PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues 1500+ Architects, Scientists & Structural Engineers say 9-11 was an Inside Job.


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 11:20 AM
I think those you call "kooks" should be asking you to stop humping theirs. :LOL:

I believe I said that ealier in the other thread too BEP. They keep coming back. We aren't searching them out and saying shit about them at every turn, but they seem to have some sort of fixation with the people who don't believe what they do and frankly I'm flattered.

Donger
08-03-2011, 11:21 AM
I believe I said that ealier in the other thread too BEP. They keep coming back. We aren't searching them out and saying shit about them at every turn, but they seem to have some sort of fixation with the people who don't believe what they do and frankly I'm flattered.

Why do people go to the zoo? To look at the cute and funny animals.

Same thing.

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 11:23 AM
Yes, thanks for the demonstration of the "convincing" part.

Again, Dong, I'm not trying to convice you of anything. The thing is, I don't give two shits what you or any other person that believes the official story thinks. I have my opinion and for some reason, it eats you guys alive that I don't think like you, so you have to call names because you don't know what else to do. Commence name calling in 3...........2...............1.........

Donger
08-03-2011, 11:24 AM
Again, Dong, I'm not trying to convice you of anything. The thing is, I don't give two shits what you or any other person that believes the official story thinks. I have my opinion and for some reason, it eats you guys alive that I don't think like you, so you have to call names because you don't know what else to do. Commence name calling in 3...........2...............1.........

Really? You and the others seem rather determined to try to convince those of us that there was/is more to 9/11 than what is commonly accepted as fact.

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 11:30 AM
Really? You and the others seem rather determined to try to convince those of us that there was/is more to 9/11 than what is commonly accepted as fact.

There is a difference between showing you why I question and trying to convince you of anything.

Donger
08-03-2011, 11:35 AM
There is a difference between showing you why I question and trying to convince you of anything.

Not really. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting here.

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 11:39 AM
Not really. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting here.

I guess maybe I'm as thick headed as you and your friends.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 11:40 AM
I believe I said that ealier in the other thread too BEP. They keep coming back. We aren't searching them out and saying shit about them at every turn, but they seem to have some sort of fixation with the people who don't believe what they do and frankly I'm flattered.

Including those saying this thread was unecessary. :hmmm:

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 11:41 AM
Including those saying this thread was unecessary. :hmmm:

ROFL :thumb:

vailpass
08-03-2011, 11:43 AM
Remote piloted....huge drones basically.

Couldnt take a chance on human pilots...esp. shitty ones like the hijackers.

And who was controlling these drones?

vailpass
08-03-2011, 11:48 AM
When they start ridiculing, that usually means they don't have a counter to the argument, so they pull the childish card of name-calling. Keep standing up. You've made some good posts and points. Stand strong, bro.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 11:51 AM
Why do people go to the zoo? To look at the cute and funny animals.

Same thing.

Why do people respond with smilies? It's the glee of insanity. * giggles *

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 11:59 AM
I'm one of the only people on here that said it's possible that I may be wrong and the story could have went differently than I thought. I can say that because I wasn't there. You and the samebrain jackoff gang refuse to do that because you all had front row, back stage, vip access to the entire event.

So again, you can't question facts/truth, but this has so many unanswered questions that there has to be more to the story.

We’ve been over this before, I’m perfectly willing to admit I’m wrong when you can show me where. You’ve yet to do that.
My opinion is fluid and can be changed by verifiable facts, but we’ve been over that also.

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 12:04 PM
We’ve been over this before, I’m perfectly willing to admit I’m wrong when you can show me where. You’ve yet to do that.
My opinion is fluid and can be changed by verifiable facts, but we’ve been over that also.

Again, I don't care what you guys believe. I'm not going around trying to dig shit up just to change your mind, believe what you shall.

vailpass
08-03-2011, 12:06 PM
Again, I don't care what you guys believe. I'm not going around trying to dig shit up just to change your mind, believe what you shall.

Sure you don't. Sure you won't. Sure you haven't.

CRAZY HATES BEING ALONE!

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 12:09 PM
Sure you don't. Sure you won't. Sure you haven't.

CRAZY HATES BEING ALONE!

So that's the reason you want us to think like you. :thumb:

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 12:09 PM
Again, I don't care what you guys believe. I'm not going around trying to dig shit up just to change your mind, believe what you shall.

If that were the case then I think you would’ve just expressed your opinion, leave it at that and let the other comments roll off your back, which is the exact opposite of what you’re doing.
But you’re free to do whatever, within the limits of the rules of the board of course. I’m also free to point and laugh at the circus clowns when they act the fool.

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 12:11 PM
So that's the reason you want us to think like you. :thumb:

Dude, Donks fan. Don’t try to figure it out.

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 12:12 PM
If that were the case then I think you would’ve just expressed your opinion, leave it at that and let the other comments roll off your back, which is the exact opposite of what you’re doing.
But you’re free to do whatever, within the limits of the rules of the board of course. I’m also free to point and laugh at the circus clowns when they act the fool.

That would be the case if I and others on here weren't attacked for having a different opinion. And again you have to make some third grade remark in one of your post.....PROVE IT!!!

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 12:13 PM
Dude, Donks fan. Don’t try to figure it out.

Who?

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 12:21 PM
Who?

Vailpass. You didn’t know?

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 12:27 PM
That would be the case if I and others on here weren't attacked for having a different opinion. And again you have to make some third grade remark in one of your post.....PROVE IT!!!

If you don’t want to be considered a clown maybe you should stop donning the floppy shoes and nose bulb that squeaks when you squeeze it.

vailpass
08-03-2011, 12:30 PM
Who?

If you weren't so busy being crazy you'd know I'm wearing an escorted visitor badge.

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 12:33 PM
If you weren't so busy being crazy you'd know I'm wearing an escorted visitor badge.

If you didn't post a Seinfeld quote the other day I would probably hate you with all of my soul for that. :evil:

vailpass
08-03-2011, 12:34 PM
If you didn't post a Seinfeld quote the other day I would probably hate you with all of my soul for that. :evil:

Which quote was it? My short term isn't so good.

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 12:35 PM
Dammit I forgot, hold on....it was one a my favorites too

durtyrute
08-03-2011, 12:37 PM
"Ah, you're crazy."
"Am I? Or am I so sane that you just blew your mind?!"
"It's impossible!"
"Is it? Or is it so possible that your head is spinning like a top?!"
"It can't be."
"Can it? Or is your entire world just crashing down all around you?"
"Alright, that's enough."
"Yaaaaaaahhh!!!"


This one

DaFace
08-03-2011, 12:43 PM
My question is whether there were any circles.

vailpass
08-03-2011, 01:15 PM
This one

Yeah that was a great episode.

BigChiefFan
08-03-2011, 02:30 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwSmFnlwrK0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0ayWWpWYZs&feature=relmfu

Donger
08-03-2011, 02:46 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwSmFnlwrK0

Got as far as, "no significant fire" at WTC 7 and turned it off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0ayWWpWYZs&feature=relmfu

Got as far as Bilderberg.

BigChiefFan
08-03-2011, 03:01 PM
Got as far as, "no significant fire" at WTC 7 and turned it off.



Got as far as Bilderberg.So in other words, you'd rather ridicule, while not even knowing the facts. I wouldn't expect any less from you, wronger. Go back to grazing.

Donger
08-03-2011, 03:12 PM
So in other words, you'd rather ridicule, while not even knowing the facts. I wouldn't expect any less from you, wronger. Go back to grazing.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

Or, if you are partial to nice videos, please check out the non-significant fire that is shown at 1:05

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PK_iBYSqEsc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Fish
08-03-2011, 03:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwSmFnlwrK0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0ayWWpWYZs&feature=relmfu

That first link... they actually point to the dollar amount spent on the 9/11 report vs. the dollar amount spent on the Bill Clinton fiasco as evidence of a conspiracy. Seriously?

Those videos were created by crazy people.

BucEyedPea
08-03-2011, 03:24 PM
So in other words, you'd rather ridicule, while not even knowing the facts. I wouldn't expect any less from you, wronger. Go back to grazing.

http://madwomanembroidery.com/images/ticker/bsheep.png

Ace Gunner
08-03-2011, 03:35 PM
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

Or, if you are partial to nice videos, please check out the non-significant fire that is shown at 1:05

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/PK_iBYSqEsc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's hard for me to believe you think a small bit of furniture fires took those steel girder buildings down, but then there it is before my eyes. Absolute stupidity.

Donger
08-03-2011, 03:37 PM
It's hard for me to believe you think a small bit of furniture fires took those steel girder buildings down, but then there it is before my eyes. Absolute stupidity.

Did you even read NIST's words?

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 03:39 PM
It's hard for me to believe you think a small bit of furniture fires took those steel girder buildings down, but then there it is before my eyes. Absolute stupidity.

Only in kook-ville does four entire floors consumed with uncontrollable fires that were spreading = a little bit of furniture burning.

Amnorix
08-03-2011, 03:41 PM
It's hard for me to believe you think a small bit of furniture fires took those steel girder buildings down, but then there it is before my eyes. Absolute stupidity.

Did you note the 1000 degree fires indicated at about the 1:14 mark or the not so insignificant fire burning at 1:23? Absolute stupidity, by you....

Donger
08-03-2011, 03:41 PM
It's hard for me to believe you think a small bit of furniture fires took those steel girder buildings down, but then there it is before my eyes. Absolute stupidity.

I know that this isn't as sexy as some dork on a YouTube video claiming that no significant fire existed at WTC 7, but...

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

Ace Gunner
08-03-2011, 03:55 PM
I know that this isn't as sexy as some dork on a YouTube video claiming that no significant fire existed at WTC 7, but...

How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

Okay. I'll take a little time to digest this.

Donger
08-03-2011, 04:00 PM
Okay. I'll take a little time to digest this.

Happy digesting. Here's the diagram they mention:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/images/wtc082108.jpg

You will note that the first failure they mention just happens to be exactly where the structure that falls away in the above video is located.

To channel Jerm: "COINCIDENCE!?"

Ace Gunner
08-03-2011, 04:05 PM
and before we go further, I want you to know I thought you were claiming the large buildings fell this way. But I'll go through this and weigh in later, since I never looked into this particular building before.

Jerm
08-03-2011, 04:07 PM
See, that's what gets me about all of their "research." It's never credible fact based material from peer reviewed sources...it's always from some blog or youtube video. They then criticize US for watching the news. :doh!:

Actually since you wanna go there....

I've been researching the events of 9/11 for almost 5 years now. I've read the 9/11 Commission Report, read NIST's report and on the other side I've read peer reviewed material from people such as Stephen Jones, Richard Gage, Nils Harrett, etc.

I've talked to numerous pilots including a couple of commercial airliner pilots, I've spoken to people that work in construction, demolition, and architecture...I've talked to numerous people in the military that are on both sides of the fence, I've even spoke to people that were right up the street at Ground Zero on that morning.

I've probably watched over 5,000 pieces of video information and maybe 75 or so documentaries on the subject....from both truthers and people that believe the official stories. I've read numerous books, in fact I'm reading "Where Did The Towers Go" right now...interesting read so far.

See I'm not just some guy that watches Loose Change once or twice and think I know it all..I've put in the time and effort and while I'm no expert I'm not clueless about it either.

In fact, if I had means my goal all along was to make my own documentary on the subject that gave both sides of the argument an equal shake and challenge people to critically think and come to their own conclusion.

So now you can quit questioning my credentials and probably should look in the mirror....

go bowe
08-03-2011, 04:51 PM
That's all they can do. Any "Facts" they come up with have been paid for by the gov, so there really isn't to much they can say, and everyone that sticks to the offcial story has insider info or was at the Pentagon and in New York at the same time so they know the absolute, 100%, no way it could be different, truth. You might not have noticed, but once one starts in with the name calling all of the others like to jackoff to it and then they jump in too. I have ask this question over and over, but no one can give a real answer.

"My opinion is different than yours that is true, but WHY DO YOU CARE?"

Let the insults continue. (Watch how many childish remarks follow this post)

we care because it's so much fun watching the circus and making childish remarks...

Radar Chief
08-03-2011, 06:45 PM
before we go further

Paradise by the dashboard light. /Meat Loaf

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 07:43 AM
Building 7 didn't "freefall”? NIST said it did.

The NIST report that Donger posted was a draft, that report was revised, the 40% delay statement retracted and final report on bldn7? Well it was a freefall. That's what I said from the beginning.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
And

www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k

Or
www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw


I watched the video link (again) that Donger sent. My observation is that was as symmetrical of a "collapse" as you could possibly have. That's how it would've come down with the best demolition experts in the world orchestrating the event.

But again these are my observations and opinions. I would certainly be eager to see footage of an actual building collapse that has the same visible characteristics of the WTC bldng 7 "collapse". Just one please.

Fire has never caused a building to collapse in such a fashion. If this weren't the case we could save a lot of money and time when demolishing old unwanted buildings by simply lighting office furnishings on fire and wait a few hours for the COMPLETE destruction and leveling of the building.

Donger
08-04-2011, 07:51 AM
Building 7 didn't "freefall”? NIST said it did.

The NIST report that Donger posted was a draft, that report was revised, the 40% delay statement retracted and final report on bldn7? Well it was a freefall. That's what I said from the beginning.

Where was it retracted?

Here's the final report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

* EDIT * I looked it up for you. They didn't retract it all. Read starting on Page 44.

Donger
08-04-2011, 07:53 AM
I watched the video link (again) that Donger sent. My observation is that was as symmetrical of a "collapse" as you could possibly have. That's how it would've come down with the best demolition experts in the world orchestrating the event.

But again these are my observations and opinions. I would certainly be eager to see footage of an actual building collapse that has the same visible characteristics of the WTC bldng 7 "collapse". Just one please.

Fire has never caused a building to collapse in such a fashion. If this weren't the case we could save a lot of money and time when demolishing old unwanted buildings by simply lighting office furnishings on fire and wait a few hours for the COMPLETE destruction and leveling of the building.

You can read the report for the details of the collapse sequence, and you can also read NIST's investigation of a detonation at WTC 7.

In the video, you DID see the structure on the roof disappear about three seconds before the facade collapsed, right?

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 07:59 AM
You can read the report for the details of the collapse sequence, and you can also read NIST's investigation of a detonation at WTC 7.

I did read it

In the video, you DID see the structure on the roof disappear about three seconds before the facade collapsed, right?

Yes I did see that, can't say if it was 3 seconds but I did see that.

Donger
08-04-2011, 08:06 AM
Yes I did see that, can't say if it was 3 seconds but I did see that.

Good, because that was exactly where NIST's analysis says the collapse began. How do you explain that happening before the rest of the building went down?

Also, how do you explain that no explosions (of 130 - 140dB) were recorded or heard, which would have been required for planned detonation collapse?

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 08:07 AM
You know it might be interesting to have Jonathan Cole or David Chandler (a couple of those 1,500+ engineers you can see their studies on www.911speakout.org) field some of these questions directly.

If you compile several of your most pressing questions I will ask him answer them directly. Jons a friend and said he'd be happy to do this.

Anyone interested?

Donger
08-04-2011, 08:23 AM
You know it might be interesting to have Jonathan Cole or David Chandler (a couple of those 1,500+ engineers you can see their studies on www.911speakout.org) field some of these questions directly.

If you compile several of your most pressing questions I will ask him answer them directly. Jons a friend and said he'd be happy to do this.

Anyone interested?

Sure. Have him answer both of mine, please.

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 08:33 AM
Sure. Have him answer both of mine, please.

You got it.

BucEyedPea
08-04-2011, 08:39 AM
Anyone who believes that the government had both the motive AND the ability to successfully pull off such a massive conspiracy is retarded.

I don't why it would have to be "massive" though? Massive conspiracy to me means a lot of people would be involved instead of a few acting covertly.

Why do you describe it like that?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 08:50 AM
You got it.

This will be interesting.

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 08:52 AM
Here's the email (questions) that I sent to Jon Cole.

Here you go Jon, there’s a couple of questions below that maybe you can help me with. I thought you might be the most appropriate person to answer these as you are as big a kook as any that I know.

The questions below are from a non believer and non - kook by the name of Donger that is questioning my assertion that while the initial NIST report or draft claimed bldng 7 was not a free fall and in fact experienced a 40% delay was retracted in the final report?


Dongers first question
Where was it retracted?

Here's the final report:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

* EDIT * I looked it up for you. They didn't retract it all. Read starting on Page 44.




Dongers second question regarding the semmetry or lack thereof of the ‘collapse” of bldng 7
Donger: “You can read the report for the details of the collapse sequence, and you can also read NIST's investigation of a detonation at WTC 7.

In the video, you DID see the structure on the roof disappear about three seconds before the facade collapsed, right?”

I answered “yes but I’m not sure that it was 3 seconds in”

Dongers reply:

Donger: “Good, because that was exactly where NIST's analysis says the collapse began. How do you explain that happening before the rest of the building went down?

Also, how do you explain that no explosions (of 130 - 140dB) were recorded or heard, which would have been required for planned detonation collapse?”


Thanks Jon and I look forward to your answers.

Donger
08-04-2011, 08:54 AM
What is Jon's engineering discipline, BTW?

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 08:55 AM
I don't why it would have to be "massive" though? Massive conspiracy to me means a lot of people would be involved instead of a few acting covertly.

Why do you describe it like that?


I'm assuming by "conspiracy" that we're talking about planned demolitions instead of planes flying into buildings and the 7 falling as a result of uncontrolled fires raging for hours.

I think it would take a massive conspiracy because:

1. you would need to have numerous individuals working for the government involved, including in the military (NORAD) and civilian air industries.

2. you would need to have top military and political (Bush/Cheney/NSA/etc.) involved)

3. not sure what the theory is regarding the planes, but potentially the pilots/passengers of those planes need to be involved.

4. you need to need the NIST and other engineering experts involved (for the cover-up end of things)

5. you would need building personnel at the WTC to be complicit in the whole thing, and presumably the owners of those buildings as well.

This isn't Watergate, where a few fools with lockpicks can do this on the orders of one guy. There are FOUR jumbo jets that disappeared from the skies. The government says three flew into buildings and the fourth was ditched (or shot down) in a field after being hijacked by terrorists. The loons say -- what? Many things, few of which make any sense.

But pretty much any conspiracy is going to involve a VERY large number of people helping to plan, execute and cover up for it.

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 08:59 AM
What is Jon's engineering discipline, BTW?

PE with Giffels - Webster

Yeah that's right, he's almost frankie smart.

Donger
08-04-2011, 09:03 AM
PE with Giffels - Webster

Yeah that's right, he's almost frankie smart.

No, what type of engineer is he? Electrical? Mechanical? Civil? Nuke? Chemical? Structural? Other?

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 09:45 AM
No, what type of engineer is he? Electrical? Mechanical? Civil? Nuke? Chemical? Structural? Other?

A PE is a Physical Engineer. Jon is a civil engineer that has his PE cert.

Donger
08-04-2011, 09:47 AM
A PE is a Physical Engineer. Jon is a civil engineer that has his PE cert.

:spock:

No, I'm pretty darn sure that when engineers have P.E. after their names, that is "Professional Engineer" not "Physical Engineer."

He didn't tell you that, did he?

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 09:49 AM
But pretty much any conspiracy is going to involve a VERY large number of people helping to plan, execute and cover up for it.

But it only took 19 people in Afghanistan caves to pull off 911. That's not a huge # of people. If the reason 911 couldn't have been an done from within out goverment is beacuse it would require a VERY large group of people to plan, execute and cover it up, then believing in the original story would require a FAR greater leap of faith than believing in the conspiracy.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 09:50 AM
But it only took 19 people in Afghanistan caves to pull off 911. That's not a huge # of people. If the reason 911 couldn't have been an done from within out goverment is beacuse it would require a VERY large group of people to plan, execute and cover it up, then believing in the original story would require a FAR greater leap of faith than believing in the conspiracy.

Some other idiot was saying something about 23 people in caves. Now you're babbling 19.

WTF are you talking about?

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 09:51 AM
:spock:

No, I'm pretty darn sure that when engineers have P.E. after their names, that is "Professional Engineer" not "Physical Engineer."

He didn't tell you that, did he?


Yeah, that's right. PE is Professional Engineer, which means he has professional licensure within his field of specialty.

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 09:53 AM
Some other idiot was saying something about 23 people in caves. Now you're babbling 19.

WTF are you talking about?

The original story. Duh.

usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm

BucEyedPea
08-04-2011, 09:53 AM
I'm assuming by "conspiracy" that we're talking about planned demolitions instead of planes flying into buildings and the 7 falling as a result of uncontrolled fires raging for hours.

I think it would take a massive conspiracy because:

1. you would need to have numerous individuals working for the government involved, including in the military (NORAD) and civilian air industries.

2. you would need to have top military and political (Bush/Cheney/NSA/etc.) involved)

3. not sure what the theory is regarding the planes, but potentially the pilots/passengers of those planes need to be involved.

4. you need to need the NIST and other engineering experts involved (for the cover-up end of things)

5. you would need building personnel at the WTC to be complicit in the whole thing, and presumably the owners of those buildings as well.

This isn't Watergate, where a few fools with lockpicks can do this on the orders of one guy. There are FOUR jumbo jets that disappeared from the skies. The government says three flew into buildings and the fourth was ditched (or shot down) in a field after being hijacked by terrorists. The loons say -- what? Many things, few of which make any sense.

But pretty much any conspiracy is going to involve a VERY large number of people helping to plan, execute and cover up for it.

Actually, no a conspiracy can be small or large and anything in between. Small groups of individuals have been convicted of it. Even just two individuals. There were three in my community who went to jail on some conspiracy charge. It just depends on the make-up of a particular conspiracy. Using the term massive for this I think is hyperbole but no doubt it had to involve more than small amount of individuals....but all the details could be unknown to those participating.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 09:58 AM
The original story. Duh.

usatoday.com/news/world/2002/02/06/saudi.htm


The original story says 19 guys hijacked the planes. It sure as hell doesn't say they were living in caves.

Do you deny Al Quada existed/exists?

Do you deny that Osama bin Laden was its leader?

Do you deny that he was independently wealthy?

Do you deny that the organization had the tacit if not outright approval/sanction and support of the Taliban, which was then the governing party of Afghanistan?

Do you deny that Al Quada has been involved in other operations against US interests, and that some of those operations were successful (USS Cole, American Embassy etc.)?

Do you deny that Osama bin Laden stated in a speech that his organization was responsible for 9/11?

Fish
08-04-2011, 09:59 AM
But it only took 19 people in Afghanistan caves to pull off 911. That's not a huge # of people. If the reason 911 couldn't have been an done from within out goverment is beacuse it would require a VERY large group of people to plan, execute and cover it up, then believing in the original story would require a FAR greater leap of faith than believing in the conspiracy.

How so? The people that planned the attack had no need to worry about covering up anything. And that's the part of the plan that would take such vast resources and planning. It's not a stretch at all to think a small outside group of extremists could coordinate such an attack without worrying about covering it up. All they had to do was find a handful of idiots willing to die, and figure out a way to get them on the airplanes with basic instructions on how to crash a plane. And all this was back before airport security was overhauled.

That's very very different from our own government coordinating an attack against its own people and needing to cover it up. The kind of comparison you're making doesn't equate.

Donger
08-04-2011, 09:59 AM
LMAO

The neat part is that you can actually feel Amno's BP going up.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:00 AM
Actually, no a conspiracy can be small or large and anything in between. Small groups of individuals have been convicted of it. Even just two individuals. There were three in my community who went to jail on some conspiracy charge. It just depends on the make-up of a particular conspiracy. Using the term massive for this I think is hyperbole but no doubt it had to involve more than small amount of individuals....but all the details could be unknown to those participating.


*facepalm*

When I said "any conspiracy" it was after a laundry list of various conspiracy allegations around 9/11. I meant "any conspiracy" IN THAT CONTEXT ONLY. Maybe I wasnt' completely clear about it. What I mean is that any 9/11 conspiracy (and it's not that clear to me that any two truthers agree what the conspiracy was) would have to involve a "massive" number of people.

I fully realize that two individuals can be convicted of conspiracy. But those of us who aren't truthers can't fathom a successful conspiracy involving the number of people necessary to plan/execute/cover up the supposed 9/11 conspiracy. Hence massive conspiracy.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:01 AM
LMAO

The neat part is that you can actually feel Amno's BP going up.

:cuss:








:banghead::LOL:

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:01 AM
The original story says 19 guys hijacked the planes. It sure as hell doesn't say they were living in caves.

Do you deny Al Quada existed/exists?

Do you deny that Osama bin Laden was its leader?

Do you deny that he was independently wealthy?

Do you deny that the organization had the tacit if not outright approval/sanction and support of the Taliban, which was then the governing party of Afghanistan?

Do you deny that Al Quada has been involved in other operations against US interests, and that some of those operations were successful (USS Cole, American Embassy etc.)?

Do you deny that Osama bin Laden stated in a speech that his organization was responsible for 9/11?

Do you deny your point (that you posted 20 min. ago) that VERY large #'s of people would be required to pull off a conspiracy like 911 completely contradicts your own belief that 19 people were the ones repsonsible? Or were you just hoping no one would notice that?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 10:02 AM
http://helpourveterans.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/more-energy.jpg

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:04 AM
Do you deny your point (that you posted 20 min. ago) that VERY large #'s of people would be required to pull off a conspiracy like 911 completely contradicts your own belief that 19 people were the ones repsonsible? Or were you just hoping no one would notice that?

No one, including that article you linked, is saying that these 19 individuals ALONE were responsible for 9/11. They were part of an international, well-funded and government (Afghanistan, perhaps Pakistan to an extent) supported organization.

Or do you think Seal Team Six is solely responsible for getting OBL?

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:06 AM
The original story says 19 guys hijacked the planes. It sure as hell doesn't say they were living in caves.

Do you deny Al Quada existed/exists?

Do you deny that Osama bin Laden was its leader?

Do you deny that he was independently wealthy?

Do you deny that the organization had the tacit if not outright approval/sanction and support of the Taliban, which was then the governing party of Afghanistan?

Do you deny that Al Quada has been involved in other operations against US interests, and that some of those operations were successful (USS Cole, American Embassy etc.)?

Do you deny that Osama bin Laden stated in a speech that his organization was responsible for 9/11?

No I deny none of these. I just question what actually happened and especially who sent it into motion.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:06 AM
Further to my last, it takes far fewer people to plan to hijack 4 planes and fly them into buildings than to put together a plan to PRETEND to hijack 4 plaens and fly them into buildings, but actually plant explosives at two of those buildings, plus a third that no one will fly into, then cover it all up with a pack of lies produced by the NIST, which now needs to be implicated/involved in covering up a mass murder of its fellow American citizens.

The first is an impressive feat of terrorism. The second is beyond credulity.

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:07 AM
No one, including that article you linked, is saying that these 19 individuals ALONE were responsible for 9/11. They were part of an international, well-funded and government (Afghanistan, perhaps Pakistan to an extent) supported organization.

O?

So a conspiarcy made by large of groups of people overseas IS possible, but one here by people on American soil by those with all the money and power ISN'T possible. I still respectfully disagree.

Donger
08-04-2011, 10:08 AM
Do you deny your point (that you posted 20 min. ago) that VERY large #'s of people would be required to pull off a conspiracy like 911 completely contradicts your own belief that 19 people were the ones repsonsible? Or were you just hoping no one would notice that?

:spock:

No, it really doesn't.

The non-kook version of the events of 9/11 is that the 19 terrorists carried out the attack. There is no conspiracy.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:08 AM
No I deny none of these. I just question what actually happened and especially who sent it into motion.


Answer your own question then. Who do you think sent it into motion? What happened, exactly, and who did it?

The "Truthers" are great at trying to sling peanuts at the official story. What is YOUR story, if the official story doesn't hold water in your view?

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 10:08 AM
:spock:

No, I'm pretty darn sure that when engineers have P.E. after their names, that is "Professional Engineer" not "Physical Engineer."

He didn't tell you that, did he?

No he didn't. But I do know that he is a civil engineer but I will get clarification.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:10 AM
So a conspiarcy made by large of groups of people overseas IS possible, but one here by people on American soil by those with all the money and power ISN'T possible. I still respectfully disagree.


Who are these people, what did they do, how did they do it, and why did they do it?

I'm glad to lay out my version of events if you're uncertain what that is, but I have NO IDEA what your version of events is other than "it's not the official version you chump".

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:10 AM
The first is an impressive feat of terrorism. The second is beyond credulity.

Not much is beyond credulity where power, money and self interest are concerned. And the second would be a FAR more impressive feat of terrorism. Though "impressive" is a pretty f*cked up word to use.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:11 AM
No he didn't. But I do know that he is a civil engineer but I will get clarification.


CivE with professional licensure is sufficient.

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:13 AM
I'm glad to lay out my version of events if you're uncertain what that is, but I have NO IDEA what your version of events is other than "it's not the official version you chump".

I don't need to have my own version to question what happened. I don't have any idea what really happened all I know is what the media is saying doesn't add up and make sense to me. And when a story doesn't make sense it usually isn't true. I admit, I have no clue to what exactly transpired to get those planes blown into those buildings, I can only speculate and theorize. Just tryin to be as honest as possible.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 10:15 AM
Who are these people, what did they do, how did they do it, and why did they do it?

I'm glad to lay out my version of events if you're uncertain what that is, but I have NO IDEA what your version of events is other than "it's not the official version you chump".

Your version of the events is simply what has been told to you by the news. Please do not act as if you were there. You don't KNOW what happened and neither do 99% of the people in the country.

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:16 AM
Answer your own question then. Who do you think sent it into motion? What happened, exactly, and who did it?

The "Truthers" are great at trying to sling peanuts at the official story. What is YOUR story, if the official story doesn't hold water in your view?

There's nothing wrong with slinging peanuts into a story one thinks is total BS, I don't think you honestly believe NOT having your own version means forfeiting your right to wonder and ask questions.

Donger
08-04-2011, 10:17 AM
I don't need to have my own version to question what happened. I don't have any idea what really happened all I know is what the media is saying doesn't add up and make sense to me. And when a story doesn't make sense it usually isn't true. I admit, I have no clue to what exactly transpired to get those planes blown into those buildings, I can only speculate and theorize. Just tryin to be as honest as possible.

Which is more likely?

1) AQ planned the attack amongst themselves and dispatched 19 of their terrorists to execute the plan. They needed no help from anyone else (AKA, "them" "they" "the people inside") in order to carry out this attack.

2) AQ conspired with some group of Americans (AKA, "them" "they" "the people inside") because they couldn't do it themselves.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:17 AM
Your version of the events is simply what has been told to you by the news. Please do not act as if you were there. You don't KNOW what happened and neither do 99% of the people in the country.

We've had this philosophical discussion before. You weren't there when your mother was born either, but I bet you believe she was. Stop wasting our time.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:19 AM
There's nothing wrong with slinging peanuts into a story one thinks is total BS, I don't think you honestly believe NOT having your own version means forfeiting your right to wonder and ask questions.

You can wonder and ask questions, but you sure as hell can't convince anyone else of much if you don't even have a cogent alternative theory/explanation.

Donger
08-04-2011, 10:20 AM
Your version of the events is simply what has been told to you by the news. Please do not act as if you were there. You don't KNOW what happened and neither do 99% of the people in the country.

99%? The other 1% do know? Who are the 1%?

Fish
08-04-2011, 10:21 AM
99%? The other 1% do know? Who are the 1%?

"The news"......

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:22 AM
Which is more likely?

1) AQ planned the attack amongst themselves and dispatched 19 of their terrorists to execute the plan. They needed no help from anyone else (AKA, "them" "they" "the people inside") in order to carry out this attack.

2) AQ conspired with some group of Americans (AKA, "them" "they" "the people inside") because they couldn't do it themselves.

I would have to blindly believe AQ was the one resposible for carrying this out to answer that question. Since I don't know they were (since I wasn't there), I can't.

You could ask a different "what is more likely" scenario with an A and B option I could believe in and answer. In fact if you were to do that I would be impressed, especially if I gave you the answer I knew you wanted.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 10:22 AM
The original story says 19 guys hijacked the planes. It sure as hell doesn't say they were living in caves.

Do you deny Al Quada existed/exists?

Do you deny that Osama bin Laden was its leader?

Do you deny that he was independently wealthy?

Do you deny that the organization had the tacit if not outright approval/sanction and support of the Taliban, which was then the governing party of Afghanistan?

Do you deny that Al Quada has been involved in other operations against US interests, and that some of those operations were successful (USS Cole, American Embassy etc.)?

Do you deny that Osama bin Laden stated in a speech that his organization was responsible for 9/11?

There is always reason to question. He says that most of the "terrorists" attack were internal. So who's right.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YZ2VpfUqRoo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

OBL did admit that he and his "crew" did it but that was after denying it first and I don't think he was even charged for it. The FBI's website STILL does not have that charge on his wanted poster. They took the time to update the poster and say he was dead but never put on there that he was charged with the crime. There is a news story on the site the say's he was but the FBI did not say that on the poster.

With so many questions and different sides how can anyone say there is only one way that it happened?

Donger
08-04-2011, 10:23 AM
I would have to blindly believe AQ was the one resposible for carrying this out to answer that question. Since I don't know they were (since I wasn't there), I can't.

You could ask a different "what is more likely" scenario with an A and B option I could believe in and answer. In fact if you were to do that I would be impressed, especially if I gave you the answer I knew you wanted.

But you don't have any credible evidence of a conspiracy at all, let alone a motive. That really doesn't bother you?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 10:24 AM
We've had this philosophical discussion before. You weren't there when your mother was born either, but I bet you believe she was. Stop wasting our time.

Doesn't pertain to this discussion

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 10:26 AM
But you don't have any credible evidence of a conspiracy at all, let alone a motive. That really doesn't bother you?

You don't have any evidence either, that's the thing. You have reports so do we, you have videos, so do we, you have first responders and people at the scene, so do we. And the only thing that makes yours "credible" is the fact that you believe it.

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:26 AM
You can wonder and ask questions, but you sure as hell can't convince anyone else of much if you don't even have a cogent alternative theory/explanation.

Very true, I appreciate the honesty.

But I'll need to have all my questions answered and have one hell of a cogent alternative theory / explanation set in stone to even stand a chance of changing minds. I'm not out to change your mind, or Dongers, or anyone elses. Getting others to question things and discuss them is good enough for me right now. Even if they don't agree with me, it's still the first step towards changing minds if that were my end goal.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:27 AM
Doesn't pertain to this discussion


You're right. Your comment is useless and unhelpful. Glad we agree.

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:29 AM
But you don't have any credible evidence of a conspiracy at all, let alone a motive. That really doesn't bother you?

Money, power and self interest are the biggest motive in the world, so actually I do have a motive and you know I do, you just sound stupid to when you say I don't. The 1500 plus architects and engineers refuting the conpiracy is "credible evidence", and that's only one tiny bit of it.

Cmon, you're a lot better at arguing than posts like this. I'm very disappointed.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:32 AM
Money, power and self interest are the biggest motive in the world, so actually I do have a motive and you know I do, you just sound stupid to when you say I don't. The 1500 plus architects and engineers refuting the conpiracy is "credible evidence", and that's only one tiny bit of it.

Cmon, you're a lot better at arguing than posts like this. I'm very disappointed.


The key word in Donger's post is "credible".

And while money, power and self-interests are certainly prime motivators for humans, you need to connect the dots between those who have the money, power and self-interest all the way to being in position to pull this off, being able to pull this off, being able to cover it up successfully, and then acknowledging that all of those people (whoever htey are) are perfectly willing to commit mass murder of helpless American civilians to further their goals.

Good luck with that.

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:34 AM
The key word in Donger's post is "credible".

And while money, power and self-interests are certainly prime motivators for humans, you need to connect the dots between those who have the money, power and self-interest all the way to being in position to pull this off, being able to pull this off, being able to cover it up successfully, and then acknowledging that all of those people (whoever htey are) are perfectly willing to commit mass murder of helpless American civilians to further their goals.

Good luck with that.

Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld sent a few boxes with cash and instructions to Osama and Co. inn Afghanistan and gave a date/timetable. That was easy!

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:36 AM
Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft and Rumsfeld sent a few boxes with cash and instructions to Osama and Co. inn Afghanistan and gave a date/timetable. That was easy!


And absurd. Try again.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 10:36 AM
The key word in Donger's post is "credible".

And while money, power and self-interests are certainly prime motivators for humans, you need to connect the dots between those who have the money, power and self-interest all the way to being in position to pull this off, being able to pull this off, being able to cover it up successfully, and then acknowledging that all of those people (whoever htey are) are perfectly willing to commit mass murder of helpless American civilians to further their goals.Good luck with that.

Again, the sources you have are only credible because you believe them, others don't so to them they are not credible, so it's a wash.

And to the bolded part.......We do it everyday just not with Americans, but since they are not Americans it's cool right?

Donger
08-04-2011, 10:37 AM
You don't have any evidence either, that's the thing. You have reports so do we, you have videos, so do we, you have first responders and people at the scene, so do we. And the only thing that makes yours "credible" is the fact that you believe it.

Huh? "We" have tons of very credible evidence.

Motive for AQ. Killing more Americans. They did it before 9/11, so we know that they were motivated. They even attacked the WTC before.

We know that the AQ terrorists were on the flights that day.

We know that aircraft hit the buildings.

Now, please give me ANY evidence that there was an "inside" conspiracy that coordinated with and cooperated with AQ.

Please provide ANY evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:38 AM
And absurd. Try again.

Absurd? Maybe, but not impossible.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:39 AM
Again, the sources you have are only credible because you believe them, others don't so to them they are not credible, so it's a wash.

And to the bolded part.......We do it everyday just not with Americans, but since they are not Americans it's cool right?


Who commits mass murder every day?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 10:39 AM
Huh? "We" have tons of very credible evidence.

Motive for AQ. Killing more Americans. They did it before 9/11, so we know that they were motivated. They even attacked the WTC before.

We know that the AQ terrorists were on the flights that day.

We know that aircraft hit the buildings.

Now, please give me ANY evidence that there was an "inside" conspiracy that coordinated with and cooperated with AQ.

Please provide ANY evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.

Like i said, you have what they told you. YOU have no evidence. You can dig up videos and so can I. I'll call yours bullshit and you'll do the same with mine.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 10:41 AM
Who commits mass murder every day?

We do, where the hell have you been. You think that when were dropping bombs that they only hit the "bad" guys. Granted it's not every single day, but damn.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:41 AM
Absurd? Maybe, but not impossible.

Actually, impossible as well, for it to be just those four.

What did those four know about airline security procedures beyond what anyone else knew? How did any of those four know where OBL was? How did they deliver the package to him? Why would OBL believe/trust them?

It's far past being believable by rational minds.

Try again.

Donger
08-04-2011, 10:42 AM
Like i said, you have what they told you. YOU have no evidence. You can dig up videos and so can I. I'll call yours bullshit and you'll do the same with mine.

You mean other than the terrorists being recorded going through security at the airports?

You mean other than the recording of their voices in the cockpits after they hijacked the planes?

You mean other than the radar tracks of the planes flying over NYC right before they hit?

You mean other than the videos (news and private) of the aircraft hitting the buildings?

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:43 AM
We do, where the hell have you been. You think that when were dropping bombs that they only hit the "bad" guys. Granted it's not every single day, but damn.

We are at war. There are certainly innocent casualties as well, which is regrettable but also sadly common in wartime.

Killing enemies in combat is not mass murder.

I ask again, who commits mass murder every day (or nearly every day, since you gave a little ground there)?

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:44 AM
You mean other than the terrorists being recorded going through security at the airports?

You mean other than the recording of their voices in the cockpits after they hijacked the planes?

You mean other than the radar tracks of the planes flying over NYC right before they hit?

You mean other than the videos (news and private) of the aircraft hitting the buildings?


Doooooood, like I said, ya got nuthin'...

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 10:45 AM
[QUOTE=Amnorix;7800916]What did those four know about airline security procedures beyond what anyone else knew? How did any of those four know where OBL was? How did they deliver the package to him? Why would OBL believe/trust them?

It's far past being believable by rational minds.

QUOTE]

They're the powers that be, they can get anything and everything and anyone they want.

No it's really not.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:45 AM
We do, where the hell have you been. You think that when were dropping bombs that they only hit the "bad" guys. Granted it's not every single day, but damn.


I have to ask -- do you also believe the earth is flat? If not, why not?

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 10:46 AM
They're the powers that be, they can get anything and everything and anyone they want.

No it's really not.


What are they, the Illuminati? Do they have magic powers? Can they control minds?

Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about? If they can get anything and everything and anyone they want, then why the hell do they need to commit mass murder to get it. Why not just have Fort Knox deliver its gold to their basement or something?


Or are you just a mult?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 10:48 AM
We are at war. There are certainly innocent casualties as well, which is regrettable but also sadly common in wartime.

Killing enemies in combat is not mass murder.

I ask again, who commits mass murder every day (or nearly every day, since you gave a little ground there)?

Like i said, they aren't Americans so it's cool. We are not at war. We are "spreading democracy" by blowing up people and taking over their land.
How are the people of Libya, Iraq, Afganistan our enemies.....oh because they told you so. 9/11 was ten years ago, there is no reason to still have troops over there because they MIGHT do something. We bomb people all of the time but it's cool for us to do it because we are the good guys right?

And again, WE DO

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 10:57 AM
Huh? "We" have tons of very credible evidence.

Motive for AQ. Killing more Americans. They did it before 9/11, so we know that they were motivated. They even attacked the WTC before. 1

We know that the AQ terrorists were on the flights that day. 2

We know that aircraft hit the buildings. 3

Now, please give me ANY evidence that there was an "inside" conspiracy that coordinated with and cooperated with AQ.

Please provide ANY evidence that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.


1 <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YZ2VpfUqRoo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You trust the Fbi, well he was former FBI. So who is right.

2 There were people spotted by cameras yes, and they may have been on the plane, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

3 Okay, so that doesn't prove anything or disprove anything either.

So what was the point of your post again?

Donger
08-04-2011, 11:03 AM
1 <iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YZ2VpfUqRoo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You trust the Fbi, well he was former FBI. So who is right.

2 There were people spotted by cameras yes, and they may have been on the plane, but that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

3 Okay, so that doesn't prove anything or disprove anything either.

So what was the point of your post again?

That I have plenty of non-kook evidence that solidly backs the official story of what happened on 9/11.

What do you have again?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:07 AM
That I have plenty of non-kook evidence that solidly backs the official story of what happened on 9/11.

What do you have again?


:banghead: You and your friends are not some magical authority on whats right, wrong, crazy, or sane. It's all opinions. How can you not see that?

Donger
08-04-2011, 11:08 AM
:banghead: You and your friends are not some magical authority on whats right, wrong, crazy, or sane. It's all opinions. How can you not see that?

What I listed above aren't opinions. They are facts.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:09 AM
That I have plenty of non-kook evidence that solidly backs the official story of what happened on 9/11.

What do you have again?

That is another reason why I refrain from posting to many vids or articles, you and your friends will just make some third grade comment, laugh, and not even read it.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:09 AM
What I listed above aren't opinions. They are facts.


why dong why?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:10 AM
I'm talking about the "kook" evidence vs the non "kook' evidence

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:11 AM
I see people praising you in other threads but damn man

Donger
08-04-2011, 11:11 AM
That is another reason why I refrain from posting to many vids or articles, you and your friends will just make some third grade comment, laugh, and not even read it.

When the title of the thread is incorrect, yeah, I tend to be a little skeptical of the content.

Anyway, here's a quick bio on Gunderson:

Since his retirement, Gunderson has publicly claimed that several high profile deaths or crimes have been committed by prolific satanic cults, also often claiming involvement by high level government officials. Cases where he has made such claims include the death of Sonny Bono, the Oklahoma City bombing, the MacDonald case,[6] and the Franklin child-prostitution ring allegations. He recently provided an affidavit about Gang Stalking regarding Freedom of Information Request No. 10-00169 [7]

Gunderson also claims, that the United Nations are using chemtrails worldwide to poison fish and birds and conducting this way a genocide.[8]

Yeah, sounds like a good foundation in kookiness.

Donger
08-04-2011, 11:11 AM
why dong why?

I already told you why they are facts.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:12 AM
Only because you don't believe it.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:13 AM
This tend to happen between the two of us everytime it's just us talking. Then here soon RC will jump in and it's rinse and repeat.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:15 AM
So let's try again.

How is it possible that an I.D. was found in the rumble of the T.T.?

Donger
08-04-2011, 11:18 AM
Only because you don't believe it.

I do believe it.

Donger
08-04-2011, 11:19 AM
So let's try again.

How is it possible that an I.D. was found in the rumble of the T.T.?

Why isn't that possible?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:21 AM
Why isn't that possible?

Wait, what?

You claim that these fires were hot enough to melt steel, to bring down a building but the fire somehow knew to not burn an I.D. that happen to belong to one of the terrorist?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:21 AM
How many other pieces of paper/plastic survived the fires?

Donger
08-04-2011, 11:23 AM
Wait, what?

You claim that these fires were hot enough to melt steel, to bring down a building but the fire somehow knew to not burn an I.D. that happen to belong to one of the terrorist?

How do you know that it was trapped inside the building during the fires?

epitome1170
08-04-2011, 11:25 AM
CivE with professional licensure is sufficient.

I disagree. If he has a CE (with the PE obviously), that does not necessarily mean that he practices in structures (as you can pass a PE exam without ever taking any structural examinations depending on the discipline that you take). He could even have passed the SE1 (the structural exam to get your PE), but could have done it in bridge design and not building design which means he would not necessarily know the codes related to buildings.

So basically, being a PE needs to be expanded upon greatly... hell being a SE (Professional Structural Engineer) needs to be expanded on as well because it can be done just in bridges.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:29 AM
How do you know that it was trapped inside the building during the fires?

I don't, but how do you know it wasn't? Plus are you seriously trying to say that an I.D., from one of the "terrorist" ,could have made it when, steel, plane pieces, people, glass, and everything else didn't. Really? Really?

Wow!!

Donger
08-04-2011, 11:32 AM
I don't, but how do you know it wasn't? Plus are you seriously trying to say that an I.D., from one of the "terrorist" ,could have made it when, steel, plane pieces, people, glass, and everything else didn't. Really? Really?

Wow!!

Sure. Do you remember all the crap that flew out of the buildings when the plane hit?

Backwards Masking
08-04-2011, 11:32 AM
What are they, the Illuminati? Do they have magic powers? Can they control minds?

Seriously, what the **** are you talking about? If they can get anything and everything and anyone they want, then why the hell do they need to commit mass murder to get it. Why not just have Fort Knox deliver its gold to their basement or something?


Or are you just a mult?

They're not after money, they have all the money they could ever dream of.

No I am not a mult, my account was vigorously dissected by the mods and I am clean.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:37 AM
Sure. Do you remember all the crap that flew out of the buildings when the plane hit?

I cannot believe you are serious about this. ROFL

This is why I question.

Donger
08-04-2011, 11:39 AM
I cannot believe you are serious about this. ROFL

This is why I question.

Do you or do you not see stuff flying out from the building after the aircraft hits?

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9K00uAVYDHA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:40 AM
Do you or do you not see stuff flying out from the building after the aircraft hits?

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9K00uAVYDHA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Dong stop just stop

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:40 AM
Another reason why I question


Testimonies in the Oral Histories Suggestive of Controlled Demolition

Several FDNY members reported that they heard an explosion just before the south tower collapsed. For example, Battalion Chief John Sudnik said that while he and others were working at the command post, "we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down."20

Firefighter Timothy Julian said: "First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device. . . . I just heard like an explosion and then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down."21

Emergency medical technician Michael Ober said: "[W]e heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and . . . it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. . . . I didn't think they were coming down. I just froze and stood there looking at it."22 Ober's testimony suggests that he heard and saw the explosion before he saw any sign that the building was coming down.

This point is made even more clearly by Chief Frank Cruthers, who said: "There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."23

These statements by Ober and Cruthers, indicating that there was a delay between the explosion and the beginning of the collapse, suggest that the sounds and the horizontal ejection of materials could not be attributed simply to the onset of the collapse.

Donger
08-04-2011, 11:41 AM
Dong stop just stop

I'll take it's that's a yes. So, how do you know that the ID wasn't part of that stuff?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 11:43 AM
I'll take it's that's a yes. So, how do you know that the ID wasn't part of that stuff?

You are making yourself look bad dong, please stop. Sure the i.d. could have fallen out of the plane or window of the building or whatever, but you don't find that a little bit of a coincedence?


Of course not.

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 11:50 AM
Here's your answers Donger

Hi XXXXXX – yes, NIST changed their final report and indeed acknowledged freefall for 2.25 seconds which is over 100 feet of total freefall.

They still have “three stages” , but the acceleration at “stage B” of 32.2 fps (freefall) for over 100 feet (about 8 stories) means that there could be no supports whatsoever or as Dr. Sundar from NIST says “no structural components below it”.

This means that something had to remove all those supports FIRST, allowing it to fall freely. The falling body cannot do this. That is IMPOSSIBLE with a fire induced progressive collapse.

NIST changed their final report to acknowledge this fact.
Figure 3-15 shows this as well as some text.

It’s clearly explained in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL206C1F5EDFC83824&v=eDvNS9iMjzA&feature=player_embedded

Also, their initiation of collapse is not correct because the thermal expansion of that beam with the delta T (change in temp) is not enough to push it off the beam seat of column 79, see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU

And explosions WERE heard for WTC 7. NIST refused to acknowledge it. See this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=player_embedded


Moreover the twin towers “collapse” is impossible on many fronts.

First, a uniformly accelerating body (not freefall but always accelerating) imposes a force LESS than its own static weight as its accelerating. The only time a falling body can impose a force more than its static weight is when the falling body decelerates. A falling hammer can only drive a nail when it decelerates, but not when it accelerates. The towers never decelerated, and therefore cannot impose a force more than when it was at rest. Since the lower tower was undamaged and could support the top floors, it would take a major deceleration to crush them.

Second, the fall of the spire (the core columns)is impossible unless something cut them. (The spire fell well after all the roof and floors were destroyed. )

Third the eutectic formations on the steel found cannot be caused by the gypsum board. Its chemically impossible. But thermate can cause eutectic formations.

Fourth , the formation of iron microspheres found INSIDE peoples apartments after the towers fell indicate heat much hotter than office and jet fuel.

Fifth, active nano-thermite was found at ground zero in the dust. That cannot form naturally because it would defy the second laws of thermodynamics.

The only thing that explains everything we observed is some type of controlled demolitions for both towe3rs and wtc 7 using some combination of incendiaries and explosives.

See my latest video for a summary of things that are totally impossible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0

And here is my web site along with David chandler that you can poke around on.

No one…no one has been able to prove us wrong. (they can say we are wrong, but that’s just talk) NO one can prove us wrong,

Jon

epitome1170
08-04-2011, 11:58 AM
Here's your answers Donger

Hi XXXXXX – yes, NIST changed their final report and indeed acknowledged freefall for 2.25 seconds which is over 100 feet of total freefall.

They still have “three stages” , but the acceleration at “stage B” of 32.2 fps (freefall) for over 100 feet (about 8 stories) means that there could be no supports whatsoever or as Dr. Sundar from NIST says “no structural components below it”.

This means that something had to remove all those supports FIRST, allowing it to fall freely. The falling body cannot do this. That is IMPOSSIBLE with a fire induced progressive collapse.

NIST changed their final report to acknowledge this fact.
Figure 3-15 shows this as well as some text.

It’s clearly explained in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL206C1F5EDFC83824&v=eDvNS9iMjzA&feature=player_embedded

Also, their initiation of collapse is not correct because the thermal expansion of that beam with the delta T (change in temp) is not enough to push it off the beam seat of column 79, see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU

And explosions WERE heard for WTC 7. NIST refused to acknowledge it. See this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=player_embedded


Moreover the twin towers “collapse” is impossible on many fronts.

First, a uniformly accelerating body (not freefall but always accelerating) imposes a force LESS than its own static weight as its accelerating. The only time a falling body can impose a force more than its static weight is when the falling body decelerates. A falling hammer can only drive a nail when it decelerates, but not when it accelerates. The towers never decelerated, and therefore cannot impose a force more than when it was at rest. Since the lower tower was undamaged and could support the top floors, it would take a major deceleration to crush them.

Second, the fall of the spire (the core columns)is impossible unless something cut them. (The spire fell well after all the roof and floors were destroyed. )

Third the eutectic formations on the steel found cannot be caused by the gypsum board. Its chemically impossible. But thermate can cause eutectic formations.

Fourth , the formation of iron microspheres found INSIDE peoples apartments after the towers fell indicate heat much hotter than office and jet fuel.

Fifth, active nano-thermite was found at ground zero in the dust. That cannot form naturally because it would defy the second laws of thermodynamics.

The only thing that explains everything we observed is some type of controlled demolitions for both towe3rs and wtc 7 using some combination of incendiaries and explosives.

See my latest video for a summary of things that are totally impossible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0

And here is my web site along with David chandler that you can poke around on.

No one…no one has been able to prove us wrong. (they can say we are wrong, but that’s just talk) NO one can prove us wrong,

Jon

Did you ever see what discipline his P.E. is in?

patteeu
08-04-2011, 12:19 PM
:spock:

No, it really doesn't.

The non-kook version of the events of 9/11 is that the 19 terrorists carried out the attack. There is no conspiracy.

Well, technically, there's still a conspiracy. It's just not the kind of implausible conspiracy that truthers prefer and sane people shake their heads about.

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 12:19 PM
Did you ever see what discipline his P.E. is in?

dunno, I just emailed him to ask.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 12:27 PM
Truthers....the government is and has been lying to us and people want the truth, how dare they

Wow

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 12:28 PM
Did you ever see what discipline his P.E. is in?



I went to school for structural engineering however I don’t call myself a structural engineer since I don’t do high-rises.

I am a Civil Engineer.


But it doesn’t take an engineer to see that the twin towers were blown up…all you have to do is observe and research a little with an open mind.

A high school education in basic physics is plenty to see it.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 12:37 PM
I went to school for structural engineering however I don’t call myself a structural engineer since I don’t do high-rises.

I am a Civil Engineer.


But it doesn’t take an engineer to see that the twin towers were blown up…all you have to do is observe and research a little with an open mind.

A high school education in basic physics is plenty to see it.

The crazy part about your post from your friend is, people are more willing to believe the gov, who lies, cheats and steals, and some people they don't know (who were paid by the gov) but then they'll tell you that you're friend ,who really has know reason to go through some long drawn out experiment and help write reports other than the fact he smells a rat, doesn't have the credentials necessary to meet their expectations.

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 12:52 PM
The crazy part about your post from your friend is, people are more willing to believe the gov, who lies, cheats and steals, and some people they don't know (who were paid by the gov) but then they'll tell you that you're friend ,who really has know reason to go through some long drawn out experiment and help write reports other than the fact he smells a rat, doesn't have the credentials necessary to meet their expectations.

I know, I'm just waiting for that, then I'm done.
But at least some are apparently taking the time to look at what he sent.

Jons a good guy and I'm glad I know him. If he does another experiment with fire or explosives I asked that he let me and another friend (whom enjoys blowing shit up as much as me) to assist. I'd bring the beer of course because that's how I roll.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 12:54 PM
I know, I'm just waiting for that, then I'm done.
But at least some are apparently taking the time to look at what he sent.

Jons a good guy and I'm glad I know him. If he does another experiment with fire or explosives I asked that he let me and another friend (whom enjoys blowing shit up as much as me) to assist. I'd bring the beer of course because that's how I roll.

That's cool man. Where the hell is Dong. I can just see him sitting down in a corner, holding his knees, rocking, "nist....nist....they said fires.....n....i.....s.......AHHHHHHHH....

ROFL

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 01:00 PM
That's cool man. Where the hell is Dong. I can just see him sitting down in a corner, holding his knees, rocking, "nist....nist....they said fires.....n....i.....s.......AHHHHHHHH....

ROFL

That would be funny, but I don't think that's what he's doing.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 01:02 PM
That would be funny, but I don't think that's what he's doing.

Yea, he'll be back with his "evidence" here shortly

epitome1170
08-04-2011, 01:13 PM
The crazy part about your post from your friend is, people are more willing to believe the gov, who lies, cheats and steals, and some people they don't know (who were paid by the gov) but then they'll tell you that you're friend ,who really has know reason to go through some long drawn out experiment and help write reports other than the fact he smells a rat, doesn't have the credentials necessary to meet their expectations.

Not at all... I was just curious because I am a S.E. and I have explained my view point on it earlier in this thread and so I wanted to get an idea of his background as there is A LOT of ignorance about S.E.'s and architecture and the difference between the two.

That said it is odd that he would say he studied structural engineering, but he is a civil. I don't know of any programs from a university that is structural engineering. All the programs are either architectural engineering or civil engineering with an emphasis in structural engineering. That is neither here nor there... just an observation and not one meant to degrade his degree nor his professionalism.

I will disagree with him about his thoughts, approaches and assumptions about the towers must have been blown up and basic physics rationalizing that. I can see it being a possibility, but in no way would I ever say it is the only way it happened (nor do I think it happened that way).

Fish
08-04-2011, 01:13 PM
First, a uniformly accelerating body (not freefall but always accelerating) imposes a force LESS than its own static weight as its accelerating. The only time a falling body can impose a force more than its static weight is when the falling body decelerates. A falling hammer can only drive a nail when it decelerates, but not when it accelerates. The towers never decelerated, and therefore cannot impose a force more than when it was at rest. Since the lower tower was undamaged and could support the top floors, it would take a major deceleration to crush them.

Huh?

F=ma is just a theory here or what?

epitome1170
08-04-2011, 01:22 PM
Huh?

F=ma is just a theory here or what?

I understand what he is trying to say, but he does not say it very well and I think he is off base.

To summarize...

If a floor A is falling there should be some deceleration of floor A at the impact with floor B in order for floor B to see any of this impact loading (thus the increase in loading). If there is not a deceleration in floor A, then the theorem implies that floor B was moving at nearly the same rate as floor A so the impact force was minimal.

The reason I disagree is because of the reduced capacties of the steel beams due to the fire at impact. This fire created a plastic state which allowed for more deflections and very little rigidities. I would anticipate very, very minimal resistance during the fall which would be hard to estimate due to debris surrounding the floors at impact.

Also, as I have stated previously, progressive collapse and building implosions look very similar from the naked eye as they both rely on the same failure mechanisms.

vailpass
08-04-2011, 01:25 PM
Dog chasing it's tail....

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 01:42 PM
I understand what he is trying to say, but he does not say it very well and I think he is off base.

.

I passed this on to Jon to let him respond.

Donger
08-04-2011, 01:47 PM
Here's your answers Donger

Hi XXXXXX – yes, NIST changed their final report and indeed acknowledged freefall for 2.25 seconds which is over 100 feet of total freefall.

They still have “three stages” , but the acceleration at “stage B” of 32.2 fps (freefall) for over 100 feet (about 8 stories) means that there could be no supports whatsoever or as Dr. Sundar from NIST says “no structural components below it”.

This means that something had to remove all those supports FIRST, allowing it to fall freely. The falling body cannot do this. That is IMPOSSIBLE with a fire induced progressive collapse.

NIST changed their final report to acknowledge this fact.
Figure 3-15 shows this as well as some text.

It’s clearly explained in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL206C1F5EDFC83824&v=eDvNS9iMjzA&feature=player_embedded

Also, their initiation of collapse is not correct because the thermal expansion of that beam with the delta T (change in temp) is not enough to push it off the beam seat of column 79, see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU

And explosions WERE heard for WTC 7. NIST refused to acknowledge it. See this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERhoNYj9_fg&feature=player_embedded


Moreover the twin towers “collapse” is impossible on many fronts.

First, a uniformly accelerating body (not freefall but always accelerating) imposes a force LESS than its own static weight as its accelerating. The only time a falling body can impose a force more than its static weight is when the falling body decelerates. A falling hammer can only drive a nail when it decelerates, but not when it accelerates. The towers never decelerated, and therefore cannot impose a force more than when it was at rest. Since the lower tower was undamaged and could support the top floors, it would take a major deceleration to crush them.

Second, the fall of the spire (the core columns)is impossible unless something cut them. (The spire fell well after all the roof and floors were destroyed. )

Third the eutectic formations on the steel found cannot be caused by the gypsum board. Its chemically impossible. But thermate can cause eutectic formations.

Fourth , the formation of iron microspheres found INSIDE peoples apartments after the towers fell indicate heat much hotter than office and jet fuel.

Fifth, active nano-thermite was found at ground zero in the dust. That cannot form naturally because it would defy the second laws of thermodynamics.

The only thing that explains everything we observed is some type of controlled demolitions for both towe3rs and wtc 7 using some combination of incendiaries and explosives.

See my latest video for a summary of things that are totally impossible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0

And here is my web site along with David chandler that you can poke around on.

No one…no one has been able to prove us wrong. (they can say we are wrong, but that’s just talk) NO one can prove us wrong,

Jon

Gee, where to begin.

We've already talked about free-fall. The NIST report states that it took longer than the time required for free-fall (+40% more) for the TOTAL building structure to collapse. Please note that Stage 2 (the part that NIST acknowledges was in free-fall) was the collapse of the north face of the building. Please also note that Stage 1 was the initial buckling of the exterior columns of the lower stories of the north face. As soon as that buckling took place (Stage 1), sure the entire north face essentially free-fell.

Pretty simple stuff.

As to the proof of eyewitnesses to prove that there was an explosion in WTC 7, sorry, but are any of these people explosive experts? Have any of them heard an actual controlled detonation of a building before? If not, I wouldn't exactly call there opinions credible.

The rest of it just sounds like a bunch of kookiness to me.

Donger
08-04-2011, 01:48 PM
That's cool man. Where the hell is Dong. I can just see him sitting down in a corner, holding his knees, rocking, "nist....nist....they said fires.....n....i.....s.......AHHHHHHHH....

ROFL

:spock:

I went for a bike ride.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 01:51 PM
Gee, where to begin.

We've already talked about free-fall. The NIST report states that it took longer than the time required for free-fall (+40% more) for the TOTAL building structure to collapse. Please note that Stage 2 (the part that NIST acknowledges was in free-fall) was the collapse of the north face of the building. Please also note that Stage 1 was the initial buckling of the exterior columns of the lower stories of the north face. As soon as that buckling took place (Stage 1), sure the entire north face essentially free-fell.

Pretty simple stuff.

As to the proof of eyewitnesses to prove that there was an explosion in WTC 7, sorry, but are any of these people explosive experts? Have any of them heard an actual controlled detonation of a building before? If not, I wouldn't exactly call there opinions credible.

The rest of it just sounds like a bunch of kookiness to me.

Right on cue

Graystoke
08-04-2011, 01:55 PM
:spock:

I went for a bike ride.

What are you THINKING MAN!

We must all, Google, youtube, consult Non Structural Engineers and Wiki to solve this conspiracy the Guberment is hiding.

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 02:00 PM
Right on cue

yep, that one doesn't suprise.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 02:04 PM
If NIST's credibility can be questioned by someone who used to work for/with them, why does everyone else jump to believe them?

petegz28
08-04-2011, 02:07 PM
If NIST's credibility can be questioned by someone who used to work for/with them, why does everyone else jump to believe them?

People don't want to believe anything other than the Gov's story. I am not syaing the Gov is right or wrong. I am saying that people just don't want to believe it was anything other than what we are told it is.

Donger
08-04-2011, 02:07 PM
If NIST's credibility can be questioned by someone who used to work for/with them, why does everyone else jump to believe them?

This guy used to work for NIST?

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 02:07 PM
I understand what he is trying to say, but he does not say it very well and I think he is off base.

To summarize...

If a floor A is falling there should be some deceleration of floor A at the impact with floor B in order for floor B to see any of this impact loading (thus the increase in loading). If there is not a deceleration in floor A, then the theorem implies that floor B was moving at nearly the same rate as floor A so the impact force was minimal.

The reason I disagree is because of the reduced capacties of the steel beams due to the fire at impact. This fire created a plastic state which allowed for more deflections and very little rigidities. I would anticipate very, very minimal resistance during the fall which would be hard to estimate due to debris surrounding the floors at impact.

Also, as I have stated previously, progressive collapse and building implosions look very similar from the naked eye as they both rely on the same failure mechanisms.

I'll post his answer to your comments. I think it funny, but you won't.

Yeah…he doesn’t get it. Most don’t.

The force imposed on the nail is from the DEceleration of a falling hammer not the acceleration. That’s the F = ma. Acceleration is both positive and negative. In this case it’s the negative deceleration that imposes the force, NOT the acceleration of a falling object as it falls. You weigh MORE when standing in an elevator going down when the elevator decelerates near the bottom of your ride. You weigh LESS as the elevator just starts off downward accelerating. And you weigh the same as it falls at a constant velocity on its way down.

As a downward falling object is ACCELERATING down it is imposing LESS force not MORE force as when it was static. It “weighs” less.

Imagine holding your coffee cup. It weighs say 1 lb.

But now try to make it freefall or at least always accelerate downward. The ONLY way to do this is to reduce the supporting force of your hand. There is no other way wince the downward load is always the coffee cups weight = mg. As its accelerating down the upward force from your hand is less and hence the downward force imposed by the cup on your hand is also less in accordance with Newtons 3rd law. (every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It has to be. The only way for the force to increase on your hand is to slow down the rate of fall or decelerate. That’s the F in F=ma. But the “a” is negative or the deceleration, NOT the acceleration.

Send him this video I did called Newton vs. NIST.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tejFUDlV81w&feature=player_embedded



Tell him to watch ,think and ponder this before he runs his mouth. He is wrong.

Donger
08-04-2011, 02:08 PM
People don't want to believe anything other than the Gov's story. I am not syaing the Gov is right or wrong. I am saying that people just don't want to believe it was anything other than what we are told it is.

Not so. I would welcome some credible evidence that this was a conspiracy.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 02:08 PM
People don't want to believe anything other than the Gov's story. I am not syaing the Gov is right or wrong. I am saying that people just don't want to believe it was anything other than what we are told it is.

I'm seeing that, but I don't get why? Who really knows what happened but damn there is no way that this event is as cut and dry as people make it out to be.

Donger
08-04-2011, 02:09 PM
Ask you guy to explain the picture in 44, would you please?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 02:09 PM
Not so. I would welcome some credible evidence that this was a conspiracy.


There you go again, it's all opinion

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 02:10 PM
:spock:

I went for a bike ride.

You should put the seat back on that bike donger it might improve your salty disposition.

Donger
08-04-2011, 02:10 PM
There you go again, it's all opinion

So this Jon guy is stating an opinion, right?

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 02:11 PM
So this Jon guy is stating an opinion, right?

Yes he is.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 02:12 PM
This guy used to work for NIST?

No not him.....him >>>>Dr. Quintere former Chief of NIST Fire Science Division ....


Let's examine the quotes from Dr. Quintiere. Regardless of what he believes really happened, his comments add credibility to the argument that the NIST report lacks scientific integrity. It does not singularly prove the argument, but it supports it.

The quotes are all from the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference, or here:
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy24133.000/hsy24133_0f.htm

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?
NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable. Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.
I wish that there would be a peer review of this. I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 02:15 PM
So this Jon guy is stating an opinion, right?

:banghead: dammit man. You keep using the word "credible" and I keep telling you that in this case that word is just YOUR opinion. I find most of your sources to be flat out liars and therefore to me they are not credible but that is my opinion

Brainiac
08-04-2011, 02:17 PM
I'm thinking about starting a thread called "Abortion: Should it be legal?".

I'm sure it will cover a lot of new ground too.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 02:17 PM
I'm thinking about starting a thread called "Abortion: Should it be legal?".

I'm sure it will cover a lot of new ground too.

DO IT....DO IT

Donger
08-04-2011, 02:18 PM
Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do?

Oops.

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

Donger
08-04-2011, 02:19 PM
:banghead: dammit man. You keep using the word "credible" and I keep telling you that in this case that word is just YOUR opinion. I find most of your sources to be flat out liars and therefore to me they are not credible but that is my opinion

That's because you're a kook.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 02:21 PM
Oops.

Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert.

For the building to have been prepared for intentional demolition, walls and/or column enclosures and fireproofing would have to be removed and replaced without being detected. Preparing a column includes steps such as cutting sections with torches, which produces noxious and odorous fumes. Intentional demolition usually requires applying explosive charges to most, if not all, interior columns, not just one or a limited set of columns in a building.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column . presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

:LOL: Do you work for NIST or something. You sure do suck their balls alot. One of there own said their report is questionable, that is enough........to i don't ...........question something.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 02:23 PM
I'll post his answer to your comments. I think it funny, but you won't.

Yeah…he doesn’t get it. Most don’t.

The force imposed on the nail is from the DEceleration of a falling hammer not the acceleration. That’s the F = ma. Acceleration is both positive and negative. In this case it’s the negative deceleration that imposes the force, NOT the acceleration of a falling object as it falls. You weigh MORE when standing in an elevator going down when the elevator decelerates near the bottom of your ride. You weigh LESS as the elevator just starts off downward accelerating. And you weigh the same as it falls at a constant velocity on its way down.

As a downward falling object is ACCELERATING down it is imposing LESS force not MORE force as when it was static. It “weighs” less.

Imagine holding your coffee cup. It weighs say 1 lb.

But now try to make it freefall or at least always accelerate downward. The ONLY way to do this is to reduce the supporting force of your hand. There is no other way wince the downward load is always the coffee cups weight = mg. As its accelerating down the upward force from your hand is less and hence the downward force imposed by the cup on your hand is also less in accordance with Newtons 3rd law. (every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It has to be. The only way for the force to increase on your hand is to slow down the rate of fall or decelerate. That’s the F in F=ma. But the “a” is negative or the deceleration, NOT the acceleration.

Send him this video I did called Newton vs. NIST.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tejFUDlV81w&feature=player_embedded



Tell him to watch ,think and ponder this before he runs his mouth. He is wrong.


I'm not even a PE or anything and even I can see that he hasn't exactly answered Epitome's point at all. Epitome isn't arguing that he has the physics wrong...

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 02:23 PM
That's because you're a kook.


When this whole debate started I thought you were smart and some what of an adult, but the more you talk the more I am dissapointed in you.

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 02:25 PM
Ask you guy to explain the picture in 44, would you please?

No I'm not going to waste his time with something that dumb, I thought that was stupid when you posted it the first time. You've got better questions than that don't you?
I didn't expect to turn you around on this but clearly you didn't even take a reasonable amount of time to try to digest what he was saying and you certainly didn't do it with an open mind.

KILLER_CLOWN
08-04-2011, 02:27 PM
That's because you're a kook.

That's an argument winner there. :spock:

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 02:28 PM
That's an argument winner there. :spock:

everytime :thumb:

KC native
08-04-2011, 02:28 PM
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Donger
08-04-2011, 02:37 PM
When this whole debate started I thought you were smart and some what of an adult, but the more you talk the more I am dissapointed in you.

Well, what else am I supposed to think when someone calls 200 subject matter experts liars, yet doesn't even begin to explain WHY they are liars?

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 02:39 PM
I'm not even a PE or anything and even I can see that he hasn't exactly answered Epitome's point at all. Epitome isn't arguing that he has the physics wrong...

Hmmm you're not a PE? Neither am I.

Look, I've told you where I stand. I brought my boy in to answer a couple of questions which you can disagree or agree with however you see fit.

But in much of this thread you've been talking out of your ass in an arrogant manor like this post I'm replying to.

I've spent too much time on this over the last 2 days, I think I'll go back to making some money.

Try to keep your tailgate up.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 02:41 PM
Hmmm you're not a PE? Neither am I.

Look, I've told you where I stand. I brought my boy in to answer a couple of questions which you can disagree or agree with however you see fit.

But in much of this thread you've been talking out of your ass in an arrogant manor like this post I'm replying to.

I've spent too much time on this over the last 2 days, I think I'll go back to making some money.

Try to keep your tailgate up.


I do appreciate you bringing him in. It's interesting. But he didn't answer Epitome's point. :shrug:

LOCOChief
08-04-2011, 02:45 PM
I do appreciate you bringing him in. It's interesting. But he didn't answer Epitome's point. :shrug:

Ok well he did just elaborate a little more on it so maybe this helps. But I gotta think your like me at this point in that this shit is complicated and I'm sure that your smarter than I but it take me a little time to understand what he's saying or Epitome for that matter:

Jon
A few more comments to his comments:


If a floor A is falling there should be some deceleration of floor A at the impact with floor B in order for floor B to see any of this impact loading (thus the increase in loading).

Exactly. It MUST decelerate if it actually hits anything of significance. The roof of the tower DID NOT DECELERATE. They SPED up the instant it was SUPPOSED to hit the undamaged structure below.

“This fire created a plastic state which allowed for more deflections and very little rigidities”.

At MOST the fire did this ONLY on the floors where the fire was which is where the plane hit. The vast majority of the structure (80 or so floors) remained undamaged. Undamaged.

Not only could the undamaged lower structure carry the upper block but it could also carry ALL design loads at once…and hardly any loads (no snow loads, little live loads (most of the people were out) and most importantly no wind load - which is huge) were on the lower tower compared to design loads.

So let’s say that the fire totally weakened all columns for say 5 floors (magically all at once) and say the “top block” started moving down. Once it got through those five weakened floors it hits the undamaged tower…..it MUST slow down if it really hit it. But it didn’t slow down. Rather it sped up the instant it was supposed to hit!

The only way this can happen is if the lower towers capacity was being destroyed by something other than the falling top portion….explosives blowing out the bottom would account for this motion observed…that is the constant acceleration with NO “jolts” or deceleration.

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 02:48 PM
Well, what else am I supposed to think when someone calls 200 subject matter experts liars, yet doesn't even begin to explain WHY they are liars?

"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

That part says enough about your experts. You are the same person that says a "terrorists" i.d. jumped out of his wallet or he threw it out of the plane or whatever, landed in the rumble and was not burned in a fire that burned steal. If that is your opinion that is fine, but it shows me that you are not interested in anything but the story that you have burned in your head. If that is the case so be it. I withdraw. If you aren't even willing to admit how fucking absurd the whole i.d. thing is there is no reason for us to discuss the matter any further.

Donger
08-04-2011, 02:50 PM
What data is he using to reach the conclusion that there were no "jolts"?

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 03:01 PM
Ok well he did just elaborate a little more on it so maybe this helps. But I gotta think your like me at this point in that this shit is complicated and I'm sure that your smarter than I but it take me a little time to understand what he's saying or Epitome for that matter:

Jon
A few more comments to his comments:


If a floor A is falling there should be some deceleration of floor A at the impact with floor B in order for floor B to see any of this impact loading (thus the increase in loading).

Exactly. It MUST decelerate if it actually hits anything of significance. The roof of the tower DID NOT DECELERATE. They SPED up the instant it was SUPPOSED to hit the undamaged structure below.

“This fire created a plastic state which allowed for more deflections and very little rigidities”.

At MOST the fire did this ONLY on the floors where the fire was which is where the plane hit. The vast majority of the structure (80 or so floors) remained undamaged. Undamaged.

Not only could the undamaged lower structure carry the upper block but it could also carry ALL design loads at once…and hardly any loads (no snow loads, little live loads (most of the people were out) and most importantly no wind load - which is huge) were on the lower tower compared to design loads.

So let’s say that the fire totally weakened all columns for say 5 floors (magically all at once) and say the “top block” started moving down. Once it got through those five weakened floors it hits the undamaged tower…..it MUST slow down if it really hit it. But it didn’t slow down. Rather it sped up the instant it was supposed to hit!

The only way this can happen is if the lower towers capacity was being destroyed by something other than the falling top portion….explosives blowing out the bottom would account for this motion observed…that is the constant acceleration with NO “jolts” or deceleration.


I agree with the physics. I also agree that the 80 or whatever floors under the floors affected by fire were undamaged.

I would tend to think the force of all of that weight crashing down on top of the uppermost undamaged floor would be so far in excess of what it was built to handle that it would collapse in practically no time at all. And when floor 80 (hypothetically) gave way nearly-instaneously from all that weight collapsing on it, then floor 79 will go a heartbeat later, because it now has the same weight coming down on it, plus the just-collapsed 80th floor.

My understanding that the buidling collapsed at less than free-fall speed (though very fast) would seem to be in line with what logic and physics suggest.

But I'm not a PE, I'm a freaking lawyer, so I'll let others carry on this battle. Just stating my own pov.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 03:02 PM
"In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.

That part says enough about your experts. You are the same person that says a "terrorists" i.d. jumped out of his wallet or he threw it out of the plane or whatever, landed in the rumble and was not burned in a fire that burned steal. If that is your opinion that is fine, but it shows me that you are not interested in anything but the story that you have burned in your head. If that is the case so be it. I withdraw. If you aren't even willing to admit how fucking absurd the whole i.d. thing is there is no reason for us to discuss the matter any further.


But, but, but, but, can't you admit that it's at least *possible* that you're wrong?

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 03:06 PM
But, but, but, but, can't you admit that it's at least *possible* that you're wrong?

Are you retarded or do you just play the role on here. I've already said that. That's my whole point and has been from the beginning. I don't know what happened, and neither do you, so to sit here like you have all of the answers because you read some government report is crazy. So i'll ask you, can you admit that YOU might be wrong?

Donger
08-04-2011, 03:10 PM
Here's NIST's take on it, BTW:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for 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 NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 04:31 PM
Here's NIST's take on it, BTW:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for 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 NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.



Pretty much what I was saying, but all sciency-like.


;)

Fish
08-04-2011, 04:40 PM
Here's NIST's take on it, BTW:

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for 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 NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

I struggle to see how anyone can think a giant government conspiracy involving mass murder of its own citizens could be more plausible than the above explanation....

Amnorix
08-04-2011, 04:43 PM
I struggle to see how anyone can think a giant government conspiracy involving mass murder of its own citizens could be more plausible than the above explanation....

I don't even get how they can think there's some kind of Al Quada / BushCo connection. The Truthers can't even explain what they think happened. All they try to do is poke holes in the official explanation, with no plausible alternative theories.

teedubya
08-04-2011, 07:12 PM
704 replies? holy shit. LMAO Skip Towne would be proud.

teedubya
08-04-2011, 07:14 PM
Pretty much what I was saying, but all sciency-like.


;)

And never before had steel columns melted... but it happened 3 times on the same day... including one building the didn't even have a plane hit it.

:doh!:

durtyrute
08-04-2011, 07:28 PM
704 replies? holy shit. LMAO Skip Towne would be proud.

Just had to start it over didn't ya?

go bowe
08-04-2011, 09:59 PM
I'll post his answer to your comments. I think it funny, but you won't.

Yeah…he doesn’t get it. Most don’t.

The force imposed on the nail is from the DEceleration of a falling hammer not the acceleration. That’s the F = ma. Acceleration is both positive and negative. In this case it’s the negative deceleration that imposes the force, NOT the acceleration of a falling object as it falls. You weigh MORE when standing in an elevator going down when the elevator decelerates near the bottom of your ride. You weigh LESS as the elevator just starts off downward accelerating. And you weigh the same as it falls at a constant velocity on its way down.

As a downward falling object is ACCELERATING down it is imposing LESS force not MORE force as when it was static. It “weighs” less.

Imagine holding your coffee cup. It weighs say 1 lb.

But now try to make it freefall or at least always accelerate downward. The ONLY way to do this is to reduce the supporting force of your hand. There is no other way wince the downward load is always the coffee cups weight = mg. As its accelerating down the upward force from your hand is less and hence the downward force imposed by the cup on your hand is also less in accordance with Newtons 3rd law. (every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It has to be. The only way for the force to increase on your hand is to slow down the rate of fall or decelerate. That’s the F in F=ma. But the “a” is negative or the deceleration, NOT the acceleration.

Send him this video I did called Newton vs. NIST.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tejFUDlV81w&feature=player_embedded



Tell him to watch ,think and ponder this before he runs his mouth. He is wrong.
runs his mouth?

a true conspiracy lunatic...

anyone dealing in actual facts supported by actual science and reviewed by tens of thousands of structural engineers is a sheeple and stupid, according to the conspiracy loons...

we should keep our mouths shut, right...

KILLER_CLOWN
08-04-2011, 11:17 PM
runs his mouth?

a true conspiracy lunatic...

anyone dealing in actual facts supported by actual science and reviewed by tens of thousands of structural engineers is a sheeple and stupid, according to the conspiracy loons...

we should keep our mouths shut, right...

We? is that French?

KILLER_CLOWN
08-04-2011, 11:23 PM
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Un6K4zr7jC4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Un6K4zr7jC4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 05:53 AM
And never before had steel columns melted... but it happened 3 times on the same day... including one building the didn't even have a plane hit it.

:doh!:


They didn't "melt". Nobody said they "melted" and they pretty obviously didn't have to "melt". Way to misframe the other side's argument.

WilliamTheIrish
08-05-2011, 06:16 AM
When are you moving to Canada, tee-chubbya?

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 06:30 AM
This topic will never die and I love it

teedubya
08-05-2011, 06:31 AM
They didn't "melt". Nobody said they "melted" and they pretty obviously didn't have to "melt". Way to misframe the other side's argument.

It's been stated many times over the past decade that the steel columns melted in places. However, the US gubment hadn't whisked all of the evidence away so quickly and didn't actually let anyone do any actual scientific tests on the evidence, it would have been obvious. It was a crime scene, and all of the evidence was tampered with... quickly and expeditiously.

But, there is no reason to suspect "100s and 100s of govt workers who had to be on the conspiracy..."

Marvin Bush and Securacom... had 5 days to make this happen... They called off the security... the bomb sniffing dogs, on Sept 6th 2001. Then went to work. So, whoever was behind Securacom... that's where they should look. But, the company disbanded immediately after 9-11.

Again, nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to be suspicious of. o:-)

epitome1170
08-05-2011, 06:33 AM
Exactly. It MUST decelerate if it actually hits anything of significance. The roof of the tower DID NOT DECELERATE. They SPED up the instant it was SUPPOSED to hit the undamaged structure below.

Sped up? Meaning the rate of acceleration increased? That seems impossible unless some huge being on top helped to increase the acceleration caused by gravity.

Now if he means the velocity increased due to gravity... I will let Donger argue that one because he is more intune with the reports and how the structure's "freefall" was 40% less than a true free fall.

“This fire created a plastic state which allowed for more deflections and very little rigidities”.

At MOST the fire did this ONLY on the floors where the fire was which is where the plane hit. The vast majority of the structure (80 or so floors) remained undamaged. Undamaged.

I could perhaps concede this fact although to nitpick a little I would imagine that the heat consumed more than just the floors the fire is on. Fires tend to heat things up that they are around, which is why fire fighters hire S.E.'s to give their opinions on structures before they rush into burning industrial structures.

Not only could the undamaged lower structure carry the upper block but it could also carry ALL design loads at once…and hardly any loads (no snow loads, little live loads (most of the people were out) and most importantly no wind load - which is huge) were on the lower tower compared to design loads.

Here is when I start to realize this guy has little concept of structures. Perhaps I missed it, but I am HIGHLY skeptical that the "lower block" could carry all "design loads" at ones. If he means columns, then ok, but then say columns not this ambiguous "block" term. However, girders and beams carrying 80 floors? No f'ing way. I would be skeptical if an undamaged floor structure could carry 5 floors of just their dead load (that is assuming a 6" floor system per floor which would equate to 375 psf, which is almost 4 times a typical live load of 100 psf... I used 4 times because that is generally a good factor of safety that AISC and ACI uses, by the way).

Also, if he is saying ALL design loads that includes snow loads and live loads, so why stipulate that it is not on there. It shouldn't matter if it is there or not.

And the part that peeves me the most. Who the hell cares if there was little wind load? The building did not fail from the lateral system. It failed due to gravity. Wind load has VERY little effect on the gravity analysis of a structure.

So let’s say that the fire totally weakened all columns for say 5 floors (magically all at once) and say the “top block” started moving down. Once it got through those five weakened floors it hits the undamaged tower…..it MUST slow down if it really hit it. But it didn’t slow down. Rather it sped up the instant it was supposed to hit!

If it hit the floor, it would have to decelerate. It is impossible to otherwise. So here is my running my mouth: LMAO

Say you have this full coffee cup in your right and left hand, but they are stacked together with a popsicle stick (acting like columns). Now if you drop them (simulating) that the bottom structure has been released, compromised or demolished then the two cops would fall at the same rate until impact.

So how could they be demolished so that it appears similar to the video? Explosives would need to be placed on multiple levels throughout the buildings.

Now let's go back to the coffee cups without a popsicle stick this time. If you released both cups (similar mass) at the same time, they would never hit each other until impact with the ground. However, if you released the top one first, the only way it hits the bottom one is if it is going faster than the bottom one (duh). And what happens when they hit? It DEclerates.... it is impossible otherwise without an outside force... according to physics. Now this decleration may be minimal if they are going very close to the same speed, but if one is stationary, then there would be a noticeable deceleration.



LOCO - tell your "S.E." to stop giving real S.E.s bad names and perhaps he should have gone to a decent school that taught physics a little bit better if he really believes the shit that spews from his mouth.

And again, although my personal belief is that it was not demolished, I could justify that view point from others. What I am really questioning here is not whether it was demolished or not from explosives, but rather the explanation and physics being twisted to rationalize this explanation.

epitome1170
08-05-2011, 06:35 AM
It's been stated many times over the past decade that the steel columns melted in places. However, the US gubment hadn't whisked all of the evidence away so quickly and didn't actually let anyone do any actual scientific tests on the evidence, it would have been obvious. It was a crime scene, and all of the evidence was tampered with... quickly and expeditiously.

But, there is no reason to suspect "100s and 100s of govt workers who had to be on the conspiracy..."

Marvin Bush and Securacom... had 5 days to make this happen... They called off the security... the bomb sniffing dogs, on Sept 6th 2001. Then went to work. So, whoever was behind Securacom... that's where they should look. But, the company disbanded immediately after 9-11.

Again, nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to be suspicious of. o:-)

Perhaps they should have let the investigative engineers go in and do their due-diligence (which takes literally weeks if not months... see the Minnesota bridge collapse a few years ago). I am sure the families of the deceased would have been perfectly ok with that and I am sure the U.S. media would have had no problem with that at all.

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 06:40 AM
Perhaps they should have let the investigative engineers go in and do their due-diligence (which takes literally weeks if not months... see the Minnesota bridge collapse a few years ago). I am sure the families of the deceased would have been perfectly ok with that and I am sure the U.S. media would have had no problem with that at all.

A rushed investigation of something on the scale of this event just to please the media? :thumb:

epitome1170
08-05-2011, 06:41 AM
A rushed investigation of something on the scale of this event just to please the media? :thumb:

ROFL Rushed? Have you ever worked with a typical engineer?

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 06:44 AM
ROFL Rushed? Have you ever worked with a typical engineer?


"Perhaps they should have let the investigative engineers go in and do their due-diligence (which takes literally weeks if not months... see the Minnesota bridge collapse a few years ago). I am sure the families of the deceased would have been perfectly ok with that and I am sure the U.S. media would have had no problem with that at all."

epitome1170
08-05-2011, 06:52 AM
"Perhaps they should have let the investigative engineers go in and do their due-diligence (which takes literally weeks if not months... see the Minnesota bridge collapse a few years ago). I am sure the families of the deceased would have been perfectly ok with that and I am sure the U.S. media would have had no problem with that at all."

Meaning?

Do you think investigative engineers can rush? All it would have done is slowed down the clean up and recovery of bodies. Then investigative ASSUMPTIONS would have to be made as well that would be just as inconclusive as the NIST reports (or rather people would question it just as much). So really what good would it be besides a waste of time and money?

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 06:52 AM
So how could they be demolished so that it appears similar to the video? Explosives would need to be placed on multiple levels throughout the buildings.



That is, I believe, one of the various conspiracy theories floating around. I remember during the original eleventy-billion post thread someone posting a video that attempted to explain how each floor was in turn having rigged explosions going off in order to collapse that floor just ahead of the falling uppser structure of the building. This, if memory serves, was the justification for the "free fall or nearly free fall" speed of the building.

So yes, someone snuck in, planted explosives on each floor blow the impact level, etc. This is further "supported" by something involving some Bush relative (Marvin Bush, Teebedubya seems to be saying) and other odd relationships.

I'm not about to dig for that video in THAT thread, but perhaps I can quickly find it on Youtube or something.

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 06:52 AM
I struggle to see how anyone can think a giant government conspiracy involving mass murder of its own citizens could be more plausible than the above explanation....

We kill people all of the time. Why is this any different? You can say that the "wars" are different but they are not. Plus, flying over to another country bombing the shit out of them when they did nothing to you over and over again is not war.

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 06:57 AM
Can't seem to find that video. My memory is that there were closups of various supposed "explosions" and that the windows popping out ahead of the floor coming down was proof of demolition by controlled explosion -- the concept of the air pushing out the windows as a result of the descending mass apparently having escaped them.

In any event, the whole controlled demolition thing ties into allegations regarding thermite, whether it was present,w hether it could or could not "cut steel" etc.

LOCOChief
08-05-2011, 07:00 AM
Here's NIST's take on it, BTW:

[the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

[/I]

Sounds different than the NIST 'take" you posted earlier in this thread. Wonder why they changed their tune? You agree that they did change their conclusions regarding the rate of "collapse" right? I mean after all you posted both conclusions.

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 07:05 AM
Can't seem to find that video. My memory is that there were closups of various supposed "explosions" and that the windows popping out ahead of the floor coming down was proof of demolition by controlled explosion -- the concept of the air pushing out the windows as a result of the descending mass apparently having escaped them.

In any event, the whole controlled demolition thing ties into allegations regarding thermite, whether it was present,w hether it could or could not "cut steel" etc.

I remember the video you were talking about, I looked but couldn't find it either (surprise surprise) but you can see the same thing on this one between 8 and 8:45.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oGo4EkbY5co" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

epitome1170
08-05-2011, 07:07 AM
Can't seem to find that video. My memory is that there were closups of various supposed "explosions" and that the windows popping out ahead of the floor coming down was proof of demolition by controlled explosion -- the concept of the air pushing out the windows as a result of the descending mass apparently having escaped them.

In any event, the whole controlled demolition thing ties into allegations regarding thermite, whether it was present,w hether it could or could not "cut steel" etc.

Windows popping out by no means implies an explosion. Typical window systems are designed for a 1/2" deflection so it does not take a tremendous amount of load for them to lose contact with their seats.

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 07:08 AM
I remember the video you were talking about, I looked but couldn't find it either (surprise surprise) but you can see the same thing on this one between 8 and 8:45.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oGo4EkbY5co" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wow and after the dust settles, they find a "terrorists" i.d., that is some csi shit right there.

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 07:08 AM
I remember the video you were talking about, I looked but couldn't find it either (surprise surprise) but you can see the same thing on this one between 8 and 8:45.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/oGo4EkbY5co" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Wait, is the removal of videos on Youtube now part of the "conspiracy"?

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 07:10 AM
Wait, is the removal of videos on Youtube now part of the "conspiracy"?

You saw the video once before and now you can't find it. Neither can I but the one I posted should do.

LOCOChief
08-05-2011, 07:16 AM
LOCO - tell your "S.E." to stop giving real S.E.s bad names and perhaps he should have gone to a decent school that taught physics a little bit better if he really believes the shit that spews from his mouth.

And again, although my personal belief is that it was not demolished, I could justify that view point from others. What I am really questioning here is not whether it was demolished or not from explosives, but rather the explanation and physics being twisted to rationalize this explanation.


My friend is easy to vet. I gave you his name, place of employment and it's easy to see that he is respected guy, but this is the way you chose to go.

I will send him your responses without the last comments as you were pretty disrespectful. I do want you to know that while I have very little knowledge of physics or any of the science that is being discussed in this thread, that doesn't mean that I can recognize that you're an asshole. In addition to being a very, very successful engineer this guy has done more in the last week to help people in need in his community then you probably have done in your entire life. I will post his responses for you.
Until then remember that LOCOChief told you to go fuck yourself asshole.

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 07:20 AM
Windows popping out by no means implies an explosion. Typical window systems are designed for a 1/2" deflection so it does not take a tremendous amount of load for them to lose contact with their seats.

Testimonies in the Oral Histories Suggestive of Controlled Demolition

Several FDNY members reported that they heard an explosion just before the south tower collapsed. For example, Battalion Chief John Sudnik said that while he and others were working at the command post, "we heard a loud explosion or what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down."20

Firefighter Timothy Julian said: "First I thought it was an explosion. I thought maybe there was a bomb on the plane, but delayed type of thing, you know secondary device. . . . I just heard like an explosion and then a cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down."21

Emergency medical technician Michael Ober said: "[W]e heard a rumble, some twisting metal, we looked up in the air, and . . . it looked to me just like an explosion. It didn't look like the building was coming down, it looked like just one floor had blown completely outside of it. . . . I didn't think they were coming down. I just froze and stood there looking at it."22 Ober's testimony suggests that he heard and saw the explosion before he saw any sign that the building was coming down.

This point is made even more clearly by Chief Frank Cruthers, who said: "There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."23

These statements by Ober and Cruthers, indicating that there was a delay between the explosion and the beginning of the collapse, suggest that the sounds and the horizontal ejection of materials could not be attributed simply to the onset of the collapse.

epitome1170
08-05-2011, 07:23 AM
My friend is easy to vet. I gave you his name, place of employment and it's easy to see that he is respected guy, but this is the way you chose to go.

I will send him your responses without the last comments as you were pretty disrespectful. I do want you to know that while I have very little knowledge of physics or any of the science that is being discussed in this thread, that doesn't mean that I can recognize that you're an asshole. In addition to being a very, very successful engineer this guy has done more in the last week to help people in need in his community then you probably have done in your entire life. I will post his responses for you.
Until then remember that LOCOChief told you to go **** yourself asshole.

I responded with the assholish response because he did the same to me. So quite frankly I could give a shit what you or he thinks of me.

Donger
08-05-2011, 07:26 AM
Sounds different than the NIST 'take" you posted earlier in this thread. Wonder why they changed their tune? You agree that they did change their conclusions regarding the rate of "collapse" right? I mean after all you posted both conclusions.

I would imagine because they were explaining the collapse of WTC 7 in the earlier post, and not the collapses of WTC 1 & 2, which is what they are talking about in the post you quoted.

LOCOChief
08-05-2011, 07:35 AM
I would imagine because they were explaining the collapse of WTC 7 in the earlier post, and not the collapses of WTC 1 & 2, which is what they are talking about in the post you quoted.

So 1 & 2 "collapsed" at free fall rate but building 7 didn't now? Ok just wanted to see where you were coming from.

Donger
08-05-2011, 07:38 AM
So 1 & 2 "collapsed" at free fall rate but building 7 didn't now? Ok just wanted to see where you were coming from.

I think you need to re-read it a little more closely.

epitome1170
08-05-2011, 07:48 AM
Yeah…he doesn’t get it. Most don’t.


Tell him to watch ,think and ponder this before he runs his mouth. He is wrong.


By the way, this is being just as much of an asshole which is why you typically get a jaded response in return.

LOCOChief
08-05-2011, 07:58 AM
By the way, this is being just as much of an asshole which is why you typically get a jaded response in return.

You're right and I went back and looked at his first reply and I can see it there as well. I don't know why he did that and I wish he didn't.

I'm sorry for what I said to you. I guess I was the asshole.

With a little civility I am curious how he responds.

epitome1170
08-05-2011, 08:20 AM
You're right and I went back and looked at his first reply and I can see it there as well. I don't know why he did that and I wish he didn't.

I'm sorry for what I said to you. I guess I was the asshole.

With a little civility I am curious how he responds.

No biggie... typically I am civil, esp to other technical professionals, but when people question my (or my peers) prowness I tend not to respond very well.

Like I said, I have no professional bones to pick on this one I just have my personal opinion and want to make sure that the other opinions out there are actually valid from a SE perspective.

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 08:45 AM
Whatever happened to the families of the people on the planes?

LOCOChief
08-05-2011, 09:00 AM
Whatever happened to the families of the people on the planes?

what do you mean?

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 09:10 AM
what do you mean?

I was looking for some thoughts or comments from them like some of the ones you see from the families of the people in the buildings but I couldn't find any, could someone help me out?

LOCOChief
08-05-2011, 09:48 AM
Like I said, I have no professional bones to pick on this one I just have my personal opinion and want to make sure that the other opinions out there are actually valid from a SE perspective.

Here you go epitome, your comments followed by Jon's responses

“Meaning the rate of acceleration increased? That seems impossible unless some huge being on top helped to increase the acceleration caused by gravity.”
Jon
The VELOCITY of the falling upper “block” (and I use the word “block” loosely but that’s what Professor Bazant calls it), that is the downward velocity of the roof line of tower 1 INCREASED when it should have been hitting the lower undamaged structure. The downward velocity did not decrease momentarily as it should have if it hit something of significance.

“Now if he means the velocity increased due to gravity... I will let Donger argue that one because he is more intune with the reports and how the structure's "freefall" was 40% less than a true free fall.”
Jon
Yes, I mean velocity. Downward velocity in this case. Yes, I use the word “speed” , which is similar (a scalar of the same magnitude) in this case because it’s easy to understand by all. So the roofline of tower one “sped up” or increased in downward velocity.
We are discussing tower one, NOT WTC 7, which fell at total freefall for over 100 feet, acknowledged by NIST in their final report.
But in that case(WTC 7), there is total freefall, therefore there is zero load…zero load imposed on the underlying supports imposed by the upper structure as it accelerates down in freefall. ZERO….its effective “weight” and therefore its downward force is ZERO, meaning that it cannot apply any downward force from the free falling structure on any part of structure below and cannot do any work or crushing , bending or anything.
Something else had to do the work of destroying the lower structure, because otherwise it cannot freefall for over 100 feet.

“Perhaps I missed it, but I am HIGHLY skeptical that the "lower block" could carry all "design loads" at ones. If he means columns, then ok, but then say columns not this ambiguous "block" term”
Jon
The lower structure, the entire lower structure of the tower CAN carry all design loads acting at one time, acting as a unit. (Yes I understand that the entire towers weight concentrated on one floor, cannot carry the entire load). The lower tower structure is designed, like all structures to carry the upper portion of the building (or “block”, if you will) AND all design loads acting at once.
In other words buildings are designed to take all the imposed design loads and there is ample excess carrying capacity when all those other design loads are not acting simultaneously such as when on 9/11. There was virtually no wind load, no snow load and limited live loading, meaning that the lower structure could carry significantly MORE than what was imposed, and to destroy them would take significant “g” force (cause by the deceleration of the upper floors), which was NOT observed.

But regardless…regardless, that lower portion of the tower could carry AT LEAST the entire load of the floors above where the plane hit. A smaller “block” of anything cannot destroy a larger “block” of anything of similar material that once supported it without destroying itself in the process. Newton’s 3rd law. The smaller block will be destroyed by the equal and opposite forces well before it will drive itself all the way down to the ground, UNLIKE what Professor Bazant postulated.
Finally to make things worse for the official story, look at where all the load/mass of the upper floors went during the towers destruction….the vast majority is blown OUTSIDE the towers footprint, and did not impact the lower floors at all.

“And the part that peeves me the most. Who the hell cares if there was little wind load? The building did not fail from the lateral system. It failed due to gravity. Wind load has VERY little effect on the gravity analysis of a structure.”
Jon
Correct there was virtually no wind load on 9/11. And that’s the point. The perimeter box columns were designed to carry about 5 times their dead loading from the hurricane wind loads in compression (yes I know, tension on the opposite side of the tower). They could support much more than just the dead load, and therefore to “crush or bend” them means that a large compressive force in excess of its dead loading is needed. That force can only come from the falling upper segment of the structure imposed by a significant deceleration, which creates the “F” from the “ma” (again the “a” is negative in this case). If it decelerates at the rate of 1 g, than the total force or load on the lower structure will be twice the falling structures “weight”. But in this case it will take a negative 4 g to get a downward loading of 5 times its weight to buckle the columns. BUT NO DECELERATION WAS MEASURED. None. That’s the main point.

“Say you have this full coffee cup in your right and left hand, but they are stacked together with a popsicle stick (acting like columns). Now if you drop them (simulating) that the bottom structure has been released, compromised or demolished then the two cops would fall at the same rate until impact”
Jon
That’s correct. That’s the “upper block” of coffee cups that will fall at the same rate. Now keep going. If you also have a stack of coffee cups below your hands when the upper two coffee cups hits them(crushing your hands in between)…they MUST decelerate if they are going to break, crush or destroy the lower undamaged coffee cups. The upper two coffee cups MUST decelerate to impose the necessary F (which is equal to the ma), again the “a” is negative.

“So how could they be demolished so that it appears similar to the video? Explosives would need to be placed on multiple levels throughout the buildings.”
Jon
Yes, that’s correct. Moreover when you observe the “collapse” you will note that the sides of the lower part of the tower explosive ejections blowing outward, but not necessarily uniformly with the entire floors blowing out (as one would expect with a floor by floor hitting “pancake collapse” but rather a “leading” blowing out on one side of each floor followed by the other side of each floor. (a lead/ lag). Explosives and incendiaries explain everything. Gravity cannot.

A good analysis of HOW they were placed was presented by Gordon Ross years ago.

Please take time to watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxFKbemEN1I

“And again, although my personal belief is that it was not demolished, I could justify that view point from others. What I am really questioning here is not whether it was demolished or not from explosives, but rather the explanation and physics being twisted to rationalize this explanation.[/QUOTE]”

Jon
Certainly you can “believe” whatever you want. But a fire induced gravity driven collapse is totally impossible because it defies fundamental laws of physics.

Physics is not a popularity contest and I don’t care what justification comes from others. Everyone “believed” that the sun revolved around the earth for thousands of years….but it doesn’t matter what they “believed”, as it did not match the evidence.

VAChief
08-05-2011, 12:57 PM
I was looking for some thoughts or comments from them like some of the ones you see from the families of the people in the buildings but I couldn't find any, could someone help me out?

I would imagine there are plenty if you have a sincere interest. Here is one site set up by a family that lost a son, daughter in law and granddaughter. The son called his father from the plane twice before it went down.

http://www.petehansonandfamily.com/

Donger
08-05-2011, 01:07 PM
In other words buildings are designed to take all the imposed design loads and there is ample excess carrying capacity when all those other design loads are not acting simultaneously such as when on 9/11. There was virtually no wind load, no snow load and limited live loading, meaning that the lower structure could carry significantly MORE than what was imposed, and to destroy them would take significant “g” force (cause by the deceleration of the upper floors), which was NOT observed.

If I'm reading this correctly (and I might not be, since he's not a very good writer), he is stating that the floors below where the collapse began SHOULD HAVE been able to withstand the increasing mass coupled with the acceleration of that increasing mass without failing?

Is that what he is claiming?

Also, please do share the picture in #44 with him and have him explain it.

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 01:24 PM
But regardless…regardless, that lower portion of the tower could carry AT LEAST the entire load of the floors above where the plane hit. A smaller “block” of anything cannot destroy a larger “block” of anything of similar material that once supported it without destroying itself in the process. Newton’s 3rd law. The smaller block will be destroyed by the equal and opposite forces well before it will drive itself all the way down to the ground, UNLIKE what Professor Bazant postulated.


This is the part I don't get. If I understand this correctly...well, let me use a semi-relevant hypothetical. You have a 120 floor building. The Hand of God reaches down, picks up the top 40 floors, leaving an 80 floor segment and a 40 floor segment. The Hand of God lifts the 40 floors up say 50 feet and then let's go.

If I understand him, he's saying that 40 floor segment should only be able to crush about 40 floors of the 80 floor segment that is still rooted to the ground, as each floor of the segment coming down will be destroyed and offset one floor of the remaining building.

That makes zero sense to me in the context of gravity. What he's saying would seem to me to be true if hte hand of god had picked up both segments, put them into outer space, and flung them at each other.

Here, each floor that is collapsed by the descending mass is adding to the mass that is collapsing on the next floor down.

Right? (asks the non-PE)

epitome1170
08-05-2011, 01:30 PM
If I'm reading this correctly (and I might not be, since he's not a very good writer), he is stating that the floors below where the collapse began SHOULD HAVE been able to withstand the increasing mass coupled with the acceleration of that increasing mass without failing?

Is that what he is claiming?

Also, please do share the picture in #44 with him and have him explain it.

I still am trying to figure out what he meant in all of that because it is very convoluted. If you can decipher it can you pass it along to me.

Amnorix
08-05-2011, 01:47 PM
Well, I posted that section on Newton's Third Law, which is my interpretation of what he's saying in that portion of his post. If you have any thoughts on that...

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 02:10 PM
I would imagine there are plenty if you have a sincere interest. Here is one site set up by a family that lost a son, daughter in law and granddaughter. The son called his father from the plane twice before it went down.

http://www.petehansonandfamily.com/

Thank you

durtyrute
08-05-2011, 02:16 PM
I would imagine there are plenty if you have a sincere interest. Here is one site set up by a family that lost a son, daughter in law and granddaughter. The son called his father from the plane twice before it went down.

http://www.petehansonandfamily.com/

Damn, they got married on my birthday.

BigChiefFan
08-05-2011, 09:46 PM
Nist is now the supposed experts? Watch this video...they are laughable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU&feature=related