires that lasted for months. He supports his belief with the aforementioned 2010 citation.
B. I applied science and math to the claimed amounts of diesel fuel, and the ball-park estimates proved it coming up short to account for the duration of under-rubble fires.
C. Mr. Morales points to the burn-rate for an open-fire used in my ball-park calculations, claims it is inapplicable, doesn't review any more calculations, and claims pre-mature victory on the issue.
D. I do what Mr. Morales probably can't do. I apply more science and math to the the burn-rate factor that tweaks it to extremes from an open-fire's burn rate, and the calculations still come up short.
E. Mr. Morales doesn't review the calculations. Claims he already addressed it.
F. This comment is F and is shredding Mr. Morales response E (and C and A).
I wrote: "Calculations were made in February 3 Part 2/4 posting, but they used 200,000 gallons that came from a report from 2010. "
Mr. Morales responds: "His calculations were based on an open fire, which obviously is irrelevant to an enclosed underground fire. i pointed that out already but true to form Maxwell just ignores the facts."
Mr. Morales wants to have his truth many ways. Although my argument for a long-time was that oxygen supplies under-the-rubble would have been limited to support combustion fires, Mr. Morales offered up examples of landfill fires, coal mine fires, etc. to imply that oxygen could still have seeped in and serviced such fires. Between his sources and mine, the description of the fires has been "like a foundry," "intense heat," "incinerators," "producing molten metal," etc.
When limiting our assumptions to diesel fires which was the exercise, these descriptions alone imply "plenty of oxygen." Therefore, using a diesel burn-rate for an open-fire is more than appropriate for a starting point.
This is where Mr. Morales wants to change his truth and contradict his sources: "Aside from Maxwell's irrelevant calculations based on an erroneous assumption of an open diesel fire, Maxwell once again engages in amateur, unsubstantiated speculation."
In other words, Mr. Morales says that the diesel burn rate for an open-fire cannot be used, because it wasn't an open-fire (e.g., oxygen sources were limited), which was my original contention that he is spinning back around to.
The problem for Mr. Morales is that if oxygen sources are limited such that they reduce the burn-rate, descriptive features of the fire and anomalous evidence attributed to the fire start to loose their applicability to diesel as the source.
// End Part 3/413 hours ago · Like
Maxwell Bridges Part 4/4. Worse for Mr. Morales, I wrote: "Contrary to Mr. Morales' hypnotic suggestion, the above calculations remain relevant. They just need to be tweaked appropriately for enclosed fires. What burn rate does Mr. Morales suggest be used?"
Mr. Morales weasels: "Not my burden to provide. Maxwell is the one claiming that the diesel fuel should have burned out quickly, so he has the burden of proving his claim."
What I discovered too late from going over his poor grasp of high school physics, was that Mr. Morales is a bit math/science-challenged. Otherwise, he would have seen from my simple algebra equations that he could have plugged in numbers representing 1/2 or 1/4 the open-air burn rate of diesel and calculated the burn time for a variety of saturated areas.
Mr. Morales tries to cover over his ignorance: "Since his calculations erroneously assumed an open fire and I've already pointed out that enclosed underground fires last far longer than open fires, his calculations are irrelevant and thus Maxwell has failed to justify his claim."
Wrong, the second set of equations did not assume and open-fire and allowed someone who had algebra to compensation with a slower burn-rate. Not only do the equations remain relevant, but the ball-park calculations continue to prove that alleged diesel fuel could not have maintained the hot-spots for the duration observed.
Mr. Morales continues his confident dodging: "Additionally, for the umpteenth time, I never claimed that diesel fuel was the only source of fire, so all that's really necessary is that the diesel fuel saturated debris, helped initiate the fires, and and the debris fed the fire.so his entire numbers game here is not only unsubstantiated but irrelevant."
A distinguishing feature of all science/math-literate people is their ability to perform "ball-park estimates" as a sanity check on what is being considered. For instance, they don't need to calculate to four significant digits that a chemical process produces exactly 2.345 liters when it is sufficient to approximate that the output would be much less than the 4 liter container to be used for the outcome.
The simple calculations for boundary conditions and for features in isolation can offer insight into a more complex situations. In the case of the under-rubble fires, knowing how long & hot a diesel fuel fire can burn without intervention (A) in open-air and (B) in limited air helps rationally frame what to expect, as would be estimating the same for office furnishings fires.
The science and math suggests when the most stubborn portion of the intense fires -- namely what was propelled by diesel fuel -- would burn itself out if without intervention. Because the actual hot-spots exceeded the ball-park time-frame despite active fire-fighting efforts involving both water and chemical fire suppressant [that would have handled office furnishing and diesel types of fires], then the conclusion has to be that another heat source was at play.
Mr. Morales writes: "Being fed by oxygen does not mean the same thing as being an open fire."
Mr. Morales should substantiate from other sources what it does mean and what the difference is, because his aptitude in science (and math) is not up to the challenge of explaining it on his own.
To prove my contention with regards Mr. Morales' math aptitude, he wrote:
"Maxwell then proceeds to invent values out of whole cloth. Once again Maxwell's armchair, amateur, unsubstantiated speculation is based on nothing other than his own imagination and thus can be dismissed out of hand. Unsubstantiated speculation by an amateur is evidence of nothing."
I'll explain the math as simply as I can for Mr. Morales, who must have failed the math portion of the military's ASVAB.
Let's say that A/B=C and B=0.045. Let's assume numbers were plugged in for A as well to get a resulting number C. Later you determine that B was not the correct number, but that Y was, what factor can you multiple directly to C to nullify the incorrect B and apply the new number Y? Answer is (B/Y) = (0.045/Y).
At the conclusion of Mr. Morales error filled posting, Ms. Keoki George wrote: "Ron he is just going to handwave all of that away, say that you never answered his question, call you names and repost the same thing over again, telling YOU that you are wrong."
Mr. Ron Morales replied: "Of course. But for the record I over and over demonstrated that he was making factually incorrect claims. And if he challenges me on this I will be happy to list his numerous, factually incorrect claims."
ROFLMAO! The only thing that Mr. Morales "demonstrated over and over" was his ability to fart and hypnotically tell everyone it doesn't stink.
Oh, yes, I'm sure Mr. Morales is just cheery as all get out to discover who needs to have listed "his numerous, factually incorrect claims."
I most certainly know where I stand: |<-this_far->| from being banned. And not because I called anyone any names, despite the masterful attempts by Ms. Keoki George, Ms. Elizabeth Tague, and Mr. Ron Morales in crafting such faulty, idiotic comments designed to egg any sane person into crossing the line. Nope. I'm going to be bounced because I have so thorough trounced their arguments (when they had one that wasn't flame-bait) that their personal credibility as well as that of this forum that they moderate have been run into the rocks.
// End Part 4/4
Ron Morales "Mr. Morales' grasp of high school algebra and physics is demonstrated to be so weak "
Maxwell, my patience is getting thin. Back off the personal.- Ron Morales "Based on the deceit displayed above"
Are you angling to get booted Maxwell so you don't have to face my proving you wrong over and over again? - Ron Morales "Mr. Morales incoherent response that further demonstrates no understand of basic physics"
More personal attacks, albeit in a grammatically tortured way. - Ron Morales "Mr. Morales weasels"
Weasels Maxwell Bridges? Well, clearly you are attempting suicide by mod to avoid having your nonsense refuted over and over again. I'm not bothering with any more warnings. Insult me or anyone else again and you're out. If you can't defend your beliefs without engaging in personal attacks, then that speaks volumes regarding the vacuousness of your theories.- Ron Morales "What I discovered too late from going over his poor grasp of high school physics, was that Mr. Morales is a bit math/science-challenged. "
More personal attacks. - Ron Morales "I'll explain the math as simply as I can for Mr. Morales, who must have failed the math portion of the military's ASVAB."
More personal attacks. - Ron Morales "I most certainly know where I stand: |<-this_far->| from being banned. "
Ah. Maxwell shows his hand. He IS vying to get himself banned. Yet another truther trying to get himself banned so he won't have to face having his demonstrably false nonsense exposed any more. - Ron Morales "despite the masterful attempts by Ms. Keoki George, Ms. Elizabeth Tague, and Mr. Ron Morales in crafting such faulty, idiotic comments"
Oooh, he really is desperate to get himself booted, isn't he? I guess his patience for watching his amateurish absurdities exposed has run out.
Elizabeth Tague Indeed, every post is basically a thinly veiled attempt to garnish hits for his site.
Boot him Ron, he has gone way past skirting the rules . ,
Matthew Barancho I think when 100% of the group (truthers and swallowers alike) agree that his 'theory' is completely without merit and consistent only of word salads, it's about time to let him go. Let him find a group where people will be fascinated by someone spending hours typing out sheer nonsense. He has been refuted over and over again, so much that it's not worth getting into any further. Goodbye 'Maxwell'.
Dan Plesse Ron Morales Can you take a screen shot of a single frame in this video and circle in red where you see your magical pancake whatever magical theory or theories that point at the source for the gray dust ball?
Cliftin Cloud North Tower Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjpL6BdyYP0
www.youtube.com
Cliftin Cloud Edited North Tower Collapse: WTC 1 Radio Antenna Slow Motion Revie...See More
No comments:
Post a Comment