Why a one-way Crush down is not possible [Archive] - Page 11

View Full Version : Why a one-way Crush down is not possible

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]

FineWine

14th July 2009, 02:00 PM

Look, Steve, some kids just don't learn. You called me "a liar". Again. After I strongly suggested you not do that.

I'm guessing that you're around 18. True? Everything about your posts screams "Young&Stupid". Your writing ain't bad, but your logic is adolescent.

Your comment that "people can get fired for what they say about the government" proves that you've never had any role in hiring or in firing anybody.

You're full of quaint, adolescent ideas. Especially about how corrupt or timid are all those "other people" in society. You're wrong. (That, right there, is your "skewed belief".) Some day, when you grow up, you might learn how wrong you are. Until then, you are your parent's problem.

If you have any arguments more mature than "all those old fogies are evil or cowards", feel free to bring it up. With a little more respectful tone, perhaps. Just a suggestion. If you do it that way, maybe you'll get a bit less condescension.

Tom

What are the chances he'll respond to my post #2496?

Justin39640

14th July 2009, 02:17 PM

posting my latest model here
although theres some problem with the floor texture i gotta figure out :(

GayiIRsLdsM

64 levels
2305 pieces

alienentity

14th July 2009, 02:23 PM

posting my latest model here
although theres some problem with the floor texture i gotta figure out :(

GayiIRsLdsM

64 levels
2305 pieces

Very cool. Did you use thermite or thermate to do that?

Heiwa

14th July 2009, 02:27 PM

So what you are saying is that the "L" shaped floor truss conenctions, all 60 of them (30 along one wall and 30 along the other) held the downward force of the upper mass enough for the perimeter column walls to "slice through the reinforced concrete floor?

Really?

Yes, below the thin concrete was floor truss of wire rods and it is, in fact, the latter that breaks first. Thus the load of the column applied on the floor that breaks the truss of rods cannot be transmitted to the L shaped floor truss connection and break it.

So repeat, column apply load on floor! Floor truss rods fail (actually the rod acting as flange), the concrete cracks and "hinges" down and breaks. The truss end connections should remain intact. The floor truss is the weakest element and thus breaks first.

tfk

14th July 2009, 02:35 PM

Deep,

No, because that's not what we're talking about. tfk said it is proven that AE911T members are all incompetent because they haven't published 100 peer-reviewed papers by now (please see his original post for the exact quote).

That is an unsupported opinion, not a fact.
.

I said lots of things. What you have excerpted here is a typical little quote mine of my comments.

I said:
1. It is my OPINION that few people on the ae911 list have prerequisite backgrounds to competently critique the NIST report.

I stated that it's a fact that:
2. A bunch of the related engineers are "baby engineers".
3. Anyone who said immediately "that's fishy" was incompetent.
4. The folks at ae911t have produce NO (as in zero, not one) paper in a peer reviewed journal (read to the end of the sentence, deep) that has stood up to subsequent critique and independent verification.
5. I said that "productivity is a component of competence", and by this measure, they are incompetent.

All of which I stand behind.

There have been about 200 papers that I know of that have been published in peer reviewed journals that do support NIST's findings.
___

Elaborating:
Competence & incompetence is topic specific. I was clearly addressing their lack of competence in the fields related to 9/11 topics. Not their own fields.

Steven Jones is a classic example. He is superbly competent in the field of nuclear physics, especially muon mediated cold fusion. He is abjectly incompetent in mechanical or structural engineering. I've listened to at least 3 of his talks to his college students & 9/11 CT conventions. It was PAINFUL.

He had the unmitigated incompetence to state that the 2nd law of thermodynamics prohibited the towers from falling straight downward. This is engineering incompetence of the highest (lowest?) order.
___

I know that "quote mining" is what you do. It's truly annoying.

Why don't you try switching to adult conversation. You know, asking people what they think, instead of telling them what they think. Trying to understand concepts with some depth, instead of playing "gotcha" with phraseology.

tom

Heiwa

14th July 2009, 02:36 PM

Heiwa, have an answer to this incorrect statement on your site?

Are you going to correct that since there is this evidence?
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff290/gamolon/ST1-full.jpg

I have seen those photos. A second later WTC 2 visibly explodes and top part C tilts over and disappears. I suggest the deformation of the wall is a result of the CD seen externally a fraction of a second later.

Heiwa

14th July 2009, 02:39 PM

posting my latest model here
although theres some problem with the floor texture i gotta figure out :(

GayiIRsLdsM

64 levels
2305 pieces

You are supposed to drop a real upper part C on a real lower part A! Also some details of the various, real elements would help.

Oscar

14th July 2009, 02:41 PM

Heiwa:
I suggest the deformation of the wall is a result of the CD seen externally a fraction of a second later.

And that suggestion, with the greatest of respect, would mean you're an idiot.

Politeness Man throws his Steel Hankie....remember, it is attack the argument and not the arguer (Rule 12 of your Membership Agreement).

FineWine

14th July 2009, 02:41 PM

Yes, below the thin concrete was floor truss of wire rods and it is, in fact, the latter that breaks first. Thus the load of the column applied on the floor that breaks the truss of rods cannot be transmitted to the L shaped floor truss connection and break it.

So repeat, column apply load on floor! Floor truss rods fail (actually the rod acting as flange), the concrete cracks and "hinges" down and breaks. The truss end connections should remain intact. The floor truss is the weakest element and thus breaks first.

Those columns that were falling away from the building were not applying too many loads, O mighty nautical engineer. The columns required for your mad fantasy were no longer there.

alienentity

14th July 2009, 02:42 PM

You are supposed to drop a real upper part C on a real lower part A! Also some details of the various, real elements would help.

Heiwa, you still haven't answered the basic questions:

Do you have 1 million dollars to actually give the winner?

Can you show any substantial proof that you actually have the money?

You're in danger of conducting fraud if you persist in offering something you don't have. There could be legal consequences.

Heiwa, are you a con-man, or do you have the money? Answer the question!

Justin39640

14th July 2009, 02:42 PM

Very cool. Did you use thermite or thermate to do that?

even better and a little discussed thing (at least by one side of the issue)

GRAVITY
lol

gotta love physics engines

FineWine

14th July 2009, 02:43 PM

Justin39640

14th July 2009, 02:46 PM

Stop lying. Your nonsense about the top of the building "exploding" has been exposed as a falsehood. Cut it out.

that was the slowest explosion ive ever seen
looked like the speed youd expect air to move when something is forcing it out of where it just was....
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

alienentity

14th July 2009, 02:48 PM

even better and a little discussed thing (at least by one side of the issue)

GRAVITY
lol

gotta love physics engines

hehe... how'd you stop 'C' from bouncing off 'A'? What a trickster you are - using gravity, isn't that cheating?

Oscar

14th July 2009, 02:48 PM

alien:
You're in danger of conducting fraud if you persist in offering something you don't have. There could be legal consequences.

Heiwa, are you a con-man, or do you have the money? Answer the question!

You know those spam emails that arrive from some obscure African location telling you that you will inherit a million pounds if you give name, address and phone number? I think Heiwa might not be too much of a stranger to them.

FineWine

14th July 2009, 02:50 PM

hehe... how'd you stop 'C' from bouncing off 'A'? What a trickster you are - using gravity, isn't that cheating?

No, no, you don't understand. Gravity works, uh, when it works. The rest of the time, it, uh, does something else. If I haven't made myself clear, read my paper and then we'll talk.

bill smith

14th July 2009, 02:50 PM

even better and a little discussed thing (at least by one side of the issue)

GRAVITY
lol

gotta love physics engines

I'd love to watch a 110-level demonstration with the top 13 crushing the other 97 by gravity.Just to see how convincing it looks. Can you do that ?

alienentity

14th July 2009, 02:52 PM

alien:

You know those spam emails that arrive from some obscure African location telling you that you inherit a million pounds if you give name, address and phone number? I think Heiwa might not be too much of a stranger to them.

Good point. Only I think the last one I received was offering 400,000,000. Even Heiwa doesn't have that kind of fake credit:D

Note to Steve Austin (MIA)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704a5cdf6c812fc.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16965)

FineWine

14th July 2009, 02:59 PM

I'd love to watch a 110-level demonstration with the top 13 crushing the other 97 by gravity.Just to see how convincing it looks. Can you do that ?

Here's what we CAN do. Crash a fully-fueled commercial airliner into, say, floors 93-99. Make sure it severs several perimeter and core columns. Let the extensive fires started by the jet fuel and fed by all the combustibles commonly found in large office buildings go unfought. Watch the structural steel gradually weaken until the external columns begin to buckle. When the top thirteen floors give way and start to collapse, watch how they add the floor immediately below them to their mass. Notice how the momentum of the collapse increases with the added mass. Watch the collapse mechanism operate VERY QUICKLY, as the fourteen falling floors become fifteen, sixteen, twenty-five, forty, sixty, eight-five--watch until the building has been destroyed.

You are amazing. Nobody can be this dense.

bill smith

14th July 2009, 03:08 PM

Here's what we CAN do. Crash a fully-fueled commercial airliner into, say, floors 93-99. Make sure it severs several perimeter and core columns. Let the extensive fires started by the jet fuel and fed by all the combustibles commonly found in large office buildings go unfought. Watch the structural steel gradually weaken until the external columns begin to buckle. When the top thirteen floors give way and start to collapse, watch how they add the floor immediately below them to their mass. Notice how the momentum of the collapse increases with the added mass. Watch the collapse mechanism operate VERY QUICKLY, as the fourteen falling floors become fifteen, sixteen, twenty-five, forty, sixty, eight-five--watch until the building has been destroyed.

You are amazing. Nobody can be this dense.

Nah...I just want to see how convincing it would look. You never know- it might even persuade me. I just want to see the top 13 floors crushing the other 97 floors down to the ground- to see how it looks. Then I'll probably say to myself 'lust imagine- those top 13 floors are the lightest of the whole building and just see how they go crush crush crush''

'\Do you think Justin will make the model ? lol

Oscar

14th July 2009, 03:11 PM

Finewine, I hate to break this to you, being as polite and respectful poster as I myself am, but you'r underestimating of the capacity of truthers eyes not to cross when faced with simple step by step facts.

Right now I should think Bill's eyes are at a quarter to three and Heiwa's round the back of his head.

It's sad, but true.

But that doesn't matter because Hiewa can once again post a link to his steaming pile of offal, otherwise rather amusingly called his paper, and Bill can run round Heiwa's smelly offerings like a terrier on a fox-hunt with a dead rat in his jaws.

Justin39640

14th July 2009, 03:13 PM

I'd love to watch a 110-level demonstration with the top 13 crushing the other 97 by gravity.Just to see how convincing it looks. Can you do that ?

what the top half of this one wasnt enough?
i think this looks more like the south tower (remember 2 collapsed that day. to argue one and ignore the other kinda defeats arguments doesnt it?)

also notice that the bottom doesnt just explode
the force of the top half crushes the bottom
below the collapse zone the model stays in tact
just like les said they predicted the towers collapse mechanism should be

the models all collapse this way regardless of how i remove support
and the models will stay standing until i remove enough support

this one was 2305 pieces i removed about 15 to 20 pieces = global collapse
3 to 5 pieces itll stay up

i could make a 110 or so story one but its gonna take a while
just rendering that clip took 5 hours

i wouldnt love to do that (as you would sicko)
i really dont want to make a dead on model and collapse it for personal feelings of my own and others

Justin39640

14th July 2009, 03:18 PM

You are supposed to drop a real upper part C on a real lower part A! Also some details of the various, real elements would help.

it did drop
right after it spit out the initial collapse zone

i guess you didnt notice as there wasnt a jolt
huh

deep

14th July 2009, 03:36 PM

I know that "quote mining" is what you do. It's truly annoying.

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful about what you say, then. I'm not going to spend any meaningful amount of time responding to someone who has not demonstrated the ability (or willingness) to properly differentiate between a fact and an opinion.

beachnut

14th July 2009, 03:44 PM

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful about what you say, then. I'm not going to spend any meaningful amount of time responding to someone who has not demonstrated the ability (or willingness) to properly differentiate between a fact and an opinion.
Most ironic as all you have is failed moronic opinions on 911 and are off-topic for extra credit woo.

Where are your engineering calculations on Heiwa's failed OP thesis.

newton3376

14th July 2009, 04:37 PM

There have been about 200 papers that I know of that have been published in peer reviewed journals that do support NIST's findings.

200?

I had no idea there were that many....

Does anyone have a link or a list of these?

Maybe Gravy?

UNLoVedRebel

14th July 2009, 04:41 PM

200?

I had no idea there were that many....

Does anyone have a link or a list of these?

Maybe Gravy?

Here's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4355078&postcount=165) my peer-reviewed list of WTC papers. As said in the post, it is not comprehensive and I think I intentionally left out articles on the NIST report because most truther seems to think that only NIST investigated the collapses.

bill smith

14th July 2009, 04:42 PM

200?

I had no idea there were that many....

Does anyone have a link or a list of these?

Maybe Gravy?

Yeah I'd like to see that list too. What about it T. ? lol

UNLoVedRebel

14th July 2009, 04:44 PM

Yeah I'd like to see that list too. What about it T. ? lol

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4355078&postcount=165

tfk

14th July 2009, 04:57 PM

Deep,

I know that "quote mining" is what you do. It's truly annoying.

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful about what you say, then. I'm not going to spend any meaningful amount of time responding to someone who has not demonstrated the ability (or willingness) to properly differentiate between a fact and an opinion.
.
You know, Deep, I looked at my comment that "quote mining is what you do", and thought "yeah, I probably pulled the trigger on that a little too quick. And I didn't phrase that very well. I didn't mean "you, personally". But rather "you truthers, collectively".

Looking back, I made about 8 separate, significant points in my first post. And you pulled out just that one tiny, and (out of context) misleading snippet. In other words, you really did quote mine my first post.

And I replied with my second quote, clarifying and expanding on my first points.

And then, I realized that, with this response, you did it again...!!

Out of all the points that I made, you separated the wheat from the chaff ... and then tossed the wheat.

Puzzling...

Any comments at all on any of the other points?

tom

MIKILLINI

14th July 2009, 04:58 PM

Then I'll probably say to myself 'lust imagine- those top 13 floors are the lightest of the whole building and just see how they go crush crush crush''

Comprehension still isn't your strong suit, is it Bill?

I'll say to myself; Just look at how those 13 floors are so much heavier than the 1 floor directly below, and then continuing on to each single, successive floor thereafter.

bill smith

14th July 2009, 05:02 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4355078&postcount=165

Many of those neither reject tnor suppost the governement theory or the demolition hypothesis. They are simply papers on aspects, codes and so forth. It sure does look like ol' T was heavily exaggerating as usual. Another tool of the propagandist.

UNLoVedRebel

14th July 2009, 05:04 PM

newton3376

14th July 2009, 05:05 PM

Here's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4355078&postcount=165) my peer-reviewed list of WTC papers. As said in the post, it is not comprehensive and I think I intentionally left out articles on the NIST report because most truther seems to think that only NIST investigated the collapses.

Damn....that's a lot of papers....

Thanks for the list

newton3376

14th July 2009, 05:07 PM

newton3376

14th July 2009, 05:10 PM

Many of those neither reject tnor suppost the governement theory or the demolition hypothesis. They are simply papers on aspects, codes and so forth. It sure does look like ol' T was heavily exaggerating as usual. Another tool of the propagandist.

Most of us would take his word over your uninformed opinion any day of the week and twice on Sunday...

bill smith

14th July 2009, 05:14 PM

It always helps to read the papers rather than "getting the last word in."

Sometimes the titles can give an strong indication as this small selection shows.

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

newton3376

14th July 2009, 05:28 PM

Sometimes the titles can give an strong indication as this small selection shows.

Especially to someone like yourself with an education in engineering combined with years of practical real world experience....:oldroll:

......oh wait............

alienentity

14th July 2009, 05:38 PM

what the top half of this one wasnt enough?

i could make a 110 or so story one but its gonna take a while
just rendering that clip took 5 hours

i wouldnt love to do that (as you would sicko)
i really dont want to make a dead on model and collapse it for personal feelings of my own and others

It doesn't really matter if it's 50 stories or 100 stories. But it would be worth initiating the collapse from the top 16 floors or so, to make it more obviously comparable to the WTC towers.

If you have the time, that is. Great work.

deep

14th July 2009, 05:47 PM

Looking back, I made about 8 separate, significant points in my first post. And you pulled out just that one tiny, and (out of context) misleading snippet. In other words, you really did quote mine my first post.

tfk, I quoted your entire "c" bullet point in the message you're referring to, as opposed to only picking out a portion of it. In that particular bullet point, you were referring to the entire organization - so it included the smaller groups you referenced in "a" and "b". There was no reason to respond to them.

As for your other points - I just felt it was more of the same. From the first part, where you're talking about how you personally would react:

"It is my strong & constantly supported experience that the same rules of behavior that I see in myself & in the world around me apply to the world at large."

That's not an established fact - it's an opinion. There's no evidence to support it, but you treat it as a fact and use it to support the rest of your argument (in that section).

Also - if you're disappointed that people aren't responding to all the points you make in a single message - try dividing them into multiple, smaller messages. Just a suggestion - it makes responding more manageable (in my opinion).

EDIT: just to clarify, this is the post I'm referencing: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4903221&postcount=2475

beachnut

14th July 2009, 06:36 PM

Many of those neither reject tnor suppost the governement theory or the demolition hypothesis. They are simply papers on aspects, codes and so forth. It sure does look like ol' T was heavily exaggerating as usual. Another tool of the propagandist.
You are telling lies. When will you find some evidence to support your lies? Never.

The papers are not propaganda you are a liar. Prove it! Sources! Now! You can't you will post more moronic lies and failed delusions about 911; your only skill on 911.

tsig

14th July 2009, 06:59 PM

Perhaps you should be a bit more careful about what you say, then. I'm not going to spend any meaningful amount of time responding to someone who has not demonstrated the ability (or willingness) to properly differentiate between a fact and an opinion.

The wisest thing you can do now is to not reply. Your sub is sinking with each post and soon you will hit crush depth.

tfk

14th July 2009, 08:02 PM

200?

I had no idea there were that many....

Does anyone have a link or a list of these?

Maybe Gravy?

Others have posted a couple of links. IIRC, Gravy does have one also.

Here's a couple that might be redundant:

http://911science.googlepages.com/home
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3789983&postcount=317

This page gives you Building Code Revisions based on NIST findings:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/index.htm

The right way to figure this out & to find the references is to go thru an Engineering Citation Index using the NIST Report as a start point. This will give you first generation references.

Google Scholar is a serviceable citation index.
It produces 260 hits on [+"world trade center" +NIST +NCSTAR].
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%2B%22world+trade+center%22+%2BNIST+%2BNCSTAR&btnG=Search

If you check the "cited by" box under the titles, you'll find about 200 additional citations.

CiteSeerX comes back with 9700 references.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q=%22world+trade+center%22+ncstar+nist.&submit=Search&sort=rel&ic=1

Bing comes back with 8400 hits.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%2B%22world+trade+center%22+ncstar+%2Bnis t.&go=&form=QBRE

Unfortunately, most online Citation Indices are pay sites. And not cheap.

So getting a comprehensive list would require a trip to the library for me.

While a bunch of these references (from Google scholar, Bing) are not going to be published papers, it is pretty clear that there is a boatload of research that has derived from the NIST reports.

Tom

newton3376

14th July 2009, 09:10 PM

Others have posted a couple of links. IIRC, Gravy does have one also.

Here's a couple that might be redundant:

http://911science.googlepages.com/home
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3789983&postcount=317

This page gives you Building Code Revisions based on NIST findings:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NIBS_MMC/index.htm

The right way to figure this out & to find the references is to go thru an Engineering Citation Index using the NIST Report as a start point. This will give you first generation references.

Google Scholar is a serviceable citation index.
It produces 260 hits on [+"world trade center" +NIST +NCSTAR].
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%2B%22world+trade+center%22+%2BNIST+%2BNCSTAR&btnG=Search

If you check the "cited by" box under the titles, you'll find about 200 additional citations.

CiteSeerX comes back with 9700 references.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/search?q=%22world+trade+center%22+ncstar+nist.&submit=Search&sort=rel&ic=1

Bing comes back with 8400 hits.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=%2B%22world+trade+center%22+ncstar+%2Bnis t.&go=&form=QBRE

Unfortunately, most online Citation Indices are pay sites. And not cheap.

So getting a comprehensive list would require a trip to the library for me.

While a bunch of these references (from Google scholar, Bing) are not going to be published papers, it is pretty clear that there is a boatload of research that has derived from the NIST reports.

Tom

Thanks for the many links.....one would think that the combined weight of all of these papers written by the engineering community would be enough to discourage truthers from continuing their psuedo-scientific nonesense.

But such is their "movement"...

Anyway thanks for the links...I'm going to save this for future reference.

ElMondoHummus

14th July 2009, 09:14 PM

tfk

14th July 2009, 09:24 PM

Sometimes the titles can give an strong indication as this small selection shows.

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

3 out of 4 of the references that YOU picked expressly support the conclusions of NIST. Even tho Dr. Q disagrees with some of the mechanisms, he agrees that the damage & fires brought them down.

0 out of 4 contradict it.

Your typical incompetence.

If you want to make it worth my while to do the citation search, I'll bet you $500 that I can come up with a list of 200 independent references that reference the NIST report with no mention of contradiction.

tk

Justin39640

14th July 2009, 10:37 PM

It doesn't really matter if it's 50 stories or 100 stories. But it would be worth initiating the collapse from the top 16 floors or so, to make it more obviously comparable to the WTC towers.

If you have the time, that is. Great work.

thanks
heres another one
doesnt fully collapse but 2/3rds do
Lhf6mfnZyME

still wouldnt want to be near or in this

bill smith

14th July 2009, 11:04 PM

3 out of 4 of the references that YOU picked expressly support the conclusions of NIST. Even tho Dr. Q disagrees with some of the mechanisms, he agrees that the damage & fires brought them down.

0 out of 4 contradict it.

Your typical incompetence.

If you want to make it worth my while to do the citation search, I'll bet you $500 that I can come up with a list of 200 independent references that reference the NIST report with no mention of contradiction.

tk

Do it for the truth T. These reports are mostly written by people working blindly off the NIST reports. How were they to know in those days that the NIST reports are not to be trusted. You don't see a lot of new reports these days do you ?

beachnut

15th July 2009, 12:27 AM

Do it for the truth T. These reports are mostly written by people working blindly off the NIST reports. How were they to know in those days that the NIST reports are not to be trusted. You don't see a lot of new reports these days do you ?
Source? Prove it!
Why make up lies and post them without supporting evidence? Makes the post a moronic lie based on nothing. The post is reflective of your failed support of Heiwa's fantasy concept proved wrong on 911.

You failed to refute NIST's work with evidence and you have not presented support for Heiwa. Are you making up lies on purpose or are you ignorant on this subject?

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 12:38 AM

So why, if they cannot be trusted, have building codes nationwide been modified?? Es every state also in on this little conspiracy that you keep peddling???

aggle-rithm

15th July 2009, 04:14 AM

Deep44, they all understand it perfectly, but finewine got himself into a fine pickle and the only way everyone sees to get out of it is to dodge and weave and try and turn everything around onto us "truthers"

They do this ALL THE TIME.

Edit:

See what I mean. That's a perfect example.

That's right, Steve. When you come to a skeptics' forum and try to use dishonest debate tactics, you're going to get called on it and asked to focus on the argument at hand, rather than bogging down the discussion with endless gripes about such matters as the meaning of the word "all".

I'm sorry you don't approve, but that's life.

tfk, I quoted your entire "c" bullet point in the message you're referring to, as opposed to only picking out a portion of it. In that particular bullet point, you were referring to the entire organization - so it included the smaller groups you referenced in "a" and "b". There was no reason to respond to them.

As for your other points - I just felt it was more of the same. From the first part, where you're talking about how you personally would react:

"It is my strong & constantly supported experience that the same rules of behavior that I see in myself & in the world around me apply to the world at large."

That's not an established fact - it's an opinion. There's no evidence to support it, but you treat it as a fact and use it to support the rest of your argument (in that section).

Also - if you're disappointed that people aren't responding to all the points you make in a single message - try dividing them into multiple, smaller messages. Just a suggestion - it makes responding more manageable (in my opinion).

EDIT: just to clarify, this is the post I'm referencing: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4903221&postcount=2475

Once again, arguing semantics rather than focusing on the topic at hand. Why do you truthers do this? Why don't you want to discuss the truth? Who is paying you to stifle debate with your linguistic nonsense?

bill smith

15th July 2009, 07:01 AM

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 07:07 AM

The grotesquely misnamed "truth" movement consists of three essential components, stupidity, dishonesty, and insanity, in varying degrees. Let's examine one of the favorite ploys of "truthers":.

Everyone notice the oft used disinfo tactic here? The constant smear.

Of course most people will not see the irony in his statement

Supposedly, individuals in relevant industries abound who understand that the explanations supplied by real physicists, engineers, demolition professionals, aeronautical engineers, seismologists, metallurgists, avionics techs, fire safety experts, forensic examiners, air traffic controllers, etc., are simply wrong. Many of these individuals live in nations unfriendly to the U.S.
WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT?

There are hundreds of demolition companies, big and small, in the U.S. NOT ONE demolition expert has come forward to dispute the views of prominent members of the industry. Who stops them? Is the demolition industry uniquely infiltrated by minions of your mad, imaginary conspiracy?
What shackles the hundreds of consultants employed by NIST? Is this agency of the Department of Commerce a hive of maniacs conspiring to conquer the world for Halliburton? What stops air traffic controllers from rebutting Dave Bottiglia and his colleagues? Where are the metallurgists who buy the manure your insane movement shovels? There must an army of conspirators--who never leak anything--to knock into line the thousands of people across a wide spectrum of industries who know the "truth." Who are these evildoers? How can so many hide for so long? If they have to hide, how can they be all-powerful?

A personal anecdote: a friend of mine watched Flight 175 crash into the south tower from her office windows. I told her that no-planers think she is lying. She says she doesn't care what psychos think. I said that they believe she is supporting the "gubmint" story to protect her job. She asked who was threatening to fire her. I said that evil forces that control everything were threatening her job. She replied that she retired in 2005--who was threatening what? I said that she was being paid off by the Gigantic Conspiracy. She wondered why she was being paid NOT to go public with her story.

And on it goes.

Since you seem to be way to dense to understand (truth is you probably do understand but are simply to dishonest) let's try this a different way...

How many demolition experts (or experts in relevant fields) have come forward to publicly deny the Controlled Demolition theory of 9/11? Those that have not come forward to deny this, according to your own logic must of course support Controlled Demolitions!!

WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS OF THE WTC?

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 07:17 AM

How many demolition experts (or experts in relevant fields) have come forward to publicly deny the Controlled Demolition theory of 9/11? Those that have not come forward to deny this, according to your own logic must of course support Controlled Demolitions!!

WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS OF THE WTC?

the fact that they didnt recognize it as a controlled demolition

Gamolon

15th July 2009, 07:32 AM

I have seen those photos. A second later WTC 2 visibly explodes and top part C tilts over and disappears. I suggest the deformation of the wall is a result of the CD seen externally a fraction of a second later.

:boggled:

How in the hell can a controlled demolition make columns buckle BEFORE it happens?!?!

Also, I thought controlled demolition CUT support columns, not buckle them?

So you admit that there ARE buckling columns? Just that they were caused to buckle by a controlled demolition of some sort?

In that case your website is wrong and needs to be corrected. Or do you like to mislead people to make a point?:
If that'1. 1 The major Problem - No Evidence of (1) Buckled Columns, (2) Free Fall, (3) Impact and (4) Shock Wave or (5) Rigid

Dave Rogers

15th July 2009, 07:37 AM

Maybe if anyone here had the guts, the courage to leave JREF and come out in the real world and have a real discussion on 9/11 we could get some progress, but i've offered at least a dozen times now for a discussion on a nice neutral forum but no one has taken me up on it NO ONE!

Then why are you still here?

Dave

bill smith

15th July 2009, 07:38 AM

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 07:41 AM

Deep,
.

I said lots of things. What you have excerpted here is a typical little quote mine of my comments.

Deep, how dare you. You know very well that quote mining (not that that's what you did) is the preserve of the JREF "debunkers". We see it all the time from them, but of course how dare I point that out!!!

I said:
1. It is my OPINION that few people on the ae911 list have prerequisite backgrounds to competently critique the NIST report.

So, in your OPINION, who exactly over at ae911truth.org does not have the prerequisite backgrounds to competently critique the NIST report? Please list them and why!

I stated that it's a fact that:
2. A bunch of the related engineers are "baby engineers".

Only a dishonest "debunker" would even attempt to use that as a justification.

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

Hehe, they are only "baby engineers", not real engineers like we are. Do people actually fall for this stuff?

Do you people see how the disinfo "debunkers" attempt to dismiss experts without having to argue the facts? Simply make up some odious claim that they are not qualified, doesn't matter how ludicrous the claim is because if you state it with enough force and authority most people will believe you.

3. Anyone who said immediately "that's fishy" was incompetent.

Why? Someone sees something that seems fishy right off the bat and that makes them incompetent? Your are really really pushing the bounds of disinfo here Tom

4. The folks at ae911t have produce NO (as in zero, not one) paper in a peer reviewed journal (read to the end of the sentence, deep) that has stood up to subsequent critique and independent verification.
5. I said that "productivity is a component of competence", and by this measure, they are incompetent.

Ah yes, the moved goal posts. There were constant screams from "debunkers" that said we had to publish something, then when we do they arbitrarily move the goal posts. BTW Tom those peer reviewed articles have stood up to critique and independent verification, after all there have been no peer reviewed rebuttals of those papers. A non-peer reviewed comment on JREF is not valid, it has ZERO credibility, regardless of what you say. If you want to critique those papers then do it in a peer reviewed journal. All JREF "debunkers" have said how easy it is to have even a non-valid paper published, so you should have no problems publishing a rebuttal!

...

I know that "quote mining" is what you do. It's truly annoying.

Why don't you try switching to adult conversation. You know, asking people what they think, instead of telling them what they think. Trying to understand concepts with some depth, instead of playing "gotcha" with phraseology.

tom

LOL there goes Tom again using the old...

"38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect."

Seems Tom (and many others here) like to claim that anyone who does not agree with the Official Conspiracy Theory is an immature kid!! ROFL

How many times are you going to try and use that one Tom? Has anyone taken the bait yet? Has anyone fallen for it?

dtugg

15th July 2009, 07:42 AM

Everyone notice the oft used disinfo tactic here? The constant smear.

Of course most people will not see the irony in his statement

Since you seem to be way to dense to understand (truth is you probably do understand but are simply to dishonest) let's try this a different way...

How many demolition experts (or experts in relevant fields) have come forward to publicly deny the Controlled Demolition theory of 9/11? Those that have not come forward to deny this, according to your own logic must of course support Controlled Demolitions!!

WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS OF THE WTC?

Nothing. But every rational person already knows that twoofers are wrong and that there was no controlled demolition at the WTC so most experts do not feel the need to speak out against the whackjobs. Not to mention your pathetic movement is tiny and insignificant. When I leave my computer, you no longer exist.

Pretending for a moment that it were a controlled demolition one would wonder (at least if one were rational) why the world's experts are not speaking out against it. Are they all bought and paid for by the NWO, even ones hostile to the US? Did the NWO manage to pull it off in a manner that was only detectable to morons on the Internet?

How many experts speak against the crazy people who say the earth is flat?

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 07:49 AM

Many of those neither reject tnor suppost the governement theory or the demolition hypothesis. They are simply papers on aspects, codes and so forth. It sure does look like ol' T was heavily exaggerating as usual. Another tool of the propagandist.

Bill, you were not supposed to actually investigate those. People were simply supposed to take it on faith that they all supported the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Now you are going to get it!

Bad_Doggie

15th July 2009, 07:50 AM

WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS OF THE WTC?
Nothing except for the fact that they don’t believe that is was. There are, and have been, no end of opportunities for them to do so if they so wished.

You, of course, have to make this accusation to justify your belief.

Why do you assume that because they are not all crying out “Controlled Demolition” they are being coerced into silence?

As for criticisms of NIST there have also been many University of Edinburgh Dr. Usmani, Arup Dr. Barbara Lane, et al, Dr Greening to name a few. If they believed that the destruction was caused by Controlled Demolition they could have said so.

But, they don’t.

Woof!

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 07:58 AM

the fact that they didnt recognize it as a controlled demolition

Mmmmm so you are psychic now? If they have not come out and stated what they believe then why would you try and claim what they believe?

This is just more "debunker" dishonesty.

You see folks, "debunkers" and moreso disinfo agents are required to make it look like the Official Conspiracy Theory is solid with no holes and backed by every single thinking human on the planet. That's part of the psyop, that's how the psychology of it works. Always sound sure of yourself and always claim that everyone agrees with you and no one agrees with the loons (and you have to constantly use those terms like "looney" and "nuts"), and of course the sheep follow suit because they have heard the disinfo agent say they then repeat it as a mantra.

Bad_Doggie

15th July 2009, 08:00 AM

Oh and what became of Robert Woodward and Carl Bernstein?

Woof!

dtugg

15th July 2009, 08:02 AM

Mmmmm so you are psychic now? If they have not come out and stated what they believe then why would you try and claim what they believe?

This is just more "debunker" dishonesty.

You see folks, "debunkers" and moreso disinfo agents are required to make it look like the Official Conspiracy Theory is solid with no holes and backed by every single thinking human on the planet. That's part of the psyop, that's how the psychology of it works. Always sound sure of yourself and always claim that everyone agrees with you and no one agrees with the loons (and you have to constantly use those terms like "looney" and "nuts"), and of course the sheep follow suit because they have heard the disinfo agent say they then repeat it as a mantra.

Perhaps you are the disinfo agent. You are doing a remarkable job of making twoofers look crazy.

Grizzly Bear

15th July 2009, 08:02 AM

So human nature is to remain silent, and keep the job, in order feed the family? What does this make for Iranians who feel that their elections have been rigged? Or have been threatened with imprisonment, torture, execution & internet censorship (http://noliesradio.org/images/iran-protests.jpg)?

bill smith

15th July 2009, 08:05 AM

Mmmmm so you are psychic now? If they have not come out and stated what they believe then why would you try and claim what they believe?

This is just more "debunker" dishonesty.

You see folks, "debunkers" and moreso disinfo agents are required to make it look like the Official Conspiracy Theory is solid with no holes and backed by every single thinking human on the planet. That's part of the psyop, that's how the psychology of it works. Always sound sure of yourself and always claim that everyone agrees with you and no one agrees with the loons (and you have to constantly use those terms like "looney" and "nuts"), and of course the sheep follow suit because they have heard the disinfo agent say they then repeat it as a mantra.

Exactly that. The beauty is that after all these years it is so easy to recognise. It is now possible to identify many of the professional propaganda assets here on he jref. Not that I intend to do so by name of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro

dtugg

15th July 2009, 08:06 AM

Perhaps you are the disinfo agent. You are doing a remarkable job of making twoofers look crazy.

Exactly that. The beauty is that after all these years it is so easy to recognise. It is now possible to identify many of the professional propaganda assets here on he jref. Not that I intend to do so by name of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awy8cmcuBlk&feature=related video on cointelpro

Same to you bill.

deep

15th July 2009, 08:07 AM

newton3376

15th July 2009, 08:09 AM

Only a dishonest "debunker" would even attempt to use that as a justification.

Hehe, they are only "baby engineers", not real engineers like we are. Do people actually fall for this stuff?

You are obviously not an engineer....6 years of experience is barely scratching the surface for engineering...

Many of the tools and methods used in engineering are constantly evolving, so 6 years of experience is just getting over the "hump" of being a baby engineer.

In fact many companies still want to know your undergrad GPA if you have less than 5 years of experience....typically after 5 they don't bother asking and only look at experience

I've looked at resumes and have been involved in interviewing engineers for various projects......6 years is minimal experience especially considering the fact that those 6 years might have been spent doing different projects...so it might not even be focused experience.

Grizzly Bear

15th July 2009, 08:09 AM

I'm not sure how you propagandize facts which aren't based on a political opinion. When professionals in a given field (ae911truth) get simple things wrong, it's rather frightening.

Bad_Doggie

15th July 2009, 08:11 AM

Mmmmm so you are psychic now? If they have not come out and stated what they believe then why would you try and claim what they believe?.

My question to you is are you?

Many have stated what they believe. University of Edinburgh Dr. Usmani, Arup Dr. Barbara Lane, et al, Dr Greening Bazant etc, etc.

Why do you assume that the rest are too scared to voice their opinions?

Woof!

Dave Rogers

15th July 2009, 08:21 AM

Sometimes the titles can give an strong indication as this small selection shows.

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations

If the destruction of the WTC had been deliberately carried out using demolition explosives, there would be no stimulus for innovations.

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation

And the ultimate proof of acceptance by the engineering community: the building codes have been changed to reflect an investigation that concluded that impact and fire damage caused the collapse.

Dave

BigAl

15th July 2009, 08:25 AM

Let's face it- when the debunkers say that most of the world's scientists stand behind the NIST reports that is a very dishonest way of lookng at it.

The following people and organizations have endorsed the basic story of 9/11. In total, they represent about 70,000 people. All of them were first-hand participants in some aspect of the events of 9/11.

Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
Alfred D. Barcenilla, Sr., P.E.
Allan Jowsey, Ph.D.
Allyn Kilsheimer, P.E., S.E.
Amit Bandyopadhyay, S.E.
Amy Zelson Mundorff
Anamaria Bonilla, S.E.
Andre Sidler, P.E., S.E.
Andrei Reinhorn, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Andrew Coats, P.E., S.E.
Andrew McConnell, S.E.
Andrew Mueller-Lust, S.E.
Andrew Pontecorvo, P.E.
Andrew Whittaker, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Anthony Kirk US&R Structural Specialist
Anthony W. Chuliver, S.E.

Antoine E. Naaman, Ph.D.
Antranig M. Ouzoonian, P.E.
Arlan Dobson, FEMA
Arthur Schuerman, FDNY (ret.)
Asif Usmani, Ph.D., B.E.
August Domel, Ph.D., S.E., P.E.
Ayhan Irfanoglu, P.E., S.E.
Barbara Lane, Ph.D.
Bernie Denke, P.E. US&R Structural Specialist
Bill Cote
Bill Coulbourne, P.E., S.E.
Bill Crowley, special agent, FBI
Bill Daly, senior vice president, Control Risks Group
Bill Scott (Capt. USAF, Ret.),
Bill Uher, NASA Langley Research Center
Bob Gray (I.U.O.E.)
Bonnie Manley, P.E., S.E.
Boris Hayda, P.E., S.E.
Brian Lyons, Tully
Brian McElhatten, S.E.

Brian Smith (Col.), Chief Deputy Medical Examiner, Dover AFB
Brian Tokarczik, P.E., S.E.
Charles Hirsch, M.D.
Charles J. Carter, P.E., S.E.
Charles Thornton, P.E.
Charlie Vitchers
Christoph Hoffmann, Ph.D., Purdue University
Christopher E. Marrion, P.E.
Christopher M. Hewitt, AISC

Christopher N. McCowan
Chuck Guardia, S.E.
Conrad Paulson, P.E., S.E.

Curtis S.D. Massey
D. Stanton Korista, P.E., S.E.
Dan Doyle (IW 40)
Dan Eschenasy, P.E., S.E.
Dan Koch Jr.
Daniel A. Cuoco, P.E
Daniele Veneziano, P.E.
David Biggs, P.E., S.E.
David Cooper, P.E.
David Davidowitz, ConEd
David Hoy, S.E.
David J. Hammond, P.E., S.E.
David Leach, P.E.
David M. Parks, ME
David Newland Sc.D., FREng.
David Peraza, P.E., S.E.
David Ranlet
David Schomburg
David Sharp, S.E.
David T. Biggs, P.E.
Dean Koutsoubis, S.E.
Dean Tills, P.E.
Delbert Boring, P.E.

Dennis Clark (IST)
Dennis Dirkmaat, Ph.D.
Dennis Mileti, Ph.D.
Dennis Smith
Dharam Pal, M.E.
Dick Posthauer, S.E.
Donald Friedman, P.E.

Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Ed Jacoby Jr., NYSEMO
Ed McGinley, P.E.
Ed Plaugher, Chief, Arlington FD
Edward A. Flynn, Arlington Police Chief

Edward M. DePaola, P.E., S.E.
Edward Stinnette, Chief, FCFD
Eiji Fukuzawa

Fahim Sadek, P.E., S.E.
Farid Alfawakhiri, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Frank Vallebuono, FDNY Battalion Chief
Anthony Varriale, FDNY Captain
Frank Cruthers, FDNY Chief
Frank Fellini, FDNY Chief
Joseph Callan, FDNY Chief

Daniel Nigro, FDNY Chief of Operations
Nick Visconti, FDNY Deputy Chief

Peter Hayden, FDNY Deputy Chief
Sam Melisi, FDNY Firefighter
Forman Williams, Ph.D., P.E.
Francis J. Lombardi, P.E.
Frank Gayle, Sc.D.
Frank Greening, Ph.D.
Fred E.C. Culick, Ph.D., S.B.
Fred Endrikat, FEMA USAR

Gary Keith, V.P. NFPA
Gary Steficek, S.E.
Gary Tokle, Asst. VP, NFPA

George Tamaro, P.E., S.E.
Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Gerald Wellman US&R
Structural Specialist
Glenn Corbett
Graeme Flint
Guy Colonna, P.E., NFPA

Guylene Proulx, Ph.D.
H.S. Lew, P.E., S.E.
Hal Bidlack, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Ph.D.
Harold E. Nelson, P.E., FSFP.E.
Harry Martin, AISC
Howard R. Baum, Ph.D., M.E.
J. David Frost, Ph.D., P.E.
J. David McColskey
Jack Brown Deputy Chief Loudoun County (Va.) Fire Rescue Department
Jack Messagno, WTC project Manager (Tully)
Jack Spencer, P.E.
Jacques Grandino, P.E., S.E.

James A. Rossberg, P.E.
James Chastain US&R Structural Specialist
James H. Fahey, S.E.
James J. Cohen, P.E., S.E.
James J. Hauck, P.E., S.E.

James Lord, FSFP.E.
James Milke, Ph.D., P.E.
James Quintiere, Ph.D., P.E.

Jan Szumanski, IUOE
Jason Averill, FSFP.E.
Jeff Rienbold, NPS
Jeffrey Hartman, S.E.
Jim Abadie, Bovis
Joel Meyerowitz
John Fisher, Ph.D., P.E.,

John Flynn, P.E.
John Gross, Ph.D., P.E.
John Hodgens, FDNY (ret.)
John J. Healey, Ph.D., P.E.
John J. Zils, P.E., S.E.
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E.

John Lekstutis, P.E.
John M. Hanson, Ph.D, P.E.
John McArdle NYPD ESU (DTC)
John Moran, NYPD ESU (NTC)
John O'Connell, Chief FDNY
John Odermatt (NYC OEM)
John Ruddy, P.E., S.E.
John Ryan, PAPD
John W. Fisher, P.E.

Jon Magnusson, P.E., S.E.
Jonathan Barnett, Ph.D
Joo-Eun Lee P.E., S.E.

Josi Torero, Ph.D.
Joseph C. Gehlen, P.E., S.E.
Joseph Englot, P.E., S.E.

Jozef Van Dyck, P.E.
Juan Paulo Morla, S.E.
Karen Damianick, P.E.
Karl Koch III
Karl Koch IV
Kaspar Willam, P.E., S.E.
Keith A. Seffen, MA, Ph.D.
Ken Hays
Kenneth Holden
Kent Watts
Kevin Brennan, OSHA
Kevin Malley, FDNY (ret.)
Kevin Terry, S.E.
Kurt Gustafson, P.E., S.E.
Larry Keating (IW 40)
Lawrence C. Bank, Ph.D., P.E.
Lawrence Griffis, P.E.

Lawrence Novak, P.E., S.E.
Leo J. Titus, P.E.
Leonard M. Joseph, P.E.

Leslie E. Robertson, P.E., S.E.
Long T. Phan, Ph.D., P.E.
Lou Mendes, P.E., S.E.
Louis Errichiello, S.E.
Manny Velivasakis, P.E.
Mark Blair
Mark Kucera, USACE
Mark Pierepiekarz, P.E., S.E.
Mark Stahl
Mark Tamaro, P.E

Mark Volpe, IW 40
Marty Corcoran
Matthew G. Yerkey, P.E., S.E.
Matthew McCormick, NTSB
Melbourne Garber, P.E., S.E.
Merle E. Brander, P.E.
Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Michael Burton, P.E.
Michael Dallal
Michael Fagel, Ph.D., CEM
Michael Hessheimer, S.E.
Michael K. Hynes, Ed.D., ATP, CFI

Michael Tylk, P.E., S.E.
Michel Bruneau, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Mike Banker, FDNY Capt. (SOC)
Mike Marscio, P.E.
Miroslav Sulc,, P.E., S.E.
Mohammed Ettouney
Mohammed R. Karim, Ph.D.
Morgan Hurley, FSFP.E.
Nestor Iwankiw, Ph.D., P.E.
Nick Carcich
Norman Groner, Ph.D.
Pablo Lopez, P.E., S.E.

Patrick McNierney, P.E., S.E.
Paul A. Bosela, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.
Paul Sledzik
Paul Tertell, P.E.
Pete Bakersky
Peter Chipchase, S.E.
Peter Rinaldi, P.E.
Phillip Murray, P.E.
Pia Hoffman

Rajani Nair, S.E.
Ralph Castillo, P.E., F.P.E.
Ralph D'Apuzo, P.E.
Ramon Gilsanz, P.E., S.E
Randy Lawson
Raul Maestre, P.E., S.E.
Raymond F. Messer, P.E.
Raymond H.R. Tide, P.E., S.E.
Reidar Bjorhovde, Ph.D., P.E

Richard Bukowski P.E., FSFP.E.
Richard G. Gewain, P.E., S.E.
Richard Gann, Ph.D.
Richard Garlock, P.E., S.E.
Richard J. Fields, Ph.D.
Richard Kahler US&R Structural Specialist
Robert Athanas (thermal imaging specialist, FDNY)

Robert C. Sinn, P.E., S.E.
Robert Clarke, S.E.
Robert F. Duval (NFPA)

Robert Frances US&R Structural Specialist
Robert J. McNamara, P.E., S.E.

Robert L. Parker, Ph.D.
Robert Ratay, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
Robert Shaler, M.D.

Robert Smilowitz, Ph.D., P.E
Robert Solomon, P.E.
Robert Wills, AISC

Ron Dokell, president, Demolition Consultants
Ronald Greeley, Ph.D.
Ronald Hamburger, P.E., S.E.
Ronald J. LaMere, P.E.
Ronald Rehm, Ph.D.
Ronald Spadafora, FDNY D.A.C
Ruben M. Zallen, P.E.
Russell "Rusty" Dodge Jr, Asst. Chief, Fort Belvoir FD
Ryan Mackey
S. Shyam Sunder, P.E., S.E.
Saroj Bhol, P.E.
Saw-Teen See, P.E.
Shankar Nair. P.E., S.E.
Shawn Kelly, Arlington County Fire Marshal
Skip Aldous, Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.)

Socrates Ioannides, P.E., S.E.
Sonny Scarff
Stan Murphy, P.E.
Stephen Cauffman
Stephen W. Banovic, Ph.D.
Steve Douglass, image analysis Consultant
Steve Rasweiler, FDNY B.C. (SOC)
Steve Spall, P.E., S.E.

Stuart Foltz, P.E.
Terry Sullivan, Bovis
Theodore Galambos, P.E.
Theodore Krauthammer, Ph.D., P.E.
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E.
Thomas A. Siewert
Thomas Eagar, Sc.D., P.E.
Thomas Hawkins Jr, Chief, AFD
Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D
Thomas Schlafly, AISC
Timothy Foecke, Ph.D.
Todd Curtis, Ph.D
Todd Ude, P.E., S.E.
Tom Scarangello, P.E.
Tom Stanton (IST)

Tomasz Wierzbicki
Tony Beale, P.E.
Valentine Junker
Van Romero, Ph.D.

Venkatesh Kodur, Ph.D., P.E.
Victor Hare, P.E.
Victoria Arbitrio, P.E.

Vincent Dunn, FDNY (ret.)
W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., P.E., S.E.
W. Lee Evey

Wallace Miller
William Baker, P.E., S.E
William E. Luecke, Ph.D.
William Grosshandler, Ph.D., ME
William Howell, P.E., S.E.
William Koplitz photo desk manager, FEMA
William McGuire, P.E.
Willie Quinlan, IW
Won-Young Kim, Ph.D
Yates Gladwell pilot, VF Corp.
Yukihiro Omika
Zdenek Bazant, Ph.D., S.E.

ACE Bermuda Insurance
AEMC Construction
AIG Insurance
Air Traffic Control System Command Center in Washington
Alexandria VA Fire & Rescue
Allianz Global Risks
American Airlines
American Concrete Institute
American
Institute of Steel Construction
American Red Cross
Applied Biosystems Inc.

Applied Research Associates
Arlington County Emergency Medical Services

Arlington County Fire Department
Arlington County Sheriff's Department

Arlington VA Police Department
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
Armed Forces Institute of Technology Federal Advisory Committee
ARUP USA
Atlantic Heydt Inc.
Bechtel
Berlin Fire Department
Big Apple Wrecking
Blanford & Co.
Bode Technology Group
Bovis Inc.
Building and Construction Trades Council
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms
C-130H crew in D.C. & Shanksville
Cal Berkeley Engineering Dept.
California Incident Management Team
Carter Burgess Engineering
Celera Genomics
Centers for Disease Control
Central City Fire Department
Central Intelligence Agency

Cleveland Airport control tower
Columbia University Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics
Congressional Joint Intelligence Committee
Consolidated Edison Company
Construction Technologies Laboratory

Controlled Demolitions Inc.
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat

Counterterrorism and Security Group
CTL Engineering
D.H. Griffin Wrecking Co. Inc.
DeSimone Consulting Engineers
Dewhurst MacFarlane &Partners

DiSalvo Ericson Engineering
District of Columbia Fire & Rescue
DOD Honor Guard, Pentagon
D'Onofrio Construction
E-4B National Airborne Operations Center crews
Edwards and Kelcey Engineering
Engineering Systems, Inc.

Environmental protection Agency
Exponent Failure Analysis Associates
EYP Mission CriticalFacilities
Fairfax County Fire & Rescue
Falcon 20 crew in PA
Family members who received calls from victims on the planes
FBI Evidence Recovery Teams
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Co.

FEMA 68-Person Urban Search and Rescue Teams: Arizona Task Force 1, California
Task Force 1, California Task Force 3, California Task Force 7, Colorado Task
Force 1, Fairfax Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 1, Florida Task Force 2,
Maryland Task Force 1, Massachusetts Task Force 1, Metro Dade Miami, Nebraska

FEMA Disaster Field Office
FEMA Emergency Response Team
FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Incident Support Team-Advanced 3
Fire Department of New York
Fort Myer Fire Department
French Urban Search & Rescue Task Force
Friedens Volunteer Fire Department
Gateway Demolition
Gene Code Forensics
Georgia Tech Engineering Dept.
Gilsanz Murray Steficek LLP
GMAC Financing

Goldstein Associates Consulting Engineers
Guy Nordenson Associates
HAKS Engineers
Hampton-Clarke Inc.
HHS National Medical Response Team
HLW International Engineering
Hooversville Rescue Squad.
Hooversville Volunteer Fire Department
Hoy Structural Services
Hughes Associates, Inc
Hugo Neu Schnitzer East

hundreds of ironworkers, some of whom built the WTC
Hundreds of New York City Police Department Detectives
Industrial Risk Insurers

Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems
International Association of Fire Chiefs
International Union of Operating Engineers Locals 14 & 15
J.R. Harris & Company
Johnstown-Cambria County Airport Authority
Karl Koch Steel Consulting Inc.
KCE Structural Engineers
Koch Skanska
Koutsoubis, Alonso Associates
Laboratory Corp. of America
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Leslie E. Robertson Associates
LIRo Engineering
Listie Volunteer Fire Company
Lockwood Consulting
M.G. McLaren Engineering
Masonry Society

Mazzocchi Wrecking Inc.
Metal Management Northeast
Metropolitan Airport Authority Fire Unit
Miami-Dade Urban Search & Rescue
Military District of Washington Search & Rescue Team
Montgomery County Fire & Rescue
Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers
Murray Engineering
Myriad Genetic Laboratories Inc.
National Center for Biotechnology Informatics
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations
National Disaster Medical System
National Emergency Numbering Association
National Fire Protection Association

National Guard in D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
National Institutes of Health Human Genome Research Institute
National Law Enforcement and Security Institute
National Military Command Center
National Reconnaissance Office
National Response Center
National Science Foundation Division of Civil and Mechanical Systems

National Security Agency
National Transportation Safety Board
National Wrecking
Natural Hazards Research and Applications Information Center
New Jersey State Police
New York City Department of Buildings WTC Task Force

New York City Department of Design and Construction
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
New York City Office of Emergency Management

New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner
New York City Police Department Aviation Unit
New York City Police Department Emergency Services Unit
New York Daily News
New York Flight Control Center
New York Newsday

New York Port Authority Construction Board
New York Port Authority Police

New York State Emergency Management Office
New York State Police Forensic Services
New York Times
North American Aerospace Defense Command

Northeast Air Defense Sector Commanders and crew
Numerous bomb-sniffing dogs

Numerous Forensic Anthropologists
Numerous Forensic Dentists
Numerous Forensic Pathologists
Numerous Forensic Radiologists
NuStats
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Office of Emergency Preparedness
Office of Strategic Services
Orchid Cellmark
Parsons Brinckerhoff Engineering

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
National Emergency Numbering Association
Pennsylvania Department of Health and Human Services
Pennsylvania Region 13 Metropolitan Medical Response Group
Pennsylvania State Funeral Directors Association

Pennsylvania State Police
Pentagon Defense Protective Service
Pentagon Helicopter Crash Response Team
Pentagon Medical Staff
Pentagon Renovation Team
Phillips & Jordan, Inc.
Port of New York and New Jersey Authority

Pro-Safety Services
Protec
Public Entity Risk Institute
Purdue University Engineering Dept.
Robert Silman Associates Structural Engineers
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc
Rosenwasser Grossman Consulting Engineers
Royal Sun Alliance
Royal Indemnity
SACE Prime Power Assessment Teams
SACE
Structural Safety Engineers and Debris Planning and Response Teams
Salvation Army Disaster Services
several EPA Hazmat Teams
several FBI Hazmat Teams

several Federal Disaster Medical Assistance Teams
several Federal Disaster Mortuary (DMORT) Teams
Severud Associates Consulting Engineers
Shanksville Volunteer Fire Company
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Engineers
Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP
Skilling Ward Magnusson Barkshire

Society of Fire Protection Engineers
Somerset Ambulance Association

Somerset County Coroner's Office
Somerset County Emergency Management Agency

Somerset Volunteer Fire Department
St. Paul Travelers Insurance
State of Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
Stoystown Volunteer Fire Company

Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers (SEI
ASCE)
Structural Engineers Association of New York
Superstructures Engineering
Swiss Re America Insurance
Telephone operators who took calls from passengers in the hijacked planes
Teng & Associates
Thornton-Tomasetti Group, Inc.
TIG Insurance
Tokio Marine & Fire
Transportation Safety Administration
Tully Construction
Twin City Fire Insurance
Tylk Gustafson
Reckers Wilson Andrews Engineering
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Underwriters Laboratories
Union Wrecking
United Airlines
United States
Air National Guard
United States Fire Administration
United States Secret Service
United Steelworkers of America
University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research
US Army Reserves of Virginia Beach Fairfax County and Montgomery County
US Army.s Communications-Electronics Command
US Department of Defense
US Department of Justice
US Department of State

Virginia Beach Fire Department
Virginia Department of Emergency Management

Virginia State Police
Vollmer Associates Engineers
Washington Post
Weeks Marine
Weidlinger Associates
Weiskopf & Pickworth Engineering

Westmoreland County Emergency Management Agency
Whitney Contracting
Willis Group Holdings
WJE Structural Engineers
Worcester Polytechnic Institute

World Trade Center security staff
XL Insurance
Yonkers Contracting
York International
Zurich Financial
Zurich Re Risk Engineering

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.co/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi

bill smith

15th July 2009, 08:31 AM

The following people and organizations have endorsed the basic story of 9/11. In total, they represent about 70,000 people. All of them were first-hand participants in some aspect of the events of 9/11.

Alan Rosa, P.E., S.E.
Alfred D. Barcenilla, Sr., P.E.
Allan Jowsey, Ph.D.

<chop>

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.co/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi

Don't tell me- these are the scientists who worked under contract to NIST ? The ones who individually investigated small discrete areas of investigation and had no say in what way Shyam Sunder and his gang pulled all the seperate threads of information together ?
Not enough I'm afraid.

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 08:36 AM

Nothing except for the fact that they don’t believe that is was. There are, and have been, no end of opportunities for them to do so if they so wished.

You, of course, have to make this accusation to justify your belief.

Why do you assume that because they are not all crying out “Controlled Demolition” they are being coerced into silence?

As for criticisms of NIST there have also been many University of Edinburgh Dr. Usmani, Arup Dr. Barbara Lane, et al, Dr Greening to name a few. If they believed that the destruction was caused by Controlled Demolition they could have said so.

But, they don’t.

Woof!

Do you all not see the contradiction in this belief of yours? (meaning all you JREF "debunkers").

This is the JREF "debunker" mode of thought...

"Anyone who has not spoken out against the Official Conspiracy Theory automatically accepts and endorses the Official Conspiracy Theroy. While at the same time anyone who has not spoken out against the Controlled Demolitions has not done so because (insert reason here)"

Are you lurkers seeing this? I certainly hope so. This is a glaring insight into the skewed thinking of "debunkers"

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 08:42 AM

Don't tell me- these are the scientists who worked under contract to NIST ? the ones who individually investigated small discrete areas of investigation and had no say in what way Shyam Sunder and his gang pulled all the serate threads of information together ?
Not enough I'm afraid.

Bigal also forget to take in the human psychology aspect of it that we have repeadetly brought up but the "debunkers" refuse to acknowledge, and that is why someone would remain quiet. Like the fear of losing a job and not being able to support yourself or your family, heck even fear for your life.

Notice how they always gloss over that psychological aspect of it!

Edit:

And the ultimate proof of acceptance by the engineering community: the building codes have been changed to reflect an investigation that concluded that impact and fire damage caused the collapse.

Dave

See what I mean Bill, Dave here completely ignores the human psychological aspect of why people would remain quiet, and he does so while trying to convince people that remaining quiet and doing your job means you accept the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Dave Rogers

15th July 2009, 08:51 AM

See what I mean Bill, Dave here completely ignores the human psychological aspect of why people would remain quiet, and he does so while trying to convince people that remaining quiet and doing your job means you accept the Official Conspiracy Theory.

A new way to win an argument: Whenever an opponent refutes your point, claim that it was an unsuccessful attempt to refute a different point. If he goes on to refute that point, claim it was an unsuccessful attempt to refute a third point. Eventually you will be able to return to the original point and claim that it also has not been refuted. This way, you can confuse your audience into thinking your points are unaddressed.

Looks like Schopenhauer missed a trick.

Dave

bill smith

15th July 2009, 08:53 AM

Bigal also forget to take in the human psychology aspect of it that we have repeadetly brought up but the "debunkers" refuse to acknowledge, and that is why someone would remain quiet. Like the fear of losing a job and not being able to support yourself or your family, heck even fear for your life.

Notice how they always gloss over that psychological aspect of it!

Edit:

See what I mean Bill, Dave here completely ignores the human psychological aspect of why people would remain quiet, and he does so while trying to convince people that remaining quiet and doing your job means you accept the Official Conspiracy Theory.

lol

BigAl

15th July 2009, 08:57 AM

bill smith

15th July 2009, 09:01 AM

Everyone with a PE in their title is subject to serious legal action if anything they've written is later found to be wrong. Why would all these people put their careers at risk if they were not very sure that the conclusions were accurate?

A lot of it is in the interpretation of results by Sunder and his gang Al. But even if they obviously deviated from an individual scientists resuts it would be no special problem to put the arm on him and keep him quiet. Everybody has a price Al, or at least a family.

Locknar

15th July 2009, 09:03 AM

BigAl

15th July 2009, 09:03 AM

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 09:04 AM

Then why are you still here?

Dave

Because outside of JREF I have a really really hard time finding anyone who agrees with the Official Conspiracy Theory on 9/11, not just on the internet but in real life as well. And yes I do talk to people, lots of people about it.

So I have to come here to JREF to see what the "debunkers" think.

And still no one has taken me up on my offer to discuss this in a nice neutral forum or blog (like the BBC blog I've mentioned).

Will you come out of JREF Dave and discuss 9/11 on let's say the BBC blog?

Oscar

15th July 2009, 09:04 AM

OK, locknar, steve and Bill's arguments are both retarded and insane.

They, of course, are completely normal.

Will that do?

Bad_Doggie

15th July 2009, 09:07 AM

Do you all not see the contradiction in this belief of yours? (meaning all you JREF "debunkers").

This is the JREF "debunker" mode of thought...

"Anyone who has not spoken out against the Official Conspiracy Theory automatically accepts and endorses the Official Conspiracy Theroy. While at the same time anyone who has not spoken out against the Controlled Demolitions has not done so because (insert reason here)"

Are you lurkers seeing this? I certainly hope so. This is a glaring insight into the skewed thinking of "debunkers"

Did you miss my simple question to you?

“Why do you assume that because they are not all crying out “Controlled Demolition” they are being coerced into silence?”

Now Steve while you ponder your response lets take a little look at something.

I am sure that you are aware of the scientific process and how it works and that you are familiar with Archimedes of Syracuse sitting in his bath and his principle, are you not?

Now for the life of me I can’t find a list of scientist who have signed a list to say that he is correct in his assertions, nor am I aware of one. Are you? So from this WE have to decide (assume) one of the following

1/ The scientific community agrees with him and so does not publish a competing Hypothesis or voice their decent i.e. they agree with him and his principle. Or……………

2/ the scientific community are being coerced into silence by the reptilians.

Which one are you going for?

Woof!¬

Dave Rogers

15th July 2009, 09:07 AM

But even if they obviously deviated from an individual scientists resuts it would be no special problem to put the arm on him and keep him quiet. Everybody has a price Al, or at least a family.

Note how bill smith uses a classic piece of conspiracist logic here. If the vast majority of experts fail to support the conspiracy theory, this can be postulated as due to threats and intimidation even without any evidence of any such thing having happened.

Strangely enough, Danny Jowenko's demolition company appears still to be trading.

Dave

Dave Rogers

15th July 2009, 09:09 AM

Because outside of JREF I have a really really hard time finding anyone who agrees with the Official Conspiracy Theory on 9/11, not just on the internet but in real life as well. And yes I do talk to people, lots of people about it.

So I have to come here to JREF to see what the "debunkers" think.

One would presume you now know. So why are you still here?

Dave

Oscar

15th July 2009, 09:10 AM

Steve:
Because outside of JREF I have a really really hard time finding anyone who agrees with the Official Conspiracy Theory on 9/11, not just on the internet but in real life as well. And yes I do talk to people, lots of people about it.

Where do you live? Neverland?

I've only ever met one 9/11 conspiracy theorist and he made Herman Munster look normal.

Cut the crap. Nobody but a handful of fruitcakes believes your insane ideas.

tfk

15th July 2009, 09:11 AM

Do it for the truth T. These reports are mostly written by people working blindly off the NIST reports. How were they to know in those days that the NIST reports are not to be trusted. You don't see a lot of new reports these days do you ?

Yeah, bill. I didn't think you'd take the bet.

"Do it for the truth..."??

Would that be "the truth" as the rest of us understand the term?
Or "the bill smith truth"?

Because those are two very different concepts. Some folks, less familiar with you than I am, might be, uh, shocked at how divergent those two concepts really are, bill.

Let's provide a couple of reference points, shall we?

The Truth | The "Bill Smith Truth"
| (Source)
Explosive charges make noise. | Demolition companies have access to "silent explosives"
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post22695)
Two 100 ton, 500 mph planes crashed thru the external walls of two Towers. | Molecular field disruptors were used
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040)
The Dept of Homeland Security is a typical bloated bureaucratic response to a major disaster. | DHS has built and manned about 200 concentration camps around the country, capable of holding 25 million American dissidents, complete with NAZI-style cattle cars with iron shackles to transport them.
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post13890)
NIST released its WTC7 report, and it has been accepted by the engineering community. | The NIST's WTC7 report has been completely disproven by ae911t "scientists" and 'is dead'.
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post31965)
The Bush administration, respecting American political tradition, will peacefully pass on power to the freely elected Obama administration. | The Bush administration would, without doubt, engineer a "false flag terrorist action", declare martial law, and cancel the 2008 elections.
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post14464)
A bunch of terrorists attacked the US. | The Bush Administration orchestrated 9/11 terrorist attacks, and then blew the whistle on themselves (...?!..?!) to instill PTSD on the American public to make them more malleable to mind control.
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post12347)
And my personal favorite: . |
Fires raged thru the Towers and WTC7 | Conspirators placed giant smoke generators in the buildings to simulate fires.
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post13846)Sure, bill. You've got TONS of credibility to be telling anyone to post anything "for the truth"...

LoL.

Tom

PS. You were bluffed on that bet, bill. And you folded.

You see, I believe that 200 papers is a good estimate of the number of papers currently released that are based on the NIST report. But this is just an estimate, based on previous numbers and my experience with the amazing number of papers that academia and industry is capable of churning out.

But, being a good estimate, I believe that there's a 50/50 chance of the real number being above or below it.

I've told you before that I rarely bet on anything without knowing the outcome ahead of time. Certainly I'd never bet that much on what would be a "coin toss".

So an unobservant person might guess that I violated my personal dictum this time. But they would be wrong.

You see, bill, I was NOT willing to bet $500 on the number of NIST-supporting papers without checking.
I WAS willing to bet $500 that YOU lack all sincerity or conviction in any of your stated beliefs.

That bet is "money in the bank".

rwguinn

15th July 2009, 09:12 AM

tfk

15th July 2009, 09:23 AM

I hdn''t actually looked at this link for a year or two. Wow. I think it is getting time for us Truthers to start ridiculing you debunkers.It's going to start happening soon anyway. You know it. That will be fun.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
.

I have every confidence that this prediction of yours will come true to precisely the same extent that all your previous predictions have come true.

Tom.

PS. So, is it too late for Bush to declare "martial law", cancel the elections and appoint himself "Dictator for Life" ...?

bill smith

15th July 2009, 09:26 AM

Yeah, bill. I didn't think you'd take the bet.

"Do it for the truth..."??

Would that be "the truth" as the rest of us understand the term?
Or "the bill smith truth"?

Because those are two very different concepts. Some folks, less familiar with you than I am, might be, uh, shocked at how divergent those two concepts really are, bill.

Let's provide a couple of reference points, shall we?

The Truth | The "Bill Smith Truth"
| (Source)
Explosive charges make noise. | Demolition companies have access to "silent explosives"
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post22695)
Two 100 ton, 500 mph planes crashed thru the external walls of two Towers. | Molecular field disruptors were used
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post36040)
The Dept of Homeland Security is a typical bloated bureaucratic response to a major disaster. | DHS has built and manned about 200 concentration camps around the country, capable of holding 25 million American dissidents, complete with NAZI-style cattle cars with iron shackles to transport them.
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post13890)
NIST released its WTC7 report, and it has been accepted by the engineering community. | The NIST's WTC7 report has been completely disproven by ae911t "scientists" and 'is dead'.
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post31965)
The Bush administration, respecting American political tradition, will peacefully pass on power to the freely elected Obama administration. | The Bush administration would, without doubt, engineer a "false flag terrorist action", declare martial law, and cancel the 2008 elections.
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post14464)
A bunch of terrorists attacked the US. | The Bush Administration orchestrated 9/11 terrorist attacks, and then blew the whistle on themselves (...?!..?!) to instill PTSD on the American public to make them more malleable to mind control.
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post12347)
And my personal favorite: . |
Fires raged thru the Towers and WTC7 | Conspirators placed giant smoke generators in the buildings to simulate fires.
| (http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TSBMT04T49GGG7HFO/post13846)Sure, bill. You've got TONS of credibility to be telling anyone to post anything "for the truth"...

LoL.

Tom

PS. You were bluffed on that bet, bill. And you folded.

You see, I believe that 200 papers is a good estimate of the number of papers currently released that are based on the NIST report. But this is just an estimate, based on previous numbers and my experience with the amazing number of papers that academia and industry is capable of churning out.

But, being a good estimate, I believe that there's a 50/50 chance of the real number being above or below it.

I've told you before that I rarely bet on anything without knowing the outcome ahead of time. Certainly I'd never bet that much on what would be a "coin toss".

So an unobservant person might guess that I violated my personal dictum this time. But they would be wrong.

You see, bill, I was NOT willing to bet $500 on the number of NIST-supporting papers without checking.
I WAS willing to bet $500 that YOU lack all sincerity or conviction in any of your stated beliefs.

That bet is "money in the bank".

I'm flattered that you went to so much trouble T. Some of the links in those pages might be interesting. We are not so interested on 'papers based on the NIST reports' for obvious reasons. How may papers do you have that are full independent analyses of the collapses themselves ?

I hope there is enough room left on this page. lol

Disbelief

15th July 2009, 09:27 AM

Steve:

Where do you live? Neverland?

I've only ever met one 9/11 conspiracy theorist and he made Herman Munster look normal.

Cut the crap. Nobody but a handful of fruitcakes believes your insane ideas.

I was on vacation for two weeks, so I rarely logged on. Strange how the CTists suddenly disappear when not on the internet.

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 09:27 AM

:boggled:

How in the hell can a controlled demolition make columns buckle BEFORE it happens?!?!

Also, I thought controlled demolition CUT support columns, not buckle them?

So you admit that there ARE buckling columns? Just that they were caused to buckle by a controlled demolition of some sort?

In that case your website is wrong and needs to be corrected. Or do you like to mislead people to make a point?:

Well, one possibility is that the core columns (not seen) are demolished/cut by CD before and as a result the perimeter columns (seen) deform as seen on the photos from a video one second before the WTC 2 explodes around the initiation zone (and the deformed wall columns).

As far as I am concerned no buckled columns from the initiation zone between parts C and A have been identified in the rubble, documented and analyzed by proper authorities. So no need to correct web page.

One reason is that a one-way crush down of a structure is not possible under any circumstances = my point = topic of thread. It also applies to WTC 2 even if my papers concentrate on WTC 1.

In the WTC 2 case the CD of upper part C is even more obvious than for WTC 1. The WTC 2 upper part was three times bigger than WTC 1 ... and it disappears before hitting ground. So how could it - WTC 2 part C - one-way crush down WTC 2 part A?

phunk

15th July 2009, 09:28 AM

twinstead

15th July 2009, 09:31 AM

Just for kicks, what if the majority of the world's experts suddenly gave a hoot about the tiny truther cult and made a concerted effort to specifically claim, in print, that they don't think the wtc was a CD.

Then what, bill and Steve?

ElMondoHummus

15th July 2009, 09:32 AM

Once again, because somehow, contrary to all evidence, it's still being argued that there's no widespread acceptance of the findings of the NIST WTC studies, and that it's somehow dishonest to say so:

As far as the engineering, building safety, fire engineering, and architectural professions are concerned, there is actually zero silence on the issue of the NIST report's veracity. As I and others have pointed out before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=145828&page=9), the ICC has not only accepted NISTs findings, but is already in process of integrating that knowledge into future building codes. Some of the findings - for example, the issue of fireproofing bonding, as well as an increase in the fire resistance rating of structural components and assemblies - directly address issues highlighted in the NIST report. Other changes are still being studied. But my point is that, while Tom is 100% correct about individuals not speaking up and signing petitions, creating groups, etc. regarding their acceptance of the NIST report, there's context here that someone who hasn't studied 9/11 might be missing, and that's that their professional bodies have indeed sounded off on the issue. And they unquestioningly accept NISTs findings. The ICC modifications to code prove that. And buildings built to codes developed with that knowledge, like the Beijing Mandarin (which by the way burnt down back in February), are further proof.

The bottom line is that there is indeed widespread acceptance of the NIST report. And it's not just rhetorical, it's actually practical acceptance.

The NIST report is established knowledge. Only a select number of conspiracy addicts think there's no acceptance of NIST's findings. The ICC alone has 338 chapters, and if you presume a mere 3 members per chapter, that exceeds the number of engineering and architectural professionals who've signed AE911T's petition right there by itself. And the ICC has definitively spoken up in favor of the report by approving code changes and accepting further modifications based on that report.

On top of that, any numbers argument ignores the fact that it doesn't matter how many professionals state sympathy to conspiratorial fantasies; when the fantasies themselves are disproven, a million people can sign a million petitions, and they'd still be all wrong. The failure of the conspiracy fantasy doesn't lay in who believes and who doesn't believe in it, it lies in the failure to actually be supported by the evidence and reflect what happened on that day.

The knowledge in the NIST report has already been used to modify codes, and further modifications are in the queue for the ICC. No engineers involved with that have indicated anything other than acceptance of the NIST findings. People can criticize NIST's report all they want - and if it's legitimate, it will be heard (http://www.csemag.com/article/177884-Arup_Study_Sees_WTC_Collapse_Likely_Even_Without_L oss_of_Fireproofing.php) - but you conspiracy peddlers cannot make the argument professionals do not accept the findings. They have, and the one's who count have demonstrated their acceptance by putting that knowledge to use.

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 09:35 AM

Ok folks...I'm sure you know the drill by now, everyone...all together: "It is attack the argument and not the arguer" (ie. Rule 12 of your Membership Agreement). Let's stop the bickering and address the OP...your cooperation would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, most OCTist posts are completely off topic - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible - but now and then somebody tries to find errors in my papers about it, so I reply. In all cases they have not studied the problem properly.

Worse, nobody seems to be in a position to show that one-way crush downs by gravity are in fact possible. That would really stop the lively and friendly discussion ... so let's await this magic moment.

BigAl

15th July 2009, 09:39 AM

I'm flattered that you went to so much trouble T. Some of the links in those pages might be interesting. We are not so interested on 'papers based on the NIST reports' for obvious reasons. How may papers do you have that are full independent analyses of the collapses themselves ?

I hope there is enough room left on this page. lol

All linked to sources via http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist%2Cfemareports%2C911structuralengineerin

Alternate Collapse Hypotheses
Investigations leading to alternate tower collapse hypotheses, and critiques of NIST's WTC investigation by knowledgeable people who are not conspiracy theorists: FEMA/ASCE, Arup Fire, University of Edinburgh, Usmani, Torero, Lane, Cherepanov, Quintiere, Corbett, Mackey, Greening

Journal and Conference Papers
Peer-reviewed papers and conference papers about the WTC impacts, fires, and collapses

WTC collapse papers with Zdenek Bazant as lead author

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Authors Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 134 (2008). Refutation of controlled demolition theory. Discusses matching of video record with progressive collapse equations, "free-fall" claims, concrete crushing (and how much TNT equivalent would be needed to do that crushing), air pressure & ejection of air, spread of dust cloud.

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Co-author Verdure. PDF. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 133 (2007): pp. 308–319

Excerpt (applies to link above and below): The kinetic energy of the top part of the tower impacting the floor below was found to be about 8.4x larger than the plastic energy absorption capability of the underlying story, and considerably higher than that if fracturing were taken into account (Bažant and Zhou 2002a). This fact, along with the fact that during the progressive collapse of underlying stories the loss of gravitational potential per story is much greater than the energy dissipated per story, was sufficient for Bažant and Zhou (2002a) to conclude, purely on energy grounds, that the tower was doomed once the top part of the tower dropped through the height of one story (or even 0.5 m).

Discussion and replies to June 2006 Bazant & Verdure paper: James Gourley, G. Szuladinski. Closing comments from Bazant to Gourley (after detailed rebuttal to his claims):

Although everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion on any issue of concern, interested critics should realize that, to help discern the truth about an engineering problem such as the WTC collapse, it is necessary to become acquainted with the relevant material from an appropriate textbook on structural mechanics. Otherwise critics run the risk of misleading and wrongly influencing the public with incorrect information.

Bazant & Zhou, 2001-2002: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002.

Other explanations of the tower collapses

November, 2007: Structural Engineer Keith Seffen's mathematical model of WTC tower progressive collapse (PDF. Due to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 134, No. 2, February 2008)
BBC News article about Seffen's paper

Dr. Frank Greening's papers on the Collapses, Energy Transfer, "Tipping," Concrete Pulverization (PDFs)

Physicist Manuel Garcia's Counterpunch articles on the physics of the WTC collapses Pt.1– Pt.2– Pt.3

Why didn't the towers, or the upper portions of them, topple over?

Why didn't the upper part pivot about it's base? See Bazant & Zhou (2001) Appendix II
Eduardo Kausel (MIT): Why the Towers didn't fall like trees
Frank Greening: An analysis of the tipping of the upper section of WTC 2 (PDF)
A simple graphic explanation of why the top of the south tower didn't fall to the side.
Physicist Dave Rogers on tipping of tower tops.
Structural engineer "Newton's Bit" on "tipping"

Explanations of NIST's Investigation Methods
See also: Investigations leading to alternate collapse hypotheses.

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster: FAQ (2002: Goals & Methods)

Ryan Mackey on how the NIST investigation works, and on "Scholars" critics
Ryan Mackey on NIST's degree of certainty, bounding cases, comparisons to other studies
Ryan Mackey on NIST altering model inputs
Ryan Mackey on NIST recovered steel and fire models
JREF Ktesibios on NIST workstation actual tests
JREF RWGuinn on testing models to failure
Ryan Mackey on NIST fuel load estimates
Physicist Dave Rogers on scaling issues with physical models of large structures

NIST's Recommendations, and the Architectural and Engineering Community's Response

NIST summary of WTC 1 & 2 investigation results & recommendations (PDF)

The AIA's Response to NIST's Draft Report and Recommendations (PDF)

The World Trade Center Collapse and its Implications for International Standards – W. Gene Corley ISO Focus, January 2004 (PDF)

"Reexamining Premises for High-Rise Design" Security Management magazine (PDF)
In this article from Security Management magazine, Dr. Gene Corley discusses lessons from the World Trade Center investigation and how they might affect future building design.

NIBS Building Code Experts: Translating WTC Recommendations into Model Building Codes

First Comprehensive Set of Model Code Changes Adopted Based on Recommendations from Commerce’s NIST World Trade Center Investigation (June, 2007)

Twin Towers' Structural Engineers on the Record

Excellent New Yorker Profile of WTC chief engineer Leslie Robertson, early speculation about collapses, many quotes from engineers, info about skyscraper design

Leslie Robertson on WTC steel core

No Tower Can Withstand Attack As Jets Get Bigger, Expert Says (Les Robertson $ NYT March 14, 2002)

"Reflections on the World Trade Center" (Robertson. PDF)

Jon Magnusson of Skilling Ward, helped design towers: "Engineers couldn't have known"

Gene Corley on FEMA/ASCE investigation lessons

"What We Learned: Building Performance Study of the WTC Collapse" (PDF) Outlines preliminary lessons learned in the FEMA/ASCE investigation of the NY World Trade Center collapse.

"Corley, ASCE Take Part in House Hearing" (PDF) On March 6, CTLGroup senior vice president Dr. Gene Corley testified before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives. Dr. Corley was one of several members of the ASCE structural investigation team who were asked to discuss the performance of the World Trade Center in the September 11th attacks, and its implications for future building design. An article on the hearing from ASCE News.

"Looking Back on 9/11" (PDF) In this interview, Dr. Gene Corley discusses engineers' roles in the World Trade Center Building Performance Study

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's WTC collapse investigations

Tower Wreckage Reveals Clues – Astaneh – Jersey City Scrap Yards (later, some of these conclusions proved wrong)

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl WTC Collapse, Field Investigations, and Analysis (Dec. 2003)

Now, as the five-year anniversary of the World Trade Center attack draws near, Astaneh-Asl finally expects to have the results of his analysis published in an academic journal. The project, requiring thousands of hours to complete, was self-funded and conducted by Astaneh-Asl, his students, and analysts from the MSC.Software Corporation, which donated the structural analysis software (MD Nastran and Dytran). Did the Building Do it? (Astaneh Study)

Testimony of Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl Before the House Committee on Science, March, 2002

Investigations involving extensive computer modeling of the towers

April, 2007: Purdue University analysis of WTC 1 collapse using LS-Dyna**More on the Purdue WTC study

"Did the Building Do It?" (Article about Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl/Cal FEA study, Sept, 2006)
Now, as the five-year anniversary of the World Trade Center attack draws near, Astaneh-Asl finally expects to have the results of his analysis published in an academic journal. The project, requiring thousands of hours to complete, was self-funded and conducted by Astaneh-Asl, his students, and analysts from the MSC.Software Corporation, which donated the structural analysis software (MD Nastran and Dytran).

NIST's SAP reference models of WTC 1&2, obtained through FOIA request

LU Xinzheng & JIANG Jianjing Simulation for the Collapse of WTC after Aeroplane Impact. Proceedings of the International Conference on the Protection of Structures Against Hazards, Nov. 2002. 57~60

Weidlinger Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures (Matthys Levy). 10/25/02
The engineering team is comprised of: Weidlinger Associates Inc., led by Matthys Levy and Najib Abboud; LZA Technology/Thornton-Tomasetti Group, led by Daniel Cuoco and Gary Panariello; ARUPFire, led by Richard Custer; Hughes Associates Inc., led by Craig Beyler; SafirRosetti, led by Howard Safir; Hillman Environmental Group, led by Christopher Hillmann and John B. Glass Jr.; RWDI, led by Peter Irwin; Dr. W. Gene Corley, who led the ASCE-FEMA study; Professor Sean Ahearn; and Z-Axis Corp., led by Gary Freed and Alan Treibitz.

Weidlinger Study – Column failures

Weidlinger study refutes FEMA. Collapse inevitable due to structural damage and fires, not to WTC design defects. (NYT Oct 22, 2002)

First Tower to Fall Was hit at Higher Speed, Study Finds (NYT February 23, 2002)

Silverstein Sending Tower Data to U.S. Agency (NIST/Weidlinger/Insurance Agencies NYT Oct 1, 2002)
Even though the exterior columns all looked identical, both the grade and thickness of their steel varied from place to place, said Dr. Fahim Sadek, a researcher at the institute's building and fire research lab, who is producing a detailed structural model of the towers on a computer using the original blueprints. So there were actually more than 130 different column types, he said, each having to be accounted for in his model. From there, it gets only more intricate. One of Dr. Sadek's detailed models for a single floor -- the 96th floor of the north tower, considered typical -- contains 40,000 separate elements. A coarser representation of the entire tower contains 90,000 elements.

Swiss Re/Exponent Failure Analysis Associates WTC engineering study, Oct. 2002 (Complete copies of the FaAA study are available at Swiss Re by calling 212-317-5663.)

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421 http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3161860#post3161860

Applied Reseach Associates NIST World Trade Center Investigations

Aircraft Impact Analysis of the World Trade Center Towers (Univ. of Tsukuba)

Jay Windley's (Jay Utah of BAUT forum) excellent explanation of Finite Element Analysis

Structure Magazine: Computer Modeling of the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers (March, 2007)

CAD Digest article with CAD graphics (September, 2001) G. Charles Clifton

NIST's SAP reference models of WTC 1&2, obtained through FOIA request

More on WTC engineering, articles by and about engineers
who worked on the buildings and on the investigations

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AT GROUND ZERO – NCSEA (August Domel, Nov. 2001)

The Days After, the Days Ahead: Civil engineers respond to 9/11 Attacks (Civil Engineering, Nov. 2001)

Structural engineers first in the aftermath

Civil Engineering Magazine: Dissecting the Collapses

Articles in the National Academy of Engineering's "The Bridge" Spring, 2002 (PDF):

* Editorial: Engineering and Homeland Defense by George Bugliarello
* World Trade Center “Bathtub”: From Genesis to Armageddon by George J. Tamaro The engineer who oversaw the construction of the World Trade Center “bathtub” describes the recovery efforts.
* A 911 Call to the Engineering Profession by Robert Prieto The events of September 11 challenged the future of our heavily engineered environment and the future of the engineering profession.

Early Structural Investigation Teams (through 5/02)

ASCE WTC Disaster Response Team

Engineer Tim Schenck on early GZ work

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) The World Trade Center Terrorist Attack: Damage to Critical Facilities and Crisis Response

Georgia Tech Engineering Team Will Conduct Post-Disaster Assessment at World Trade Center Attack Site

Architecture Week: Engineers Explain Collapses (5/2002)

Towers Lost and Beyond: 8 Articles by MIT researchers 2001-2002.

Civil Engineer: WTC & Pentagon Links Portal

Blog: Civil & structural engineers on WTC collapse

Forum on Technical Implications of WTC Collapses (Columbia U., November, 2001)

MIT Masters Thesis: WTC Disaster Analysis & Recommendations (June, 2005)

Designing tall buildings to Resist Earthquakes ($ NYT 2002)

Institute of Structural Engineers: Safety in tall buildings and other buildings of large occupancy ($ 2002)

9/17/01 Inferno Heat, Not Impact, Brought Down Towers, Experts Say

9/19/01: Space.com "Gravity Helped Destroy Twin Towers" concrete too heavy for core construction, walls seen buckling, seismic data

December, 2007: JOM: The Role of Metallurgy in the NIST Investigation of the Twin Tower Collapses

Others write about sensibly about the collapses

JREF Nobby Nobbs: Some basics on the physics of the collapses
Bautforum: Jay Utah's excellent explanation of Finite Element Analysis
JREF R. Mackey on Gordon Ross / Frank Greening debate
JREF R.Mackey on freefall and energy available for deformation
JREF R. Mackey on Judy Wood's "Math"
JREF Arkan on tower collapse times
JREF Myriad on kinetic energy of initial collapses
JREF rwguinn on structural steel deformation
JREF Dr. Adequate on Steven Jones' "handwaving" argument.
Physics kinetic energy Moscatelli The destructive forces unleashed
Steven Jones to Jim Fetzer: grand piano speed, damage to bathtub Judy Wood
JREF Kookbreaker on pancake collapse history
Ryan Mackey on independent validations of the NIST report.
Roberts: Were the towers as strong as they were designed to be?
JREF rwguinn: The engineers in my office thought the towers would collapse

More about the NIST & FEMA investigations

In Collapsing Towers, a Cascade of Failures ($ NYT Nov. 11, 2001)

Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers' Fall (NYT Glanz, steel removal, Dec 25, 2001)

NIST to take over collapse investigation ($ NYT January 17, 2002)

Critique of FEMA WTC report by Ed Schulte in Plumbing Engineer, July, 2005 (PDF)

Learning from 9/11 (March, 2002) Hearing before the House Committee on Science: ASCE/FEMA BPAT study

Mismanagement Muddled Collapse Inquiry, House Panel Says (FEMA/NYC gov't/Fed gov't. $ NYT March 7, 2002)

At one point, Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a Democrat from New York City, asked for the official in charge to raise his hand, and two men, and then three appeared to do so. ''We have very serious problems here,'' added Representative John B. Larson, a Connecticut Democrat.

The lack of clear authority has had unfortunate consequences, the House members said. The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell.

The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating.

'The delay in the receipt of the plans did somewhat hinder the team's ability to confirm their understanding of the buildings,'' said Dr. W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer leading the investigative committee organized by FEMA.

A Port Authority spokesman defended the agency, saying that building plans had been given to federal officials within a week of the attack and that the agency was cooperating fully with the inquiry.

The federal officials who testified yesterday -- Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr., the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Robert F. Shea, the acting administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Insurance and Mitigation Administration -- repeatedly nodded their agreement.

In response to criticism from one committee member, Mr. Shea said, ''Frankly, I agree with you. There are many things in hindsight we would have done differently.''

The problem, they said, was the lack of clear authority in federal law and financing. None of the investigators, for example, had subpoena power, meaning that they could not order the city to stop sending the steel off for recycling or demand a copy of the building blueprints.

Government Orders Inquiry Into Trade Center Collapse ($ NYT March 23, 2002)

The Trade Center; Towers Fell as Intense Fire Beat Defenses, Report Says (FEMA. $ NYT March 29, 2002)

Interviews will examine why trade center collapsed -100,000 workers issued security passes

Wider Inquiry Into Towers Is Proposed ($ NYT May 2, 2002)

"In Data Trove, a Graphic Look at Towers' Fall, ($ NYT October 29, 2002)

Twin Tower Collapse Theory Challenged (Feb. 2003)

NIST Minutes of December 2-3, 2003, Meeting

New Evidence Is Reported That Floors Failed on 9/11 ($ NYT Dec. 3, 2003)
S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, ''We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging -- or that had been damaged -- prior to collapse.'' Still, Dr. Sunder said, ''The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse.''

NIST Not Ruling Anything Out on WTC Probe

Reliving 9/11, With Fire as Teacher (Modeling. $ NYT, Jan. 6, 2004)

NIST Public Briefing 05/05/04

Fire Testing Is Questioned In Findings On Towers (Current testing standards for new buildings inadequate. $ NYT August 26, 2004)

WTC Twin Tower Construction Details Pertinent to Engineering Investigations
See also WTC Construction, Systems, Power and WTC Core Construction

Gregory Urich: Detailed Estimate of Mass and Potential Energy of World Trade Center Tower (pdf)
WTC 1 & 2 core column data
Report of WTC fire code compliance--1993 (pdf)

Truther Claim: the term "Progressive Collapse" is a new one and describes a phenomenon rarely or never seen before 9/11.
Jim Hoffman, whom many truthers describe as one of their best researchers:

You've heard that the Twin Towers pancaked, crushing themselves completely. The experts gave us a fancy-sounding term for this: progressive collapse. If you search with the phrase "progressive collapse" you will find numerous articles, most of them written since 9/11/01 about things like assessing and retrofitting existing structures against progressive collapse. It seems that the only examples of progressive collapse of buildings cited are the Twin Towers, Building 7, and the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

A few examples of reality:

"As the hon. Gentleman will know, I accepted the tribunal's recommendations in respect of gas which show that once buildings are strengthened against the possibility of progressive collapse there is no reason why gas should not be used..." –Ronan Point Flats (Report), November, 1968

"New safeguards against the progressive collapse of tall buildings..." –"New Safety Law for Buildings," The Times (London), February 6, 1970

"The engineering term 'progressive collapse' – a potential calamity in high-rise structures – carries a sad double meaning throughout the evening." –'Benefactors' by Frayn, The New York Times, December 23, 1985

'It was a progressive collapse,'' Mr. Cohen said. ''What touched it off, we don't know.'' –"Collapse Inquiry Studies Bracing for New Column," The New York Times, May 1, 1987.

Some Progressive Collapse Studies & Recommendations
Thanks to JREF forum member cmcaulif for his contributions

Progressive Collapse Basics (R. Shankar Nair. 2004 North American Steel Construction Conference. PDF)

Fire Induced Progressive Collapse. (Arup. PDF) "This paper considers issues related to fire induced progressive collapse of tall buildings in extreme events."

Fire induced progressive collapse analysis of high rise buildings

NISTIR 7396 "Best Practices for Reducing the Potential for Progressive Collapse in Buildings," February 2007

Above report based on NIST/SEI workshops. Workshop presentation materials are here.

Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl: Progressive collapse prevention in new and existing buildings (Includes use of catenary action of cables to resist collapse. 2003. pdf).

Practical Means for Energy-Based Analyses of Disproportionate Collapse Potential
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 336-348 (November 2006)

Progressive Analysis Procedure for Progressive Collapse
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp. 79-85 (May 2004)

Progressive Collapse of Structures: Annotated Bibliography and Comparison of Codes and Standards
Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp. 418-425 (November 2006)

Cheol-Ho Lee, Seonwoong Kim, Kyu-Hong Han, Kyungkoo Lee 2009. "Simplified nonlinear progressive collapse analysis of welded steel moment frames"
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Volume 65, Issue 5, 1130-1137

Feng Fu, "Progressive collapse analysis of high-rise building with 3-D finite element modeling method" Journal of Constructional Steel Research, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 13 March 2009

A.G. Vlassis, B.A. Izzuddin, A.Y. Elghazouli, D.A. Nethercot, "Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to failed floor impact" Engineering Structures, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 12 March 2009
Abstract excerpt: "The application of the proposed methodology is demonstrated by means of a case study, which considers the impact response of a floor plate within a typical multi-storey steel-framed composite building. ...The application study illustrates the extremely onerous conditions imposed on the impacted floor resulting in an increased vulnerability to progressive collapse for structures of this type."

B.A. Izzuddin, A.G. Vlassis, A.Y. Elghazouli, D.A. Nethercot, "Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss — Part I: Simplified assessment framework" Engineering Structures, Volume 30, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 1308-1318

A.G. Vlassis, B.A. Izzuddin, A.Y. Elghazouli, D.A. Nethercot, "Progressive collapse of multi-storey buildings due to sudden column loss—Part II: Application" Engineering Structures, Volume 30, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 1424-1438

Santiago Pujol, J. Paul Smith-Pardo 2009. "A new perspective on the effects of abrupt column removal" Engineering Structures, Volume 31, Issue 4, 869-874

Hyun-Su Kim, Jinkoo Kim, Da-Woon An, "Development of integrated system for progressive collapse analysis of building structures considering dynamic effects" Advances in Engineering Software, Volume 40, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 1-8

Jinkoo Kim, Taewan Kim, "Assessment of progressive collapse-resisting capacity of steel moment frames" Journal of Constructional Steel Research, Volume 65, Issue 1, January 2009, Pages 169-179

Jeom Kee Paik, Bong Ju Kim, "Progressive collapse analysis of thin-walled box columns" Thin-Walled Structures, Volume 46, Issue 5, May 2008, Pages 541-550

Some Engineering & physics fundamentals & calculation aids

Efunda: Engineering Fundamentals
Online scientific calculator and unit converter
Shear Force And Bending diagrams 1
Ductile fracture and fragmentation in the reconstruction of the World Trade Center Attack (Wierzbicki)
Elastic Bending Theory
JREF: PixyMIsa on truther misuse of the term "entropy"
JREF Structural Engineer Newtons Bit on DCR/dead/live loads/safety factor
Steel: Ultimate strength vs. yield strength (strength is in the geometry)
A demonstration of kinetic energy: 7 grams of plastic vs. cast aluminum block

Main 9/11 Links Page

newton3376

15th July 2009, 09:44 AM

newton3376

15th July 2009, 09:49 AM

Bigal also forget to take in the human psychology aspect of it that we have repeadetly brought up but the "debunkers" refuse to acknowledge, and that is why someone would remain quiet. Like the fear of losing a job and not being able to support yourself or your family, heck even fear for your life.

Notice how they always gloss over that psychological aspect of it!

See what I mean Bill, Dave here completely ignores the human psychological aspect of why people would remain quiet, and he does so while trying to convince people that remaining quiet and doing your job means you accept the Official Conspiracy Theory.

How do you support such statements?

Dave Rogers

15th July 2009, 09:51 AM

No Steve, he WAS supposed to investigate them, but he didn't read past the titles.

And didn't even understand them.

Dave

alienentity

15th July 2009, 10:27 AM

<snip>

You see folks, "debunkers" and moreso disinfo agents are required to make it look like the Official Conspiracy Theory is solid with no holes and backed by every single thinking human on the planet. That's part of the psyop, that's how the psychology of it works. Always sound sure of yourself and always claim that everyone agrees with you and no one agrees with the loons (and you have to constantly use those terms like "looney" and "nuts"), and of course the sheep follow suit because they have heard the disinfo agent say they then repeat it as a mantra.

Whatever Steve. If it makes you feel better to say that, go ahead.

However, you still haven't answered my question.........which is

:
'Here's a simple question for you then - since you apparently believe that the WTC tower collapses were due to explosive demolition, can you provide at least one leading or significant demolitions expert who backs up this claim?'

Still waiting........

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704a5cdf6c812fc.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16965)

Gamolon

15th July 2009, 10:31 AM

Well, one possibility is that the core columns (not seen) are demolished/cut by CD before and as a result the perimeter columns (seen) deform as seen on the photos from a video one second before the WTC 2 explodes around the initiation zone (and the deformed wall columns).

Oh I see now.

If the core columns lose their support capacity due to being CUT from CD, THEN you think it's possible that the perimeter columns would buckle as shown, but if the core columns lose their support capacity due to fire WEAKENING them, then it's NOT possible for the perimeter columns to buckle as shown.

Really?

I have a question then.

How many core columns would have needed to have been cut at the same time to cause total failure of the core itself and provide enough load on the perimeter columns to bend them?

If the above is done, is it possble to then come up with a calculation to show how many core columns would have needed to be weakened by fire to cause total failure of the core and provide enough load on the perimeter columns to buckle them? Is this information in the NIST papers?

As far as I am concerned no buckled columns from the initiation zone between parts C and A have been identified in the rubble, documented and analyzed by proper authorities. So no need to correct web page.

And no evidence of a controlled demolition has ever been found either yet you choose to believe that. Convenient huh?

One reason is that a one-way crush down of a structure is not possible under any circumstances = my point = topic of thread. It also applies to WTC 2 even if my papers concentrate on WTC 1.

Your site/explanation is laden with half truths and contradictions. So your end result isn't even vaild. Like I said, garbage in garbage out. Are you so conceited and arrogant that you believe that all the people and engineers who have argued with you and pointed out mistakes are ALL wrong and that you are the only correct person here?

twinstead

15th July 2009, 10:37 AM

Are you so conceited and arrogant that you believe that all the people and engineers who have argued with you and pointed out mistakes are ALL wrong and that you are the only correct person here?

Dude. Is this a rhetorical question?

aggle-rithm

15th July 2009, 10:44 AM

Bill, you were not supposed to actually investigate those.

Don't worry. It'll never happen.

aggle-rithm

15th July 2009, 10:51 AM

Thanks, most OCTist posts are completely off topic - Why a one-way Crush down is not possible - but now and then somebody tries to find errors in my papers about it, so I reply. In all cases they have not studied the problem properly.

Worse, nobody seems to be in a position to show that one-way crush downs by gravity are in fact possible. That would really stop the lively and friendly discussion ... so let's await this magic moment.

You've been shown a VIDEO of one, for God's sake.

And you've never responded to my question: How does part "A" know whether or not part "C" is dropped on it by means of controlled demolition?

bill smith

15th July 2009, 10:59 AM

There must ave been four Truth seekers here today. Careful boys or we'll overwhelm them completely and then we would have no fun.

tfk

15th July 2009, 11:04 AM

Steve,

Deep,
I said lots of things. What you have excerpted here is a typical little quote mine of my comments.

Deep, how dare you. You know very well that quote mining (not that that's what you did) is the preserve of the JREF "debunkers". We see it all the time from them, but of course how dare I point that out!!!

.
I invited him to skip this juvenile trivia and move on to the substantive issues.
Now I invite you to do the same.
.

I said:
1. It is my OPINION that few people on the ae911 list have prerequisite backgrounds to competently critique the NIST report.

So, in your OPINION, who exactly over at ae911truth.org does not have the prerequisite backgrounds to competently critique the NIST report? Please list them and why!

.
Answer:
To critique the overall report: Structural Engineers with at least 20 years working experience in building skyscrapers.
To critique some subtopic: An acknowledged expert in the specific subtopic, with about 20 years experience in that field.
To ask questions and listen carefully to the Professionals' answers: Everybody else.

Why:
As I explained CLEARLY in my post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4903917), expertise is "topic specific". (Somehow, this comment seems to have been excised from your reply denouncing my comment on "quote mining". How, uh, ironic.)

The NIST report was produced by well seasoned professionals in each of the 30 or so engineering subspecialties. In order to be competent to critique the work of professionals, you have to have a comparable level of expertise in the specific field.

.

I stated that it's a fact that:
2. A bunch of the related engineers are "baby engineers".

Only a dishonest "debunker" would even attempt to use that as a justification.
...
Hehe, they are only "baby engineers", not real engineers like we are. Do people actually fall for this stuff?

.
This answer shows that you don't understand what engineering is, Steve. You seem to think that a kid who graduates from college is prepared to move into the field and start making decisions. Or critiquing the work of people who have been working in the field for 20, 30, 40 years.

How ... amusing.
How ... wrong.

College doesn't make you an engineer, Steve. College earns you the right to START that process.
About 20 years of experience is just about right to mature the process.

Do you people see how the disinfo "debunkers" attempt to dismiss experts without having to argue the facts? Simply make up some odious claim that they are not qualified, doesn't matter how ludicrous the claim is because if you state it with enough force and authority most people will believe you.

.
You just have a very low criterion for "expert". My bar is much, much higher.
I am right.
.

3. Anyone who said immediately "that's fishy" was incompetent.

Why? Someone sees something that seems fishy right off the bat and that makes them incompetent? Your are really really pushing the bounds of disinfo here Tom

.
Please, Steve. At least QUOTE me accurately.

I did not say, "Anyone who SAW anything fishy..."
I said, "Anyone who SAYS immediately 'that's fishy'... "
[Note: my euphemism for "I knew it was a controlled demo the moment I saw it..."]

You don't recognize what is going on because you are an amateur.

When a plane crashes, NONE of the real experts says anything except "Let's wait for the NTSB report."
When a space shuttle blows up, none of the real experts says anything except, "Let's wait to see what the evidence shows."

It is the same in EVERY field. Amateurs galore offer their uninformed opinions immediately. Experts know better.
.

4. The folks at ae911t have produce NO (as in zero, not one) paper in a peer reviewed journal (read to the end of the sentence, deep) that has stood up to subsequent critique and independent verification.
5. I said that "productivity is a component of competence", and by this measure, they are incompetent.

Ah yes, the moved goal posts. There were constant screams from "debunkers" that said we had to publish something, then when we do they arbitrarily move the goal posts.

.
I didn't move any goal posts, because this is the first time that I've set them on this topic.
.

BTW Tom those peer reviewed articles have stood up to critique and independent verification, after all there have been no peer reviewed rebuttals of those papers. A non-peer reviewed comment on JREF is not valid, it has ZERO credibility, regardless of what you say. If you want to critique those papers then do it in a peer reviewed journal. All JREF "debunkers" have said how easy it is to have even a non-valid paper published, so you should have no problems publishing a rebuttal!

.
Wrong.

Sorry, Steve. YOU don't understand how the scientific & engineering publication process works.

"Peer reviewed"does NOT mean "right". It means "lacking glaring errors". (Even a competent one, to which none of those papers appears to have been subjected.)

Until a finding has been independently verified, it is NOT accepted as true. It is not even accepted as probable. Professionals look at the authors, the methodology and the results and attach their own (variable) probability to the results.

So, there is zero need for anyone to publish a refuting article to "disprove" any of Jones, Harrit's or anyone else's work. The traditional, accepted way for the scientific & engineering community to reject a flawed piece of work is to simply ignore it.

At that point, it is up to the authors to push, cajole, encourage independent verification in order to get their work accepted. Otherwise, it remains stillborn.
.

I know that "quote mining" is what you do. It's truly annoying.

Why don't you try switching to adult conversation. You know, asking people what they think, instead of telling them what they think. Trying to understand concepts with some depth, instead of playing "gotcha" with phraseology.

...
Seems Tom (and many others here) like to claim that anyone who does not agree with the Official Conspiracy Theory is an immature kid!! ROFL

.
How convenient for you to portray it like that. Absolutely false, of course.

I did not say "you're immature because you don't agree with me".

I said that "you're immature because you keep employing juvenile arguments and tactics.

Arguments like 'huge swathes of American adults are terrified of speaking their mind for fear of losing their jobs".

And tactics like ignoring 3000 words of substance to whine about one sentence of trivia.
.

How many times are you going to try and use that one Tom? Has anyone taken the bait yet? Has anyone fallen for it?

Yeah. You just did.
Or are you gonna hold your breath until you turn blue if I don't take that back...?

Tom

tfk

15th July 2009, 11:10 AM

Heiwa,

Would you please reply to this.

Tom

Since you seem to suffer from a raging case of ADD, let's take one thing at a time.

You seem to be getting a glimmer of the real picture with this statement. Do you agree with the damage assessment to the columns, floors and cross trusses of the 97th & 96th, as I have described it, when the THREE STORY HIGH 98th floor column assemblies buckle or pop free (i.e., connections fail)?

I agree with you that similar (virtually symmetrical) damage will get done to 99th & 100th floors of the upper Part C.

Answer this please, and then I will address the rest of your question.

Tom

Gamolon

15th July 2009, 11:17 AM

Dude. Is this a rhetorical question?

Yes.

tfk

15th July 2009, 11:28 AM

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 11:32 AM

Whatever Steve. If it makes you feel better to say that, go ahead.

However, you still haven't answered my question.........which is

Well be the first brave JREF'er and come on over to the BBC blog and we can discuss anything related to 9/11 you want.

No!!

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 11:34 AM

Oh I see now.

If the core columns lose their support capacity due to being CUT from CD, THEN you think it's possible that the perimeter columns would buckle as shown, but if the core columns lose their support capacity due to fire WEAKENING them, then it's NOT possible for the perimeter columns to buckle as shown.

Really?

I have a question then.

AA. How many core columns would have needed to have been cut at the same time to cause total failure of the core itself and provide enough load on the perimeter columns to bend them?

If the above is done, is it possble to then come up with a calculation to show how many core columns would have needed to be weakened by fire to cause total failure of the core and provide enough load on the perimeter columns to buckle them? Is this information in the NIST papers?

BB. And no evidence of a controlled demolition has ever been found either yet you choose to believe that. Convenient huh?

CC. Your site/explanation is laden with half truths and contradictions. So your end result isn't even vaild. Like I said, garbage in garbage out. Are you so conceited and arrogant that you believe that all the people and engineers who have argued with you and pointed out mistakes are ALL wrong and that you are the only correct person here?

AA. It has been discussed before. The outer core columns carry plenty load and the outer core corner columns the most. They are all easily accessible! I assume the conspirators concentrated on those vital structural elements to bring the buildings down.

BB. ??? People in charge never looked. The rubble was just disposed of. Sloppy work!

CC. Pls copy/paste with note of origin (page/section/line) any half truths and contradictions you have spotted in my papers/web site = explanation. I will correct, if necessary. I have no hidden agenda. I work for better safety at sea ... and on land. Same thing! Try to focus on the technical aspects and forget my charming personality. And try to focus on TOPIC. You really think a One-way crush down is possible. Show it.

Gamolon

15th July 2009, 11:43 AM

You really think a One-way crush down is possible. Show it.

You think Bazant is wrong. Here is his paper.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Please explain what calculations he gets wrong. I am no engineer, but I am sure people here can check your work. Let's discuss where you think he is wrong.

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 11:45 AM

Since you seem to suffer from a raging case of ADD, let's take one thing at a time.

You seem to be getting a glimmer of the real picture with this statement. Do you agree with the damage assessment to the columns, floors and cross trusses of the 97th & 96th, as I have described it, when the THREE STORY HIGH 98th floor column assemblies buckle or pop free (i.e., connections fail)?

I agree with you that similar (virtually symmetrical) damage will get done to 99th & 100th floors of the upper Part C.

Answer this please, and then I will address the rest of your question.

Tom

I doubt very much that local office fires on a 4000 m² floor can affect the supporting steel structure at the perimeter and the core.

At the perimeter the outside air cools the structure so nothing will happen there.

And in the core there is nothing that really can burn; elevator shafts, toilets, open spaces in front of elevators, etc.

No, I don't believe that fires of any kind up top in a steel structure can affect local elements so that they fail. Impossible. But if they, the elements/columns fail, they would just fail locally and be arrested by intact structure. You see, it is impossible that a one-way crush down of a structure A can take place by a little part C of A displacing/dropping on A (topic).

Look forward to your further replies to questions.

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 11:49 AM

You think Bazant is wrong. Here is his paper.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

Please explain what calculations he gets wrong. I am no engineer, but I am sure people here can check your work. Let's discuss where you think he is wrong.

Yes, all wrong. In may papers I concentrate on Bazant's 2001 and 2008 papers as described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Upper part C cannot be regarded as rigid. So lower part A will then arrest part C.

FYI, ASCE, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, JEM, have advised that they will publish a paper by me about the errors in the Bazant, BLGB, 2008 paper in same journal. Let's discuss when ASCE/JEM publishes my paper. JREF is just inspiration for me to get published in peer reveiwed journals.

But, if you find anything wrong in my papers on my web site, pls advice. I'll fix it

Gamolon

15th July 2009, 11:52 AM

Yes, all wrong. In may papers I concentrate on Bazant's 2001 and 2008 papers as described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Upper part C cannot be regarded as rigid. So lower part A will then arrest part C.

Can you give me an example in this paper of what he got worng and why? Let's start witjh just one example.
http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

tfk

15th July 2009, 11:54 AM

beachnut

15th July 2009, 11:54 AM

Yes, all wrong. In may papers I concentrate on Bazant's 2001 and 2008 papers as described at http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm . Upper part C cannot be regarded as rigid. So lower part A will then arrest part C.
You are exposing your lack of knowledge of models and engineering all in one failed post in your failed thread proved wrong on 911. Over 7 years and 10 months of failure and moronic conclusions on 911 with zero evidence.

You just keep repeating yourself and exposing your lack of knowledge in structural engineering. You will not show your work, you have no calculations to show anyone is wrong. Why do you not understand models?

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 11:57 AM

deleted tons of hot air Tom wrote in an effort to justify his differentiating between "expert" and "amateur".

I'm sure some people take your word for it Tom, but then others know better...

It is the same in EVERY field. Amateurs galore offer their uninformed opinions immediately. Experts know better.

My, my, my. Who was it that came out with a fairly detailed explanation of what happened to the towers on September 13, 2001? So by your definition he is an amateur and should not be listened to.

Great, glad we cleared that up.

I didn't move any goal posts, because this is the first time that I've set them on this topic.

How convenient for you that your fellow "debunkers" set the initial goal posts so you did not have to come out and say it yourself. Now thanks to that lucky break you can come back here and make this comment...why?

Sorry, Steve. YOU don't understand how the scientific & engineering publication process works.

"Peer reviewed"does NOT mean "right". It means "lacking glaring errors". (Even a competent one, to which none of those papers appears to have been subjected.)

Until a finding has been independently verified, it is NOT accepted as true. It is not even accepted as probable. Professionals look at the authors, the methodology and the results and attach their own (variable) probability to the results.

Well now you are moving your goal posts ahead of any possible argument I might have made so as to not appear to have moved those goal posts afterwards.

But let's take what you say at face value. GREAT, who has independently verified the official NIST report? And I don't mean simply implementing safety protocals based on their findings, I mean a true independent verification of NIST's final report?

What's that you say? No one? OH... MY...GOD!

So, there is zero need for anyone to publish a refuting article to "disprove" any of Jones, Harrit's or anyone else's work. The traditional, accepted way for the scientific & engineering community to reject a flawed piece of work is to simply ignore it.

At that point, it is up to the authors to push, cajole, encourage independent verification in order to get their work accepted. Otherwise, it remains stillborn.

Hey here are some nice papers that refute most of the Official Conspiracy Theory...

http://journalof911studies.com/

Now since 9/11 truth has so many good articles and papers out there we can simply ignore the flawed work of NIST and the 9/11 commision

How convenient for you to portray it like that. Absolutely false, of course.

I did not say "you're immature because you don't agree with me".

I said that "you're immature because you keep employing juvenile arguments and tactics.

dude, i'm not the one calling others names here like "juvenile" and "kid" etc..

or are you trying to say that calling people names is a mature thing to do? and showing your flawed debating tactics is childish?

Arguments like 'huge swathes of American adults are terrified of speaking their mind for fear of losing their jobs".

Now it seems that Tom has suddenly become a trained psychologist as well. Well good for you Tom.

And tactics like ignoring 3000 words of substance to whine about one sentence of trivia.
.

Yeah. You just did.
Or are you gonna hold your breath until you turn blue if I don't take that back...?

Tom

LOL and again you try and label me as "juvenile" and a "child" yet who is using the childish tactics here? ROFL Tom I think you need to step back and let one of your superiors take over because you are doing a lousy job.

tfk

15th July 2009, 11:59 AM

OMG that had me dying....classic...

:lolsign:
Newt,

Bill's "brainstorms du jour" are good for a chuckle...

Tom

beachnut

15th July 2009, 11:59 AM

...

LOL and again you try and label me as "juvenile" and a "child" yet who is using the childish tactics here? ROFL Tom I think you need to step back and let one of your superiors take over because you are doing a lousy job.
This is your work to support the failed ideas of Heiwa? Zero engineering just talk? You need some calculations if you are to support the massive delusion of Heiwa proved wrong on 911. Please stop whining about junk and post your support of Heiwa.

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 11:59 AM

.
Care to explain the bowing of the columns that NIST detailed in their report that SLOWLY, PROGRESSIVELY increased for EACH column over the course of about 15 minutes?

REALLY slow explosive wave propagation...?

Tom

Yes, I can explain. But NIST cannot explain the one-way crush down that followed except that PE>SE=global collapse ensues, i.e. the real topic. Evidently SE>PE=one-way crush down is not possible. Let's discuss that interesting topic.

beachnut

15th July 2009, 12:02 PM

Yes, I can explain. But NIST cannot explain the one-way crush down that followed except that PE>SE=global collapse ensues, i.e. the real topic. Evidently SE>PE=one-way crush down is not possible. Let's discuss that interesting topic.
You just post talk and no calculation! Why? Can't you do the engineering work? You have failed to produce any credible work to support your delusions. Present your calculations not delusions.

twinstead

15th July 2009, 12:07 PM

Yes, I can explain. But NIST cannot explain the one-way crush down that followed except that PE>SE=global collapse ensues, i.e. the real topic. Evidently SE>PE=one-way crush down is not possible. Let's discuss that interesting topic.

I don't know, the obvious bowing of the building very slowly prior to the collapse, with the collapse initiating at that exact spot with no visual or audio evidence of explosives is pretty interesting too, especially in a thread where somebody is claiming that the commonly-held reason why the WTC collapsed is impossible and that any engineer either on this forum or any other in the real world who disagree don't know what they are talking about, don't you think?

tfk

15th July 2009, 12:13 PM

Heiwa,

I'd like to hear your opinion about something. Please don't refer me back to your paper. It answers nothing.

You have stated that "bigger & stronger" destroys "smaller & weaker".

Do you claim that the collapse of WTC7 was impossible?

Just to be clear, is "bigger" by weight?

Does this mean that you believe that, if the failure in the WTC7 tower occurred on the 24th (out of 47) floor, then the failure would have arrested. But that if it occurred on the 23rd, the failure progresses to the ground?

And similarly, for the 56th vs. 54th floor of the Towers?

Just curious.

Tom

tfk

15th July 2009, 12:14 PM

FineWine

15th July 2009, 12:18 PM

Nah...I just want to see how convincing it would look. You never know- it might even persuade me. I just want to see the top 13 floors crushing the other 97 floors down to the ground- to see how it looks. Then I'll probably say to myself 'lust imagine- those top 13 floors are the lightest of the whole building and just see how they go crush crush crush''

'\Do you think Justin will make the model ? lol

What does this idiocy have to do with reality? Are you now pretending that the original thirteen collapsing floors remained discrete? Are you trying to claim that thirteen didn't quickly become, fourteen, fifteen, eighteen, thirty, fifty-five, eighty...?

Seriously, what is the purpose of repeating Heiwa's mindless mantra about thirteen floors crushing ninety-seven? Absolutely no one thinks that happened. Before yielding to your compulsion to humiliate yourself--stop. Just stop. Remind yourself that nobody believes that thirteen floors crushed the rest of the building. Thirteen floors collapsed and added each succssive floor to the total mass until the whole building was gone.

tfk

15th July 2009, 12:19 PM

FineWine

15th July 2009, 12:29 PM

Many of those neither reject tnor suppost the governement theory or the demolition hypothesis. They are simply papers on aspects, codes and so forth. It sure does look like ol' T was heavily exaggerating as usual. Another tool of the propagandist.

You've been caught lying again (this is getting tiresome). There is no "government" theory--your "theory" does not exist. Save this crapola for the schoolyard.

The "demolition hypothesis" is--what, exactly? Super-powered Jews planted tons of soundless explosives without anyone noticing to cause the buildings to collapse from the precise floors impacted by the planes?

Sorry, my hopelessly uncritical amigo, that ain't a "hypothesis."

bill smith

15th July 2009, 12:30 PM

.
As Borat would say," Your opinion, my ay-noose. These have much in common."

Tom

T....I am genuinely curious why you do not seem to be able to debunk what I say in the following post.

Part C fell directly down on part A. The only force on the upstanding giant core columns was therefore compressive. After a small amount of elastic absorbence of the downward force these columns would have punctured any floor and stripped off any floor to column connection that they encountered in part C. This would have ocurred before any plastic deformation of the upstanding columns was spossible seeing that the PE of the seperately descending components could never have overcome the general and constant SE of the individual upstanding giant columns.

Furthermore as the upstanding columns buried themselves deeper in the descending body of part C that body would have provided lateral support for the upstanding columns.

Now don't you go tunning off y'hear.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 12:31 PM

Wow....you read all of those papers in record time Bill...:oldroll:

The beauty of not being able to read is that you get your reading done very quickly.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 12:34 PM

Do it for the truth T. These reports are mostly written by people working blindly off the NIST reports. How were they to know in those days that the NIST reports are not to be trusted. You don't see a lot of new reports these days do you ?

Why are the NIST reports not trustworthy? The total absence of dissent from countries unfriendly to the U.S. destroys your falsehood. What serious researcher rejects the science in the NIST reports? No, the agenda-driven buffoon Heiwa does not count.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 12:40 PM

Let's face it- when the debunkers say that most of the world's scientists stand behind the NIST reports that is a very dishonest way of lookng at it. The true case is that most scientists have not spoken out one way or the other. Given that we know that for a scientist to speak out againt the official position is not at all helpful to his career prospects we can imagine why they do not speak out. See the link at the bottom to hear one demolition expert confirming this.

Many scientists have not even looked into the controlled demolition hypothesis at all having taken the government and their media at face value. I strongly suspect that that situation is now changing at an increasing rate what with the Truth mMovement's views getting much more exposure and credibility despite the mainstream media. Even www.ae911truth.org now has above 700 degreed and licensed Architects and Engineers fully signed up and demanding an independent investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QajDxF9uEf4 Jeff Hill/Danny Jowenko

As an extremely dishonest person yourself, you should know more about the concept of dishonesty. The total absence of voiced dissent indicates the absence of unvoiced dissent. Your comical cowardice in fleeing from every inconvenient question exposes you as a fraud, but it does more than that. It reveals the fatal weaknesses of your insane movement. If no Iranian or North Korean or Russian or Chinese engineers ever dispute anything in the NIST reports, we can safely assume that they haven't found anything to dispute. All the lies churned out by your desperate, dying movement can't paper over that stark reality.

tfk

15th July 2009, 12:42 PM

I doubt very much that local office fires on a 4000 m² floor can affect the supporting steel structure at the perimeter and the core.

At the perimeter the outside air cools the structure so nothing will happen there.

And in the core there is nothing that really can burn; elevator shafts, toilets, open spaces in front of elevators, etc.

No, I don't believe that fires of any kind up top in a steel structure can affect local elements so that they fail. Impossible. But if they, the elements/columns fail, they would just fail locally and be arrested by intact structure. You see, it is impossible that a one-way crush down of a structure A can take place by a little part C of A displacing/dropping on A (topic).

Look forward to your further replies to questions.
.
You did not answer the question in the slightest.

I didn't ask you the cause of anything.

I laid out in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4900623 the direct consequences of one row of columns (on floor 98) failing.

The method of getting these columns to fail are immaterial for the purpose of this discussion. It could be by buckling or by explosives.

The important point is that, as a direct result to the 3 story columns, plus the 1 story stagger of adjacent column assemblies, the damage to the floors above & below the 98th floor are considerable.

That is, the columns on the 97th and 99th floors are NOT, as you claim, "undamaged".

You have acceded that, "perhaps it's only the the colums below the 96th floor that are undamaged."

This is too far to go with you. I want to hear your comment my damage assessment for the columns, floors & cross trusses IMMEDIATELY AFTER the columns fail, but BEFORE the upper block impacts onto Floor 97.

Tom

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 12:46 PM

Heiwa,

I'd like to hear your opinion about something. Please don't refer me back to your paper. It answers nothing.

You have stated that "bigger & stronger" destroys "smaller & weaker".

AA. Do you claim that the collapse of WTC7 was impossible?

Just to be clear, is "bigger" by weight?

Does this mean that you believe that, if the failure in the WTC7 tower occurred on the 24th (out of 47) floor, then the failure would have arrested. But that if it occurred on the 23rd, the failure progresses to the ground?

And similarly, for the 56th vs. 54th floor of the Towers?

Just curious.

Tom

AA. Yes. It seems the WTC 7 CD was concentrated at floors 6 and 13. Thus upper part floors 16 - 47 of WTC 7 free fell for 2.25 seconds. NIst agrees. Happens every time when CD is at work.

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 12:47 PM

You've been caught lying again (this is getting tiresome). There is no "government" theory--your "theory" does not exist. Save this crapola for the schoolyard.

Who does NIST work for? and who put together the 9/11 commission?

The answer to both of those is the government of course. So are you saying that the 2 agencies/groups that the government tasked to find the answers to 9/11 cannot be considered "the government" when talking about their theories? If not them then who?

And if not them then does the government even have a Conspiracy Theory on 9/11? If not how can they justify invading Afghanistan? (Iraq was of course invaded for other spurious reasons)

But of course this is you playing semantics so you could call Bill a liar, when in truth you are lying about Bill lying and the reasons for it.

The "demolition hypothesis" is--what, exactly? Super-powered Jews planted tons of soundless explosives without anyone noticing to cause the buildings to collapse from the precise floors impacted by the planes?

Sorry, my hopelessly uncritical amigo, that ain't a "hypothesis."

There's the smear and ridicule all rolled into one tactic. This is probably the favorite tactic here on JREF, but to any critical thinker it just makes you look silly.

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 12:50 PM

Why are the NIST reports not trustworthy? The total absence of dissent from countries unfriendly to the U.S. destroys your falsehood. What serious researcher rejects the science in the NIST reports? No, the agenda-driven buffoon Heiwa does not count.

Wasn't it only a page or two ago where we had a mod come in and request that the personal attacks stop?

I guess the personal attack and insult tactic is just to appealing to the "debunker"

Will I have a need to report those posts that continue to break the house rules?

Gamolon

15th July 2009, 12:52 PM

Who does NIST work for?

Couldn't help but think of Austin Powers saying this...

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 12:54 PM

.
You did not answer the question in the slightest.

I didn't ask you the cause of anything.

I laid out in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4900623 the direct consequences of one row of columns (on floor 98) failing.

The method of getting these columns to fail are immaterial for the purpose of this discussion. It could be by buckling or by explosives.

The important point is that, as a direct result to the 3 story columns, plus the 1 story stagger of adjacent column assemblies, the damage to the floors above & below the 98th floor are considerable.

That is, the columns on the 97th and 99th floors are NOT, as you claim, "undamaged".

You have acceded that, "perhaps it's only the the colums below the 96th floor that are undamaged."

This is too far to go with you. I want to hear your comment my damage assessment for the columns, floors & cross trusses IMMEDIATELY AFTER the columns fail, but BEFORE the upper block impacts onto Floor 97.

Tom

???? If local failures of any kind occur in a structure, associated elements will displace, e.g. the ones above move down by gravity when WTC 1 part C drops. The ones that are fixed to ground, part A below, will not start to move. They may get locally damaged at contact ... but they will not move. And they will not be one-way crushed down.

Clear?

Drop any C on A and check yourself.

beachnut

15th July 2009, 12:57 PM

...
At the perimeter the outside air cools the structure so nothing will happen there.
...
Your ignorance of fire and structures knows no limit. You have no experience in fire science and zero capability to understand high rise structures.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Sag1.jpg
Heiwa says fire can't do this. Proved wrong with a photo on 911.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447454a26a22c0bf.jpgPerimeter columns failing in fire! Heiwa is wrong; who would guess?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447454a26a3309fa.jpg Oops, steel failed in an ordinary office fire. Heiwa is big time wrong.

A building destroyed by fire. A fire fought! A fire not started with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel! Heiwa can't get this right just like his other delusions on 911.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447454a26a355ab6.jpg

Got some more delusions?

johnny karate

15th July 2009, 12:59 PM

Who does NIST work for? and who put together the 9/11 commission?

The answer to both of those is the government of course. So are you saying that the 2 agencies/groups that the government tasked to find the answers to 9/11 cannot be considered "the government" when talking about their theories? If not them then who?

The 9/11 Comission Report was released almost three years after 9/11 and the NIST Report was released a year after that. In the interim, what was the "official version", and what was its specific source?

FineWine

15th July 2009, 01:06 PM

Everyone notice the oft used disinfo tactic here? The constant smear.

Of course most people will not see the irony in his statement

Since you seem to be way to dense to understand (truth is you probably do understand but are simply to dishonest) let's try this a different way...

How many demolition experts (or experts in relevant fields) have come forward to publicly deny the Controlled Demolition theory of 9/11? Those that have not come forward to deny this, according to your own logic must of course support Controlled Demolitions!!

WHAT IS IT, EXACTLY, THAT PREVENTS THESE PEOPLE FROM SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS OF THE WTC?

Sorry, you fail as usual. There is no "Controlled Demolition Theory of 9/11." The cynical liars and ignorant lunatics who make up your mad, agenda-driven movement can't come close to promulgating anything even faintly coherent on the subject of explosives. As I stated in a previous post, is it your "theory" that super-powered Jews magically planted tons of soundless explosives without being noticed by anyone to cause the buildings to collapse from the precise floors hit by the planes? No one has to speak out against embarrassingly jejune nonsense. A low-IQ angry kid who announces from his basement that Doctor Doom blew up the towers with super technology stolen from the Krulls will not rouse the community of physicists to issue a dissent. What prevents sober adults from speaking out against your insane movement's fabrications is the self-debunking nature of those fabrications. I listed two dozen demolition companies that reject the absurdities peddled by your insane movement. Find ONE that swallows the snake oil. We notice that you don't like this question.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Heiwa
...
At the perimeter the outside air cools the structure so nothing will happen there.

Are you serious??? Do you even understnad fire and heat transfer??

That is the most rediculous and assinine statement I have EVER seen coming from the "Truth" movement. If that were true, you could turn your stove on low, put a pan on it, then turn a fan on and point it at it, and it would be cool to the touch.

Please, heiwa, or Bill, or Steve, I beg you, PLEASE try this and post a video on YouTube. I would Stundie the WHOLE THING in about 2.2 seconds flat.

SteveAustin

15th July 2009, 01:10 PM

The total absence of voiced dissent indicates the absence of unvoiced dissent.

No it does not.

Here let's rephrase that in "plain english" (my ex's grandfather was a "plain english" translator as a profession who would take detailed and confusing legal terms and re-write them in plain english so the layman could understand. That was 20 years ago and his services are needed even more today with stuff like this being spewed left and right)

What you are saying is the lack of anyone speaking up means everyone agrees with the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Now, let's tackle the problems this belief has.

1 - people have spoken up, many many people. Even people with the requisite qualifications in the requisite fields. As a matter of fact more experts have spoken up against the Official Conspiracy Theory than experts who have spoken up to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory.

2 - Your premise is flawed from the get-go. You cannot make an assumption on someone's belief. Anyone who has not spoken up cannot be classified in either the pro-OCT group or the pro-CDT group.

3 - to try and claim that people who object to the Official Conspiracy Theory would have spoken up ignores the entire human psychological aspect of human nature and of our society. THIS IS A VERY REAL THING. Fear of losing ones job, or fear of being ridiculed by the controlled Mass Media, or even fear for your life (as evidenced by the Cheney assassination ring).

Your comical cowardice in fleeing from every inconvenient question exposes you as a fraud, but it does more than that. It reveals the fatal weaknesses of your insane movement. If no Iranian or North Korean or Russian or Chinese engineers ever dispute anything in the NIST reports, we can safely assume that they haven't found anything to dispute. All the lies churned out by your desperate, dying movement can't paper over that stark reality.

Comical cowardice! hmmm, comical cowardice! Does that mean you will have the courage to come on over to the BBC blog at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=1#comment s and try and defend your beliefs there away from the safety of having 15 "debunkers" jump in and provide cover for you?

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 01:13 PM

PS, Talk to any firefighter and ask them to eplain "Exposure" to you Heiwa.

In firefighting, "Exposure" is when another building is exposed to the heat of a fire near it, and catches fire. IE: Take two cars, set one on fire, and park the other one near it. What do you think is going to happen to the second car??? Most likely it also will catch on fire. Der.

Holy cow, PLEASE heiwa, PLEASE list any building you have EVER had a hand in designing, so I can make sure that NOBODY goes into it, as I would SEVERELY question its structural integrity.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 01:14 PM

I hdn''t actually looked at this link for a year or two. Wow. I think it is getting time for us Truthers to start ridiculing you debunkers.It's going to start happening soon anyway. You know it. That will be fun.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Gee, maybe we're not supposed to know that these fraudulent lists contain the names of many politicians and government officials who regard your insane movement with utter contempt. Maybe we should be impressed by the gaggle of America-hating lefties in humanities departments who will blindly sign on to anything that smears America.

Your problem remains a simple, but intractable, one: it is hard for the person who thinks that 2+2=7 to mock the person who understands that the correct answer is 4. You see, your side will always be wrong. Its opportunities for mocking much smarter, vastly better-informed people are limited.

bill smith

15th July 2009, 01:15 PM

As an extremely dishonest person yourself, you should know more about the concept of dishonesty. The total absence of voiced dissent indicates the absence of unvoiced dissent. Your comical cowardice in fleeing from every inconvenient question exposes you as a fraud, but it does more than that. It reveals the fatal weaknesses of your insane movement. If no Iranian or North Korean or Russian or Chinese engineers ever dispute anything in the NIST reports, we can safely assume that they haven't found anything to dispute. All the lies churned out by your desperate, dying movement can't paper over that stark reality.

I am not 100% sure of the reasons that some of those countries do not rattle America's cage. One of the first things I did when I realised that 9/11 was an inside job was to check what America's enemies were saying. Not much if the truth be told. Just one very intriguing remark from the Iranian President about there being no true list of victims from the WTC. I don't know what he meant but I always bear it in mind. You never know when it might find a place in the puzzle.

Another time was when there was a big 9/11 debate on Russian TV. The Russians floated the notion hat one of their cosmonauts had observed the events from space and might have something new to say. It was just a political gambit though to pressure America about something.

Maybe the main reason is that they do not want to eat an ICBM or have an unfortunate Earthquake.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 01:17 PM

Deep, how dare you. You know very well that quote mining (not that that's what you did) is the preserve of the JREF "debunkers". We see it all the time from them, but of course how dare I point that out!!!

So, in your OPINION, who exactly over at ae911truth.org does not have the prerequisite backgrounds to competently critique the NIST report? Please list them and why!

Only a dishonest "debunker" would even attempt to use that as a justification.

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.

Hehe, they are only "baby engineers", not real engineers like we are. Do people actually fall for this stuff?

Do you people see how the disinfo "debunkers" attempt to dismiss experts without having to argue the facts? Simply make up some odious claim that they are not qualified, doesn't matter how ludicrous the claim is because if you state it with enough force and authority most people will believe you.

Why? Someone sees something that seems fishy right off the bat and that makes them incompetent? Your are really really pushing the bounds of disinfo here Tom

Ah yes, the moved goal posts. There were constant screams from "debunkers" that said we had to publish something, then when we do they arbitrarily move the goal posts. BTW Tom those peer reviewed articles have stood up to critique and independent verification, after all there have been no peer reviewed rebuttals of those papers. A non-peer reviewed comment on JREF is not valid, it has ZERO credibility, regardless of what you say. If you want to critique those papers then do it in a peer reviewed journal. All JREF "debunkers" have said how easy it is to have even a non-valid paper published, so you should have no problems publishing a rebuttal!

LOL there goes Tom again using the old...

"38 Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand.
In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.
This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect."

Seems Tom (and many others here) like to claim that anyone who does not agree with the Official Conspiracy Theory is an immature kid!! ROFL

How many times are you going to try and use that one Tom? Has anyone taken the bait yet? Has anyone fallen for it?

How is your search going for that elusive demolition expert who buys your insane movement's idiocy? How many demolition companies have you called?

What? You've done absolutely nothing? Yup, you're a "truther" all right.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 01:25 PM

Bill, you were not supposed to actually investigate those. People were simply supposed to take it on faith that they all supported the Official Conspiracy Theory.

Now you are going to get it!

What stopped you from checking them out? Oh, right, you're a "truther." So, now that the nonexistent people who relied on faith have been replaced with real people who understand that you've been caught lying again, what's the next trick? Oops! All of those sources DO reject your conspiracy hogwash. Sorry.

Oh, you forgot to explain how the air traffic controllers; the seismologists at the Lamont-Doherty labs; the forensic examiners in NYC, Arlington, and Shanksville; the simulation teams at Berkeley and Purdue; the metallurgists at Lehigh and MIT; the police and fire departments of NYC and Washington, D.C.; the demolition experts--you know the drill by now--as I was saying, how do these people figure to be part of your imaginary "government" conspiracy.

Not that we suspect you haven't put a minute's worth of critical thought into the nonsense you peddle...

FineWine

15th July 2009, 01:28 PM

Mmmmm so you are psychic now? If they have not come out and stated what they believe then why would you try and claim what they believe?

This is just more "debunker" dishonesty.

You see folks, "debunkers" and moreso disinfo agents are required to make it look like the Official Conspiracy Theory is solid with no holes and backed by every single thinking human on the planet. That's part of the psyop, that's how the psychology of it works. Always sound sure of yourself and always claim that everyone agrees with you and no one agrees with the loons (and you have to constantly use those terms like "looney" and "nuts"), and of course the sheep follow suit because they have heard the disinfo agent say they then repeat it as a mantra.

Show us a "hole," "truther." In almost eight years, your insane, dishonest movement has produced ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

aggle-rithm

15th July 2009, 01:31 PM

Yes, I can explain. But NIST cannot explain the one-way crush down that followed

They also can't explain the fact that every other box of Cheerios is made of gold, in accordance with Aggle-Rithm's Axiom.

Those morons.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 01:34 PM

Bill, do you really believe that there was/is no list of victims that died when the TT were attacked by 19 Dirkas??

Come on, seriously??? Do you believe that garbage???

Linkey.

http://www.alfredny.biz/09-11-2001_Tribute/wtc.htm

Its REALLY long, or I would post it here.

Oh, and lets not forget the 343 of my Brothers who died that day, some of which I knew personally and hung out with on numerous occasions.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/091101rescuers.html

Including Paul Pansini, whom I was VERY good friends with, and drank MANY beers with.

aggle-rithm

15th July 2009, 01:34 PM

???? If local failures of any kind occur in a structure, associated elements will displace, e.g. the ones above move down by gravity when WTC 1 part C drops. The ones that are fixed to ground, part A below, will not start to move. They may get locally damaged at contact ... but they will not move. And they will not be one-way crushed down.

Clear?

Drop any C on A and check yourself.

Can you explain why this does not apply if the local failure is caused by controlled demolition charges?

Remember the video you were shown, that documented exactly this happening?

FineWine

15th July 2009, 01:34 PM

I am not 100% sure of the reasons that some of those countries do not rattle America's cage. One of the first things I did when I realised that 9/11 was an inside job was to check what America's enemies were saying. Not much if the truth be told. Just one very intriguing remark from the Iranian President about there being no true list of victims from the WTC. I don't know what he meant but I always bear it in mind. You never know when it might find a place in the puzzle.

Another time was when there was a big 9/11 debate on Russian TV. The Russians floated the notion hat one of their cosmonauts had observed the events from space and might have something new to say. It was just a political gambit though to pressure America about something.

Maybe the main reason is that they do not want to eat an ICBM or have an unfortunate Earthquake.

You've been caught lying again (sigh). You never "realized" that 9/11 was an inside job. You can't "realize" something that is utterly fantastic and completely untrue. When the Islamist fundamentalists struck America, you were appalled that the country you irrationally imagine to be the fount of all evil in the world was the victim of an unprovoked attack. Your fairy world was turned upside-down by reality. You were shaken to your core. You proceeded to latch on to every nonsensical fantasy concocted by other America-haters to salvage something of your cherished myth.

Why is a lunatic falsehood from a genocidal maniac "intriguing"? Could have he have secret information that nobody else is aware of showing that the lists of WTC victims are not accurate? Tell us more.

Do you ever look into the mirror and ask, "Why do I make such an ass of myself to support blatant idiocy that can't possibly be true"?

bill smith

15th July 2009, 01:41 PM

You've been caught lying again (sigh). You never "realized" that 9/11 was an inside job. You can't "realize" something that is utterly fantastic and completely untrue. When the Islamist fundamentalists struck America, you were appalled that the country you irrationally imagine to be the fount of all evil in the world was the victim of an unprovoked attack. Your fairy world was turned upside-down by reality. You were shaken to your core. You proceeded to latch on to every nonsensical fantasy concocted by other America-haters to salvage something of your cherished myth.

Why is a lunatic falsehood from a genocidal maniac "intriguing"? Could have he have secret information that nobody else is aware of showing that the lists of WTC victims are not accurate? Tell us more.

Do you ever look into the mirror and ask, "Why do I make such an ass of myself to support blatant idiocy that can't possibly be true"?

You are quite wrong. If anything I was a supporter of America before 9/11. I still am a supporter of he notion of real American values and the Constitution. But I am not a supporter of yor goverment as you may have noticed. I consider them murderous swine.

And I DID realise that 9/11 was an inside job all on my own.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 01:44 PM

Don't tell me- these are the scientists who worked under contract to NIST ? The ones who individually investigated small discrete areas of investigation and had no say in what way Shyam Sunder and his gang pulled all the seperate threads of information together ?
Not enough I'm afraid.

No, Bill, for an agenda-driven crank, the number of experts rejecting the woo-woo is never enough. Tell us why nobody speaks out.

As I understand it, the thousands of scientists, engineers, air traffic controllers, seismologists, metallurgists, chemists, avionics techs, forensic examiners, firefighters, etc., who are cowed by your imaginary conspiracy are afraid of something. But your imaginary conspiracy has to hide to avoid what? The all-powerful evildoers fear someone: who and why? How does your imaginary Gestapo function if the existence of its members can't be verified?

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 01:46 PM

bill smith

15th July 2009, 01:48 PM

No, Bill, for an agenda-driven crank, the number of experts rejecting the woo-woo is never enough. Tell us why nobody speaks out.

As I understand it, the thousands of scientists, engineers, air traffic controllers, seismologists, metallurgists, chemists, avionics techs, forensic examiners, firefighters, etc., who are cowed by your imaginary conspiracy are afraid of something. But your imaginary conspiracy has to hide to avoid what? The all-powerful evildoers fear someone: who and why? How does your imaginary Gestapo function if the existence of its members can't be verified?

'' The common wisdom is that "you can't keep secrets in Washington," and that someone always deliberately leaks or inadvertently blabs. But, says Ellsberg, who was privy to some of the most top-secret material for years, "the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public.

This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy... Secrets that would be of the greatest importance to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the Executive Branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/ellsbergs-secrets.htm

FineWine

15th July 2009, 01:51 PM

You are quite wrong. If anything I was a supporter of America before 9/11. I still am a supporter of he notion of real American values and the Constitution. But I am not a supporter of yor goverment as you may have noticed. I consider them murderous swine.

And I DID realise that 9/11 was an inside job all on my own.

No, Bill, you are an America-hating crank. I didn't vote for "my" government. But I accept the legitimacy of free elections, even when I disapprove of the results. Your goal of a dictatorship of stupid bigots peddling pseudo-science and ancient, discredited ethnic smears has nothing to do with "real American values." The innocent people your deranged, ignorant mob would lynch haven't murdered anyone. The Islamist barbarians, who would gleefully slit your throat for your racist denigration of their efforts, are murderous swine. You support them as a particularly stupid and vile extension of the principle, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Again, you can't "realize" something that is insane and contradicted by ALL available evidence.

aggle-rithm

15th July 2009, 01:54 PM

carlitos

15th July 2009, 01:56 PM

I don't know how you debunkers do it, but kudos. The illogic is strong with the Truth guys. Regarding 'secrets' getting out of such a massive conspiracy, it's got to be tough waking up in the morning, knowing that tens of thousands of your fellow citizens have successfully conspired to murder your countrymen, keeping silent for fear of some vague threat or something, and not one of them has spoken out.

"Their" motivation for doing all of this murder was obvious - they hang out at airports and have foot fetishes, and this was the only way to get all the travelers to take off shoes.

Bill Clinton had some sort of relations with that Lewinsky woman. They couldn't keep it quiet and only two people knew.

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Heiwa
...
At the perimeter the outside air cools the structure so nothing will happen there.

Are you serious??? Do you even understnad fire and heat transfer??

So what does the outside air do?

Actually, to feed the inside fire, outside, cool air is sucked into the structure; otherwise there is no fire. The fresh air from outside provides the oxygen! No oxygen, no fire.

Any fire fighter knows this. So they follow the fresh air and fight the fire. Just keep your head down and there is always fresh air available below the fire.

That's another reason why a one-way crush down of a structure cannot take place

FineWine

15th July 2009, 01:59 PM

'' The common wisdom is that "you can't keep secrets in Washington," and that someone always deliberately leaks or inadvertently blabs. But, says Ellsberg, who was privy to some of the most top-secret material for years, "the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public.

This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy... Secrets that would be of the greatest importance to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the Executive Branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders."

You've been caught lying again. No--zero--"secrets" known to thousands, hundreds, or even dozens of insiders can be kept for long. Your imaginary secret army that exists outside all institutions of government is a lunatic fairy tale. Who are these people? Who funds them? (I'll guess, the Rothschilds--am I right?)

Why do you run so cravenly from my question about your deranged movement's failed predictions? There's no mystery here. You run because the FACT that you America-hating frauds got everything wrong means that your premises are wrong. You can stop quaking in your boots, Bill. We know your secret.

Bush is gone, Bill. Yes, you hate the thought and you will close your eyes and wish real hard. But no fairies can save you. Bush is gone. He wasn't planning martial law. You were wrong again. You are always wrong, and you can't learn a thing.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 02:01 PM

bill smith

15th July 2009, 02:03 PM

You need an attribution here.

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/ellsbergs-secrets.htm

Justin39640

15th July 2009, 02:07 PM

So what does the outside air do?

Actually, to feed the inside fire, outside, cool air is sucked into the structure; otherwise there is no fire. The fresh air from outside provides the oxygen! No oxygen, no fire.

Any fire fighter knows this. So they follow the fresh air and fight the fire. Just keep your head down and there is always fresh air available below the fire.

That's another reason why a one-way crush down of a structure cannot take place

below the fire there is the thing that is on fire (der)
the most oxygen is close to the floor cause smoke rises

firefighters use scott packs and crawl cause its a lil easier to see

i wasnt a fireman like tri but i was a junior and did smoked out building simulations
you cant see **** even crawling on the floor with full gear
you can pretty much see 3 inches past the mask but thats about all
i couldnt imagine trying to breathe in that without a scott pack

fresh air will not cool a building with a fire that big
you failed thermodynamics as well

FineWine

15th July 2009, 02:10 PM

A lot of it is in the interpretation of results by Sunder and his gang Al. But even if they obviously deviated from an individual scientists resuts it would be no special problem to put the arm on him and keep him quiet. Everybody has a price Al, or at least a family.

Who is threatening them, Bill? Why does this evil army need to hide? If your imaginary villains threaten someone's job, then they obviously exert some coercive power over the victim's boss. Let's get back to my friend who watched the crash of Flight 175 from her office windows. If I follow you, she was told to claim that she observed the crash. But she never went public, and her experience is known only to her husband and a few close friends. So, she was fed a story and told not to publicize it. Hmmm. Now, Bill, you have acknowledged your rather remarkable lack of intelligence, but, even for you, this yarn smells bad. Pressing on, she has to continue maintain a fiction that she doesn't publicize because she will be fired from a job that she retired from in 2005.

I don't know, Bill. It's your problem: you unravel it.

alienentity

15th July 2009, 02:10 PM

How weird is this? I ask Steve Austin a very simple, polite question 'Here's a simple question for you then - since you apparently believe that the WTC tower collapses were due to explosive demolition, can you provide at least one leading or significant demolitions expert who backs up this claim?'

Steve hasn't been able or willing to do this, in the midst of posting dozens of times on this thread (so he's obviously very active here), and responds thus:

Well be the first brave JREF'er and come on over to the BBC blog and we can discuss anything related to 9/11 you want.

No!!

Ummm, what on earth has that got to do with Steve's inability to produce a credible demolitions expert who'll back up his tower CD belief?

Steve, dear fellow, you were the one who came onto this forum, and started making all sorts of claims and allegations. If you can't take criticism, or answer a simple fair question, you're free to go back to a truther forum.
Just don't ask me to follow you. I'm not interested, mmkay?

Now, please answer the question. Time is ticking. It's been 1 day now, and you're evading the question.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/304704a5cdf6c812fc.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16965)

tfk

15th July 2009, 02:19 PM

Steve,

deleted tons of hot air Tom wrote in an effort to justify his differentiating between "expert" and "amateur".

.
Only the MOST ignorant, and the most arrogant, of amateurs would describe the difference between "amateur" and "expert" as "hot air".
.

My, my, my. Who was it that came out with a fairly detailed explanation of what happened to the towers on September 13, 2001? So by your definition he is an amateur and should not be listened to.

.
I assume that you are talking about Zdenek Bazant.

Bazant offered his opinion AFTER the an analysis of one of the world's top experts.

That same expert wrote (in 1991) the textbook "Stability of Structures: Elastic, Inelastic, Fracture and Damage Theories". And 5 other textbooks on structural mechanics, chapters in 20 more textbooks, about 470 peer-reviewed published research articles. And a bunch more.

That expert was, of course, Zdenek Bazant. Bazant did his calculations, which were certainly based upon analyses done in the decades before 9/11. And THEN wrote his paper.

And in that paper, Bazant was exquisitely careful to point out that his was a preliminary analysis.
___

And the remainder of this post is a PERFECT example of one error after another. Made because you're an amateur at this, Steve.

"Peer reviewed" does NOT mean "right". It means "lacking glaring errors". (Even a competent one, to which none of those papers appears to have been subjected.)

Until a finding has been independently verified, it is NOT accepted as true. It is not even accepted as probable. Professionals look at the authors, the methodology and the results and attach their own (variable) probability to the results.

Well now you are moving your goal posts ahead of any possible argument I might have made so as to not appear to have moved those goal posts afterwards.

Wrong.
Those are not MY goalposts. Those are science's goal posts. They have been exactly where I described them for the last century or so.

But let's take what you say at face value. GREAT, who has independently verified the official NIST report? And I don't mean simply implementing safety protocals based on their findings, I mean a true independent verification of NIST's final report?

What's that you say? No one? OH... MY...GOD!

.
Wrong again.
They have been "peer reviewed" and independently corroborated. Because they are so enormous, it was not done in the usual way. But it has been done.
.

Hey here are some nice papers that refute most of the Official Conspiracy Theory...
http://journalof911studies.com/
Now since 9/11 truth has so many good articles and papers out there we can simply ignore the flawed work of NIST and the 9/11 commision

Wrong.
You THINK that these papers have refuted NIST because you are an amateur.

dude, i'm not the one calling others names here like "juvenile" and "kid" etc..

.
Dude... ??

I called your arguments & your tactics "juvenile".

Based on your history, you've earned the title.

Now, if you'd like to show that you not, why don't you put on your big-boy pants and answer the following SUBSTANTIVE issue.

You erroneously claimed that everyone was avoiding answering your assertion that people were avoiding your "psychological aspects of disagreeing with the gov't position".

I didn't avoid the question. Neither did several others. We stated that there are no threats to life, property or employment for disagreeing with the government. There are no consequences for calling the president, VP, and the entire administration murderers, traitors, conspirators, etc.

As proof:
Alex Jones lives & breathes. And laughs all the way to the bank.
Steven Jones, ditto.
Griffin, Fetzer, Lear, Stubblebine, etc. ditto.
bill smith, deep & you., ditto.

Watergate.
Iran - Contra.
Pentagon Papers
Torture of detainees
etc. etc. etc.
All stories that the admin wanted to keep secret. But came out thru anonymous tips.

Some pencil neck geek from the Bush admin attempted to quash the published opinions of an average NASA scientist regarding Global Warming. The scientist told the pencil neck to stuff it, and called up the newspaper. When the dust had settled, the scientist kept publishing EXACTLY what he'd published before (which was 180° to the admin's official position), and the pencil neck was gone. And the ENTIRE admin stopped trying to influence scientific papers.

These examples constitute absolute PROOF that your "psychological intimidation" thesis is utterly wrong.

How about you answer this substantive issue, instead of the "you're calling me immature" nonsense.

Tom

PS. Now, if you want to clarify things, tell us. What grade are you in? Or how long have you been out of school? What is your profession? How long have you been practising?

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 02:20 PM

So what does the outside air do?

Stand next to a fire, and tell me what the air does around it, IT HEATS UP!!! DER!!

Actually, to feed the inside fire, outside, cool air is sucked into the structure; otherwise there is no fire. The fresh air from outside provides the oxygen! No oxygen, no fire.

Der, its called basic science, something that seems to ellude you.

Any fire fighter knows this. So they follow the fresh air and fight the fire. Just keep your head down and there is always fresh air available below the fire.

Follow the fresh air to find the fire?? Um, not really. What we do is look for the really hot stuff called flames and put the wet stuff on it. And no, there is not always fresh air in a building fire. Plus, we don't need for fresh air to be in a building that we occupy, we bring out own. Its called a few different things, most commonly called a SCOTT Pac, or SCBA.

I have been in MANY structures where I couldn't see past my nose. That is why they invented TIC devices. I am going to assume you know what a TIC device is, right?? And no, there is not fresh air below a fire, there is superheated air below a fire.

That's another reason why a one-way crush down of a structure cannot take place

Because air feeds fire?? That alone makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever!!

aggle-rithm

15th July 2009, 02:21 PM

Can you explain why this does not apply if the local failure is caused by controlled demolition charges?

Remember the video you were shown, that documented exactly this happening?

In case Heiwa missed it.

alienentity

15th July 2009, 02:22 PM

Tom, David Chandler has appeared on another thread challenging your comment from June '09

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4907759#post4907759

In case you hadn't noticed it..

bill smith

15th July 2009, 02:23 PM

So what does the outside air do?

Actually, to feed the inside fire, outside, cool air is sucked into the structure; otherwise there is no fire. The fresh air from outside provides the oxygen! No oxygen, no fire.

Any fire fighter knows this. So they follow the fresh air and fight the fire. Just keep your head down and there is always fresh air available below the fire.

That's another reason why a one-way crush down of a structure cannot take place
Heiwa can you isolate any specific reason that T will not take on this post ?

Part C fell directly down on part A. The only force on the upstanding giant core columns was therefore compressive. After a small amount of elastic absorence of the downward force these columns would have punctured any floor and stripped off any floor to column connection that they encountered in part C. This would have ocurred before any plastic deformation of the upstanding columns was spossible seeing that the PE of the seperately descending components could never have overcome the general and constant SE of the individual upstanding giant columns.

Furthermore as the upstanding columns buried themselves deeper in the descending body of part C that body would have provided lateral support for the upstanding columns.

tfk

15th July 2009, 02:25 PM

???? If local failures of any kind occur in a structure, associated elements will displace, e.g. the ones above move down by gravity when WTC 1 part C drops. The ones that are fixed to ground, part A below, will not start to move. They may get locally damaged at contact ... but they will not move. And they will not be one-way crushed down.

Clear?

Drop any C on A and check yourself.

Crystal clear.

Crystal clear that you completely avoided the question that I asked you. Please don't do that.

I asked you a very specific question.

Please refer to my post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4907405#post4907405 , and answer the specific question that I asked. Not an unrelated question that you wish to answer.

Tom

aggle-rithm

15th July 2009, 02:26 PM

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/ellsbergs-secrets.htm

I'm sure there are many secrets that will never be known. There are still thousands of classified records from WWII that have no reason to remain classified. However, they will remain so, forever. That is because the only way they can become declassified is for someone to specifically request it...and how do they know to request information on a secret they know nothing about?

Probably most of this stuff is pretty banal. Just because something is secret doesn't mean it is critical to national security. Sometimes it's just classified by an overzealous officer/bureaucrat who's trying to cover his own behind.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 02:31 PM

Bill, I took on that post with my eyes closed and shot it down like a Jap plane over Pearl Harbour. What exactly are you trying to say?? Did you miss my post??

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 02:33 PM

PS, Talk to any firefighter and ask them to eplain "Exposure" to you Heiwa.

In firefighting, "Exposure" is when another building is exposed to the heat of a fire near it, and catches fire. IE: Take two cars, set one on fire, and park the other one near it. What do you think is going to happen to the second car??? Most likely it also will catch on fire. Der.

But it will not melt! And it will not one-way crush down. Just local fires. Easy to handle. I have actually done advanced fire fighting training. Very useful. I have stopped fires several times. But you are off topic. Pls explain why a one-way crush down is possible.

tfk

15th July 2009, 02:35 PM

AA. Yes. It seems the WTC 7 CD was concentrated at floors 6 and 13. Thus upper part floors 16 - 47 of WTC 7 free fell for 2.25 seconds. NIst agrees. Happens every time when CD is at work.

Again, you did not answer ANY of the questions that I asked you.

I did not ask where WTC7 failed.
I did not ask about the free fall of the upper stories.
I did not ask whether NIST agrees with anything.
I did not ask if WTC7 was a CD.

Please go back to my post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4907298#post4907298 and answer the questions that I ask.

Thank you.

tk

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 02:40 PM

What won't melt?? The car??? Have you EVER seen a car fire before?? I doubt VERY seriously that you have EVER had any kind of firefighter training.

What is a HNI??

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 02:40 PM

.
You did not answer the question in the slightest.

I didn't ask you the cause of anything.

I laid out in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4900623 the direct consequences of one row of columns (on floor 98) failing.

The method of getting these columns to fail are immaterial for the purpose of this discussion. It could be by buckling or by explosives.

The important point is that, as a direct result to the 3 story columns, plus the 1 story stagger of adjacent column assemblies, the damage to the floors above & below the 98th floor are considerable.

That is, the columns on the 97th and 99th floors are NOT, as you claim, "undamaged".

You have acceded that, "perhaps it's only the the colums below the 96th floor that are undamaged."

This is too far to go with you. I want to hear your comment my damage assessment for the columns, floors & cross trusses IMMEDIATELY AFTER the columns fail, but BEFORE the upper block impacts onto Floor 97.

Tom

Please, below any locally damaged columns/floors between upper part C (not damaged) and lower part A (not damaged) - insert the floors you like - there are undamaged columns (in part A). These columns will first damage the weak elements/floor of part C and then arrest part C, when part C is displacing down. That's why a one-way crush down cannot take place. Part A damages and stops part C. Happens every time.

Pls, prove that the opposite can take place.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 02:41 PM

No it does not.

Your uninformed and irrational assertion does little to change the FACT that my statement is completely correct.

Here let's rephrase that in "plain english" (my ex's grandfather was a "plain english" translator as a profession who would take detailed and confusing legal terms and re-write them in plain english so the layman could understand. That was 20 years ago and his services are needed even more today with stuff like this being spewed left and right)

What you are saying is the lack of anyone speaking up means everyone agrees with the Official Conspiracy Theory.

I am saying, as should be obvious, that when prominent spokespersons for an industry make a comprehensive statement, other members of that industry can certainly be expected to take exception if the statement is plainly wrong. Only a madman would deny such a truism. If a structural engineer announces that it is feasible to construct a 1,100 ft. tall skyscaper using wood, he will be met by a thunderous torrent of dissent.

Now, let's tackle the problems this belief has.

1 - people have spoken up, many many people. Even people with the requisite qualifications in the requisite fields. As a matter of fact more experts have spoken up against the Official Conspiracy Theory than experts who have spoken up to defend the Official Conspiracy Theory.

You repeat this foolish falsehood as though people who know better will start taking you seriously. Your juvenile insistence in referring to a nonexistent "official" theory exposes your game. You run from my questions for good reason. They are terribly inconvenient to the lies you peddle. Nobody thinks that the seismologists, metallurgists, air traffic controllers, avionics techs, independent academics, firefighters, etc. are part of your imaginary "government" conspiracy. You don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Do you mean the "government" that exists somehow outside the actual government? Grow up.

Your insane movement's "experts" have a way of turning out to know nothing about the subjects they pontificate about.

2 - Your premise is flawed from the get-go. You cannot make an assumption on someone's belief. Anyone who has not spoken up cannot be classified in either the pro-OCT group or the pro-CDT group.

Again, obviously wrong. An assertion that makes members of an industry complicit in a monstrous and unprecedented crime would not go unchallenged. It is idiocy to pretend that thousands of demolition professionals would quietly accept flagrant, provable falsehoods designed to protect criminals. Your assertion is beneath contempt.
If I'm wrong, then you'll produce ONE demolitiion professional who buys your rubbish.

3 - to try and claim that people who object to the Official Conspiracy Theory would have spoken up ignores the entire human psychological aspect of human nature and of our society. THIS IS A VERY REAL THING. Fear of losing ones job, or fear of being ridiculed by the controlled Mass Media, or even fear for your life (as evidenced by the Cheney assassination ring).

You've been caught lying again. Cheney wanted to assassinate al Qaeda leaders. I wish he had done a better job. To make a disingenuous, absurd leap from targeting avowed and deadly enemies of America to targeting ordinary people is exactly the sort of irresponsible crap you frauds specialize in. Not one member of the vast legion of Bush-bashers, professional and amateur, feared any retribution form the "government." Your "mass media" loathed Bush and Cheney, and never missed an opportunity to undermine their policies. Who are you trying to kid?

Comical cowardice! hmmm, comical cowardice! Does that mean you will have the courage to come on over to the BBC blog at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/10/caught_up_in_a_conspiracy_theo.html?page=1#comment s and try and defend your beliefs there away from the safety of having 15 "debunkers" jump in and provide cover for you?

You are a coward. That is why you carefully avoid all of my inconvenient questions.

aggle-rithm

15th July 2009, 02:41 PM

But it will not melt! And it will not one-way crush down. Just local fires. Easy to handle. I have actually done advanced fire fighting training. Very useful. I have stopped fires several times. But you are off topic. Pls explain why a one-way crush down is possible.

No, you need to explain why your ridiculous "axiom" isn't a pile of manure.

For instance, why doesn't it apply if the local failure is caused by demolition explosives?

That seems like a major problem with your "theory".

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 02:47 PM

What won't melt?? The car??? Have you EVER seen a car fire before?? I doubt VERY seriously that you have EVER had any kind of firefighter training.

What is a HNI??

Actually I got very good marks in fire fighting by the armed forces. So when the supreme commander of the Jugoslav armed forces at the time (1970) come to visit the fire fighting training establishment I was training at, I was one selected to demonstrate our abilities. Quite fun. Why would I say I have no fire figthing training? But you are off topic! Pls show how a one-way crush down is possible.

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 02:51 PM

Heiwa,

look at these photos, and tell me what you see?? I see melted steel.

http://www.lawrenceroadfire.org/news%20stories%20html/images_news/2003.05.02%20Fatal%20Car%20Fire.JPG

On the door, near the bottom.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3245/2528708548_911b18acec.jpg

WHERE'S THE HOOD??? Oh, yeah, look under the car. There is some engine parts under there too Heiwa. How did they get there???

http://www.colognefire.com/Car%20Fire-boyscouts%20011.jpg

Another one Heiwa. Can you tell me what happened to the hood?? I see the substructure, but not the skin.....

So, Heiwa, what is a HNI???

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 02:54 PM

WHat is a HNI Heiwa?? How would you describe this. Please, I am dying to know. Considering it is a worldwide thing, not just a US thing, please explain to me what it is.

To answer your silly question about a one way collapse. I don't profess to know how or why these things happen. I leave that up to the experts to decide. I trust most of their conclusions. Obviously not yours, of course.

PS, here's another one that is all melted.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/500/CNG_car_front.jpg

Care to tell me what is missing in that picture??

FineWine

15th July 2009, 03:06 PM

AA. Yes. It seems the WTC 7 CD was concentrated at floors 6 and 13. Thus upper part floors 16 - 47 of WTC 7 free fell for 2.25 seconds. NIst agrees. Happens every time when CD is at work.

Now that you have been caught in a huge, provable lie, are you willing to admit that you are an agenda-driven fraud who has wasted everyone's time with baseless idiocy?

Obviously, there were no explosives in WTC 7. The NIST Report exposed your falsehood. Explosives, real ones, make sounds. None were heard or recorded.

It is time for you to go away.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 03:30 PM

Who does NIST work for? and who put together the 9/11 commission?

NIST is an agency of the Department of Commerce. I know almost as little as you do about the ideological leanings of the bureaucrats who staff it. I would guess, given the nature of bureaucracies, that there are more Democrats than Republicans. Your mindless insistence that this agency charged with determing why structures fail lent itself to supporting an evil conspiracy to do--your side has never figured out what the conspiracy was supposed to do--well, to do something requires considerable fleshing-out. Is it your position that NIST deliberately publishes reams of bad science? Is Bill Smith justified in fleeing in terror whenever he is asked why no scientists or engineers in countries unfriendly to the U.S. show us the "errors" that are so obvious to angry, empty-headed adolescents? So, c'mon now, why is NIST so sure that no one will call attention to the "errors"? Can you--heh-heh--show us ONE of those "errors"? Why not?

The 9/11 Commission was put together to mollify family members of the Islamists' victims. The Democrats on the commission were eager to whitewash Clinton's years of passivity, while the Republicans wanted to lay the entire blame on Clinton, ignoring the awkward fact that Bush promised to do more to fight terrorism. Neither side takes your idiocy seriously.

The answer to both of those is the government of course. So are you saying that the 2 agencies/groups that the government tasked to find the answers to 9/11 cannot be considered "the government" when talking about their theories? If not them then who?

Sorry, you're not in the schoolyard now. People here are much smarter than you and know much more. NIST was tasked with explaining the mechanism by which the towers collapsed. The 9/11 Commission was tasked with bringing together in a convenient, readable form answers to frequently asked questions. As you know, the original investigation that determined the identities of the hijackers was a massive, multi-agency effort. If you want to pretend that your imaginary conspiracy controls the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and the police and fire departments of NYC and Washington, D.C., no adult can stop you. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

And if not them then does the government even have a Conspiracy Theory on 9/11? If not how can they justify invading Afghanistan? (Iraq was of course invaded for other spurious reasons)

When it was determined that the hijackers were affiliated with al Qaeda, a group led by Osama bin Laden that operated training camps in Afghanistan, the Taliban, the rulers of Afghanistan, were asked to turn over bin Laden. Their refusal was based on the conviction that the U.S. would lob a few cruise missiles and bluster impotently in the U.N. They failed to reckon with the man who occupied the White House, who happened to be George Bush, not Al Gore.

But of course this is you playing semantics so you could call Bill a liar, when in truth you are lying about Bill lying and the reasons for it.

As liars go, Bill is a very foolish one, but he does lie constantly. He seems to enjoy getting caught. You are, as usual, wrong, and you were exposed again.

There's the smear and ridicule all rolled into one tactic. This is probably the favorite tactic here on JREF, but to any critical thinker it just makes you look silly.

You are the antithesis of a critical thinker. You are an agenda-driven sheep who bleats assent to any rubbish shoveled your way by cynical, insane frauds.

MIKILLINI

15th July 2009, 03:33 PM

Mmmmm so you are psychic now? If they have not come out and stated what they believe then why would you try and claim what they believe?

This is just more "debunker" dishonesty.

You see folks, "debunkers" and moreso disinfo agents are required to make it look like the Official Conspiracy Theory is solid with no holes and backed by every single thinking human on the planet. That's part of the psyop, that's how the psychology of it works. Always sound sure of yourself and always claim that everyone agrees with you and no one agrees with the loons (and you have to constantly use those terms like "looney" and "nuts"), and of course the sheep follow suit because they have heard the disinfo agent say they then repeat it as a mantra.

[Off Topic] Interesting terms you have used there, Steve. Are you psychic now? So, now you're assuming there are disinfo agents tossing psyops into the fray to mislead people here?? [Back to topic]

Heiwa, your analogy is still flawed.

FineWine

15th July 2009, 03:41 PM

Wasn't it only a page or two ago where we had a mod come in and request that the personal attacks stop?

I guess the personal attack and insult tactic is just to appealing to the "debunker"

Will I have a need to report those posts that continue to break the house rules?

Good idea! It's certainly a lot easier than responding to questions that expose you as a fraud.

Let's get back to my characterization of your "Controlled Demolition Hypothesis." I said it involved super-powered Jews magically planting tons of soundless explosives without being noticed to cause the buildings to collapse from the precise floors impacted by the planes. Admittedly, that's so laughably ridiculous that only a moron with no self-respect could possibly embrace it. Tell us what the "real" hypothesis states. Have you made any effort yet to find that elusive demolition expert who buys the nonsense you peddle? You say you haven't made any effort? Why not?

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 04:38 PM

Heiwa,

Aahem. Caan you tell me what a HNI is?? I have answered your silly question openly and honestly.

Can you answer mine??? Or are you going to beat around the bush, spout off how good you are, but not answer a single question that is a basic firefighting tidbit??

tfk

15th July 2009, 04:53 PM

Please, below any locally damaged columns/floors between upper part C (not damaged) and lower part A (not damaged) - insert the floors you like - there are undamaged columns (in part A). These columns will first damage the weak elements/floor of part C and then arrest part C, when part C is displacing down. That's why a one-way crush down cannot take place. Part A damages and stops part C. Happens every time.

Pls, prove that the opposite can take place.
.
And for the 3rd consecutive time, you do not answer my questions.
Would you please answer the questions that I have asked?

HERE IS MY QUESTION:
I laid out in this post: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4900623 the damage that would result from the removal of one row of columns, centered on the 98th floor.

Do you disagree with, or not understand, any aspect of the damage to the floors, cross trusses & columns as I have described them in that post?

This is my only question at this point.

Tom.

newton3376

15th July 2009, 08:09 PM

Probably most of this stuff is pretty banal. Just because something is secret doesn't mean it is critical to national security. Sometimes it's just classified by an overzealous officer/bureaucrat who's trying to cover his own behind.

A lot of it is just details about some situation, device, person, or system...

For example there are many systems that are not classified....indeed a google search can give information about them....but certain details about that system are classified because it would compromise the system in some way.

newton3376

15th July 2009, 08:11 PM

Heiwa can you isolate any specific reason that T will not take on this post ?

Part C fell directly down on part A. The only force on the upstanding giant core columns was therefore compressive. After a small amount of elastic absorence of the downward force these columns would have punctured any floor and stripped off any floor to column connection that they encountered in part C. This would have ocurred before any plastic deformation of the upstanding columns was spossible seeing that the PE of the seperately descending components could never have overcome the general and constant SE of the individual upstanding giant columns.

Furthermore as the upstanding columns buried themselves deeper in the descending body of part C that body would have provided lateral support for the upstanding columns.

What specifically do you want him to answer in this post that has not already been answered?

Grizzly Bear

15th July 2009, 08:19 PM

Heiwa can you isolate any specific reason that T will not take on this post ?

Part C fell directly down on part A. The only force on the upstanding giant core columns was therefore compressive.
The problem that invalidates their entire premise of the question is that the loads were not just compressive; they were also bending stresses. Visceoelastic creep in the fire regions is one mechanism which caused buckling leading up to collapse initiation. The mechanical forces induced by the off-plane upper section was another post initiation. It's not a particularly difficult concept

tsig

15th July 2009, 08:22 PM

dtugg

15th July 2009, 09:06 PM

Maybe the main reason is that they do not want to eat an ICBM or have an unfortunate Earthquake.

:dl: :dl: :dl:

So you're one of those whackjobs who believes that HAARP can be used to create earthquakes? That's just great! You really will believe anything won't you?

newton3376

15th July 2009, 09:09 PM

:dl: :dl: :dl:

So you're one of those whackjobs who believes that HAARP can be used to create earthquakes? That's just great! You really will believe anything won't you?

Oh god......not the "HAARP is a seeeekrit weather control device/project".....

It's truly amazing how many gubmint "sekrits" those troofers have uncovered!

tsig

15th July 2009, 09:50 PM

Oh god......not the "HAARP is a seeeekrit weather control device/project".....

It's truly amazing how many gubmint "sekrits" those troofers have uncovered!

The gvmt is all powerful and all knowing.

twinstead

15th July 2009, 09:55 PM

sigh

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 10:22 PM

Again, you did not answer ANY of the questions that I asked you.

I did not ask where WTC7 failed.
I did not ask about the free fall of the upper stories.
I did not ask whether NIST agrees with anything.
I did not ask if WTC7 was a CD.

Please go back to my post http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4907298#post4907298 and answer the questions that I ask.

Thank you.

tk

You ask:

AA. Do you claim that the collapse of WTC7 was impossible?

BB. Just to be clear, is "bigger" by weight?

CC. Does this mean that you believe that, if the failure in the WTC7 tower occurred on the 24th (out of 47) floor, then the failure would have arrested. But that if it occurred on the 23rd, the failure progresses to the ground?

DD. And similarly, for the 56th vs. 54th floor of the Towers?

AA. WTC 7 is an obvious controlled demolition.
BB. By strength and weight.

CC. According NIST column 79 failed at floor 13 or so as a consequence of thermal expansion ... and the whole structure was destroyed. Cannot happen.

DD. Local failures in a structure cannot produce a one-way crush down.

Happy?

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 10:29 PM

Heiwa,

So, Heiwa, what is a HNI???

Have No Idea!

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 10:40 PM

Than you have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS anywhere NEAR a FIRE EXTINGUISHER, let alone a hose nozzle.

Thanks for proving that you are in fact a fraud.

Ok, just so you know, a HNI is a Higbee Notch Indicator. It is a small notch that is designed into a single lug on the couplings of all hoses that, when lined up properly, will prevent crossthreading. This is especially helpfull because a crossthreaded coupling is more likely to burst during firefighting operations.

Ok, an even easier question for you.

Why do most firefighters carry a wooden wedge in a strap on their helmet??

Or, how about another one.

What are the two tools you will need when disconnecting a hose coupling??

Heiwa

15th July 2009, 10:49 PM

triforcharity

15th July 2009, 10:58 PM

Yeah, because fixed sprinklers did a WHOLE lotta good on 9/11 :rolleyes:

I have already told you, I am not an engineer. I leave that up to the experts.

In my opinion, the only way to demonstrate this is to build a 110 storey identical structure, and crash a plane into it and watch and see what happens.

But, you claimed to be an expert with "Extensive training" in firefighting, and you prefer sprinklers?? How much more idiotic could this statement get?!?!?!

Oscar

15th July 2009, 11:28 PM

Triforcharity:
But, you claimed to be an expert with "Extensive training" in firefighting, and you prefer sprinklers?? How much more idiotic could this statement get?!?!?!

Heiwa can win awards for idiocy. My personal opinion is that he chews through the restraints on his straitjacket once a day and sprints down the ward corridor to the computer room to fire off a few posts before being caught up with by his nurses who wrestle him back to his room again, re-administer his catheter and make sure he's taken his medication.

Oh, but that's right, he's a nautical engineer.

The shipping industry is stuffed.

triforcharity

16th July 2009, 12:30 AM

Oscar,

I will be sending you the bill for a new keyboard. I WAS drinking a cup of coffee, but after reaading that, it was PROMPTLY displaced onto my entire computer. Thanks buddy..........:D

tfk

16th July 2009, 02:00 AM

You ask:

AA. Do you claim that the collapse of WTC7 was impossible?

BB. Just to be clear, is "bigger" by weight?

CC. Does this mean that you believe that, if the failure in the WTC7 tower occurred on the 24th (out of 47) floor, then the failure would have arrested. But that if it occurred on the 23rd, the failure progresses to the ground?

DD. And similarly, for the 56th vs. 54th floor of the Towers?

AA. WTC 7 is an obvious controlled demolition.
BB. By strength and weight.

CC. According NIST column 79 failed at floor 13 or so as a consequence of thermal expansion ... and the whole structure was destroyed. Cannot happen.

DD. Local failures in a structure cannot produce a one-way crush down.

Happy?

Happy? No. For you, it is a game to avoid answering direct simple, questions questions. An annoying game.

1. With your answer DD, you are saying that Controlled demo is impossible. Bombs produce only "local damage" no matter where they are placed.

2. Please answer question here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4907221#post4907221

3. Please answer question here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4908416#post4908416

Cuddles

16th July 2009, 03:28 AM

Thread closed due to length. Please continue the discussion here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=148317). Note that the continuation thread has been set to moderated status due to the bickering and derailing that has been going on.