Message from a Truther

[Arus808]

deep, we are not going to play your game. YOU could easily do this yourself. YOU know how to use Google right? if a name is public, you can find their information.

[BigAl]

Never mind

[deep]

deep, we are not going to play your game. YOU could easily do this yourself. YOU know how to use Google right? if a name is public, you can find their information.


I'm not the one claiming that half of their members are invalid (for reasons unknown). It's not a game - that spreadsheet is worthless.

[deep]

delete.

[Hokulele]

Too bad there isn't any information about how the names were checked, or what the specific problem was. That spreadsheet is just a list of names.

Did this person actually do any real-world checking?


Um, that list is copy and pasted directly from the AE911Truth website. Go to their list of petitioners and count off the degreed and licensed architects and engineers yourself. There are less than 300.

I did note that they are counting EIT's as "licensed engineers", which will come as a shock to any state licensing board...

[deep]

Um, that list is copy and pasted directly from the AE911Truth website. Go to their list of petitioners and count off the degreed and licensed architects and engineers yourself. There are less than 300.


Yes, I understand that. AE911T already distinguishes between "degreed" and "degreed & licensed" architects & engineers on their website.

The person who created the spreadsheet apparently used some other method for "validating" members, because he or she claims to have eliminated everyone except those with licenses and/or degrees. How was it done?

[Arus808]

deep, I gave you how you can do a simple check. Its a neat little thing called Google. Dont know about it? They only make the most awesome search engine in the world

a 6 year old can figure this out

[Hokulele]

Yes, I understand that. AE911T already distinguishes between "degreed" and "degreed & licensed" architects & engineers on their website.

The person who created the spreadsheet apparently used some other method for "validating" members, because he or she claims to have eliminated everyone except those with licenses and/or degrees. How was it done?


By copying and pasting the list posted on the AE911Truth site. Go look at the list on AE911Truth, look at the spreadsheet, look at the list, look at the spreadsheet. See how they are identical?

All that person really did is select one column from the list and count it up separately. It is AE911Truth's sorting method that eliminated those without licenses. The author of the post describing the methodology did screw up in the use of the term and/or. It should be just and, although there are still a few boners in AE911Truth's list (such as the EIT's I mentioned previously).

At any rate, it is quite clear that stating they have 640 architects and engineers is either an outright lie, or equivocation at its finest.

Regardless of any goof-ups on the AE911Truth.info site.

[Newtons Bit]

By copying and pasting the list posted on the AE911Truth site. Go look at the list on AE911Truth, look at the spreadsheet, look at the list, look at the spreadsheet. See how they are identical?

All that person really did is select one column from the list and count it up separately. It is AE911Truth's sorting method that eliminated those without licenses. The author of the post describing the methodology did screw up in the use of the term and/or. It should be just and, although there are still a few boners in AE911Truth's list (such as the EIT's I mentioned previously).

At any rate, it is quite clear that stating they have 640 architects and engineers is either an outright lie, or equivocation at its finest.

Regardless of any goof-ups on the AE911Truth.info site.

An EIT can call himself an engineer. He can't, however, call himself a licensed engineer. You go to jail for that in some states. It's called fraud.

[Stellafane]

An EIT can call himself an engineer. He can't, however, call himself a licensed engineer. You go to jail for that in some states. It's called fraud.

Hell, I myself have had the word "engineer" in my job title on occasion. I've even designed post-and-beam barns and built them with my own two hands. Those two things together would probably qualify me as president of the weird little A&E club. Yet I wouldn't set foot in any skyscraper I designed.

[Hokulele]

An EIT can call himself an engineer. He can't, however, call himself a licensed engineer. You go to jail for that in some states. It's called fraud.


Or herself. ;)

But yeah, most of the EIT's I have known generally use the title Junior Engineer, or some such.

[Newtons Bit]

Hell, I myself have had the word "engineer" in my job title on occasion. I've even designed post-and-beam barns and built them with my own two hands. Those two things together would probably qualify me as president of the weird little A&E club. Yet I wouldn't set foot in any skyscraper I designed.

Most states allow any joe-blow to do that. However once you get beyond a certain complexity, which is simple framed wood construction, you need a license.

[newton3376]

Or herself. ;)

But yeah, most of the EIT's I have known generally use the title Junior Engineer, or some such.

Is this something common for structural engineers and architects?

In my field the title of "junior engineer" is usually related to years of experience....not to the EIT or FE exam.

In fact I think I only know 2 fellow EE's that even took the EIT...I don't know any EE's that have taken the PE exam....

Of course this is likely due to the type of work I am involved in.....

[alienentity]

Hey Deep, the fact that A&E for Twoof exaggerates the number of engineers etc is one thing, but how do you respond to the weird claims the group makes?

For example, there was a commercial with Richard Gage (on Visibility 9/11) from 2009, which contained at least two completely false and misleading claims.

1) Female V/O says 'that WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds'. That is a false statement. The collapse in fact took at least 14 seconds.
2) Gage claims in the ad that 90,000 tons of concrete were missing, 'pulverized' into a find dust.
3) WTC7 fell 'in the exact manner of a controlled demolition'. This again is an outright lie. Unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word 'exact' it's bullcrap.

I am not impressed that this organization is using these clearly false statements as their calling card.

I suppose you'll excuse them for the untrue or inaccurate statements, but I'd be interested to know if you can find a building that was destroyed by controlled demolition in 'the exact manner' of WTC 7.

Can you find one? I don't think it exists, so how could it be 'exact'?

Something to think about, isn't it? Just asking questions....

[Hokulele]

Is this something common for structural engineers and architects?

In my field the title of "junior engineer" is usually related to years of experience....not to the EIT or FE exam.

In fact I think I only know 2 fellow EE's that even took the EIT...I don't know any EE's that have taken the PE exam....

Of course this is likely due to the type of work I am involved in.....


I don't know, my direct experience has been with civil engineers and structural engineers working on superstructure design (bridges and the like). Usually they will be billed out as a "Junior Engineer" while they have their EIT, an "Engineer" once they get their PE, and a "Senior Engineer" once they have had so many years of experience.

That could just be a regional thing, though.

[deep]

At any rate, it is quite clear that stating they have 640 architects and engineers is either an outright lie, or equivocation at its finest.


The name of their organization is not "Licensed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Their member list clearly differentiates between licensed/degreed & degreed professionals - nothing is being misrepresented.

[alienentity]

The name of their organization is not "Licensed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Their member list clearly differentiates between licensed/degreed & degreed professionals - nothing is being misrepresented.

Listen to yourself. You don't need to excuse their behavior. In fact you probably shouldn't.

Have you any explanation for the untrue and misleading statements they make in their advertisments?

No comment?

[alienentity]

Deep, at least try to answer some of these questions:

In the sequence of collapse of WTC7, what happened first? (Hint: what gave way first, and what is the evidence for it?)

How long did the entire collapse take, from start to finish?


A&E Truth says '6.5 seconds' in their advertisment. True or false?

Don't defend falsehoods, defend truth. That's all I ask.

[Hokulele]

The name of their organization is not "Licensed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Their member list clearly differentiates between licensed/degreed & degreed professionals - nothing is being misrepresented.


More equivocation.

[Regnad Kcin]

I have already said that I am not a no-planer because it just seems to be too complicated...Then you should also be a "no-inside-jobber," because that is not only too complicated, it's...impossible.

Welcome to the ranks of the knowledgeable and sane.

[deep]

More equivocation.


Are you suggesting that the term "engineer" is universally understood to mean "licensed engineer" (or "Professional Engineer")?

According to Professional Engineer:

"In the United States, however, there is still some debate as to whether a P.E. License is required for an engineer to progress in their career due to many industrial exemptions. As of 2009, less than 18% of Engineers will pursue the license in their career."
I wonder how many of the forum regulars who are known to be "engineers" (and are referred to as such) are actually licensed?

[FineWine]

hanks.I've watched the first half or so so far. I will watch the rest thouugh. Fascinating stuff.


What did you learn, Bill? No, we aren't interested in watching Bambi vs. Godzilla, i.e., you attempting to debate Mackey. He gave a lecture on physics; you know nothing about physics. Did you come away with any knowledge about physics?

[deep]

1) Female V/O says 'that WTC7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds'. That is a false statement. The collapse in fact took at least 14 seconds.
2) Gage claims in the ad that 90,000 tons of concrete were missing, 'pulverized' into a find dust.
3) WTC7 fell 'in the exact manner of a controlled demolition'. This again is an outright lie. Unless you want to redefine the meaning of the word 'exact' it's bullcrap.

I am not impressed that this organization is using these clearly false statements as their calling card.


Well, regarding #1 - it's only a false statement if you assume that everybody agrees with your timing methodology. There's obviously some subjectiveness to it, which is why there are so many different measurements.

#3 - probably not the best wording, but it's certainly not a "lie" (as in: malicious intent). Plus, if you put the quote back into context, he does describe the characteristics he's referring to.

Look, if you disagree with the opinions of AE911T, that's fine with me. You'll notice that I only really defend them against people who make unsupported claims about misrepresenting their numbers or expertise (or just deny that they exist at all).

[Grizzly Bear]

Well, regarding #1 - it's only a false statement if you assume that everybody agrees with your timing methodology. There's obviously some subjectiveness to it, which is why there are so many different measurements.
There is no subjectivity to it. The Penthouse collapse was the initiation and it was clear that this part of the collapse precipitated internally until it spread to the outer walls. It is therefore included in the total collapse time. AE911 wrongly considers the penthouse failure a separate event and start the timer when the collapse spread to the exterior, when the collapse had been underway for several seconds. This is where they get their "simultaneous failure" claim from. This suggests one of two things; they either intentionally deceived readers by starting the timer late into the collapse progression or they don't know squat about how the building failed and took no precautions to account for that. I'm not as forgiving with this sort of error as you may be.

Look, if you disagree with the opinions of AE911T, that's fine with me. You'll notice that I only really defend them against people who make unsupported claims about misrepresenting their numbers or expertise (or just deny that they exist at all).

Defend them against unwarranted claims as much as you want. I don't really care, you're free to do it. But I suggest if you're going to criticize members of this forum for making unwarranted statements then apply the same scrutiny to the group you're defending. And if you feel you're being misrepresented based on your siding with them on specific issues then make an effort to clear that confusion by highlighting any criticisms you have of their own methods. My criticisms against AE911 aren't opinion, they are established based on procedures I learned to undertake in studio classes, and well documented information that tells me beyond a doubt that they do not understand anything about what they're making claims on. This stands independently of their professional status.

[~enigma~]

probably a lot more than goes on on the AEtruth petition checking.. you know that bastion of academic integrity which signed up fred flintstone, george jetson and barney rubble.
Don't forget Mike Rotch.

[alienentity]

Well, regarding #1 - it's only a false statement if you assume that everybody agrees with your timing methodology. There's obviously some subjectiveness to it, which is why there are so many different measurements.

I couldn't disagree more. The whole truther argument is predicated on a misrepresentation of the facts. This is just another illustration of how the agenda pollutes even the statements of so-called 'professionals'.

The start of the progressive collapse is not an arbitrary concept, in engineering terms. If you get that part wrong, you get the whole thing wrong.

#3 - probably not the best wording, but it's certainly not a "lie" (as in: malicious intent). Plus, if you put the quote back into context, he does describe the characteristics he's referring to.

Wow, you're very charitable to good ole Richard. You shouldn't be. He's making some very strong claims, he should back them up with facts. Otherwise he's basically just a huckster selling a tall tale - anybody can do that, you don't have to be an engineer or architect to make stuff up.

He's very conscious of using the 'argument from authority' in his presentations, but apart from that, the arguments themselves are not based on sound engineering - at best they're misleading, maybe they're even outright false.

Hey, if that's the crowd you want to stake your beliefs with, be my guest. But I guarantee you (that's my personal guarantee, no money involved) that you're heading in the wrong direction.

Your call.

[Hokulele]

Are you suggesting that the term "engineer" is universally understood to mean "licensed engineer" (or "Professional Engineer")?

According to Professional Engineer:
"In the United States, however, there is still some debate as to whether a P.E. License is required for an engineer to progress in their career due to many industrial exemptions. As of 2009, less than 18% of Engineers will pursue the license in their career."
I wonder how many of the forum regulars who are known to be "engineers" (and are referred to as such) are actually licensed?


There is a very good reason to call them out regarding their numbers and licensing status. Watch, this is from your very next post.

Look, if you disagree with the opinions of AE911T, that's fine with me. You'll notice that I only really defend them against people who make unsupported claims about misrepresenting their numbers or expertise (or just deny that they exist at all).


They are claiming a certain level of expertise as a correct appeal to authority on the topic of building design and construction (well, deconstruction). Richard Gage has repeatedly made this clear in his presentations. By using a misleading definition of "engineer" to compile the list (sanitation engineer, anyone?), he is turning a correct appeal to authority into the fallacious version.

And he really doesn't need to add fallacies to his presentation, there is plenty wrong with it as it is.

[alienentity]

Y'know, this whole business with A&E truth is a critical case-in-point. Deep cannot afford to concede that these people are untruthful, or incorrect.
The whole truther house of cards collapses as soon as it is recognized that the foundation is built on fallacy, ignorance and the like.

So people like Gage must be defended, no matter how absurd their statements are. It is ultimately a losing proposition, since time and knowledge will inevitably weaken these myths and fallacies to the point where nobody in their right mind takes them seriously.

Only the weak-minded will be left to believe. I think that time is fast approaching, if it has not already arrived.

[Klaymore]

It's been said before, but this guy's story of expertise and conversion just doesn't hold water. The whole "I was convinced until I, an expert, saw a bunch of half-assed, self-contradictory YouTube videos that reminded me of the laws of physics that I supposedly already knew" thing is just bogus.

Also, the habit of supporting assertion after assertion with links is a sure sign of bs; it's just a way of making sure that as many people as possible read as much nutty conspiracy literature as possible.

I call Shenanigans.

[TruthersLie]

Are you suggesting that the term "engineer" is universally understood to mean "licensed engineer" (or "Professional Engineer")?

According to Professional Engineer:

"In the United States, however, there is still some debate as to whether a P.E. License is required for an engineer to progress in their career due to many industrial exemptions. As of 2009, less than 18% of Engineers will pursue the license in their career."
I wonder how many of the forum regulars who are known to be "engineers" (and are referred to as such) are actually licensed?

Ah yes... a nice tap dance.

There are literally dozens of different "engineers" out there. Some of them are much more difficult to get, much like there are litearlly TONS of "doctors" out there...

To claim an engineer or an architect who is degreed but not licensed it kind of disingenuous dont'cha think?

out of the 700 they claim, they only have 1/2 that number.

It is like having someone who finished law school but didn't pass the bar as your "lawyer."

[BigAl]

Well, regarding #1 - it's only a false statement if you assume that everybody agrees with your timing methodology. There's obviously some subjectiveness to it, which is why there are so many different measurements.

#3 - probably not the best wording, but it's certainly not a "lie" (as in: malicious intent). Plus, if you put the quote back into context, he does describe the characteristics he's referring to.

Look, if you disagree with the opinions of AE911T, that's fine with me. You'll notice that I only really defend them against people who make unsupported claims about misrepresenting their numbers or expertise (or just deny that they exist at all).

Here's a video of the collapse. How many seconds do you count? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GMddY-lQ

Anyone claiming 6.5 seconds is a liar.

[newton3376]

I don't know, my direct experience has been with civil engineers and structural engineers working on superstructure design (bridges and the like). Usually they will be billed out as a "Junior Engineer" while they have their EIT, an "Engineer" once they get their PE, and a "Senior Engineer" once they have had so many years of experience.

That could just be a regional thing, though.

I think taking the EIT exam and getting a PE is more common in civil and structural engineering than it is in electrical engineering....although I did ask a few friends last night and they reminded me that some EE's actually DO need a PE....

But I think its for jobs like working for the county/city or maybe in the power industry....like working for a utility company or a power plant. Since I'm not working in these fields it's not something I often encounter.

In my "area" it's important to get a Masters degree (and possibly PhD) and to build up years of good experience. So the labels are more experience based than anything else....although I ended up getting the label of "senior engineer" with less experience than is typical, so exceptions to the rule do occur.

[newton3376]

Are you suggesting that the term "engineer" is universally understood to mean "licensed engineer" (or "Professional Engineer")?

I don't think she was suggesting this at all....

According to Professional Engineer:

"In the United States, however, there is still some debate as to whether a P.E. License is required for an engineer to progress in their career due to many industrial exemptions. As of 2009, less than 18% of Engineers will pursue the license in their career."
I wonder how many of the forum regulars who are known to be "engineers" (and are referred to as such) are actually licensed?

As has been discussed....I think this licensing is more common among civil and structural engineers....

In other engineering fields it is less common although for utility and power companies there are electrical engineers who have their PE or need to it so sign off on certain things....

[alienentity]

Back to Hokulele's point about the deliberate confusion of the term 'engineer' by A&ETruth -
Here's a comment I found this morning on http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/06/debunking-911-conspiracy-theories.html

'There has been peer-reviewed research that say explosives were used. Almost a thousand architects and engineers are demanding a re-investigation. Hundreds of pilots say the official story is not possible.'

The reek of empty argument from authority is all over this one.

Here is the danger of such credential-inflation. NIST employed a lot of professional engineers in their investigation; if you look at their CV's you see they have relevant experience and qualifications.
OK, so structural engineer X becomes shortened to just 'engineer'. Forget the CV completely - that's exactly what truther propaganda does. Engineer X.

Someone from A&ETruth has studied electrical engineering, for example. Shorten that CV to 'engineer'. Engineer Y.

Joe Average truther can't tell the difference between X and Y - there isn't enough info left. So what stands out is the term 'engineer' and 'standard truther theory' that this engineer (or loose group of engineers and architects) is selling.

Joe Average truther can make the statement ''There has been peer-reviewed research that say explosives were used. Almost a thousand architects and engineers are demanding a re-investigation. Hundreds of pilots say the official story is not possible.'
without batting an eyelash, and that can be repeated on the internet over and over.

If I recall correctly Gage said that there were almost 600 in the group. The truther says that is almost 1000.
Funny, the 9/11 'truth' leaders do the same thing with the speed of WTC collapses: 64% of the speed of gravitational acceleration is 'virtually at freefall speed'.

I can just imagine how truthers would react if NIST had hired, as their top experts, a Theologian to investigate cell phone transcripts and air defences (David Ray Griffin), an Architect and a High School Physics Teacher to investigate structural engineering (Gage and his cardboard boxes, David Chandler and his Physics Toolkit), a Physicist to investigate Chemistry (Jones and his thermite).

Unfortunately, that's what 9/11 'truth' has done. It ain't pretty, and the results are....predictable.

[jaydeehess]

Getting back to initial failure and the PBS doc that bill linked to;


I am refering to the fact that when one sees the top section begin to drop one does not see the core punching up through the roof. One does not see the hat truss being held up by the core either.
THUS it is obvious that at the initial collapse the core columns on the fire floors failed. They did not fail lower down during that initial failure. This is obvious for two reasons;
1) the PBS doc shows that the core did not collapse at the same rate as the perimeter. Had the core failed low down then this could not have been the case
2) had the core failed, say in the basement, the perimeter columns on EVERY floor would have been pulled inward

So we know for certain then that there were no explosives or thermite used on lower floors and certainly not in the basement in order to cause that initial collapse.
Done and done, then, with any such suggestion.

Were there explosives in the core in order to ensure that not only the perimeter and the floors came down thus killing anyone inside, but also the core? This would require that said explosives be mounted such that despite the destruction occuring to the floors (debris would be raining down through the core floors as well,between the beams) they were not stripped off the columns. There might be one way to do this by mounting them inside the box columns, any wireless timing mecahnism would also have to be mounted outside the columns(and a wired system is even more vulnerable) not to mention that a wireless system would have to work through the dense falling mass of debris and dust.. However now this is not the simple task of smuggling a cartload of explosives past security which included bomb-sniffing dogs, it now also requires extensive and noisy work to be done to the core columns. Given that this now becomes a task that would have a miniscule probability of not being discovered ( even bill agrees that some conjectures are just way too complicated to be credible) I believe that we can be assured that it did not occur.

We are left then only with explosives at the fire/impact floors.
Once again we run into the problem of how to mount them such that they, and their timing mechanism, are unaffected by either the chaos of an airliner impact, or the subsequent, immediate, large area, multi-floors fires. We are alos confronted with the problem of having explosives mounted on the floors that are impacted. One might mount them on many floors in a target zone but that would require absolute certainty that one could call upon the ones at the actual impact zone and only those ones.

Once again this gets to very complicated it is an exercise in ridiculousness to seriously conjecture that it did occur.

On the other hand we do have the impact and despite the incredulity of some that an aluminum aircraft could cause significant damage to a steel structure it indeed can and did.
The fuel was dispersed over the impact floors and ignited thus accellerating the office fires in a way never seen in 'normal office fires'. It meant that the fires were immediatly at a stage that noramlly takes hours to reach, in a structure significantly damaged by the impacts. The impacts had also compromised the active and passive fire suppression built into the structure.

bump for bill

[jaydeehess]

Homeland Insecurity tried to argue the small-amount-of-explosives senario.

Link to my response (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4926248&postcount=617)

HI never did get around to addressing this. Perhaps deep or bill would care to.
the question is whether or not a large quantity of explosives were used. That is to say were explosives on many (or every floor) or just on the floors involved in the initial collapse?

If a small amount was used, only on the impact floors, then how could the explosives be protected against the effects of the aircraft impact, and how could the supposed perpetrators have mounted explosives only on the few floors that were actually involved in the impacts in each building? Furthermore if only a small amount of explosives on the impact floors were employed does this mean that NIST was correct is stating that once the initial collapse had begun that the most likely senario would be a progression to global collapse?

If explosives were required on many or all floors they would have to have been smuggled in past the dogs and other security measures. How was this accomplished? They would have to be mounted on the columns as well (or require even more explosives) and have to be timed to match the collapsing structure. How was this accomplished? If thermite was used how was it used on vertical steel columns and how was it accurately timed?

[NobbyNobbs]

Here is the really curious thing about the south tower:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

That is 52 minutes after the oscillation caused by the plane impact died out. The plane shifted that area of the building 14 inches sideways. But when that break occurred it shifted about TWENTY FEET sideways and had to break lots of columns. So how did gravity and fire make that much mass move sideways.

Oh that's right! We don't have information on the tons of steel and concrete on every level so we don't know how much mass moved sideways 20 feet in a few seconds because of gravity and fire.

psik


What do you suggest caused that sideways movement? (Hint: if you say "explosives", I predict this thread will be flooded with laughing dogs.)

[newton3376]

Excellent post all around... but this point was especially good....

I can just imagine how truthers would react if NIST had hired, as their top experts, a Theologian to investigate cell phone transcripts and air defences (David Ray Griffin), an Architect and a High School Physics Teacher to investigate structural engineering (Gage and his cardboard boxes, David Chandler and his Physics Toolkit), a Physicist to investigate Chemistry (Jones and his thermite).

[deep]

They are claiming a certain level of expertise as a correct appeal to authority on the topic of building design and construction (well, deconstruction). Richard Gage has repeatedly made this clear in his presentations. By using a misleading definition of "engineer" to compile the list (sanitation engineer, anyone?), he is turning a correct appeal to authority into the fallacious version.


Will you please point me to the presentations you're referring to, or provide direct quotes? Those alleged misrepresentations are the key to your argument.

[Hokulele]

Will you please point me to the presentations you're referring to, or provide direct quotes? Those alleged misrepresentations are the key to your argument.


Good grief, the claim that their professional credibility is key to their arguments is made as part of the justification for the very existence of that group. From their mission statement page:

Architects and Engineers are trained to design buildings that function well and withstand potentially destructive forces.

<snipped the blather about controlled demolitions>

We can play a very significant role as building professionals because we have the necessary technical credibility that Congress will respond to.

Source (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/4).

ETA: The text that I quoted is also featured in his extended version of the PowerPoint slides. You can see the screen capture from that webpage about a dozen slides into the thing, so it isn't some minor detail buried in the middle or hidden at the end. Claiming credibility is the first thing done in the presentation.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Here is the really curious thing about the south tower:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

That is 52 minutes after the oscillation caused by the plane impact died out. The plane shifted that area of the building 14 inches sideways. But when that break occurred it shifted about TWENTY FEET sideways and had to break lots of columns. So how did gravity and fire make that much mass move sideways.

Oh that's right! We don't have information on the tons of steel and concrete on every level so we don't know how much mass moved sideways 20 feet in a few seconds because of gravity and fire.

psik

The really curious thing is that you cannot envision how the physical laws of motion apply here and instead wonder how fire and gravity caused this sway.

[FineWine]

Bill, you seem uncharacteristically reluctant to tell us what Mackey got wrong in his lecture. Is it possible that the no-planers are really as totally deranged as the rest of the world thinks they are?

[FineWine]

Uh, Bill? About Mackey's lecture...

[jaydeehess]

Homeland Insecurity tried to argue the small-amount-of-explosives senario.

Link to my response (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4926248&postcount=617)

HI never did get around to addressing this. Perhaps deep or bill would care to.
........................

I guess not.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by bill smith
Well personally I would go for the intrinsic strengh of the core by libarally bracing it. But if people are happy to believe in your core braced only by floor trusses that is up to them. We will not know for sure until NIST allows examination of the blueprints of WTC2.
THAT is not what i said bill. Let's take it slow and simple then.

The columns that make up the core were braced to each other. That is to say they were braced, laterally, to the columns adjacent to each. There was no diagonal bracing either horizontally or between floors.

The core SYSTEM of columns/beams, was in turn braced laterally to the perimeter system. the perimeter columns were braced as well to each other(obviously in one dimension only).

The core SYSTEM of columns and beams however still represents a structure that could NOT support itself against buckling(look up Euler in google) without that bracing to the perimeter system.

As I stated already, during construction they built the core ahead of the flooring/perimeter but could only get so far ahead AND included temporary floor to floor diagonal bracing of the core during construction.

As I said, had the perimeter columns and the large floor space between core and perimeter suddenly and magically disappeared causing no undue stress during that magical 'poof', the core would soon buckle and/or twist itself and fail.

Getting back to initial failure and the PBS doc that bill linked to;


I am refering to the fact that when one sees the top section begin to drop one does not see the core punching up through the roof. One does not see the hat truss being held up by the core either.
THUS it is obvious that at the initial collapse the core columns on the fire floors failed. They did not fail lower down during that initial failure. This is obvious for two reasons;
1) the PBS doc shows that the core did not collapse at the same rate as the perimeter. Had the core failed low down then this could not have been the case
2) had the core failed, say in the basement, the perimeter columns on EVERY floor would have been pulled inward

So we know for certain then that there were no explosives or thermite used on lower floors and certainly not in the basement in order to cause that initial collapse.
Done and done, then, with any such suggestion.

Were there explosives in the core in order to ensure that not only the perimeter and the floors came down thus killing anyone inside, but also the core? This would require that said explosives be mounted such that despite the destruction occuring to the floors (debris would be raining down through the core floors as well,between the beams) they were not stripped off the columns. There might be one way to do this by mounting them inside the box columns, any wireless timing mecahnism would also have to be mounted outside the columns(and a wired system is even more vulnerable) not to mention that a wireless system would have to work through the dense falling mass of debris and dust.. However now this is not the simple task of smuggling a cartload of explosives past security which included bomb-sniffing dogs, it now also requires extensive and noisy work to be done to the core columns. Given that this now becomes a task that would have a miniscule probability of not being discovered ( even bill agrees that some conjectures are just way too complicated to be credible) I believe that we can be assured that it did not occur.

We are left then only with explosives at the fire/impact floors.
Once again we run into the problem of how to mount them such that they, and their timing mechanism, are unaffected by either the chaos of an airliner impact, or the subsequent, immediate, large area, multi-floors fires. We are alos confronted with the problem of having explosives mounted on the floors that are impacted. One might mount them on many floors in a target zone but that would require absolute certainty that one could call upon the ones at the actual impact zone and only those ones.

Once again this gets to very complicated it is an exercise in ridiculousness to seriously conjecture that it did occur.

On the other hand we do have the impact and despite the incredulity of some that an aluminum aircraft could cause significant damage to a steel structure it indeed can and did.
The fuel was dispersed over the impact floors and ignited thus accellerating the office fires in a way never seen in 'normal office fires'. It meant that the fires were immediatly at a stage that noramlly takes hours to reach, in a structure significantly damaged by the impacts. The impacts had also compromised the active and passive fire suppression built into the structure.

bill? bill???

{Is this thing on?}

[Audible Click]

bill? bill???

{Is this thing on?}

Hit it really hard with your hand. ;)

[deep]

Good grief, the claim that their professional credibility is key to their arguments is made as part of the justification for the very existence of that group.


For one thing, I can't find that screen capture of your "source" in any of the four presentations posted on their webpage.

Either way - there's nothing in that mission statement that would lead someone to believe that AE911T is an organization that only accepts licensed architects/engineers. An engineer does not need a license to possess "professional credibility".

Engineer: "An engineer is an engineering professional with an approved degree in engineering."

[Hokulele]

For one thing, I can't find that screen capture of your "source" in any of the four presentations posted on their webpage.


It is slide 11 of the 1 hour presentation and 14 of the 2 hour one.

Either way - there's nothing in that mission statement that would lead someone to believe that AE911T is an organization that only accepts licensed architects/engineers. An engineer does not need a license to possess "professional credibility".

Engineer: "An engineer is an engineering professional with an approved degree in engineering."


And from the rest of the Wiki article:

"The title, Engineer, and its derivatives should be reserved for those individuals whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public safety. Strict use of the title serves the interest of both the IEEE-USA and the public by providing a recognized designation by which those qualified to practice engineering may be identified. The education and experience needed for the title, Engineer, is evidenced by

Graduation with an Engineering degree from an ABET/EAC accredited program of engineering (or equivalent*), coupled with sufficient experience in the field in which the term, Engineer, is used; and/or


Licensure by any jurisdiction as a Professional Engineer.


A degree from a foreign institution (or the total education when one person holds a graduate degree in engineering but no accredited B.S. in engineering) can be evaluated through a service offered by ABET."
In some jurisdictions, it is against the law to call yourself an engineer if you aren't licensed. The appeal to authority from the end of the mission statement ("We can play a very significant role as building professionals because we have the necessary technical credibility that Congress will respond to. ") is precisely why the validation of the number of members is so important.

Of course, this isn't important at all if all you are trying to do is artificially inflate numbers to support your goals...

[dropzone]

I think taking the EIT exam and getting a PE is more common in civil and structural engineering than it is in electrical engineering....although I did ask a few friends last night and they reminded me that some EE's actually DO need a PE....True story: Asked my pimp regarding a job she posted. She said,

"I see you've done residential. What is the highest voltage you've worked with?"

"Um, 120 and 240, obviously."

"And if I present that to my client he will laugh because he's looking for a minimum of 575 Volts."

"So you should modify the ad. "Low voltage" refers to 24V or less. 575V is HIGH voltage to most everybody."

"But they are talking about substations. 575V is low for them." :rolleyes:

[ElMondoHummus]

And from the rest of the Wiki article:
[/list]In some jurisdictions, it is against the law to call yourself an engineer if you aren't licensed. The appeal to authority from the end of the mission statement ("We can play a very significant role as building professionals because we have the necessary technical credibility that Congress will respond to. ") is precisely why the validation of the number of members is so important.

Of course, this isn't important at all if all you are trying to do is artificially inflate numbers to support your goals...

Not that Hokulele needs help getting her point across - she rarely does - but the info at this link can serve to buttresss the essence of what she's saying:
http://www.asce.org/pdf/NSPEGuidelines.pdf

Sample quote:

The practice of engineering by unlicensed practitioners potentially places the public health, safety and welfare at risk...

... efforts to prevent unlicensed practice are intended solely to protect the public health, safety and welfare...

[finalmessenger]

Actually he's wrong here. The planes didn't "cut" the steel. Their momentum sheared the bolts holding those columns in place. Some of the impacted columns were severely deflected by the impact but not actually 'cut'. The same thing applies to the pentagon; the plane doesn't "cut" through the masonry, it's momentum slams them out of place. That's why rational people don't expect wil-e-coyote cartoon cut outs.

Cookie cutter collision vids and stills prove it's not a plane but a figment of some rich peoples' sick twisted power-mad fantasy to hold sway over the lives of those not in the know.

Sheared the bolts is the theory of dolts. Got some and given it back.

The plane does not twist but it goes in sideways. It does not bend, though it is mostly aluminum. It does not crack though it is impacting what is essentially a solid steel wall. The engines? Sure. Possible. The rest of the wings? Forgive me for scoffing at your scoffing. The tail? Cardboard would stand up as well.

You don't need to be a structural engineer to understand basic physics from high school or just reading science journals on your own in your spare time. This is like a 150 lb (what I weigh) football player smacking into the 300 lb (forget the metric system here) Mr. William "Refrigerator" Perry full tilt. You will wink-wink, nudge-nudge him and that's about it. I have no delusions as to how that match up would come out. it's not like martial arts where you're going for stuns to pressure points. I would bounce off of "The Fridge" like nobody's bidness, you bet. Played a little f-ball against bigger fellas so I think I would know that. Hit 'em just right and they might topple, but that's pain talking.

Buildings don't feel pain. There are no pressure points. Once a rivet is in place with its buddies in the other joints you might as well say it's part of the whole. You're trying (and not successfully at all) to imply that the bolts/welds/rivets all sheared at the same time so we get this effect of a cookie cutter collision (came out the other side and disintegrated in some vids) that is really just an optical illusion. Is that what you're saying? Really?

Rudy Giuliani said the buildings imploded and he was surprised as anyone. I'll bet. He said it again on a talk show. Excuse me?

Just where are you going with this?

Why do no plane videos even exist with ongoing commentators who don't even mention planes.

Take a video with a plane in it...a real plane. You must delete the plane from each and every frame or make a vid from exactly the same angle and cut in the building exploding in the frames where "impact" occurs from the exact same angle as the official story cameras with the same clouds in the background. No one with any amount of a clue would do such a thing against there own country. No one would do it period. Maybe you haven't seen and heard them. I have. They...not one but several...were the straws that blew that camel's back apart at the seams for me.

Sheared nothing. Sick rich people telling us one thing and doing another. The reason that so many didn't say anything is that they feared for their cushy positions. Cowards.

Too easy! And I believed the official story, too, until I had the facts.

Get a grip on reality or stop lying to yourself or stop lying to everyone else here.

I'd love to engage in a meaningful discussion with the "truther". This site is beginning to sicken me...like months ago.:(

[Pardalis]

What are you babbling on about?

[beachnut]

... Sheared the bolts is the theory of dolts. Got some and given it back. ...
Do you have a list of the dolts? What is your point and how does it help relative to the OP? Was this a one time hit and run post because your evidence was eaten by your dog when you dropped the cookie cutter? Did you eat your sample of thermite from Dr Jones instead of processing it?

You are the person who posted the failed thermite ideas and supported Jones insane conclusions about 911. 7 years of your failed moronic conclusions on 911 can lead to posts of failed opinions void of evidence and facts. Proved again 5:57 PM over 7 years after 911.

[newton3376]

Cookie cutter collision vids and stills prove it's not a plane but a figment of some rich peoples' sick twisted power-mad fantasy to hold sway over the lives of those not in the know.

ROFL

Sheared the bolts is the theory of dolts. Got some and given it back.

ROFL

The plane does not twist but it goes in sideways. It does not bend, though it is mostly aluminum. It does not crack though it is impacting what is essentially a solid steel wall. The engines? Sure. Possible. The rest of the wings? Forgive me for scoffing at your scoffing. The tail? Cardboard would stand up as well.

Thats some convincing analysis there :oldroll:

You don't need to be a structural engineer to understand basic physics from high school or just reading science journals on your own in your spare time. This is like a 150 lb (what I weigh) football player smacking into the 300 lb (forget the metric system here) Mr. William "Refrigerator" Perry full tilt. You will wink-wink, nudge-nudge him and that's about it. I have no delusions as to how that match up would come out. it's not like martial arts where you're going for stuns to pressure points. I would bounce off of "The Fridge" like nobody's bidness, you bet. Played a little f-ball against bigger fellas so I think I would know that. Hit 'em just right and they might topple, but that's pain talking.

Wow....what a great analogy for the WTC :oldroll:

Too bad you don't understand basic physics...

Buildings don't feel pain. There are no pressure points. Once a rivet is in place with its buddies in the other joints you might as well say it's part of the whole. You're trying (and not successfully at all) to imply that the bolts/welds/rivets all sheared at the same time so we get this effect of a cookie cutter collision (came out the other side and disintegrated in some vids) that is really just an optical illusion. Is that what you're saying? Really?

ROFL What the heck are you babbling about?

Rudy Giuliani said the buildings imploded and he was surprised as anyone. I'll bet. He said it again on a talk show. Excuse me?

:oldroll:

Just where are you going with this?

Thats what we were wondering about this insane post.....

Why do no plane videos even exist with ongoing commentators who don't even mention planes.

Why do no truthers exist without insane ideas and piss poor analysis?

Take a video with a plane in it...a real plane. You must delete the plane from each and every frame or make a vid from exactly the same angle and cut in the building exploding in the frames where "impact" occurs from the exact same angle as the official story cameras with the same clouds in the background. No one with any amount of a clue would do such a thing against there own country. No one would do it period. Maybe you haven't seen and heard them. I have. They...not one but several...were the straws that blew that camel's back apart at the seams for me.

What in the name of Zeus are you talking about?

Sheared nothing. Sick rich people telling us one thing and doing another. The reason that so many didn't say anything is that they feared for their cushy positions. Cowards.

Proof?

Oh thats right......you can't prove ANY of this nonsense...

Who needs proof when they know the troof?

Too easy! And I believed the official story, too, until I had the facts.

:dl:

Get a grip on reality or stop lying to yourself or stop lying to everyone else here.

H o w I r o n i c

I'd love to engage in a meaningful discussion with the "truther". This site is beginning to sicken me...like months ago.:(

Meaningful discussion with a truther? ROFL Everyone has been waiting for that one...

Post. Has. So. Much. Irony.

[A W Smith]

for their entertainment value I recommend reading finalmessengers other posts as well. Hoo boy you certainly have your problems. don't you FM? How many times do you allege you were beat up now?

Oh my word.
PRZnsBFZcrY

[Justin39640]

Cookie cutter collision vids and stills prove it's not a plane but a figment of some rich peoples' sick twisted power-mad fantasy to hold sway over the lives of those not in the know.

Sheared the bolts is the theory of dolts. Got some and given it back.

The plane does not twist but it goes in sideways. It does not bend, though it is mostly aluminum. It does not crack though it is impacting what is essentially a solid steel wall. The engines? Sure. Possible. The rest of the wings? Forgive me for scoffing at your scoffing. The tail? Cardboard would stand up as well.

You don't need to be a structural engineer to understand basic physics from high school or just reading science journals on your own in your spare time. This is like a 150 lb (what I weigh) football player smacking into the 300 lb (forget the metric system here) Mr. William "Refrigerator" Perry full tilt. You will wink-wink, nudge-nudge him and that's about it. I have no delusions as to how that match up would come out. it's not like martial arts where you're going for stuns to pressure points. I would bounce off of "The Fridge" like nobody's bidness, you bet. Played a little f-ball against bigger fellas so I think I would know that. Hit 'em just right and they might topple, but that's pain talking.

Buildings don't feel pain. There are no pressure points. Once a rivet is in place with its buddies in the other joints you might as well say it's part of the whole. You're trying (and not successfully at all) to imply that the bolts/welds/rivets all sheared at the same time so we get this effect of a cookie cutter collision (came out the other side and disintegrated in some vids) that is really just an optical illusion. Is that what you're saying? Really?

Rudy Giuliani said the buildings imploded and he was surprised as anyone. I'll bet. He said it again on a talk show. Excuse me?

Just where are you going with this?

Why do no plane videos even exist with ongoing commentators who don't even mention planes.

Take a video with a plane in it...a real plane. You must delete the plane from each and every frame or make a vid from exactly the same angle and cut in the building exploding in the frames where "impact" occurs from the exact same angle as the official story cameras with the same clouds in the background. No one with any amount of a clue would do such a thing against there own country. No one would do it period. Maybe you haven't seen and heard them. I have. They...not one but several...were the straws that blew that camel's back apart at the seams for me.

Sheared nothing. Sick rich people telling us one thing and doing another. The reason that so many didn't say anything is that they feared for their cushy positions. Cowards.

Too easy! And I believed the official story, too, until I had the facts.

Get a grip on reality or stop lying to yourself or stop lying to everyone else here.

I'd love to engage in a meaningful discussion with the "truther". This site is beginning to sicken me...like months ago.:(

well
apparently this is yours
take it
http://blog.rooftopcomedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/the_cake_is_a_lie_portal.jpg

[Grizzly Bear]

Wooh! Damn... I never get the honor of thought out respon-- der well "replies"... Let's see...

Cookie cutter collision vids and stills prove it's not a plane but a figment of some rich peoples' sick twisted power-mad fantasy to hold sway over the lives of those not in the know.
What the hell is this supposed to mean? :eye-poppi
You completely lost me... are you implying that there was a "cookie-cutter imprint exactly outlining the planes? Hello?

Sheared the bolts is the theory of dolts.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!! :big:
You're telling me I have no idea what I'm talking about? :dl:
You don't even know what shear failure is...
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~dsl/egr437/class/masonrybeams/shear/behavior.html
http://www.rocscience.com/downloads/unwedge/WebHelp/unwedge/Bolt_Failure_Modes.htm

The plane does not twist but it goes in sideways. It does not bend, though it is mostly aluminum. It does not crack though it is impacting what is essentially a solid steel wall.
You lost me...Was there an actual point buried in this word salad? You're saying the plane was too hollow to make it through the wall? You should consider taking some elementary physics courses, perhaps then you'll think a little more about what mass an velocity contribute to the amount of kinetic energy and impulse the planes actually impacted with. You haven't a clue...

The rest of the wings? Forgive me for scoffing at your scoffing. The tail? Cardboard would stand up as well.
Nobody ever implied that the wings and tail sections penetrated the steel like rod runner imprint. So what exactly are you scoffing at?

I have no delusions as to how that match up would come out. it's not like martial arts where you're going for stuns to pressure points. I would bounce off of "The Fridge" like nobody's bidness, you bet. Played a little f-ball against bigger fellas so I think I would know that. Hit 'em just right and they might topple, but that's pain talking.
Were you moving at half the speed of sound when you attempted this? I don't think so.

Buildings don't feel pain.
O......kaaaaaay....... who in their god given mind said this?

You're trying (and not successfully at all) to imply that the bolts/welds/rivets all sheared at the same time so we get this effect of a cookie cutter collision.
Huh? :eye-poppi :dl:

(came out the other side and disintegrated in some vids) that is really just an optical illusion. Is that what you're saying? Really?
Good question... I'm still trying to figure out what imaginary words you got out my short post. Maybe you can point this out for me... but where do I say I expected a "cookie-cutter imprint":
Actually he's wrong here. The planes didn't "cut" the steel. Their momentum sheared the bolts holding those columns in place. Some of the impacted columns were severely deflected by the impact but not actually 'cut'. The same thing applies to the pentagon; the plane doesn't "cut" through the masonry, it's momentum slams them out of place. That's why rational people don't expect wil-e-coyote cartoon cut outs.

:dl:

Rudy Giuliani said the buildings imploded and he was surprised as anyone. I'll bet. He said it again on a talk show. Excuse me?
And the relevance is................? (I'm waiting anxiously for your bombshell)

Just where are you going with this?

Why do no plane videos even exist with ongoing commentators who don't even mention planes.

Take a video with a plane in it...a real plane. You must delete the plane from each and every frame or make a vid from exactly the same angle and cut in the building exploding in the frames where "impact" occurs from the exact same angle as the official story cameras with the same clouds in the background. No one with any amount of a clue would do such a thing against there own country. No one would do it period. Maybe you haven't seen and heard them. I have. They...not one but several...were the straws that blew that camel's back apart at the seams for me.
You're gonna have to condense all this down to a single point... because it's like you started responding you my reference to shear failure of the bolted connections, and then you went on a complete tangent that became an incoherent word salad that bears no resemblence to a response to the orignal post you were replying to.

Sheared nothing. Sick rich people telling us one thing and doing another. The reason that so many didn't say anything is that they feared for their cushy positions. Cowards.
Now we've gone on a wild tangent into politics.
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3230/circleoflife12861595953.jpg


Too easy! And I believed the official story, too, until I had the facts.
Those facts must not have been very good ones if you're too busy ranting to me about bolt failure modes being a theory of dolts. You still haven't realized how dumb that comment was after reading this far into this post yet have you?

Get a grip on reality or stop lying to yourself or stop lying to everyone else here.
As a side note, it really doesn't strengthen your position when you're charging into a subject without any concept of the terminology.

This site is beginning to sicken me...like months ago.:(

Here's the Log Out (http://forums.randi.org/login.php?do=logout&logouthash=1249608954-bb80de9b43efae50a11446395b61cfa434721b67) button. Help yourself.

[Audible Click]

Please guys, please, please, you're going to be sorry if you engage with finalmessenger.

[Justin39640]

Please guys, please, please, you're going to be sorry if you engage with finalmessenger.

actually... i think hes a fine example of a truther
keep up the good work man :thumbsup:
:wackywink:

[A W Smith]

actually... i think hes a fine example of a truther
keep up the good work man :thumbsup:
:wackywink:

and with only 68 posts he already has a friend!
http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=16463

[alienentity]

<snip> Long truther rant (


fm, I was skeptical at first, but now I'm convinced: you are probably one of the most lucid and knowledgeable truthers out there.

Loved your video also. Keep up the good work! You're almost there....:cool:

[Grizzly Bear]

That's an excellent anecdote finalmessenger... did you take the time to read the resources I provided for your convenience?

http://www.rocscience.com/downloads/unwedge/WebHelp/unwedge/Bolt_Failure_Modes.htm

I looked all I could through your thought out post but didn't see anything about you're new found knowledge. Just didn't want you to forget!

[finalmessenger]

That's an excellent anecdote finalmessenger... did you take the time to read the resources I provided for your convenience?

http://www.rocscience.com/downloads/unwedge/WebHelp/unwedge/Bolt_Failure_Modes.htm

I looked all I could through your thought out post but didn't see anything about you're new found knowledge. Just didn't want you to forget!

Just went there, sir. Seems fairly comprehensive. I have been there before, though. Thank you for trying to divert my attention from the painfully obvious yet again.

Sold plenty of fasteners in my day working in heavy industrial (and I mean heavy) and automotive and have seen plenty of shearing tests done on them. No total novice here in that regard. I'll say this to that. A bolt will stretch before she'll shear, no matter how hard it is, depending on torque applied and where.

The main problem with the bolt shearing theory is one of uniformity. There's still a hell of a lot of torque that should have made the plane twist to the right then bend at the pivot point according to angle of entry. Others have said similar things. We've all (I assume) seen car crash vids. When irresistible force meets immovable object, unfortunately for the official story pushers a thin aluminum skinned plane in this case just ain't that irresistible, no matter the (impossible) velocity at impact

So there is still the cookie cutter plane to deal with at an angled entry.

Back to ground level.

I still believe my idea about rebuilding a life size model minus many floors to save money is the best way to go. Steel outer wall slats don't even need to be gilded with alum. Make it as cheaply as possible but follow the specs as far as thicknesses of beams and so forth. No plumbing need be installed. Core constructed just as it was. A service elevator will do fine unless you want to get picky about it. Without accouterments I'm sure it can be slapped together for a very reasonable 50 - 100 million. Possibly even less depending on the contractors who would be involved. I think the vast majority would support such a testing facility as the cost would be dwarfed by what is being spent on the wars we're fighting now.

Such a test must be strictly monitored by truly independant organizations. In fact, those gov orgs that had a hand in the leadup to cleanup of any kind during 9/11 should be invited in an observational capacity only despite the fact that they would be petitioned to foot a major part of the bill. They did drop the ball big time and are treating themselves like heroes after all. That much of a penalty should be mandatory.

Security monitors security monitors security 24/7 during construction. Careful screening is essential. And parties involved or suspected in the actual 9/11 incident must be barred from the process. That means practically whole countries have very little input, but for monetary (mandatory or they instantly become prime suspects for obstruction), in the process. A reimbursement schedule can be arranged should the test not go according to the expectations of truthers and that becomes necessary. Don't want to hurt too many widdow feewings.

This means firms with US, Israeli, British, any Arab, Palestinian, Pakistani connections have extremely limited, monitored input which would be mostly monetary and very mandatory. Zero contribution means PRIME SUSPECT! Why not contribute if you're going to get the money back guaranteed? Every contribution will be vetted for viability by all parties involved. Redundant security measures in place, naturally. Them watching us watching them.

Next we get a special remote controlled 75/67 , whichever, carefully monitored for explosives being snuck on board by more redundant independant security firms on and off board right up to take off loaded with fuel. Cameras everywhere naturally.

The first thing I'll bet we see is that the plane is so difficult to control at the reported speeds on that day the remote pilot will have to throttle back or dump it, because that is exactly what will happen due to wind shear at sea level. Then the world will see what should have really happened that day. Part of the plane may penetrate. The rest will essentially scrunch into a flat aluminum pancake of flame and fall to the ground in a not too widespread heap. Hey we finally get pancake.

A plane that does dump due to loss of yaw control at high speed will be considered a completed test. Truthers win in that case. Then there'll be a lot o' "splainin' ta do. I'm sure there will also be a lot of crying and wailing, shooting, more killings, Bombings galore...but at least Israel will have lost her influence on pretty much anyone. Did I say Israel? I meant the Zionists who believe the Bible gave them Israel. The other Jews can stay wherever they want pretty much.

Truthers. Hmmm. Well I guess we can call the other side's people Liars to balance out the teams fairly. So call me a truther and make me smile then. Whad a' ya' gonna do?

Why I'd even throw in the first million as start up cap if I had the money that JREF owes me (despite the nonsense of “your a mental/liar” excuses being tossed around by forum "participants" against me). That's how important I believe such a test would be to the welfare of all those who have been given no say through the sham voting process that our fabled leaders call democracy.

Remember, engineers test for failure rates of new heavy industrial products constantly. They literally spend fortunes constantly chasing down the causes of said sheared bolts and sagging beams. Guessing about such things after the fact is and should never be an option. Just because WTC was an existing product should make it no exception, considering all the mystery surrounding the events of that day. I don't love a mystery. I hate mysteries. What I love about mysteries is solving them. This is still (well not to me as I'm sure I know who did it as well as others) a mystery that people have hated since it happened and they also would love to solve it. Taking the government's word for anything nowadays and well, any days for that matter, is not an option. Never was. That word was forced upon we the masses. That word was meant for the gullible.

Meanwhile, the ones who actually did it are just hoping the mystery haters will become so sick of waiting for the ending that they start to leave the theatre by boring us to death with inanities. Tough to do when caskets and damaged people (in mind and body) keep coming home but they try to bore us anyway. Sports anyone? I played plenty when I was younger. Even have some medals and trophies to show for it. I don't wonder how Brad and Angelina and Jen's non-triangle isn't going in a non-nosy kind of way, too. Not important in the least. Leaving this theatre that is still filled with doubters truly would be a disaster that will only lead to ever more sickening consequences. Bet on it.

Everyone has to work to make a living. Why should I be forced to work for a jerk or serve jerks if i don't want to put up with it and them anymore. Tooooooo many examples to list here. But at least I've tried. You still haven't seen a fraction of what I've written.

Violent people keep trying to push and drag this nonviolent man, yours truly, into their thoughtless sphere. Makes me sick in a big way.:boxedin:

Oh well, p break.

KCG

[finalmessenger]

fm, I was skeptical at first, but now I'm convinced: you are probably one of the most lucid and knowledgeable truthers out there.

Loved your video also. Keep up the good work! You're almost there....:cool:

I appreciate that if it isn't sarcasm. Never know with this site. Not anything new really. Just said it my way as old blue eyes might have put it.

Take care.:)

PS. Which vid do you mean?

[Newtons Bit]

well
apparently this is yours
take it
http://blog.rooftopcomedy.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/the_cake_is_a_lie_portal.jpg

The cake IS NOT A LIE!

[Grizzly Bear]

Please guys, please, please, you're going to be sorry if you engage with finalmessenger.

I.... think.... I..... see.... what......you..... meant now....... the TL;DR factor

[DavidJames]

Who's blabbering about what?Good question. This is a conspiracy theory forum, not a forum for pseudo intellectuals to pontificate mindlessly attempting to impress.

I suggest if you have a conspiracy theory to talk about, talk about it, preferably without all the extraneous self-aggrandizing ********, because at this point, that's all I'm seeing.

[A W Smith]

The last time was by the police who barged into the apartment as I was opening the door for them and they drove my face into the carpet to give me a mean bleeding rug burn on the bridge of my nose.


You should remove the Berber and switch to shag.

[Justin39640]

Just went there, sir. Seems fairly comprehensive. I have been there before, though. Thank you for trying to divert my attention from the painfully obvious yet again.

Sold plenty of fasteners in my day working in heavy industrial (and I mean heavy) and automotive and have seen plenty of shearing tests done on them. No total novice here in that regard. I'll say this to that. A bolt will stretch before she'll shear, no matter how hard it is, depending on torque applied and where.

The main problem with the bolt shearing theory is one of uniformity. There's still a hell of a lot of torque that should have made the plane twist to the right then bend at the pivot point according to angle of entry. Others have said similar things. We've all (I assume) seen car crash vids. When irresistible force meets immovable object, unfortunately for the official story pushers a thin aluminum skinned plane in this case just ain't that irresistible, no matter the (impossible) velocity at impact

So there is still the cookie cutter plane to deal with at an angled entry.

Back to ground level.

I still believe my idea about rebuilding a life size model minus many floors to save money is the best way to go.
KCG

maybe you should try turning some wrenches
hardware salesman isnt a technician (far from)
you might feel different if youve seen failures of all different types in the field

your life size model would horrify survivors, families, and witnesses
no one wants to see that again
the NIST made a full scale model virtually where it can be studied more effectively

Good question. This is a conspiracy theory forum, not a forum for pseudo intellectuals to pontificate mindlessly attempting to impress.

I suggest if you have a conspiracy theory to talk about, talk about it, preferably without all the extraneous self-aggrandizing ********, because at this point, that's all I'm seeing.

indeed

The cake IS NOT A LIE!

This was a triumph.
I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS.
It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.
Aperture Science
We do what we must
because we can.
For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake.
You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
And the Science gets done.
And you make a neat gun.
For the people who are still alive.

[twinstead]

Oh. Crap. I thought this thread was "massage from a truther". And I was feeling a little tense, too.

[Grizzly Bear]

EDIT.... never mind...

[Sean84]

I have a sudden craving for tasty tango "tort-ill-a" chips...

(From finalmessenger's posts and videos I assume they are peyote based rather than corn.)

Wait... did he admit he was stuck in the psych ward again or just on some happy pills? Either way I guess any treatment is a form of progress despite the apparent lack of it.