Message from a Truther

[alienentity]

Hi all, I've been trying to encourage this gentleman to visit Gravy's website and do some research regarding the tipping tower top mystery, but he doesn't seem very interested.

Here's what he says about himself and the main ideas he presents:

'I have a degree in Civil/Structural engineering with advanced qualifications in structural analysis, stress analysis & structural steel design.

More so than that, I have a deep understanding of applied physics. To be honest, it's not as complicated as you might think.

An already-toppled weight (sideways) cannot exert an even force (downwards).

This is very very simple physics. Please watch "9/11 - blueprint for truth". Or 9/11 revisited. (by an MIT engineer)'

And the message he sent to me:


'You seem like an intelligent man, so I have taken the time to send you a personal message.

Firstly, Im not a nut, kook or conspiracy theorist. Im not mad, mental or insane. Or indeed any of the derogatory terms that are so lovingly given to anyone who questions the official theory of 9/11.

I am a Civil/Structural engineer with advanced qualifications in Structural analysis, stress analysis & structural steel design. I have 6 years of experience in building high-rise structures . My most recent project (completed just 2 days ago) was building 4 concrete bridge replacements.
I am not prone to outbursts of conspiratorial chatter, I do not hate americans (I have many American friends in fact). I dont know you, but I can say honestly that I respect you & your current beliefs.

Until 4 months ago, like you (and millions of others) I has swallowed the official theory of 9/11 perpetuated by the US government & the mainstream media. I had seen the footage of the planes crashing into the towers & their subsequent total destruction into steel shards & concrete dust and assumed that the planes had caused this damage why wouldnt I?

I had heard of a conspiracy theory before that the hole in the pentagon wasnt big enough for a plane but instantly dismissed it as impossible that somehow these conspiracy theorists were wrong because no government would ever be so evil etc etc.
4 months ago, a lady gave me a DVD to watch it was a mix of a few different 9/11 documentaries. I grudgingly agreed to watch it after arguing with her that no matter what she said it was IMPOSSIBLE to have been an inside job on the grounds of sheer implausibility. too many people would have to be in on it it would have been on the TV if it was an inside job etc etc.
I started watching & pretty soon my jaw hit the floor. Watching the complete destruction of towers 1&2 and the freefall of building 7 I soon realized (through years of physics & engineering classes) that the observed events on September 11th were absolutely, 100% impossible due to planes/fire & gravity alone.
This created a huge dilemma for me, but I continued watching. After that, I spent every evening watching footage of the collapses, along with detailed analysis from Engineers/Physics professors & other such highly qualified individuals.
I did not want it to be true, such were the moral ramifications of it being so I visited the debunking videos & websites. Desperately seeking some validation that the truthers were wrong that somehow planes/fire & gravity DID do it that Bin Laden really WAS the bad guy but I could not find it.
Unfortunately, years & years of studying Newtons laws were getting in the way. No matter how hard I looked, and how much I WANTED the official theory to be true it isnt (unless you suspend the laws of physics that is).

To cut a long story short, the absolute proof (aside from the mountain of supporting evidence) is in the physics. You might cry thats an argument of incredulity but it really isnt. Certain things are, and indeed are not possible within the physical world.
As previously mentioned. The upper floors above the impact zones on towers 1&2, when falling toppled significantly to a side, yet the wave of destruction under these significantly imbalanced weights remained symmetrical. I know you may say theres really clever people that have already explained this but youd be wrong. It is 100% impossible for an imbalanced force to create a balanced force.
Take a second to actually mentally imagine this the TOPPLED weight (sideways) somehow creating a BALANCED force (downwards) impossible, a contradiction in terms.
Also, the OBSERVED events show that as the upper floors fell, the debris is visibly seen being propelled UPWARDS and outwards. This is 100% impossible due to gravity alone as you mentioned, gravity acts DOWNWARDS. There is literally no force to expel tones of structural steel UPWARDS (anything above the horizontal). Gravity acts downwards always without exception. There is no mechanism in a gravitational collapse to hurl debris UPWARDS. This video will show you the observed events & analysis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVqNouxDcfY
WTC7 is even more obvious. The freefall acceleration downwards of this building (that was NOT hit by a plane) is very very telling to anyone with any knowledge of physics.
Freefall is defined scientifically as a body that is falling with zero resistance to the fall. It is doing exactly that falling freely. If it encounters resistance, it is no longer free falling because the fall is not free. It has RESISTANCE. NIST were reluctant to include in their report on WTC7 that freefall occurred at all. They only added it as a side-note in the final report due to mounting pressure. What they did was take the start of collapse as when the penthouse collapsed and stopped the clock when the collapse was over.

To many (who like to let others think for them) this was conclusive proof that freefall did NOT occur. Because they took the total distance fallen & the total time to fall and worked out that it was twice the time of freefall
This is nothing more than bad science its the same as me being pulled over by the cops going 100mph and saying to the cop Im sorry sir but I cannot possibly have been going 100mph because I set off from my house one hour ago which is 60 miles away therefore my speed was 60mph
It makes sense if you dont like to think too much but we both know that average speed and point speed are two completely different things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8
Please watch this video now to truly understand WTC7.

The problem with freefall, (as admitted by NIST 2.25 seconds of PURE freefall & the rest very near to it) is that by very definition the FREEfall due to fire is 100% impossible. When a body is FREEfalling, 100% of the energy held in the body as gravitational potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy (the energy of motion). There is literally zero energy left over to do any work (the work required to bend/buckle/snap the 1000s of tones of structural steel).
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have FREEfall AND have the building bend/buckle/snap everything in its path. Again, not incredulous, just pure scientifically impossible.
If right now youre thinking Well I dont care, because I dont believe it was an inside job because loads of really clever people have said it wasnt then stop reading, go watch FOX news & go back to sleep.
If youre curious, please visit www.ae911truth.org. Theres over 650 professional engineers & architects. Their names & qualifications listed and an independent description of the 9/11 destruction. Please visit the member profiles. Look at their faces, read their words.
Then I challenge you to find me just 10% of that number of people, by name, that support the OT. Even 5% will do. And dont just say everyone at NIST, because NIST is a government controlled organization. Its circular thinking to believe theres any truth there if indeed it was an inside job.

I understand why you think the way you do. I dont want it to be true either. The truth is so massive & so horrible.. to be honest part of me wishes I didnt know it.

However, this does not change the hard facts that are NOT up for debate.
The rest of the evidence put forward by 1000s of whistleblowers & experts supports the physical evidence Nanothermite found in the WTC dust. I know its just paint right? The editor of the Open Physics journal resigned Ive heard it all. But what you must remember is that this paper has been OPEN PEER REVIEWED. Which means it is OPEN for any debunker to peer review it and fault the science involved. So far, no-one has. All theyve done is thrown **** at it tried to attack the institution, marr the reputation of those involved. But if you have any kind of a brain, ask yourself if its NOT nanothermite that they found why hasnt anyone attacked the SCIENCE involved by peer-reviewing the paper? the answer is simple because theres nothing wrong with the science & they know it.

You also mentioned that aluminium planes can slice through steel if going fast enough (or something similar) I agree the observed events at towers 1&2 show this however please look at this photograph taken from a debunking site
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWingHole.jpg/PentWingHole-full.jpg
This shows the plane hole in the pentagon. Notice the column thats been sprayed with white foam it is crisp, clean & undamaged except for maybe a crack near the top. By your logic, the aluminium planes that can slice through structural steel would it not be fair to say that this MASSIVE steel-slicing force would at least chip the concrete in a column when hitting directly? Think about it an aluminium wing that can slice through structural steel hitting a concrete column and not even taking chunk from it? How? Please tell me how this is possible
What you see in this picture is a crisp, undamaged column that does not appear to have suffered the steel-slicing force of an aluminium wing. To my eye, it looks like a crisp undamaged column with sharp, undamaged edges (with a box around it saying Hole made by right wing.

I urge you to consider these things, to watch all of the analysis available. To put your beliefs on hold for just a minute and to actually THINK. Youre a clever man and I know youre capable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ
Ill leave you with these videos. They are in jest, but the subject matter & message is accurate.

Yours,

A concerned friend.'


I'm not suggesting flaming this guy, I simply thought some of you might like to read and/or address a few of the points he's making, and hopefully he'll read the thread....

He may even post if he feels so inclined. A dialogue would be good, I think.

cheers, have a good weekend

AE

[Pardalis]

An already-toppled weight (sideways) cannot exert an even force (downwards).

Has this engineer ever heard of gravity?

[Newtons Bit]

If he's looking for people, every single engineer in my firm (we do architectural engineering: buildings) think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are bunk.

There's twelve right there.

But jeebus, this guy is a pentagon no-planer.

[alienentity]

Here's the message I sent to the commenter. I've chosen not to include his ID in case he doesn't want to get involved.

'OK, I set up a thread at JREF and included the entire text of your personal message, including links.

I appreciate you taking the time to write sincerely and respectfully, and I hope there can be some productive dialogue at JREF. It's of course your choice whether to register at JREF and discuss things... rest assured I'll be lurking in the background or posting if I have the time.

Here's a direct link to the thread, entitled 'Message from a Truther'

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4936494#post4936494

cheers

AE'

[Newtons Bit]

I would ask this fellow to do two things:

1) See this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107267 It outlines why the WTC collapses initiated. An engineer should be able to follow it easily.

2) Please provide calculations showing that the collapse is impossible (or, calculations that prove NIST wrong). However he wants to do it.

[GlennB]

The upper floors above the impact zones on towers 1&2, when falling toppled significantly to a side, yet the wave of destruction under these significantly imbalanced weights remained symmetrical.

Who says they were symmetrical? The angular momentum could have been converted to linear momentum by more debris moving outwards in the direction of the rotation. Has this person analysed to that extent? If so, how?

There is no mechanism in a gravitational collapse to hurl debris UPWARDS. This video will show you the observed events & analysis.


This is plain wrong. It's called bouncing. Watch a nearby pile of falling bricks and you need no eye-protection? His/her analysis also possibly depends on the smoke+dust plume being thought of as going upwards, when it was simply being left behind.

Sounds like standard twoofer bull, and I would doubt their claimed credentials.

[Newtons Bit]

Who says they were symmetrical? The angular momentum could have been converted to linear momentum by more debris moving outwards in the direction of the rotation. Has this person analysed to that extent? If so, how?



This is plain wrong. It's called bouncing. Watch a nearby pile of falling bricks and you need no eye-protection? His/her analysis also possibly depends on the smoke+dust plume being thought of as going upwards, when it was simply being left behind.

Sounds like standard twoofer bull, and I would doubt their claimed credentials.

Don't forget lever arms. Simple machines may exist in collapses.

[Horatius]

I call BS on him being any sort of engineer.

I started watching & pretty soon my jaw hit the floor. Watching the complete destruction of towers 1&2 and the freefall of building 7 I soon realized (through years of physics & engineering classes) that the observed events on September 11th were absolutely, 100% impossible due to planes/fire & gravity alone.


So this guy, with "years of physics & engineering classes", doesn't realize that the collapses were "100% impossible" until after watching some CT BS videos? Just seeing the collapses on TV didn't clue him in?

And then there's this issue: This fellow, and others like him at A&E911, would have us believe that skilled professionals with "years of physics & engineering classes" just happen to come to the exact same conclusions as the non-skilled non-professionals who put together the vast majority of CT videos? Did he see any claims in these videos that he dismissed as BS based on his "years" of experience?

He's no sort of engineer, he's just another Twoofer Parrot.

[Pardalis]

I have 6 years of experience in building high-rise structures . My most recent project (completed just 2 days ago) was building 4 concrete bridge replacements.

Do you have the name of that bridge, so that people avoid it?

I am not prone to outbursts of conspiratorial chatter, I do not hate americans (I have many American friends in fact). I dont know you, but I can say honestly that I respect you & your current beliefs.

Until 4 months ago, like you (and millions of others) I has swallowed the official theory of 9/11 perpetuated by the US government & the mainstream media.

OK, so he contradicts himself right off the bat, he says he doesn't hate the US, but then goes on to say its government and media are guilty of mass murder. :rolleyes:

4 months ago, a lady gave me a DVD to watch it was a mix of a few different 9/11 documentaries.

So it's a DVD (made by non-engineers) that convinced this engineer?

along with detailed analysis from Engineers/Physics professors & other such highly qualified individuals.

Such as?

Unfortunately, years & years of studying Newtons laws were getting in the way.

Physics don't stop at Newton.

Take a second to actually mentally imagine this the TOPPLED weight (sideways) somehow creating a BALANCED force (downwards) impossible, a contradiction in terms.
Also, the OBSERVED events show that as the upper floors fell, the debris is visibly seen being propelled UPWARDS and outwards. This is 100% impossible due to gravity alone as you mentioned, gravity acts DOWNWARDS.

Contradiction again. It's not like it toppled and then gravity kicked in, gravity was a factor from the start of the collapse.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have FREEfall AND have the building bend/buckle/snap everything in its path. Again, not incredulous, just pure scientifically impossible.

So controlled demolitions are not possible either?

If right now youre thinking Well I dont care, because I dont believe it was an inside job because loads of really clever people have said it wasnt then stop reading, go watch FOX news & go back to sleep.


I thought he said he respected you and your beliefs?


but I can say honestly that I respect you & your current beliefs.

:rolleyes:

If youre curious, please visit www.ae911truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org/). Theres over 650 professional engineers & architects.

650, why aren't they doing anything to help create a new investigation?

And dont just say everyone at NIST, because NIST is a government controlled organization.

That's so easy.

[Regnad Kcin]

Dear "a concerned friend":

I am in no way, shape, or form as educated in your field as you claim to be. And yet I can see the flaws in your work as presented in your initial respone. I find this interesting, but not surprising.

My advice, should you care to take it, is to not be content with your level of expertise in regard to this matter; it is failing you.

[Grizzly Bear]

You also mentioned that aluminium planes can slice through steel if going fast enough (or something similar) I agree the observed events at towers 1&2 show this however please look at this photograph taken from a debunking site
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWingHole.jpg/PentWingHole-full.jpg
This shows the plane hole in the pentagon. Notice the column thats been sprayed with white foam it is crisp, clean & undamaged except for maybe a crack near the top. By your logic, the aluminium planes that can slice through structural steel would it not be fair to say that this MASSIVE steel-slicing force would at least chip the concrete in a column when hitting directly? Think about it an aluminium wing that can slice through structural steel hitting a concrete column and not even taking chunk from it? How? Please tell me how this is possible
What you see in this picture is a crisp, undamaged column that does not appear to have suffered the steel-slicing force of an aluminium wing. To my eye, it looks like a crisp undamaged column with sharp, undamaged edges (with a box around it saying Hole made by right wing.


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.

[DavidJames]

Another 9/11 CTists who thinks the best approach to resolving engineering questions and bring mass murders to justice is post on the JREF and CT forums.

[Pardalis]

This fellow, and others like him at A&E911, would have us believe that skilled professionals with "years of physics & engineering classes" just happen to come to the exact same conclusions as the non-skilled non-professionals who put together the vast majority of CT videos? Did he see any claims in these videos that he dismissed as BS based on his "years" of experience?

You absolutely nailed it on the head.

The videos made by those non-skilled non-professionals are actually what convinced him in the first place!

[AJM8125]

No offense intended, but this looks like the style of a A&E troll who has been posting on craigslist for a few years now. If in fact this is the same person, you'll never get any kind of debate, other than canned responses and links to YouTube, the link to Gravy's page is new though. Sorry, but I believe this person is just shilling for Gage.

[T.A.M.]

I have a PhD in "The Collapse of structures greater than 300 feet in height". My thesis took 2 years to finish after I got my Masters in "Thermite and other Exothermic Chemicals, and their effects on structural steel". This I obtained over a 1.5 year period after I obtained a Science Degree with a major in applied physics.

TAM;)

[alienentity]

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.

My original comment was

'an aluminum airplane could slice thru a steel building' which is a figure of speech. I then elaborated a bit further:

'Even more counterintuitive, the actual fuel in the wing tanks was able to destroy columns - as a kind of pressure wave.

You remember that this fuel contained enough kinetic energy to blast right thru the towers and exit at high velocity on the opposite side!

That's why, on close examination by qualified people, the collapse mechanisms were understood without the need for imposing silent, unseen explosives.'

Just FYI.

[alienentity]

No offense intended, but this looks like the style of a A&E troll who has been posting on craigslist for a few years now. If in fact this is the same person, you'll never get any kind of debate, other than canned responses and links to YouTube, the link to Gravy's page is new though. Sorry, but I believe this person is just shilling for Gage.

I provided him with the link to Gravy's page.

[Pardalis]

You can tell him that he's a liar about respecting you and your "current" beliefs.

His condescending tone and his insinuations about you watching Fox News and being "asleep" say otherwise.

[alienentity]

Another 9/11 CTists who thinks the best approach to resolving engineering questions and bring mass murders to justice is post on the JREF and CT forums.

Actually, I posted this, not the original author.

[Grizzly Bear]

My original comment was

'an aluminum airplane could slice thru a steel building' which is a figure of speech. I then elaborated a bit further:

'Even more counterintuitive, the actual fuel in the wing tanks was able to destroy columns - as a kind of pressure wave.

You remember that this fuel contained enough kinetic energy to blast right thru the towers and exit at high velocity on the opposite side!

That's why, on close examination by qualified people, the collapse mechanisms were understood without the need for imposing silent, unseen explosives.'

Just FYI.
IIRC I think it did manage to tear some of the columns themselves. It's kinda both but more the momentum overwhelming the connections. The exterior panels were staggered and this pattern is visible in the impact holes for the most part. I saw something similar in close up photos of the damage to the Pentagon. In many areas the masonry bricks had actually failed along the mortar lines, the inner most hole in the E-ring where the landing gear plowed through shows this best

Also, the OBSERVED events show that as the upper floors fell, the debris is visibly seen being propelled UPWARDS and outwards. This is 100% impossible due to gravity alone as you mentioned, gravity acts DOWNWARDS. There is literally no force to expel tones of structural steel UPWARDS (anything above the horizontal). Gravity acts downwards always without exception. There is no mechanism in a gravitational collapse to hurl debris UPWARDS.
Just saw this.... My.... god...
Debris wasn't ejected upwards, the negative air pressure created in the wake of the collapse advancing ahead of the debris pulled it in. Every single video of the collapse taken either via helicopter or from afar shows this.... He took in a whole lotta half truths...

[TruthersLie]

Griz

911truthinator has a GREAT video debunking the
aluminum sliced through steel beams video on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c&feature=channel_page

[DavidJames]

Actually, I posted this, not the original author.I understand, my comment was intended for the original author, sorry for the confusion.

[jaydeehess]

This video will show you the observed events & analysis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVqNouxDcfY

Except it clearly does not show what was observed.

The graphics show an upper section that is rotating AND sliding sideways. The upper section never slid sideways. It pivoted along a line approximatly through the center of the structure as it leaned. When collapse initiated that rotational momentm would now be about the center of mass of the upper section and the section would also start falling stright down. That is to say it never had any horizontal motion (as depicted in the video) at all. Given that the bulk of the upper section was never beyond the footprint of the structure and given that gravity is the only force working on this falling mass the bulk(90%+) of the upper section mass is headed for the lower part of the building and not to one side of the structure.

Furthermore, given that the columns are obviously bent( the upper section is leaning significantly) when the columns do fail they will either bend further or snap. Now if the tower's roof line was 20 beyond the side of the lower section as it leaned this , as I said, means that the great bulk of the mass of the upper section is still over the lower section BUT the force on that mass is not being transmitted through the centeral axis of any column and when the column fails that force will simply not impinge on the lower section of that failed column. In other words, when collapse initiates the columns are no longer in line. What route then does the force and energy available then take? It impinges upon the floor pans obviously. A floorspace is constructed such that it will transfer its force due to its mass to the trusses and from truss to truss seats and thus to the columns. These members are designed to handle the forces generated by ONE basically static floorspace but we now have a very dynamic force with the mass of 10 or so floors and their associated column sections being applied to the trusses and truss seats and just as a cardboard box succumbs with little resistance to the weight of a person jumping on it, so too does the truss and seats. Now one has the mass of this newly demolished floor to add to that of the upper section)minus the relatively small amount of debris that heads off to the sides.

In fact the very fact that debris is moving outward(nothing ever goes up despite the characterisations by the TM) illustrates that the building is not in free fall. So too does the fact that the debris ejected from upper levels reachs the ground before the collapse zone.
In fact in order for the building to have been in free fall all columns on every floor would have to have failed at the same time, and in true CD's little or no debris is ejected despite hundreds or even thousands of pounds of high explosives being loaded into them.
Again on the 2.25 seconds he writes;
When a body is FREEfalling, 100% of the energy held in the body as gravitational potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy (the energy of motion). There is literally zero energy left over to do any work (the work required to bend/buckle/snap the 1000s of tones of structural steel).
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have FREEfall AND have the building bend/buckle/snap everything in its path. Again, not incredulous, just pure scientifically impossible.

This is IF there is any structure being bend, buckled, or snapped during that time, by the part of the structure that is visible to observers at that time. He assumes that this is so. He assumes that all there is to what is occuring is what is observable in the videos.


2.25 seconds of free fall of WTC 7; Seismic data illustrates that the building was collapsing internally and externally for a total of approx 18 seconds. IIRC NIST states that during that 2.25 seconds the north wall is seen to be in essentially free fall. That is to say that as far as it is measurable that the material was falling at an acelleration of 1 g. Given that by this time there was no internal structure left and that the internal damage would have spread at ground level, as internal debris hit the ground, it would not be suprising to have had the lower portions of the exterior columns knocked out at ground level which would put the north wall into a free fall situation.


Notice the column thats been sprayed with white foam it is crisp, clean & undamaged except for maybe a crack near the top................
.........What you see in this picture is a crisp, undamaged column that does not appear to have suffered the steel-slicing force of an aluminium wing. To my eye, it looks like a crisp undamaged column with sharp, undamaged edges (with a box around it saying Hole made by right wing.)


What he is showing is a picture of a column in which the camera is far enough away to obscure details and which is covered in FF'ing foam so his comment that it is crisp and undamaged is patently ridiculous. Due to the foam and the camera placement we cannot ascertain from this photo whether or not a chunk is missing from this column, or if it is cracked along its length, or leaning away from the camera. It is also near the far end of where the starboard wing impacted and one notices that the column to the left is quite substantially damaged(where the wing is heavier. Furthermore the aircraft impact banked slightly to port putting the outer portion of the starboard wing higher on the column than the portion of the wing more inboard of that. He actually mentions that the column he is qquestioning has a crack along the top, where the wing section would have been.

Next we notice that the entire front wall for approx 90 to 100 feet is missing. The bricks and concrete for this wall is not seen on the area in front o the Pentagon so it must be inside. This illustrates that whatever force did this deed it acted on the outside of the wall, not from inside towards the outside. This means it was not a bomb inside the Pentagon nor was it a missile that penetrated the wall then blew up inside. This is also obvious in that there are no exterior walls between the 100 foot wide entrance damage and the 10 foot wide exit damage and so any large explosive going off inside that space should have affected the rear wall and the front wall very similarly and it did not. The debris of the much smaller exit hole is all lieing there outside the structure. This again illustrates that it was a force that acted along a line and in a direction from, front wall to back wall.

There was a large generator on site. It was damaged, banged by something that caused the entire generator to move in a direction towards the building. Again illustrating that there was not a force acted from inside the front wall to the outside.

Where are these apartments and bridges? I really need to know in order to plan to never be in/on them. Its possible that he builds well but it does not bode well for him , his complete mischaracterization of events.

[16.5]

"The rest of the evidence put forward by 1000s of whistleblowers & experts supports the physical evidence Nanothermite found in the WTC dust. I know its just paint right? The editor of the Open Physics journal resigned Ive heard it all. But what you must remember is that this paper has been OPEN PEER REVIEWED. Which means it is OPEN for any debunker to peer review it and fault the science involved."

Uh, that ain't what an open journal even means. But any way, there is a thread here demonstrating why Jones and the boys are a bunch of frauds.

If Jones and the boys want us to study their samples, by all means, tell them to send us the samples. Until then, "concerned shill" don't waste our time.

[jaydeehess]

I have a PhD in "The Collapse of structures greater than 300 feet in height". My thesis took 2 years to finish after I got my Masters in "Thermite and other Exothermic Chemicals, and their effects on structural steel". This I obtained over a 1.5 year period after I obtained a Science Degree with a major in applied physics.

TAM;)

We should co-write a paper , I too have the same degrees and bric-a-brac.:D

,,, and my wife is Morgan Fairchild,,, yeah, yeah that's the ticket.

[T.A.M.]

We should co-write a paper , I too have the same degrees and bric-a-brac.:D

,,, and my wife is Morgan Fairchild,,, yeah, yeah that's the ticket.

Well she was my first wife, and then I left her. Now I am married to Jennifer Lopez, while secretly dating Selma Heyak.

TAM:D

[dudalb]

He got his degrees in Engineering at the same univesity where Jenny McCarthy got her M.D.

[jaydeehess]

Hi all, I've been trying to encourage this gentleman to visit Gravy's website and do some research regarding the tipping tower top mystery, but he doesn't seem very interested.

Here's what he says about himself and the main ideas he presents:

'I have a degree in Civil/Structural engineering with advanced qualifications in structural analysis, stress analysis & structural steel design.

More so than that, I have a deep understanding of applied physics. To be honest, it's not as complicated as you might think.
.............
.....AE[/B][/I]

I thought I had seen this somewhere before but the guy I had in mind put it a different way. He said:
Look, Mr. jaydeehess, I am a professional engineer. I've had umpteen math, science, physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, materials science plus mechanical, chemical, electrical, nuclear and computer engineering classes, plus decades of experience in practice, not to mention 6 years experience as a nuclear engineer and 15 years as a computer scientist. I know what I am talking about. You do not. And that is my professional opinion.


I have my doubts about both guys

[jaydeehess]

Well she was my first wife, and then I left her. Now I am married to Jennifer Lopez, while secretly dating Selma Heyak.

TAM:D

I had to give up dating when the CIA had my brain installed in a machine and forced me to debunk 911 conspiracy theories all day long.
,, how is Jenny from the block now. Tell her I miss our afternoon delights.:D

[bill smith]

If he's looking for people, every single engineer in my firm (we do architectural engineering: buildings) think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are bunk.

There's twelve right there.

But jeebus, this guy is a pentagon no-planer.

I thought it was a fantastic letter. Honest, heartfelt and right on the money. Personallly I would say that this guy educates and converts every which way he turns. And qualified down to the bone by the looks of it. let's hope he shows up here.

[twinstead]

I thought it was a fantastic letter. Honest, heartfelt and right on the money. Personallly I would say that this guy educates and converts every which way he turns. And qualified down to the bone by the looks of it. let's hope he shows up here.

Oh, come on bill, you wouldn't just be saying that because the guy is telling you what you want to hear, would you? Oh, I know you would NEVER do that, would you bill?

[jaydeehess]

I thought it was a fantastic letter. Honest, heartfelt and right on the money. Personallly I would say that this guy educates and converts every which way he turns. And qualified down to the bone by the looks of it. let's hope he shows up here.

See post #20 and #23 bill. He is far from 'on the money'.

But then physics and math have never been your long suit.

[bill smith]

In case that guy shows up I would like to make these clips available to him. What he says about a tipping body exerting an asymmetrical force is of course 100% accurate.Any fool can see that much. But does he have any possible explanation for how so much of the core of WTC2 could have remained standing while still permitting the tilt to halt and be converted instantly into a directly downwards direction THROUGH all this steel ? Even though there is a graphic overlay for a second or two of what the core would have looked like intact it is also plain that he ACTUAL remaining core was not that much less intact than the overlay.
Does he have any comment ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Short version
http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://s.mcstatic.com/thumb/365696/2648301/4/catalog_item5/0/1/wtc_2_core_took_30_secs_to_collapse.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.metacafe.com/channels/aussiestorm/&usg=__BoOwZ5fWkMwSGAzPH0eY5ZZFimA=&h=89&w=136&sz=4&hl=en&start=69&tbnid=L-8ToLjqczH2lM:&tbnh=60&tbnw=92&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcore%2Bwtc2%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26h l%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D60 longer version

PS. For the second video scroll down to the clip entitled 'WTC2 core took 30 seconds to collapse'.

[Lupie]

First, this truther would like people to believe he is an engineer, as well as a mature, serious, and
professional individual. He then turns around and drops a bunch of typical juvenile truther insults.

Actual professionals dealing with such serious subjects as 9/11 don't need to use arrogant
smart-mouthed insults to make their point and prove that their research is indeed legitimate.

L.

[HeyLeroy]

I call BS on him being any sort of engineer.
(snip)

Seconded.

Also, the OBSERVED events show that as the upper floors fell, the debris is visibly seen being propelled UPWARDS and outwards.

http://cdn.vidilife.com/image/2006/10/10/946639/1235879L.gif

[jaydeehess]

In case that guy shows up I would like to make these clips available to him. What he says about a tipping body exerting an asymmetrical force is of course 100% accurate.Any fool can see that much. But does he have any possible explanation for how so much of the core of WTC2 could have remained standing while still permitting the tilt to halt and be converted instantly into a directly downwards direction THROUGH all this steel ? Even though there is a graphic overlay for a second or two of what the core would have looked like intact it is also plain that he ACTUAL remaining core was not that much less intact than the overlay.
Does he have any comment ?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Short version
http://images.google.nl/imgres?imgurl=http://s.mcstatic.com/thumb/365696/2648301/4/catalog_item5/0/1/wtc_2_core_took_30_secs_to_collapse.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.metacafe.com/channels/aussiestorm/&usg=__BoOwZ5fWkMwSGAzPH0eY5ZZFimA=&h=89&w=136&sz=4&hl=en&start=69&tbnid=L-8ToLjqczH2lM:&tbnh=60&tbnw=92&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcore%2Bwtc2%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26h l%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D60 longer version

bill, bill, bill, you know what a 2X4 is right?

Take one and stand it upright on a second one. You will of course have to hold them there. Now, while holding the lower one steady allow the top one to tip over. Is it moving sideways along the top of the lower one? No, it is not. It is pivoting along the edge towards its lean. That is not what is shown in the graphics in the youtube vid. That graphic shows a top section that is sliding.

Next align the lumber again and now , just as the upper one begins to rotate (i.e. its top is not completely out of line with the lower 2X4) quickly kick the lower 2X4 out and note where the upper one falls. Directly on the spot where the other one was! gravity acts downward and once allowed to fall that stick of lumber fell straight down even if it was not completely vertical as it did so. The small amount of rotational momentum it had obtained as it tilted on top of the other one would have instantly converted to rotating it about its center of mass but even that rotation would be slow and it therefore barely rotates any more before it hits the ground.

Same goes for the upper tower section. It had tilted and had some rotational momentum but as soon as the columns that made up its pivot failed (some under compression, some under tension) it no longer could rotate by pivoting on its base. It could only rotate about its center of mass. That center of mass and indeed the great bulk of the mass and volume of the upper section was still over the lower part of the tower and gravity sent that straight down. It cannot send it sideways. The mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads, thus the floors fail, after this occurs over 4 or 5 floors the columns have lost so much lateral bracing and are being buffeted by the falling debris and they too cannot remain standing.

The interior of the structure fails as debris collapsed floor after floor some of this debris outpacing the destruction of the perimeter column system. The collapse zone probably widened and encompassed a dozen floors with very large dense objects like elevator motors, transformers, and air conditioning units punching through floors ahead of the exterior collapse.

A small portion of the interior core survived the collapse but it was far too unstable to remain standing on its own and it buckled and fell.

Clear now?

[Brainster]

This is very very simple physics. Please watch "9/11 - blueprint for truth". Or 9/11 revisited. (by an MIT engineer)'

An MIT electrical engineer who went into medicine.

Unfortunately, years & years of studying Newtons laws were getting in the way. No matter how hard I looked, and how much I WANTED the official theory to be true it isnt (unless you suspend the laws of physics that is).

This is another oddity about his story; he talks about how much studying he did.

Also, the OBSERVED events show that as the upper floors fell, the debris is visibly seen being propelled UPWARDS and outwards. This is 100% impossible due to gravity alone as you mentioned, gravity acts DOWNWARDS. There is literally no force to expel tones of structural steel UPWARDS (anything above the horizontal). Gravity acts downwards always without exception. There is no mechanism in a gravitational collapse to hurl debris UPWARDS. This video will show you the observed events & analysis.


That is so stupid, I can't believe even a troofer would buy it. When you look at videos of the collapse you do not see any debris being propelled upwards at all. That is simply an artifact of still images, which due to dust trails and smoke appear to indicate that had happened above where the photo is taken. But look at a video and you will not see anything going upwards except some airborne dust.

[Caustic Logic]

I always wish I could offer better analysis of the structural stuff, but not enough to go and learn it step by step. But this whole 'force must be uniform to crush things' don't sound right.

The BS flag indeed should go up here, did for me in the first sentences. EVEN if he's a engineer Never trust someone who says "I am total expert, trust me, and a total paranoid rationalist who AT FIRST believed the government story, but then I looked at the science..."

I am an actual paranoid type at heart, and trust me, it works the opposite direction from that. I started out suspicious, then got twoofy, then looked at the science and came back around to the "official story". It's possible for someone to do it the other way, but not as often as "Truthers' present it as their own stories. Calculated bogusness.

You could say the "expert at first believing the gov story" part makes sense, and then just question what the hell went wrong afterwards.

Let your friend know you don't buy it

[Comsat Angel]

First step, validate:

"I am a Civil/Structural engineer with advanced qualifications in Structural analysis, stress analysis & structural steel design. I have 6 years of experience in building high-rise structures . My most recent project (completed just 2 days ago) was building 4 concrete bridge replacements."

Can they provide names, qualifications, educational institutions, dates and structures to support their supposed professional expertise? Otherwise, "building 4 concrete bridge replacements" simply equates to a shovel-jockey mixing cement.

[Stellafane]

...Im not a nut, kook or conspiracy theorist. Im not mad, mental or insane...

This is the first of his claims with which I heartily disagree. Either that, or he's simply a liar.

I hate to be so blunt about it, but really, is there any other way to describe him? I mean, he even buys into the "no plane" stuff, which is too crazy for even "mainstream" Truthers. No rational person would possibly believe this. So if he's rational, he's not being truthful. And if he's truthful, he's not being rational.

[FineWine]

Hi all, I've been trying to encourage this gentleman to visit Gravy's website and do some research regarding the tipping tower top mystery, but he doesn't seem very interested.

Here's what he says about himself and the main ideas he presents:

'I have a degree in Civil/Structural engineering with advanced qualifications in structural analysis, stress analysis & structural steel design.

More so than that, I have a deep understanding of applied physics. To be honest, it's not as complicated as you might think.

An already-toppled weight (sideways) cannot exert an even force (downwards).

This is very very simple physics. Please watch "9/11 - blueprint for truth". Or 9/11 revisited. (by an MIT engineer)'

And the message he sent to me:


'You seem like an intelligent man, so I have taken the time to send you a personal message.

Firstly, Im not a nut, kook or conspiracy theorist. Im not mad, mental or insane. Or indeed any of the derogatory terms that are so lovingly given to anyone who questions the official theory of 9/11.

I am a Civil/Structural engineer with advanced qualifications in Structural analysis, stress analysis & structural steel design. I have 6 years of experience in building high-rise structures . My most recent project (completed just 2 days ago) was building 4 concrete bridge replacements.
I am not prone to outbursts of conspiratorial chatter, I do not hate americans (I have many American friends in fact). I dont know you, but I can say honestly that I respect you & your current beliefs.

Until 4 months ago, like you (and millions of others) I has swallowed the official theory of 9/11 perpetuated by the US government & the mainstream media. I had seen the footage of the planes crashing into the towers & their subsequent total destruction into steel shards & concrete dust and assumed that the planes had caused this damage why wouldnt I?

I had heard of a conspiracy theory before that the hole in the pentagon wasnt big enough for a plane but instantly dismissed it as impossible that somehow these conspiracy theorists were wrong because no government would ever be so evil etc etc.
4 months ago, a lady gave me a DVD to watch it was a mix of a few different 9/11 documentaries. I grudgingly agreed to watch it after arguing with her that no matter what she said it was IMPOSSIBLE to have been an inside job on the grounds of sheer implausibility. too many people would have to be in on it it would have been on the TV if it was an inside job etc etc.
I started watching & pretty soon my jaw hit the floor. Watching the complete destruction of towers 1&2 and the freefall of building 7 I soon realized (through years of physics & engineering classes) that the observed events on September 11th were absolutely, 100% impossible due to planes/fire & gravity alone.
This created a huge dilemma for me, but I continued watching. After that, I spent every evening watching footage of the collapses, along with detailed analysis from Engineers/Physics professors & other such highly qualified individuals.
I did not want it to be true, such were the moral ramifications of it being so I visited the debunking videos & websites. Desperately seeking some validation that the truthers were wrong that somehow planes/fire & gravity DID do it that Bin Laden really WAS the bad guy but I could not find it.
Unfortunately, years & years of studying Newtons laws were getting in the way. No matter how hard I looked, and how much I WANTED the official theory to be true it isnt (unless you suspend the laws of physics that is).

To cut a long story short, the absolute proof (aside from the mountain of supporting evidence) is in the physics. You might cry thats an argument of incredulity but it really isnt. Certain things are, and indeed are not possible within the physical world.
As previously mentioned. The upper floors above the impact zones on towers 1&2, when falling toppled significantly to a side, yet the wave of destruction under these significantly imbalanced weights remained symmetrical. I know you may say theres really clever people that have already explained this but youd be wrong. It is 100% impossible for an imbalanced force to create a balanced force.
Take a second to actually mentally imagine this the TOPPLED weight (sideways) somehow creating a BALANCED force (downwards) impossible, a contradiction in terms.
Also, the OBSERVED events show that as the upper floors fell, the debris is visibly seen being propelled UPWARDS and outwards. This is 100% impossible due to gravity alone as you mentioned, gravity acts DOWNWARDS. There is literally no force to expel tones of structural steel UPWARDS (anything above the horizontal). Gravity acts downwards always without exception. There is no mechanism in a gravitational collapse to hurl debris UPWARDS. This video will show you the observed events & analysis.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVqNouxDcfY
WTC7 is even more obvious. The freefall acceleration downwards of this building (that was NOT hit by a plane) is very very telling to anyone with any knowledge of physics.
Freefall is defined scientifically as a body that is falling with zero resistance to the fall. It is doing exactly that falling freely. If it encounters resistance, it is no longer free falling because the fall is not free. It has RESISTANCE. NIST were reluctant to include in their report on WTC7 that freefall occurred at all. They only added it as a side-note in the final report due to mounting pressure. What they did was take the start of collapse as when the penthouse collapsed and stopped the clock when the collapse was over.

To many (who like to let others think for them) this was conclusive proof that freefall did NOT occur. Because they took the total distance fallen & the total time to fall and worked out that it was twice the time of freefall
This is nothing more than bad science its the same as me being pulled over by the cops going 100mph and saying to the cop Im sorry sir but I cannot possibly have been going 100mph because I set off from my house one hour ago which is 60 miles away therefore my speed was 60mph
It makes sense if you dont like to think too much but we both know that average speed and point speed are two completely different things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8
Please watch this video now to truly understand WTC7.

The problem with freefall, (as admitted by NIST 2.25 seconds of PURE freefall & the rest very near to it) is that by very definition the FREEfall due to fire is 100% impossible. When a body is FREEfalling, 100% of the energy held in the body as gravitational potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy (the energy of motion). There is literally zero energy left over to do any work (the work required to bend/buckle/snap the 1000s of tones of structural steel).
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have FREEfall AND have the building bend/buckle/snap everything in its path. Again, not incredulous, just pure scientifically impossible.
If right now youre thinking Well I dont care, because I dont believe it was an inside job because loads of really clever people have said it wasnt then stop reading, go watch FOX news & go back to sleep.
If youre curious, please visit www.ae911truth.org. Theres over 650 professional engineers & architects. Their names & qualifications listed and an independent description of the 9/11 destruction. Please visit the member profiles. Look at their faces, read their words.
Then I challenge you to find me just 10% of that number of people, by name, that support the OT. Even 5% will do. And dont just say everyone at NIST, because NIST is a government controlled organization. Its circular thinking to believe theres any truth there if indeed it was an inside job.

I understand why you think the way you do. I dont want it to be true either. The truth is so massive & so horrible.. to be honest part of me wishes I didnt know it.

However, this does not change the hard facts that are NOT up for debate.
The rest of the evidence put forward by 1000s of whistleblowers & experts supports the physical evidence Nanothermite found in the WTC dust. I know its just paint right? The editor of the Open Physics journal resigned Ive heard it all. But what you must remember is that this paper has been OPEN PEER REVIEWED. Which means it is OPEN for any debunker to peer review it and fault the science involved. So far, no-one has. All theyve done is thrown **** at it tried to attack the institution, marr the reputation of those involved. But if you have any kind of a brain, ask yourself if its NOT nanothermite that they found why hasnt anyone attacked the SCIENCE involved by peer-reviewing the paper? the answer is simple because theres nothing wrong with the science & they know it.

You also mentioned that aluminium planes can slice through steel if going fast enough (or something similar) I agree the observed events at towers 1&2 show this however please look at this photograph taken from a debunking site
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/PentWingHole.jpg/PentWingHole-full.jpg
This shows the plane hole in the pentagon. Notice the column thats been sprayed with white foam it is crisp, clean & undamaged except for maybe a crack near the top. By your logic, the aluminium planes that can slice through structural steel would it not be fair to say that this MASSIVE steel-slicing force would at least chip the concrete in a column when hitting directly? Think about it an aluminium wing that can slice through structural steel hitting a concrete column and not even taking chunk from it? How? Please tell me how this is possible
What you see in this picture is a crisp, undamaged column that does not appear to have suffered the steel-slicing force of an aluminium wing. To my eye, it looks like a crisp undamaged column with sharp, undamaged edges (with a box around it saying Hole made by right wing.

I urge you to consider these things, to watch all of the analysis available. To put your beliefs on hold for just a minute and to actually THINK. Youre a clever man and I know youre capable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7U22m9xLrQ
Ill leave you with these videos. They are in jest, but the subject matter & message is accurate.

Yours,

A concerned friend.'


I'm not suggesting flaming this guy, I simply thought some of you might like to read and/or address a few of the points he's making, and hopefully he'll read the thread....

He may even post if he feels so inclined. A dialogue would be good, I think.

cheers, have a good weekend

AE



The comments about NIST being "government-controlled" and FOX News give away this fraud's game. Another day, another stupid, lying "truther."

[bill smith]

bill, bill, bill, you know what a 2X4 is right?

Take one and stand it upright on a second one. You will of course have to hold them there. Now, while holding the lower one steady allow the top one to tip over. Is it moving sideways along the top of the lower one? No, it is not. It is pivoting along the edge towards its lean. That is not what is shown in the graphics in the youtube vid. That graphic shows a top section that is sliding.

Next align the lumber again and now , just as the upper one begins to rotate (i.e. its top is not completely out of line with the lower 2X4) quickly kick the lower 2X4 out and note where the upper one falls. Directly on the spot where the other one was! gravity acts downward and once allowed to fall that stick of lumber fell straight down even if it was not completely vertical as it did so. The small amount of rotational momentum it had obtained as it tilted on top of the other one would have instantly converted to rotating it about its center of mass but even that rotation would be slow and it therefore barely rotates any more before it hits the ground.

Same goes for the upper tower section. It had tilted and had some rotational momentum but as soon as the columns that made up its pivot failed (some under compression, some under tension) it no longer could rotate by pivoting on its base. It could only rotate about its center of mass. That center of mass and indeed the great bulk of the mass and volume of the upper section was still over the lower part of the tower and gravity sent that straight down. It cannot send it sideways. The mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads, thus the floors fail, after this occurs over 4 or 5 floors the columns have lost so much lateral bracing and are being buffeted by the falling debris and they too cannot remain standing.

The interior of the structure fails as debris collapsed floor after floor some of this debris outpacing the destruction of the perimeter column system. The collapse zone probably widened and encompassed a dozen floors with very large dense objects like elevator motors, transformers, and air conditioning units punching through floors ahead of the exterior collapse.

A small portion of the interior core survived the collapse but it was far too unstable to remain standing on its own and it buckled and fell.

Clear now?

Not really.

I don't particularly want to get into arguing this- I am basically a WTC1 person. But just a few general obcervations on what you said

' The graphics show an upper section that is rotating AND sliding sideways '

'Sliding sidways ' ? Was it disconnected from the lower block ?


'....quickly kick the lower 2X4 out and note where the upper one falls! gravity acts downward and once allowed to fall that stick of lumber fell straight down even if it was not completely vertical as it did so.'

This didn't happen as can be seen by the massive remaining core that was still in the way as seen in the videos. (even though I had formerly asumed that the lower pertion had been removed by controlled demolition in order to stop the upper block falling off the side and giving the game away)


'...mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads '

Really ?


'A small portion of the interior core survived the collapse but it was far too unstable to remain standing on its own and it buckled and fell.'

Small portion ? You may be mistaken.Look at the video again (attached below)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Short version

[Comsat Angel]

Also, the "WOW! I was a pillar of the Establishment/NWO shill/American patriot who was all-aboard the OCT until I saw this amazing Youtube clip that totally turned my life around!" meme is all too typically Twoofer.

I may be wrong on this, but I ain't taking bets.

[Dave Rogers]

Wow. What a pile of classic trutherism. This guy may have taken some physics classes, but he wasn't awake.

As previously mentioned. The upper floors above the impact zones on towers 1&2, when falling toppled significantly to a side, yet the wave of destruction under these significantly imbalanced weights remained symmetrical.

Simply not true.

I know you may say theres really clever people that have already explained this but youd be wrong. It is 100% impossible for an imbalanced force to create a balanced force.
Take a second to actually mentally imagine this the TOPPLED weight (sideways) somehow creating a BALANCED force (downwards) impossible, a contradiction in terms.

There's no physics to see here. The concept of a "toppled weight" has no meaning.

Also, the OBSERVED events show that as the upper floors fell, the debris is visibly seen being propelled UPWARDS and outwards.

Not true. If you only look at stills, it appears as if debris is being thrown upwards because it's higher than the roofline at that moment; but from videos, it's clear that nothing is moving upwards. Rather, the roofline is falling faster than the dust, which is exactly what you'd expect; the viscous drag of the air on dust particles is significant compared with the force due to gravity, so they fall more slowly. So:

This is 100% impossible due to gravity alone as you mentioned, gravity acts DOWNWARDS. There is literally no force to expel tones of structural steel UPWARDS (anything above the horizontal). Gravity acts downwards always without exception. There is no mechanism in a gravitational collapse to hurl debris UPWARDS.

is an attempt to explain something that never happened.

WTC7 is even more obvious. The freefall acceleration downwards of this building (that was NOT hit by a plane) is very very telling to anyone with any knowledge of physics.
Freefall is defined scientifically as a body that is falling with zero resistance to the fall. It is doing exactly that falling freely. If it encounters resistance, it is no longer free falling because the fall is not free. It has RESISTANCE. NIST were reluctant to include in their report on WTC7 that freefall occurred at all. They only added it as a side-note in the final report due to mounting pressure. What they did was take the start of collapse as when the penthouse collapsed and stopped the clock when the collapse was over.

"Reluctant" is just speculation here; NIST didn't originally comment that part of the collapse was at near freefall acceleration, but agreed with the observation when it was pointed out to them. So:

To many (who like to let others think for them) this was conclusive proof that freefall did NOT occur. Because they took the total distance fallen & the total time to fall and worked out that it was twice the time of freefall
This is nothing more than bad science its the same as me being pulled over by the cops going 100mph and saying to the cop Im sorry sir but I cannot possibly have been going 100mph because I set off from my house one hour ago which is 60 miles away therefore my speed was 60mph
It makes sense if you dont like to think too much but we both know that average speed and point speed are two completely different things.

is, again, trying to explain fiction.

The problem with freefall, (as admitted by NIST 2.25 seconds of PURE freefall & the rest very near to it) is that by very definition the FREEfall due to fire is 100% impossible.

Freefall due to fire? Dude, what? At this point I can almost see the spittle forming around the corners of the mouth. Rational thought is seriously inhibited from here on in the rant. May be best not to pass that bit on to him.

When a body is FREEfalling, 100% of the energy held in the body as gravitational potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy (the energy of motion). There is literally zero energy left over to do any work (the work required to bend/buckle/snap the 1000s of tones of structural steel).
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have FREEfall AND have the building bend/buckle/snap everything in its path. Again, not incredulous, just pure scientifically impossible.

This is a fatally flawed analysis. It assumes that breakage of structural members must be taking place at all times during the collapse, and that gravity is the only force acting at any time on any individual part of the structure. If a large section of the building collapses, removing support over a significant height, the section above will fall at freefall ecceleration until it contacts the next intact part of the structure. If part of the falling structure is struck by, or experiences a force through a structural member connecting it to, a faster-falling part, then it may accelerate faster than freefall over a limited part of the collapse, because gravity is now not the only force acting on it.

If right now youre thinking Well I dont care, because I dont believe it was an inside job because loads of really clever people have said it wasnt then stop reading, go watch FOX news & go back to sleep.
If youre curious, please visit www.ae911truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org). Theres over 650 professional engineers & architects. Their names & qualifications listed and an independent description of the 9/11 destruction. Please visit the member profiles. Look at their faces,

OK so far, but...

read their words.

And at that point this whole line of argument falls apart, because they all say different things, all of them demonstrably wrong.

Then I challenge you to find me just 10% of that number of people, by name, that support the OT. Even 5% will do. And dont just say everyone at NIST, because NIST is a government controlled organization. Its circular thinking to believe theres any truth there if indeed it was an inside job.

And this is a classic conspiracy theorist's fallacy: there is no objective way to assess the truth value of a proposition, therefore appeal to authority is the only argument, and authorities disagreeing with the conspiracy theory are unreliable because they may be part of the conspiracy. As a result, only evidence for the conspiracy may be used to determine whether there was a conspiracy. Classic confirmation bias.

I understand why you think the way you do. I dont want it to be true either. The truth is so massive & so horrible.. to be honest part of me wishes I didnt know it.

BS. Deep down, he thinks it's really cool that he's the one who knows The Truth[tm], although he's never actually going to do anything about it.

However, this does not change the hard facts that are NOT up for debate.

What a strange comment. If the facts can't be debated, then we're talking about thought control. As usual, the truthers actually want to suppress all dissent, just like their imaginary conspirators. Classic truther projection.

The rest of the evidence put forward by 1000s of whistleblowers & experts supports the physical evidence Nanothermite found in the WTC dust. I know its just paint right? The editor of the Open Physics journal resigned Ive heard it all. But what you must remember is that this paper has been OPEN PEER REVIEWED. Which means it is OPEN for any debunker to peer review it and fault the science involved. So far, no-one has. All theyve done is thrown **** at it tried to attack the institution, marr the reputation of those involved. But if you have any kind of a brain, ask yourself if its NOT nanothermite that they found why hasnt anyone attacked the SCIENCE involved by peer-reviewing the paper? the answer is simple because theres nothing wrong with the science & they know it.

Sunstealer, are you reading this? Apparently your thorough and rigorous dissection and demolition of Harrit et al on this forum never happened. Sorry, but apparently you don't exist. And nor do quite a few others among us who've pointed out the many fatal flaws of Harrit et al.

You also mentioned that aluminium planes can slice through steel if going fast enough (or something similar) I agree the observed events at towers 1&2 show this however please look at this photograph taken from a debunking site
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Pent...gHole-full.jpg
This shows the plane hole in the pentagon. Notice the column thats been sprayed with white foam it is crisp, clean & undamaged except for maybe a crack near the top. By your logic, the aluminium planes that can slice through structural steel would it not be fair to say that this MASSIVE steel-slicing force would at least chip the concrete in a column when hitting directly? Think about it an aluminium wing that can slice through structural steel hitting a concrete column and not even taking chunk from it? How? Please tell me how this is possible
What you see in this picture is a crisp, undamaged column that does not appear to have suffered the steel-slicing force of an aluminium wing. To my eye, it looks like a crisp undamaged column with sharp, undamaged edges (with a box around it saying Hole made by right wing.

And he can tell all that from a distant feature on a digital photo, despite the fact that the white foam on the column could do a very good job of hiding any damage to it. This is another classic case of a truther making something up, then demanding an explanation for it.

Alienentity, I don't see much hope for this one in the short term; he's a long way from even being able to see the evidence, let alone assess it objectively. He may join the forum, but I suspect he'll find himself so idealogically blinded to reason that he'll either run away or commit suicide by mod. I'd like to think I was wrong, but... well, you guys all know as well as I do.

Dave

[eromitlab]

Also, the "WOW! I was a pillar of the Establishment/NWO shill/American patriot who was all-aboard the OCT until I saw this amazing Youtube clip that totally turned my life around!" meme is all too typically Twoofer.

I may be wrong on this, but I ain't taking bets.

It so neatly feeds in to the truther fantasy that their current "efforts" (making youtube videos, proselytizing on the internet, burning DVD copies of their pseudodocumentaries, leaving said DVD copies lying around like so many religious tracts, and so on) are all that's needed to "wake the sheeple up", "get the word out", effect their change in their world and also like such as. Truthers don't want to go to the effort of doing anything more than that, so they like a story that proves to themselves and others that they don't need to step up their efforts... being a Keyboard Warrior For 9/11 Truth is sufficient to yield great rewards once all the sheeple turn against the OCT and venerate those brave patriots who were getting the word out before it was widely believed.

[bill smith]

It so neatly feeds in to the truther fantasy that their current "efforts" (making youtube videos, proselytizing on the internet, burning DVD copies of their pseudodocumentaries, leaving said DVD copies lying around like so many religious tracts, and so on) are all that's needed to "wake the sheeple up", "get the word out", effect their change in their world and also like such as. Truthers don't want to go to the effort of doing anything more than that, so they like a story that proves to themselves and others that they don't need to step up their efforts... being a Keyboard Warrior For 9/11 Truth is sufficient to yield great rewards once all the sheeple turn against the OCT and venerate those brave patriots who were getting the word out before it was widely believed.

On that note this seems apt.

'In the beginning a patriot is a scarce man, hated and feared and scorned. But in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him, because then it costs nothing to be a patriot '.
---Mark Twain

[jaydeehess]

Not really.

I don't particularly want to get into arguing this- I am basically a WTC1 person. I don't know what that means bill. You only know much on anything about tower 1? Ok fine

But just a few general obcervations on what you said

' The graphics show an upper section that is rotating AND sliding sideways '

'Sliding sidways ' ? Was it disconnected from the lower block ?

Yes it shows an graphic(ie. a diagram bill) of the towers in which the upper section has not only tilted but also moved sideways such that the bottom of the upper section is beyond the sides of the tower. This means that it had to have moved sideways. Nice diagram but it has no bearing or resembelance to what was observed to have occured with the WTC tower.

'....quickly kick the lower 2X4 out and note where the upper one falls! gravity acts downward and once allowed to fall that stick of lumber fell straight down even if it was not completely vertical as it did so.'
This didn't happen as can be seen by the massive remaining core that was still in the way as seen in the videos. (even though I had formerly asumed that the lower pertion had been removed by controlled demolition in order to stop the upper block falling off the side and giving the game away)

The point is bill that the upper section was allowed to fall, in the direction gravity would take it, once the coluimns failed. I was using the lumber to illustrate that once falling a mass will fall straight down and that when the upper section of the tower began its fal it would be falling straight down, again bill that is the direction gravity works its magic everytime all the time.

I was not attempting to say that part of the lower columns suddenly disappeared. They did howver fail and buckle allowing the upper section to drop.



'...mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads '

Really ?

Yes really. Just how could it be doing anything other than that bill?


'A small portion of the interior core survived the collapse but it was far too unstable to remain standing on its own and it buckled and fell.'

Small portion ? You may be mistaken.Look at the video again (attached below)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Short version

too bad the video stops at "this suggested a particular method of collapse that the video helped confirm......."

However I was refering to the so called spire that remained at the end of the total collapse whereas the reference you cite refers to part of the core remaining as initial collapse begins. The two instances being separated by about 12 seconds and 1000 vertical feet. You would not happen to have a link to that entire docuementary would you?

[Thunder]

Truthers and their ideas have become very boring.

[Stellafane]

This may be an observation ultimately destined for AAH, but...I believe the Truther presence in this forum has just about reached rock bottom. Granted, even in its heyday it was never exactly Einsteinian level. But at least it was interesting enough once in a while to provoke a little response -- humor, irritation, maybe even a quick Google or two to check out a point.

But now it's not even that, just content free posts that either (1) repeats some long-debunked Truther claim that's already been picked over more than a chicken bone at a crow convention, (2) offers hyperventilating support when some equally mundane Truther posts some tired piece of idiocy, or (3) makes some smug, smart-alecky remark that anyone beyond the age of 6 should be ashamed of. Really, if this is the boldest and brightest of what the Truthers have to offer, their curious little cult must be absolutely brain dead.

I think a creative programmer with an afternoon to kill could probably create a Trutherbot that's more original and interesting than these guys.

[bill smith]

I don't know what that means bill. You only know much on anything about tower 1? Ok fine



Yes it shows an graphic(ie. a diagram bill) of the towers in which the upper section has not only tilted but also moved sideways such that the bottom of the upper section is beyond the sides of the tower. This means that it had to have moved sideways. Nice diagram but it has no bearing or resembelance to what was observed to have occured with the WTC tower.



The point is bill that the upper section was allowed to fall, in the direction gravity would take it, once the coluimns failed. I was using the lumber to illustrate that once falling a mass will fall straight down and that when the upper section of the tower began its fal it would be falling straight down, again bill that is the direction gravity works its magic everytime all the time.

I was not attempting to say that part of the lower columns suddenly disappeared. They did howver fail and buckle allowing the upper section to drop.





Yes really. Just how could it be doing anything other than that bill?




too bad the video stops at "this suggested a particular method of collapse that the video helped confirm......."

However I was refering to the so called spire that remained at the end of the total collapse whereas the reference you cite refers to part of the core remaining as initial collapse begins. The two instances being separated by about 12 seconds and 1000 vertical feet. You would not happen to have a link to that entire docuementary would you?

I think I do have the video actually. (I just include a post I made when I posted it ast week.)

The second you get an image onscreen freeze the video. Then click it through until the plane magically appears coming from behind the building.

Did they know this when they put the video into circulation ? Of course they did.Nothing like a missing plane to set the conspiracy hounds running. lol
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799


You are implying that 47 massive core colums and the best part of 236 perimeter columns had been severed for the top porton to 'slide'. Do you wnt to explain how that could be ?


You said the following:-

'...mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads '

I replied:-

'Really ? '

You replied'-

' Yes really. Just how could it be doing anything other than that bill?'

Well easily actually. The upstanding 47 core clumns and their lateral bracing formed a massive lattice or grid anchored 70 feet deep in the grpund which would have minced the falling block. That takes a LOT of impact.


At this point in time just after the global collapse we are not interested in the 'spire'- we are only nterested in the massive remaining largely intact core.

[dudalb]

On that note this seems apt.

'In the beginning a patriot is a scarce man, hated and feared and scorned. But in time when his cause succeeds, the timid join him, because then it costs nothing to be a patriot '.
---Mark Twain

Great FSM, a variation on the "Galileo was ridiculed. I am Ridiculed.Therefore I am another Galileo" fallacy.

[dudalb]

This may be an observation ultimately destined for AAH, but...I believe the Truther presence in this forum has just about reached rock bottom. Granted, even in its heyday it was never exactly Einsteinian level. But at least it was interesting enough once in a while to provoke a little response -- humor, irritation, maybe even a quick Google or two to check out a point.

But now it's not even that, just content free posts that either (1) repeats some long-debunked Truther claim that's already been picked over more than a chicken bone at a crow convention, (2) offers hyperventilating support when some equally mundane Truther posts some tired piece of idiocy, or (3) makes some smug, smart-alecky remark that anyone beyond the age of 6 should be ashamed of. Really, if this is the boldest and brightest of what the Truthers have to offer, their curious little cult must be absolutely brain dead.

I think a creative programmer with an afternoon to kill could probably create a Trutherbot that's more original and interesting than these guys.

At times I really wonder if that has happened.

[psikeyhackr]

Until 4 months ago, like you (and millions of others) I has swallowed the official theory of 9/11 perpetuated by the US government & the mainstream media. I had seen the footage of the planes crashing into the towers & their subsequent total destruction into steel shards & concrete dust and assumed that the planes had caused this damage why wouldnt I?
.
This is the stuff I find hilarious.

I never took a structural engineering course in my life. I spent two weeks thinking about the destruction of those buildings. I decided there was no way NORMAL AIRLINERS could do all of that in less than two hours.

How can the 14 lightest stories crush 95 heavier stories and accelerate in the process? Why weren't EXPERTS all over this crap within a few months after the event? I can possibly understand architects not seeing through it. At IIT the standard joke was that "architects took funny physics and funny math." But even though physics majors may not study skyscrapers they should have been wondering about the distribution of mass after seeing the videos of 9/11.

This just needs to be kept complicated and mysterious so the LAYMEN can't figure out the obvious. :D :D

psik

[BigAl]

.
This is the stuff I find hilarious.

I never took a structural engineering course in my life. I spent two weeks thinking about the destruction of those buildings. I decided there was no way NORMAL AIRLINERS could do all of that in less than two hours.

How can the 14 lightest stories crush 95 heavier stories and accelerate in the process? Why weren't EXPERTS all over this crap within a few months after the event?

They were;

Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

Report From Ground Zero, page 188
http://snurl.com/j54gc

[bill smith]

I as just checking out that PBS video again. What a laugh. Is this real video or manipulated video?

First the late arrival f the plane at the very beginning of the video.Then at about 4 seconds when the plane is about to enter the building freeze it. Then click it thrugh a few times until you get the image of the plane superimposed on the outside wall of the building before there is ny fire. Then watch as the eggshell nose of the plane crashes through the opposite wall apparently intact. Git them conspiracy hounds a-runnin' boy. lol

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799 PBS 2002

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034 Nose Cone

[beachnut]

.
This is the stuff I find hilarious.

I never took a structural engineering course in my life. I spent two weeks thinking about the destruction of those buildings. I decided there was no way NORMAL AIRLINERS could do all of that in less than two hours.

How can the 14 lightest stories crush 95 heavier stories and accelerate in the process? Why weren't EXPERTS all over this crap within a few months after the event? I can possibly understand architects not seeing through it. At IIT the standard joke was that "architects took funny physics and funny math." But even though physics majors may not study skyscrapers they should have been wondering about the distribution of mass after seeing the videos of 9/11.

This just needs to be kept complicated and mysterious so the LAYMEN can't figure out the obvious. :D :D

psik
SPAM whining! You are unable to figure out the mass due to your own lack of knowledge and skills. Stop whining! You have been shown work by other people to help you make a very good estimate of the mass distribution. 7 years and all you can do is whine about an event you don't understand.

[BigAl]

I as just checking out that PBS video again. What a laugh. Is this real video or manipulated video?

First the late arrival f the plane at the very beginning of the video.Then at about 4 seconds when the pane is about to enter the building freeze it. Then click it thrugh a few times until you get the image of the plane superimposed on the outside wall of the building before there is ny fire. Then watch as the eggshell nose of the plane crashes through the opposite wall apparently intact.

So what?

[jaydeehess]

I think I do have the video actually. (I just include a post I made when I posted it ast week.)

The second you get an image onscreen freeze the video. Then click it through until the plane magically appears coming from behind the building.

Did they know this when they put the video into circulation ? Of course they did.Nothing like a missing plane to set the conspiracy hounds running. lol
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6402347900887643799

haven't watched and don't have time right now, but I fail to see how anything to do with the aircraft will adress the question I asked about the method of collapse.


You are implying that 47 massive core colums and the best part of 236 perimeter columns had been severed for the top porton to 'slide'. Do you wnt to explain how that could be ?

Actually I have never said that the top section slid bill. I said that the TM video it shows a top section that had slid. It did not do so.

I said that the columns failed and the upper section then began its downward movement.
When the aircraft hit it damaged and in some cases severed columns both on the perimeter and in the core. The impact also removed much of the fire insulation from structural members, crushed floor pans in local areas and sent fuel throughout several floors which then ignited and started large area office fires on multiple floors. The heat built up and weakened other columns of this already badly damaged structure. The combination of the isults to the structure caused an almost continuous redistribution of loads aided by the hat truss which held the upper section together as well. If not for the hat truss it is quite possible that the section of the upper floors above the impact hole might have sheared off. It remained though.
As more columns crept down as they sagged under the load this redistribution continued. We have the photos of the inward bowing perimeter columns that illustrates that the structure was sagging down. Obviously this cannot occur without the core being involved. At a point in time just prior to initial collapse the redistribution sends more load to a column(s) that are already at their absolute limit, they then buckle causeing another redistribution that also simply cannot be handled and this quickly progresses and the upper section moves in the way gravity acts - downward.

You said the following:-

'...mass was impacting the floors space of the lower section, not the columns which are designed to take huge vertical loads '

I replied:-

'Really ? '

You replied'-

' Yes really. Just how could it be doing anything other than that bill?'

Well easily actually. The upstanding 47 core clumns and their lateral bracing formed a massive lattice or grid anchored 70 feet deep in the grpund which would have minced the falling block. That takes a LOT of impact.

Their lateral bracing IS the floor trusses which are simply not designed to handle the load of the mass impacting them. They fail. No lateral bracing to those 47 columns and it matter not how good a foundation a long column has, if it exceeds a certain length to width ratio it cannot support itself against buckling much less do so while being banged about by tons of falling steel and concrete.

The falling upper section is NOt impinging its load on those columns when it starts falling bill. That's what happens when a column fails.

At this point in time just after the global collapse we are mot interested in the 'spire'- we are only nterested in the masive remaining largely intact core.

That doc did not refer to a massive largely remaing core bill. At least not the part you linked to.
However I do note that the roofline is seen to move downward and the core is not seen spearing up through it so we do know that the core did fail.

[BasqueArch]

I have a degree in Civil/Structural engineering ... I am a Civil/Structural engineer with advanced qualifications in Structural analysis, stress analysis & structural steel design. I have 6 years of experience in building high-rise structures . My most recent project (completed just 2 days ago) was building 4 concrete bridge replacements.
I am not prone to outbursts of conspiratorial chatter, I do not hate americans (I have many American friends in fact).

1. He no talk structural engineering like engineers I know,
high smarmy/empathic (> 2:1) to engineering lingo language ratio. "The truth is so massive & so horrible.. to be honest part of me wishes I didnt know it."
2. From another country,some sort of technical degree, ex-British colony, misspells tonnes as tones
3. Engineers design not building bridges.
4. Licensed engineers don't need to say I have a degree in Civil/Structural engineering; it's required and understood.
5. He's a young engineering technical college
CAD draftsman from another country, without a US engineer license.


or Gage's secretary.

[jaydeehess]

So what?

I suspect bill is setting us up for a no-plane silliness.

[Hokulele]

I never took a structural engineering course in my life.


I never would have guessed.

[bill smith]

I suspect bill is setting us up for a no-plane silliness.

Watch the video and explain what I say or hold your peace.

[Grizzly Bear]

I as just checking out that PBS video again. What a laugh. Is this real video or manipulated video?
<snip>
Then at about 4 seconds when the pane is about to enter the building freeze it.

What the hell? I've seen some paranoia but holy ****'ing christ man... :eye-poppi

bill, that's "freezing" is an artifact of imperfections in the video upload. I have the original DVD to compare with... This is as bad as the guy who thought the file quality in JPEG image compression was an artifact of manipulation... Although with your recent Judy Wood incursion I'm not sure why I'm shocked you went deeper into the rabbit hole...

First the late arrival of the plane at the very beginning of the video.
Say what? :boggled:

[bill smith]

haven't watched and don't have time right now, but I fail to see how anything to do with the aircraft will adress the question I asked about the method of collapse.




Actually I have never said that the top section slid bill. I said that the TM video it shows a top section that had slid. It did not do so.

I said that the columns failed and the upper section then began its downward movement.
When the aircraft hit it damaged and in some cases severed columns both on the perimeter and in the core. The impact also removed much of the fire insulation from structural members, crushed floor pans in local areas and sent fuel throughout several floors which then ignited and started large area office fires on multiple floors. The heat built up and weakened other columns of this already badly damaged structure. The combination of the isults to the structure caused an almost continuous redistribution of loads aided by the hat truss which held the upper section together as well. If not for the hat truss it is quite possible that the section of the upper floors above the impact hole might have sheared off. It remained though.
As more columns crept down as they sagged under the load this redistribution continued. We have the photos of the inward bowing perimeter columns that illustrates that the structure was sagging down. Obviously this cannot occur without the core being involved. At a point in time just prior to initial collapse the redistribution sends more load to a column(s) that are already at their absolute limit, they then buckle causeing another redistribution that also simply cannot be handled and this quickly progresses and the upper section moves in the way gravity acts - downward.



Their lateral bracing IS the floor trusses which are simply not designed to handle the load of the mass impacting them. They fail. No lateral bracing to those 47 columns and it matter not how good a foundation a long column has, if it exceeds a certain length to width ratio it cannot support itself against buckling much less do so while being banged about by tons of falling steel and concrete.

The falling upper section is NOt impinging its load on those columns when it starts falling bill. That's what happens when a column fails.



That doc did not refer to a massive largely remaing core bill. At least not the part you linked to.
However I do note that the roofline is seen to move downward and the core is not seen spearing up through it so we do know that the core did fail.

Well like I said I don't want to get to much into WTC2 at this time. As regards the lateral bracing of the core check out the graphic overlay in the video below. Do you see lateral bacing beams that are not trusses ?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Short version

[bill smith]

What the hell? I've seen some paranoia but holy ****'ing christ man... :eye-poppi

bill, that's "freezing" is an artifact of imperfections in the video upload. I have the original DVD to compare with... This is as bad as the guy who thought the file quality in JPEG image compression was an artifact of manipulation... Although with your recent Judy Wood incursion I'm not sure why I'm shocked you went deeper into the rabbit hole...


Say what? :boggled:

Are you talking about the plane-shaped 'imperfection' ? lol
What about the nose crashing through the other side intact ?

PS. What Judy Wood incursion re you talking about ?. I only talked about the giant hurricane bigger than Katrina that was off the coast of New York on 9/11...

[FineWine]

This is the stuff I find hilarious.

I never took a structural engineering course in my life. I spent two weeks thinking about the destruction of those buildings. I decided there was no way NORMAL AIRLINERS could do all of that in less than two hours.



This is the stuff your intellectual and moral superiors find hilarious.




.
How can the 14 lightest stories crush 95 heavier stories and accelerate in the process?



Fourteen floors crush ONE floor very quickly. Then fifteen floors crush ONE floor... It is very obvious that you never took a structural engineering course in your entire life.



.
Why weren't EXPERTS all over this crap within a few months after the event? I can possibly understand architects not seeing through it. At IIT the standard joke was that "architects took funny physics and funny math." But even though physics majors may not study skyscrapers they should have been wondering about the distribution of mass after seeing the videos of 9/11.

This just needs to be kept complicated and mysterious so the LAYMEN can't figure out the obvious. :D :D

psik



When will you get around to explaining why no physicists agree with you? You claim to know more than every physicist and engineer in the world. How did you learn it? Why are you laughed off as a buffoonishly arrogant know-nothing? Is the world envious of your genius? Show an example of your genius.

[FineWine]

Are you talking about the plane-shaped 'imperfection' ? lol
What about the nose crashing throuh the other side intact ?

PS. What Judy Wood incursion re you talking about ?. I only talked abut the giant hurricane bigger tha Katrina that was off the coast of New York on 9/11...


Has your illness progressed to no-planeritis? The hopelessly deranged Ace Baker tried his "Pinocchio's Nose" deception in his debate with Steve Wright. He was exposed as an idiot. Nobody thinks the nose of the plane survived. Debris being ejected from side of the building opposite the crash would necessarily assume a projectile shape.

[jaydeehess]

Well like I said I don't want to get to much into WTC2 at this time. As regards the lateral bracing of the core check out the graphic overlay in the video below. Do you see lateral bacing that are not trusses ?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1615521411849861778 Short version

Well then you need to be more specfic when you foray into structural engineering bill.

Yes the core columns were laterally braced to them selves BUT the trusses were required to brace the core itself. The core system and the perimeter system braced each other via the trusses. Neither could stand alone.

had the entire floor systems and perimeter columns magically disappeared leaving only the core column system with its floors and beams intact this core structure would have been inherently unstable and would have buckled on its own. This is why when the building was constructed they built the core up above the rest of the structure only so far AND included temporary diagonal bracing that was removed as they progressed upward.

[bill smith]

Has your illness progressed to no-planeritis? The hopelessly deranged Ace Baker tried his "Pinocchio's Nose" deception in his debate with Steve Wright. He was exposed as an idiot. Nobody thinks the nose of the plane survived. Debris being ejected from side of the building opposite the crash would necessarily assume a projectile shape.

Kind of plane-nose-shaped ypu mean no doubt. lol

What is mere massive steel against such such strength.

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034 Nose Cone

[jaydeehess]

Watch the video and explain what I say or hold your peace.

bingo I was right

Right bill, hundreds of people witnessed a plane hit the building , you know the one standing right next to the already burning building that had also been hit by a plane. They are all plants, in on it, or just plain incorrect, having been fooled into believing that a plane hit the building.

TPTB then manipulated each and every live video feed and camcorder that happened to be pointed in the direction of the towers into showing a plane hitting the building.

Man, when I begin thinking that the CiT are all nutbars all I really need to do to make them look better is to bring up a post by a WTC no-planer. The CiT no plane senario gets trumped by the no planes at all senario

[bill smith]

Well then you need to be more specfic when you foray into structural engineering bill.

Yes the core columns were laterally braced to them selves BUT the trusses were required to brace the core itself. The core system and the perimeter system braced each other via the trusses. Neither could stand alone.

had the entire floor systems and perimeter columns magically disappeared leaving only the core column system with its floors and beams intact this core structure would have been inherently unstable and would have buckled on its own. This is why when the building was constructed they built the core up above the rest of the structure only so far AND included temporary diagonal bracing that was removed as they progressed upward.

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.

[FineWine]

Kind of plane-nose-shaped ypu mean no doubt. lol

What is mere massive steel against such such strength.

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034 Nose Cone


The nose of a plane is shaped like a projectile for a reason, Bill. Steve Wright showed Ace Baker why his mad fantasy was wrong. Many people on this forum with backgrounds in video showed the lunatic Baker why he was wrong.

Ryan Mackey explained in a three-part lecture how a 100-ton plane traveling roughly 500 mph cuts through steel columns and glass windows.

Your compulsion to make a complete fool of yourself is out of hand.

[bill smith]

bingo I was right

Right bill, hundreds of people witnessed a plane hit the building , you know the one standing right next to the already burning building that had also been hit by a plane. They are all plants, in on it, or just plain incorrect, having been fooled into believing that a plane hit the building.

TPTB then manipulated each and every live video feed and camcorder that happened to be pointed in the direction of the towers into showing a plane hitting the building.

Man, when I begin thinking that the CiT are all nutbars all I really need to do to make them look better is to bring up a post by a WTC no-planer. The CiT no plane senario gets trumped by the no planes at all senario

Well then you will be able to explain the anomalies I pointed out ? I do hope it's not going to be 'optical illusion' again.

[FineWine]

Well then you will be able to explain the anomalies I pointed out ? I do hope it's not going to be 'optical illuson' again.


You haven't pointed out any anomalies, Bill. You're merely raving. It's what you do.

[bill smith]

The nose of a plane is shaped like a projectile for a reason, Bill. Steve Wright showed Ace Baker why his mad fantasy was wrong. Many people on this forum with backgrounds in video showed the lunatic Baker why he was wrong.

Ryan Mackey explained in a three-part lecture how a 100-ton plane traveling roughly 500 mph cuts through steel columns and glass windows.

Your compulsion to make a complete fool of yourself is out of hand.
I think RM talked about 'high-pressure water cutting steel' as some kind of example. I didn't pay too much attention after that.

[BigAl]

Well then you will be able to explain the anomalies I pointed out ? I do hope it's not going to be 'optical illusion' again.

Where did the plane go to, Bill?

[BigAl]

I think RM talked about 'high-pressure water cutting steel' as some kind of example. I didn't pay too much attention after that.

We have an excellent video that shows how the impact of the plane broke exterior beams at the joints. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c (6:46)

[16.5]

.
I never took a structural engineering course in my life. But even though physics majors may not study skyscrapers they should have been wondering about the distribution of mass after seeing the videos of 9/11.

This just needs to be kept complicated and mysterious so the LAYMEN can't figure out the obvious. :D :D

psik

I think we found your bot folks.

[FineWine]

I think RM talked about 'high-pressure water cutting steel' as some kind of example. I didn't pay too much attention after that.

So your admitted stupidity deprived you of another opportunity to learn something. Of course, high-pressure water can cut steel, but you don't care. Mackey delivered a lecture on physics, a subject about which your level of knowledge would have to rise in order to be abysmal. Your empty-headed smugness about your own lack of intellectual curiosity provides some good laughs, but one wonders why you feel that making a fool of yourself advances your insane cause. Clearly, you haven't the slightest idea of how a plane can enter a building (or, for that matter, how a hand can break a brick). Your refusal to learn tells us a great deal. Perhaps you think that the NASA engineer is not qualified to explain why flakes of paint traveling at 10,000 mph can damage a space shuttle.

[DavidJames]

This may be an observation ultimately destined for AAH, but...I believe the Truther presence in this forum has just about reached rock bottom. Granted, even in its heyday it was never exactly Einsteinian level. But at least it was interesting enough once in a while to provoke a little response -- humor, irritation, maybe even a quick Google or two to check out a point. Bravo

[bill smith]

We have an excellent video that shows how the impact of the plane broke exterior beams at the joints. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c (6:46)

Interesting video but misleading as debunker videos usually are. I am not a no-planer for the simple reason that it just seems to be too complicated. Easier just to use real planes. Nevertheless I do not rule it out altogether considering the evidence. (Whether real or manufactured as disinformation)

Look at it his way. the plane in WTC2 aparently bulldozed through 33 of these columns without losing any speed. It did not shatter and fall down he front of the building as many might expect for a fragile aicraft composed of aluminium as thin as 1mm. In fact not a single gram of aircraft is seen to fall down the front of the building.

The 33 columns that were apparently severed were 14'' x 14'' box columns of 1/4'' steel. They may have been only 1/4'' steel but hey were also 14'' DEEP and were lying braced at 12-foot intervals against the concrete floors. The fuselage of the plane was itself 13 feet in diameter. Think about it. Not a gram fell ff the plane on the outside and it measurably lost zero speed in the impact with a 500,000 ton building that apparently swayed back and forth for four minutes after the impact. The plane weighed one-quarter of one-half of one-tenth of one percent of the building's weight. The veritable mosquito. Quite a fast mosquito though if you think that is enough.

[FineWine]

Interesting video but misleading as debunker videos usually are. I am not A no-planer for the simple reason that it just seems to be too complicated. Easier to use real planes. Neveryheless I do not rule it out altogether considering the evidence. (Whether real or manufactured as disinformation)

Look at it his way. the plane in WTC2 aparently bulldozed through 33 of hese columns without losing any speed. It did not shatter and fall down he front of the building as many might expect for a fagile aicraft composed of aluminium as thin as 1mm. In fact not a single gram of airrcraft is seen to fall down the front of the building.

The 33 columns that were apparently severed were 14'' x 14'' box columns of 1/4'' steel. They may have been only 1/4'' steel but hey were also 14'' DEEP and were lying braced at 12-foor intervals against the concrete floors. The fuselage of the plane was itself 13 feet in diameter. Think about it. Not a gram fell ff the plaane on the outside and it measurably lost zero speed in the imapact with a 500,000 ton building that apparently swayed back and forth for four minutes after the impact. The plane weighed one-quarter of one-half of one-tenth of one percent of the buildings weight.


Instead of repeating mindless idiocy fed to you by no-planers, you could hear Mackey explain how a lighter substance can damage a heavier one. You are, as usual, lying about the lack of deceleration of the plane. This ancient myth was demolished by several scientists and engineers, among them Frank Greening.

The incredibly stupid sentence that ends your post explains why you were conned by the incompetent fraud Heiwa. Notice how you and he have to run away whenever I point out that the falling floors don't hit the entire rest of the building? The sane side understands that the collapsing floors hit THE FLOOR IMMEDIATELY BELOW. Yes, this indisputable FACT consigns Heiwa's lunacy to the dumpster and forces you to flee. But, you've made the same blunder here. The plane doesn't hit the entire building. It hits specific perimeter columns and windows. The cowardly fraud Morgan Reynolds and the lunatic James Fetzer tried peddling this garbage, but were forced into hiding by Mackey.

You have demonstrated yet again that a fool who places his confidence in fools gets fooled.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I never took a structural engineering course in my life.

Yeah, we noticed.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Interesting video but misleading as debunker videos usually are. I am not a no-planer for the simple reason that it just seems to be too complicated. Easier just to use real planes. Nevertheless I do not rule it out altogether considering the evidence. (Whether real or manufactured as disinformation)

Look at it his way. the plane in WTC2 aparently bulldozed through 33 of hese columns without losing any speed.

Claims he's not a no-planer + spews no-planer bull___ = typical no-planer.

Your fellow no-planers do this all the time, Billy. We aren't fooled.

BTW, no one ever said it didn't lose speed going through the building. Your friend Killtown is a bigger liar than you are.

[Horatius]

Claims he's not a no-planer + spews no-planer bull___ = typical no-planer.

Your fellow no-planers do this all the time, Billy. We aren't fooled.




Actually, I don't think bill smith (bs? Really?) is an actual no-planer. I think he's more of an "Any line of bill smith that let's me deny reality right this second"-er.

[Slayhamlet]

I think RM talked about 'high-pressure water cutting steel' as some kind of example. I didn't pay too much attention after that.

rAH0M9KP6H4

How can water cut through steel? (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm)

[FineWine]

Actually, I don't think bill smith (bs? Really?) is an actual no-planer. I think he's more of an "Any line of bill smith that let's me deny reality right this second"-er.


His wild, unrestrained flailing of late indicates that you're right. He's all over the lot. Like Homeland Insurgency, he can no longer figure out what he's trying to claim. Bill, however, let the cat out of the bag when he confessed that, for him, Bush would never be gone. Most "truthers" wouldn't let slip such a damning admission, but you can bet that Bill's not alone in harboring that fantasy.

[FineWine]

rAH0M9KP6H4

How can water cut through steel? (http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm)



Hey, thanks! Loved it!

[bill smith]

Hey, thanks! Loved it!

Do you think it provides a reasonable explanation for how the fuel in he plane cut the steel columns ?

[FineWine]

Do you think it provides a reasonable explanation for how the fuel in he plane cut the steel columns ?


Mackey's explanation, the one you refuse to listen to, is better.

[FineWine]

Do you think it provides a reasonable explanation for how the fuel in he plane cut the steel columns ?

Ace Baker, incidentally, is mentally ill. Nobody alive thinks jet fuel cut the steel columns. Congratulations, Bill--Killclown and Ace Baker: The Absolute Rock-Bottom of the Barrel!

Bottom of the barrel, Ma! Look at me!

[FineWine]

Do you think it provides a reasonable explanation for how the fuel in he plane cut the steel columns ?


Seriously, Bill, you have at last achieved something. You found two people arguably crazier than Heiwa.

[bill smith]

Ace Baker, incidentally, is mentally ill. Nobody alive thinks jet fuel cut the steel columns. Congratulations, Bill--Killclown and Ace Baker: The Absolute Rock-Bottom of the Barrel!

Bottom of the barrel, Ma! Look at me!

Nobody alive except maybe Mackey and his children.

Let's keep the tone civil. It is increasingly uncivil in this thread.

[beachnut]

Do you think it provides a reasonable explanation for how the fuel in he plane cut the steel columns ?
The plane cut through the building due to Kinetic Energy; you fail to understand reality and choose to remain ignorant on physics and 911. Your only skill is posting delusions.

[FineWine]

Nobody alive except maybe Mackey and his children.


Do you lack the gene that allows humans to experience shame and embarrassment? You are mindlessly smearing a NASA engineer, someone whose IQ is perhaps seventy points higher than yours. You haven't the slightest idea of how a lighter substance can damage a heavier one, yet you refuse to listen to a man who can explain it for you. Your weird, masochistic self-humiliation game becomes less amusing and more creepy every day.

[bill smith]

Do you lack the gene that allows humans to experience shame and embarrassment? You are mindlessly smearing a NASA engineer, someone whose IQ is perhaps seventy points higher than yours. You haven't the slightest idea of how a lighter substance can damage a heavier one, yet you refuse to listen to a man who can explain it for you. Your weird, masochistic self-humiliation game becomes less amusing and more creepy every day.

You may automatically repect erudition. I tend to maintain a running case-by-case judgement system. While I am inclined to trust, for instance an engineer's assessment I always use my own judgement too. In the case of 9/11I know that sme parties have been coopted and I use that knowledge to temper my own assessment of somebody's credibility. For better or for worse.

[FineWine]

You may automatically repect erudition. I tend to maintain a running case-by-case judgement system. While I am inclined to trust, for instance an engineer's assessment I always use my own judgement too. In the case of 9/11I know that sme parties have been coopted and I use that knowledge to temper my own assessment of somebody's credibility. For better or for worse.


You're really going to keep braying this idiocy instead of watching Mackey's lectures?

Your judgment is worthless. You lack a knowledge base. You are an uneducated, America-hating fanatic who will swallow any sort of nonsense that discredits this country.

[bill smith]

You're really going to keep braying this idiocy instead of watching Mackey's lectures?

Your judgment is worthless. You lack a knowledge base. You are an uneducated, America-hating fanatic who will swallow any sort of nonsense that discredits this country.

Between what I said in the previous post and the one about the high-pressure water I think you know where I'm at.

[Slayhamlet]

Do you think it provides a reasonable explanation for how the fuel in he plane cut the steel columns ?

What in the hell are you yammering about?

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Actually, I don't think bill smith (bs? Really?) is an actual no-planer. I think he's more of an "Any line of bill smith that let's me deny reality right this second"-er.

He is perfectly free to withdraw his no-planery at any time.

[alexi_drago]

Could a water balloon smash a window?

[FineWine]

Between what I said in the previous post and the one about the high-pressure water I think you know where I'm at.


Are you saying that you're a hopeless idiot? It is an indisputable fact that high-pressure water can cut steel. It is an indisputable fact that no sane person thinks that jet fuel cut the perimeter and core columns. I do know "where you're at"-- a state of near-total ignorance.

Bill, there's something you can't run away from; you must confront it, distasteful as you may find it. If your insane lynch mob overthrows American democracy and replaces it with a dictatorship of hate-filled morons--if you round up every Jew and herd all of them into concentration camps--if science and learning are banished by government edict--THE LAWS OF SCIENCE WILL STILL BE IN EFFECT.

You can't win. No matter what you do, high-pressure water will be able to cut steel; human hands will be able to break bricks; light, fluffy birds will be able to damage titanium fan blades; planes traveling 500 mph will cut right through steel columns.

YOU CAN NEVER CHANGE ANY OF THAT, BILL.

[JihadJane]

You are mindlessly smearing a NASA engineer


Is that the NASA whose spacecraft blow up?

[FineWine]

Is that the NASA whose spacecraft blow up?


Yes, it's the NASA that BEAT THE USSR TO THE MOON. Sorry about that.

[Horatius]

He is perfectly free to withdraw his no-planery at any time.


And I'm sure he will, just as soon as he figures out how such an action will allow him to deny some more reality.


We may have to wait a bit.

[FineWine]

And I'm sure he will, just as soon as he figures out how such an action will allow him to deny some more reality.


We may have to wait a bit.


He's reduced to insulting Mackey without having any idea of what Mackey said.

[Stellafane]

Is that the NASA whose spacecraft blow up?

Is there some place where such infantile idiocy passes as "wit"? Perhaps in the land of the witless, where the half-witted is king.

[Pardalis]

You're really going to keep braying this idiocy instead of watching Mackey's lectures?

Your judgment is worthless. You lack a knowledge base. You are an uneducated, America-hating fanatic who will swallow any sort of nonsense that discredits this country.

Bill Smith also suggested a few months ago that the "new investigation" should be a reality TV show, with call ins. He was dead serious.

[bill smith]

He is perfectly free to withdraw his no-planery at any time.

I would be happy to distance myself from the no-planers when you give me a reasonable answer to post #81 on this page.

[dtugg]

I would be happy to distance myself from the no-planers when you give me a reasonable answer to post #81 on this page.

Here is a reasonably explanation: You don't know what the hell you are talking about and you're just making stuff up.

[Alt+F4]

In fact not a single gram of aircraft is seen to fall down the front of the building.

You really believe there were no airplane parts found on the streets below? Really?

[bill smith]

You really believe there were no airplane parts found on the streets below? Really?

If there were then it's quite strange really and would lead a person into thinkng they were planted because on the live video of the plane going in no wreckage is seen to fall from the plane.

[JihadJane]

Is there some place where such infantile idiocy passes as "wit"? Perhaps in the land of the witless, where the half-witted is king.


No, it wasn't wit. The funny bit was the assumption that working for NASA makes one unsmearable or that having a high IQ makes one immune to stupidity or blinding arrogance.

[twinstead]

No, it wasn't wit. The funny bit was the assumption that working for NASA makes one unsmearable or that having a high IQ makes one immune to stupidity or blinding arrogance.

That goes both ways, especially for the few "experts" who think the collapses were impossible and had to be CD.

[Stellafane]

No, it wasn't wit. The funny bit was the assumption that working for NASA makes one unsmearable or that having a high IQ makes one immune to stupidity or blinding arrogance.

No, the funny part is when some internet nobodies whose postings have yet to indicate they know anything at all about anything presume to question the expertise of a real scientist, trained in things said posters couldn't even begin to comprehend in a million years. And after abundantly demonstrating their total ignorance and foolishness, instead of slinking off in utter humiliation as any self-respecting adult would do, remain so completely clueless that they actually make what they assume are clever remarks about it. Now that's funny!

[phunk]

I think I do have the video actually. (I just include a post I made when I posted it ast week.)

The second you get an image onscreen freeze the video. Then click it through until the plane magically appears coming from behind the building.


Bill, some very close friends of mine were in the building that the plane is behind at the start of the video. They watched, live, from the upper floors of that building, as the plane crashed. That was not video trickery, that was reality.

The plane isn't seen approaching the left side of the building because when they cut that clip out for the video, they happened to start with a frame where it was behind the building already. An idiot could see that.

[phunk]

In fact not a single gram of aircraft is seen to fall down the front of the building.


That's amazing, where did you get a video of a high enough resolution to see a gram of anything from thousands of feet away?

[BigAl]

I think I do have the video actually. (I just include a post I made when I posted it ast week.)

The second you get an image onscreen freeze the video. Then click it through until the plane magically appears coming from behind the building.

Did they know this when they put the video into circulation ?

Bill; these two books are full of the names and quotes of people that were in the upper floors of WTC and nearby buildings and saw the planes hit the towers. Watching The world change; The Stories behind the images of 9/11 By David Friend

102 Minutes_ by Dwyer & Flynn

[TruthersLie]

Kind of plane-nose-shaped ypu mean no doubt. lol

What is mere massive steel against such such strength.

http://nomoregames.net/presentations/Madison_No_Planes_Final_August_07.ppt_files/slide0045_image034 Nose Cone

You do realize Bill, that Anthony Lawson has completely OWNED you no planers right?

I mean he has demolished you on you tube...

Look him up... absolutely hillarious how badly you all get anal raped.

What makes it even funnier is that he is a truther... almost as much fun as Judy Woods taking Steve Jones apart.

[TruthersLie]

Do you think it provides a reasonable explanation for how the fuel in he plane cut the steel columns ?

truther LIE.

The fuel didn't CUT the steel. It broke the connection points.

how many times do people have to tell that to you?

If it had cut the steel it would look like one of those Acme cartoon plane outlines. you can clearly see where the panels broke away from each other.

try again..

[TruthersLie]

If there were then it's quite strange really and would lead a person into thinkng they were planted because on the live video of the plane going in no wreckage is seen to fall from the plane.

I call ******** (BS to get by the filters)

Anthony Lawson has several GREAT videos showing what you claim don't exist.

Is he part of the conspiracy twoof?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bNomV_8034

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L978nIT-AY4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu-OZOQXHwI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4Jahg9fxM4

now actually watch them and stop repeating the LIES. Try again.

ETA:
a few more for bill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1m_fD7RII_I

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhKrirlTw8c&feature=related

now bill.... try to pay attention... you just might learn something.

[Justin39640]

If there were then it's quite strange really and would lead a person into thinkng they were planted because on the live video of the plane going in no wreckage is seen to fall from the plane.

tell that to the people on the street who were lit on fire about 10 seconds after impact

Is that the NASA whose spacecraft blow up?

many nations spacecraft has blown up not just ours
its called risk when youre sitting atop a million pound ballistic missile

you really hate the US and take any opportunity to show that to the world

why?

spaceflight is dangerous
there will be accidents and people will be lost
these people are pioneers and should be respected (especially when they die while trying to further the human race through exploration)

[bill smith]

truther LIE.

The fuel didn't CUT the steel. It broke the connection points.

how many times do people have to tell that to you?

If it had cut the steel it would look like one of those Acme cartoon plane outlines. you can clearly see where the panels broke away from each other.



try again..

Are we back to the aluminium bulldozer theory again ? The bread cutting the knife and so on ?

[twinstead]

bill I'm beginning to think you have absolutely NO idea just how wrong you are. This is frightening.

[bill smith]

bill I'm beginning to think you have absolutely NO idea just how wrong you are. This is frightening.

Don't be frightened Twinstead, There still may be some explanation for how the plane went thrugh all that steel without losing any speed.

[alexi_drago]

Don't be frightened Twinstead, There still may be some explanation for how the plane went thrugh all that steel without losing any speed.

What do you mean 'without losing any speed'?

[alienentity]

bill I'm beginning to think you have absolutely NO idea just how wrong you are. This is frightening.

Bill is apparently a 'believer', or a hoaxster pretending to be one. His position is to defend any and all truther myths, regardless if they're self-contradictory and ludicrous.

I'm sure he also enjoys wasting everybody's time. At least he can score some points that way... in just about all other areas he's a complete failure.

[bill smith]

What do you mean 'without losing any speed'?

Exactly what I say. The plane passed through that massive steel barrier without any of the flimsy panels coming loose and fluttering down on the outside and it lost zero velocity due to the impact. In fact in th case of WTC1 the 155-foot long aircraft went hrough the perimeter columns and hit the core about 60 feet in. So about 100 feet of he fuselage should have been sticking out and momentarily showing that tremendous final shattering blow against he core columns. But guess what ?....hey, it did not allow a few measly core columns to slow it down either and went in without any hesitation or jolt at all.

[AJM8125]

Exactly what I say. The plane passed through that massive steel barrier without any of the flimsy panels coming loose and fluttering down on the outside and it lost zero velocity due to the impact. In fact in th case of WTC1 the 155-foot long aircraft went hrough the perimeter columns and hit the core about 60 feet in. So about 100 feet of he fuselage should have been sticking out and showing that tremendous final shattering blow against he core columns. But guess what ?....hey, it did not allow a few measly core columns to slow it down either and went in without any hesitation or jolt at all.

Just when I thought I had heard it all....

[alexi_drago]

Exactly what I say. The plane passed through that massive steel barrier without any of the flimsy panels coming loose and fluttering down on the outside and it lost zero velocity due to the impact. In fact in th case of WTC1 the 155-foot long aircraft went hrough the perimeter columns and hit the core about 60 feet in. So about 100 feet of he fuselage should have been sticking out and showing that tremendous final shattering blow against he core columns. But guess what ?....hey, it did not allow a few measly core columns to slow it down either and went in without any hesitation or jolt at all.

Ah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[tfk]

.
This is the stuff I find hilarious.

I never took a structural engineering course in my life. I spent two weeks thinking about the destruction of those buildings. I decided there was no way NORMAL AIRLINERS could do all of that in less than two hours.

.
And if 2 weeks (with NO formal instructor, I assume) were enough for you to understand all this, then why do we have 4 year engineering programs? With post-doc programs. And apprenticeship programs. And EIT & PE certifications?

Your 2 weeks were CLEARLY insufficient, psi. You've proven that you understand very, very little.

The airliner did NOT "do all of that in less than two hours".

Fire & earth did. Fire in 1-2 hours. Earth in less than 20 seconds.

The airliners did no more than cause a bunch of structural damage & light some fires. Their job was then over. Done. But this structural damage caused the stresses on long thin beams to go from purely compression & tension (which they handle very well) to bending (which they cannot handle well at all).

Then the fire took over. The fire & the bending caused the building to "creep" to the side, increasing the bending stresses, increasing the creep, increasing the lean, increasing side loads, increasing the bending stresses, increasing the creep, increasing the lean, increasing side loads ... A POSITIVE feedback loop. Positive feedback loops ALWAYS end in disaster.

Once the bending limits were (inevitably) exceeded, one final piece failed, there was no more margin, and everything (consequently, not coincidentally) failed at once.

Then the earth took over. And gravity pulled it to the ground.

Gravity caused all that destruction. Or, if you wish, the men & cranes & electricity who perched one piece of metal after another on top of each other in the 1960s. Of course, they did their jobs just fine.
.

How can the 14 lightest stories crush 95 heavier stories and accelerate in the process?

.
EASY. If you simply understood the numbers involved, you wouldn't make such a silly statement.

Put your head up against a wall. Take a deep breath & blow. How much force is generated by the air coming out your mouth, pushing your head back into the wall? Not much. Without understanding the NUMBERS, you might not think that engineers could use this effect to accelerate a 747 down a runway & up to 600 kts. You'd be wrong about that too.
.

Why weren't EXPERTS all over this crap within a few months after the event?

.
They were. Some experts (structural engineers) were surprised when the first tower collapsed. Some were not.
After seeing the first one fall, NO competent structural engineers were surprised when the second one collapsed.

That is the beginning and end of your "expert list".

You'll notice that, on that list, appear NO physicists, news anchors, politicians, intelligence agent, pilot, lawyers, firemen, soldier, doctor, astronaut, cosmetologist or president of any engineering firm (businessmen). Conspicuously absent are: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, D.R. Griffin, Alex Jones, Kevin Ryan, college dropouts & students in ANY field of study.
.

I can possibly understand architects not seeing through it. At IIT the standard joke was that "architects took funny physics and funny math." But even though physics majors may not study skyscrapers they should have been wondering about the distribution of mass after seeing the videos of 9/11.

.
Physicists are amateurs.
I'm a mechanical engineer with 35+ years experience. I'm an amateur, too, because I've never designed or analyzed a skyscraper.
.

This just needs to be kept complicated and mysterious so the LAYMEN can't figure out the obvious.

.
It isn't complicated. It's easy. Your distrust gets in the way.

You don't have the background, inclination, work ethic, allegiance to the truth, or the disposition frankly, to put in the work to understand it.

Sorry. But it's true.

Tom

[alienentity]

btw, mrcoddy, the truther whose message I quoted, sent me another message today. He's not too pleased that I posted it, I guess, and he was critical of some of the things you guys have posted.

Weirdly, he's not bothered to register here and make any comments for himself. I also have serious doubts that he's an engineer, as he claims. I could be wrong, but he hasn't presented any info that isn't already available on sites like A&E for 9/11 truth.

In fact, he sounds to me like he's just parroting a lot of the same things they claim.

Speaking of which, I heard an advertisment by 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. Pathetic.

[alexi_drago]

from OP

Unfortunately, years & years of studying Newtons laws were getting in the way

Slow learner or slow course?

[bill smith]

btw, mrcoddy, the truther whose message I quoted, sent me another message today. He's not too pleased that I posted it, I guess, and he was critical of some of the things you guys have posted.

Weirdly, he's not bothered to register here and make any comments for himself. I also have serious doubts that he's an engineer, as he claims. I could be wrong, but he hasn't presented any info that isn't already available on sites like A&E for 9/11 truth.

In fact, he sounds to me like he's just parroting a lot of the same things they claim.

Speaking of which, I heard an advertisment by 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. Pathetic.

You could always post a link to where he posts and we could check it out fr ourselves. That sound like an idea ?

[alienentity]

You could always post a link to where he posts and we could check it out fr ourselves. That sound like an idea ?

Hey, y'know what? I took the initiative, so I get to decide which forum I want to post to.

It's a free country. Anyway, marcoddy will have your companionship and support bill - how could he resist? :D

[dtugg]

Exactly what I say. The plane passed through that massive steel barrier without any of the flimsy panels coming loose and fluttering down on the outside and it lost zero velocity due to the impact. In fact in th case of WTC1 the 155-foot long aircraft went hrough the perimeter columns and hit the core about 60 feet in. So about 100 feet of he fuselage should have been sticking out and momentarily showing that tremendous final shattering blow against he core columns. But guess what ?....hey, it did not allow a few measly core columns to slow it down either and went in without any hesitation or jolt at all.

Let me guess: you determined this by eyeballing some youtube videos.

[NobbyNobbs]

Look at it his way. the plane in WTC2 aparently bulldozed through 33 of these columns without losing any speed. It did not shatter and fall down he front of the building as many might expect for a fragile aicraft composed of aluminium as thin as 1mm. In fact not a single gram of aircraft is seen to fall down the front of the building.

Are you suggesting that the reality of the situation should be akin to Wile E. Coyote slamming into the face of a cliff and sliding down?

The plane weighed one-quarter of one-half of one-tenth of one percent of the building's weight. The veritable mosquito. Quite a fast mosquito though if you think that is enough.

And a 200 grain .45 caliber bullet is .0184% of my body weight, but I have no doubt about its ability to penetrate my skin without an apprpeciable loss of speed.. Your point?

[bill smith]

Hey, y'know what? I took the initiative, so I get to decide which forum I want to post to.

It's a free country. Anyway, marcoddy will have your companionship and support bill - how could he resist? :D

Well take your bloody ball then...

[alienentity]

Bill Smith Look at it his way. the plane in WTC2 aparently bulldozed through 33 of these columns without losing any speed

without losing any speed?

Bullcrap. Total BS.

[FineWine]

No, it wasn't wit. The funny bit was the assumption that working for NASA makes one unsmearable or that having a high IQ makes one immune to stupidity or blinding arrogance.


Right, it certainly wasn't wit.

The assumption is that being a working scientist for NASA qualifies one to explain basic physics. Mackey explained very clearly how the planes entered the buildings. Bill wasn't able to watch the lecture because he can't concentrate well enough to focus his thoughts for twenty or so minutes.

Please provide examples of Mackey's "stupidity." Show us something he got wrong. Oh, and please spare us the usual disingenuous rant about how we're putting words in your mouth.

[bill smith]

Bill Smith

without losing any speed?

Bullcrap. Total BS.

What if it's not ? Will you revise your view on 9/11 ? It is that significant after all.

[FineWine]

I would be happy to distance myself from the no-planers when you give me a reasonable answer to post #81 on this page.

What you wrote in post #81 is mindless gibberish. If you knew anything at all about basic physics, you'd be embarrassed.

THE PLANE DID NOT HIT THE ENTIRE BUILDING.

[FineWine]

Don't be frightened Twinstead, There still may be some explanation for how the plane went thrugh all that steel without losing any speed.


Yes, Bill, there certainly is a reason why absolutely no scientists, engineers, avionics techs, or high school physics teachers anywhere in the world have the slightest doubt about the way the planes entered the buildings. There is certainly a reason why no-planes idiocy is the exclusive province of uneducated fools infesting the net.

The explanation you dishonestly pretend to seek was provided by Ryan Mackey. When will you watch it?

[alexi_drago]

What you wrote in post #81 is mindless gibberish. If you knew anything at all about basic physics, you'd be embarrassed.

THE PLANE DID NOT HIT THE ENTIRE BUILDING.

What? are you trying to tell me that if the plane had gone into the 40th floor of a 50 floor building it wouldn't have done twice the amount of damage to the structure? [/truther]

[FineWine]

Exactly what I say. The plane passed through that massive steel barrier without any of the flimsy panels coming loose and fluttering down on the outside and it lost zero velocity due to the impact. In fact in th case of WTC1 the 155-foot long aircraft went hrough the perimeter columns and hit the core about 60 feet in. So about 100 feet of he fuselage should have been sticking out and momentarily showing that tremendous final shattering blow against he core columns. But guess what ?....hey, it did not allow a few measly core columns to slow it down either and went in without any hesitation or jolt at all.


No, Bill, the deranged Nazi Killclown is wrong, and all the world's physicists and aeronautical engineers are right. You have been caught lying, as usual, about your repeated false claims of no deceleration. The deceleration has been proved by, among others, Frank Greening. Not that you care.

[FineWine]

What? are you trying to tell me that if the plane had gone into the 40th floor of a 50 floor building it wouldn't have done twice the amount of damage to the structure? [/truther]


Yeah, it must have slipped my mind.

[FineWine]

Let me guess: you determined this by eyeballing some youtube videos.


This was a no-planer claim before it was disproved by Greening and others. Ace Baker mentioned it in his disastrous debate with video compositing expert Steve Wright. The liars just keep lying.

Greening explains it here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95876&page=2

[FineWine]

Are you suggesting that the reality of the situation should be akin to Wile E. Coyote slamming into the face of a cliff and sliding down?



And a 200 grain .45 caliber bullet is .0184% of my body weight, but I have no doubt about its ability to penetrate my skin without an apprpeciable loss of speed.. Your point?


Everything you say is completely correct, but do you have any idea of how many times Bill's latest idiocy has been shot down on this forum?

[bill smith]

Yeah, it must have slipped my mind.

Can you explain what he meant FineWine ?

[FineWine]

What if it's not ? Will you revise your view on 9/11 ? It is that significant after all.


No, Bill, the stupid lie you're desperately trying to recycle will never invalidate the tens of thousands of eyewitnesses to the crash of U175.

[FineWine]

Can you explain what he meant FineWine ?

Yes, he was mocking the ignorant morons who can't grasp the idea that the plane hit specific columns and windows. If a Boeing 767 hits a two-story wood house, it will most certainly do a helluva lot more damage than if it hits a 110-story skyscraper. We get that part, Bill. The particular 767s we're talking about severed perimeter columns because they were moving very fast. The cowardly fraud Morgan Reynolds went into hiding after Mackey's lecture for a good reason.

[bill smith]

This was a no-planer claim before it was disproved by Greening and others. Ace Baker mentioned it in his disastrous debate with video compositing expert Steve Wright. The liars just keep lying.

Greening explains it here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95876&page=2

I didn''t see any eplanation worth listening to Finewine. Do you want to cut and paste Greenning's strongest point here ? If you don't we will understand.

[FineWine]

Can you explain what he meant FineWine ?

You can't understand what Mackey said. You can't understand what Greening said. Yet, you want to pretend that you're "debating" whether or not a 100-ton projectile moving 500 mph can cut steel columns. You've enlisted the most utterly deranged imbeciles on the net as your authorities. Okay, Bill, you've humiliated yourself again. Now, how does this advance your insane cause?

Remember what I wrote: after you've sent every Jew to concentration camps, airliners moving at 500 mph will still slice through steel columns like a hot knife through soft butter.

[FineWine]

I didn''t see any eplanation worth listening to Finewine. Do you want to cut and paste Greenning's strongest point here ? If you don't we will understand.



No, Bill, you really didn't see any explanation worth listening to. You are moving past the witless buffoon stage and entering something far more ominous:

(From one of Greening's posts in the link provided):

Anyway, I decided to take a closer look at this question. After a lot of digging I found Omika's paper and saw his plots (Figures 4 and 15) showing measured velocity reductions of Flight 175 up to 100 m/s. I also noticed that Omika's velocity vs. time plot has SIX points after the t = 0 point, and up to the t = 0.20 second point. This shows that the video Omika used was shot at 33 frames per second, although I thank those posters who talked about 60 f/s videos - nevertheless, most still-frame sequences of the impact have only SIX frames. (Oh, and by the way, on the question of video resolution, may I suggest folks look at the images from Scott Myers' video as shown on pape 98 of NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. Here I would say that the photographic resolution is about 1 meter !)

I have also attempted my own (crude!) analysis of some impact videos, and like Omika, I see a measurable velocity reduction in the last 2 or 3 frames.

This tells me that Reynold's argument is based on a false premiss. The WTC 2 impact videos do actually show some degree of slowing of Flight 175 and therefore show a REAL aircraft striking a REAL building... That is, they are NOT FAKED!

Furthemore, Newton's Laws are still obviously in control of the universe and Dr. Reynold's needs to find a new rationale for his no-plane thesis....

[TruthersLie]

Are we back to the aluminium bulldozer theory again ? The bread cutting the knife and so on ?

so then bill you didn't even bother to watch any of the videos I posted, and are now just ignoring it.

it is funny.

We have covered this plane cut steel crap. I just showed you it is crap.

nice dodge and an ignore.
what is the score from the judges? 9, 9, 9.5, 8, oh and a 4 from the east german judge.

if you try harder you can try to hand wave it away and ignore it.

[alienentity]

What if it's not ? Will you revise your view on 9/11 ? It is that significant after all.

It's bullcrap in this universe bill. Maybe in another universe, where the laws of physics are reversed (see appropriate Red Dwarf episode) the jet didn't slow down - hell, maybe it even accelerated!

But not in this universe.

Newsflash: bill's delusions do not alter reality itself. Unless bill is actually God and his thoughts alter reality. I think we can safely eliminate that last possibility...:relieved:

[bill smith]

No, Bill, you really didn't see any explanation worth listening to. You are moving past the witless buffoon stage and entering something far more ominous:

(From one of Greening's posts in the link provided):

Anyway, I decided to take a closer look at this question. After a lot of digging I found Omika's paper and saw his plots (Figures 4 and 15) showing measured velocity reductions of Flight 175 up to 100 m/s. I also noticed that Omika's velocity vs. time plot has SIX points after the t = 0 point, and up to the t = 0.20 second point. This shows that the video Omika used was shot at 33 frames per second, although I thank those posters who talked about 60 f/s videos - nevertheless, most still-frame sequences of the impact have only SIX frames. (Oh, and by the way, on the question of video resolution, may I suggest folks look at the images from Scott Myers' video as shown on pape 98 of NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. Here I would say that the photographic resolution is about 1 meter !)

I have also attempted my own (crude!) analysis of some impact videos, and like Omika, I see a measurable velocity reduction in the last 2 or 3 frames.

This tells me that Reynold's argument is based on a false premiss. The WTC 2 impact videos do actually show some degree of slowing of Flight 175 and therefore show a REAL aircraft striking a REAL building... That is, they are NOT FAKED!

Furthemore, Newton's Laws are still obviously in control of the universe and Dr. Reynold's needs to find a new rationale for his no-plane thesis....


and that's the best he's got ? My confidence in this is rising steadily.

[bill smith]

so then bill you didn't even bother to watch any of the videos I posted, and are now just ignoring it.

it is funny.

We have covered this plane cut steel crap. I just showed you it is crap.

nice dodge and an ignore.
what is the score from the judges? 9, 9, 9.5, 8, oh and a 4 from the east german judge.

if you try harder you can try to hand wave it away and ignore it.

Bye. Have a nice life.

[dtugg]

bill, are you actually this deluded or are you just pretending to be? It's impossible to tell.

[FineWine]

and that's the best he's got ? My confidence in this is rising steadily.


Yes, Bill, actually studying the videos and measuring the deceleration is the best he's got. You've lost it, Bill: seek help.

[bill smith]

bill, are you actually this deluded or are you just pretending to be? It's impossible to tell.

I have already said that I am not a no-planer because it just seems to be too complicated. To me it would make more sense to have used real planes. Nevertheless there are certain things that support the no-planes theory strongly. So I am playing the role of a no-planer here to better explore some of those things.

[dtugg]

No, no planer. There is nothing whatsoever that supports the no planer theory. You're just extremely deluded (or pretending to be).

[GlennB]

Bill is different from Christophera, Chris7, ultima1, Heiwa and the rest. They, deluded though they are, actually have some belief in what they say.

Bill does it for fun, but it seems to me that it has reached the level of an obsession with him.

You won't get a rational response from Heiwa because he's incapable of that.

You will get the most irrational response possible from Bill, because that is his objective.

[FineWine]

I have already said that I am not a no-planer because it just seems to be too complicated. To me it would make more sense to have used real planes. Nevertheless there are certain things that support the no-planes theory strongly. So I am playing the role of a no-planer here to better explore some of those things.



No, Bill, absolutely nothing can possibly support the single most insane fantasy ever invented by ignorant, delusional, agenda-driven lunatics. Your embarrassing refusal to learn why a hand can break a brick disgraces you personally (admittedly, a redundant act), but it also destroys the latest madness you've embraced to salvage your dead dream.

[FineWine]

Bill is different from Christophera, Chris7, ultima1, Heiwa and the rest. They, deluded though they are, actually have some belief in what they say.

Bill does it for fun, but it seems to me that it has reached the level of an obsession with him.

You won't get a rational response from Heiwa because he's incapable of that.

You will get the most irrational response possible from Bill, because that is his objective.


I'm going to disagree. I once regarded Bill merely as a clown, someone who says anything that pops into his head, no matter how ridiculous it makes him look. His problem is deeper. Arguing with Bill reminds me of arguing with Ultima1. There was a time when I felt that Bill's cowardice suggested sanity. Ultima's illness would never permit him to run away when he was getting crushed. But, lately I notice that Bill's devotion to irrationality is stretching the boundaries. Now, there is nothing too stupid for him to embrace. He is incapable of drawing the line anywhere. As his insane movement dies before his eyes, his desperation is driving him to behavior that must be regarded as pathological.

[alienentity]

NOOOOO!!! Teh Gubmint did it! They did They did They did!!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_304704a16e5d710568.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=16438)

The truth only hurts truthers. Funny thing eh?

[TruthersLie]

Bye. Have a nice life.

So bill does that mean you are just going to IGNORE the videos that I posted which show you the engine and debris coming out onto the roads?

Yes or no bill?

are you that much of an intellectual coward?

[FineWine]

So bill does that mean you are just going to IGNORE the videos that I posted which show you the engine and debris coming out onto the roads?

Yes or no bill?

are you that much of an intellectual coward?


Yes, he is that much of an intellectual coward--and more.

[tfk]

AE,

This clown is no more an engineer than I am the pope. And I've closed down WAY too many bars to get elected...

This is some punk kid who "knows in his bones" that he's right, and this misplaced certainty justifies to him pulling a hoax. For a "higher purpose", of course.

And that's the GENEROUS interpretation.

The other one is simply somebody selling DVDs & black tee shirts.

I've run across about 20 of these posers over the last 2+ years. They claim to be engineers, "world experts", etc. etc. etc.

We had one of them here, posting under the name Bob the Analyst and Professor SmartPants for awhile. You can still look up their posts here. You'll find a lot of similarities. When I first ran across him, he was bragging that he was "one of the top 100 or 50 FEA experts in the world". And saying things that were absurd.

As soon as an engineer gets arguing with these bozos, they scatter like cockroaches. Only to come out again, as soon as the coast looks clear...

AE: where is he posting?

Tom

[FineWine]

AE,

This clown is no more an engineer than I am the pope. And I've closed down WAY too many bars to get elected...

This is some punk kid who "knows in his bones" that he's right, and this misplaced certainty justifies to him pulling a hoax. For a "higher purpose", of course.

And that's the GENEROUS interpretation.

The other one is simply somebody selling DVDs & black tee shirts.

I've run across about 20 of these posers over the last 2+ years. They claim to be engineers, "world experts", etc. etc. etc.

We had one of them here, posting under the name Bob the Analyst and Professor SmartPants for awhile. You can still look up their posts here. You'll find a lot of similarities. When I first ran across him, he was bragging that he was "one of the top 100 or 50 FEA experts in the world". And saying things that were absurd.

As soon as an engineer gets arguing with these bozos, they scatter like cockroaches. Only to come out again, as soon as the coast looks clear...

AE: where is he posting?

Tom


Tom, don't you get the impression that Bill Smith is a crazy old Jew-hater? I could be wrong--maybe he's another angry, uneducated kid--but I sense someone whose head has ossified, whose brain overflows with unexamined prejudices, who simply has lost whatever ability he once had to process new information.

[bill smith]

Tom, don't you get the impression that Bill Smith is a crazy old Jew-hater? I could be wrong--maybe he's another angry, uneducated kid--but I sense someone whose head has ossified, whose brain overflows with unexamined prejudices, who simply has lost whatever ability he once had to process new information.



' Objection your Honour '...' the plaintive is putting words in the mouth of the witness...'

' Sustained '

' I don't want to hve to warn you about this again Miss FineWine '

[FineWine]

Objection you Honour...the plaintive is putting words in the mouth of the witness...


You interrupted your headlong flight for this? Sorry, Bill, but...

The collapsing floors that crush in succession the single floors below are still THE BIG PART;

Water can still cut steel;

Greening and other real scientists and video experts measured the deceleration of U175 shown in the videos;

A 100-ton projectile moving 500 mph goes right through steel columns;

The nose of U175 did not emerge intact from the side of the tower opposite the crash;

Ace Baker is still totally nuts, and Killclown is even nuttier and more cowardly.

You lose, Bill: you always lose.

[FineWine]

Objection your Honour...the plaintive is putting words in the mouth of the witness...


Bill, some of us are curious about a response of yours that was, well, mad even for you. When your recycled lie about the deceleration of U175 was destroyed by the contents of the thread I linked to, you reflexively mocked Dr. Greening's measurement of the deceleration. I know it's silly to ask you to explain what you were thinking--you weren't thinking anything. But, you did say that your "confidence" in your ancient, thoroughly debunked bit of lunacy had increased. Seriously, are you quite well? Are these daily beatings becoming a bit too much?

[bill smith]

Bill, some of us are curious about a response of yours that was, well, mad even for you. When your recycled lie about the deceleration of U175 was destroyed by the contents of the thread I linked to, you reflexively mocked Dr. Greening's measurement of the deceleration. I know it's silly to ask you to explain what you were thinking--you weren't thinking anything. But, you did say that your "confidence" in your ancient, thoroughly debunked bit of lunacy had increased. Seriously, are you quite well? Are these daily beatings becoming a bit too much?

A feather duster springs to mind Fineine when I think of the beatings I get here. Greening's post was 'worthless' to use one of your favourite words and yet you posted it as his strongest point. Ergo the increase in my confidence.

[GlennB]

I'm going to disagree. I once regarded Bill merely as a clown, someone who says anything that pops into his head, no matter how ridiculous it makes him look. ......
But, lately I notice that Bill's devotion to irrationality is stretching the boundaries. Now, there is nothing too stupid for him to embrace.

Fair enough. My view is that Bill actively seeks the extreme. When one avenue seems to close he'll look for a wilder one, such as the very recent no-plane guff. Not because he actually embraces the theory, but rather because it's the best way to wind people up right now.
In the end, I'll offer odds-on he's a troll rather than deluded. But I suppose it's merely academic.
He reminds me a lot of a so-called twoofer on another 9/11 forum. One who clearly didn't believe what he was spouting but took some kind of extreme pleasure in the "devil's advocate" role. Bill has this tendency, but taken to an extreme.

[TruthersLie]

Bill.

I'm still waiting for you to actually watch the videos which destroy the whole "no plane" movement.

are you that much of a coward? Huh?

oh no... I forgot, you are "just asking questions."

[FineWine]

A feather duster springs to mind Fineine when I think of the beatings I get here. Greening's post was 'worthless' to use one of your favourite words and yet you posted it as his strongest point. Ergo the increase in my confidence.


Uh, some of us on the sane side are wondering why a working scientist's measurement of the deceleration was "worthless." The inability of a very stupid person to understand how Greening--and others-- plotted the deceleration of the plane really doesn't count for much.

[FineWine]

A feather duster springs to mind Fineine when I think of the beatings I get here. Greening's post was 'worthless' to use one of your favourite words and yet you posted it as his strongest point. Ergo the increase in my confidence.


Nobody thinks you operate on a high enough level of sentience to feel the beatings, Bill. But, trust me, they're happeing all the time.

[bill smith]

Uh, some of us on the sane side are wondering why a working scientist's measurement of the deceleration was "worthless." The inability of a very stupid person to understand how Greening--and others-- plotted the deceleration of the plane really doesn't count for much.

By how much did Greening say the plane decelerated again ?....I can't quite remember.....lol

[bill smith]

Nobody thinks you operate on a high enough level of sentience to feel the beatings, Bill. But, trust me, they're happeing all the time.

It's obviously a perception thing..

[Audible Click]

I have already said that I am not a no-planer because it just seems to be too complicated. To me it would make more sense to have used real planes. Nevertheless there are certain things that support the no-planes theory strongly. So I am playing the role of a no-planer here to better explore some of those things.

You don't seem to be here to explore those things. It seems that you ignore most, if not all, of the reference links that have been posted for you. You attempt to debate by using whatever preconceived notions you have in your mind.

[bill smith]

Yes, Bill, actually studying the videos and measuring the deceleration is the best he's got. You've lost it, Bill: seek help.

Actually I have measured it. So has T.. There is no deceleration of the plane.

[FineWine]

By how much did Greening say the plane decelerated again ?....I can't quite remember.....lol


No, you can't remember. It's right in front of your nose, but you can't remember.

For your next trick, explain why the significance of your delusion has escaped EVERY aeronautical engineer and physicist in the WORLD. Tell us why you refuse to watch Mackey's extremely lucid (well, not lucid enough for complete morons) lecture. Tell us what the working scientists get wrong, Bill.

Remember, in a world with no Jews, hands will still be able to break bricks; water will still be able to cut steel. You can never win, Bill. Science and reason beats hatred and stupidity.

[FineWine]

Actually I have measured it. So has T.. There is no deceleration of the plane.


No, Bill, you haven't measured anything. You dreamed that the mountains of steel New Yorkers walked by for months had been dustified by imaginary beam weapons. I linked you to a thread, Bill. You can't understand a word that's in it. Seek help, Bill.

[DGM]

Interesting video but misleading as debunker videos usually are. I am not a no-planer for the simple reason that it just seems to be too complicated. Easier just to use real planes. Nevertheless I do not rule it out altogether considering the evidence. (Whether real or manufactured as disinformation)

Look at it his way. the plane in WTC2 aparently bulldozed through 33 of these columns without losing any speed. It did not shatter and fall down he front of the building as many might expect for a fragile aicraft composed of aluminium as thin as 1mm. In fact not a single gram of aircraft is seen to fall down the front of the building.

The 33 columns that were apparently severed were 14'' x 14'' box columns of 1/4'' steel. They may have been only 1/4'' steel but hey were also 14'' DEEP and were lying braced at 12-foot intervals against the concrete floors. The fuselage of the plane was itself 13 feet in diameter. Think about it. Not a gram fell ff the plane on the outside and it measurably lost zero speed in the impact with a 500,000 ton building that apparently swayed back and forth for four minutes after the impact. The plane weighed one-quarter of one-half of one-tenth of one percent of the building's weight. The veritable mosquito. Quite a fast mosquito though if you think that is enough.

Bill:
Would you like to expand on this? If so, I would be happy to shoot very large holes in your (supposed) understanding. Care to give it a go?

[bill smith]

No, Bill, you haven't measured anything. You dreamed that the mountains of steel New Yorkers walked by for months had been dustified by imaginary beam weapons. I linked you to a thread, Bill. You can't understand a word that's in it. Seek help, Bill.

I see the old weakness setting in with you again Finewine.lol

[bill smith]

Bill:
Would you like to expand on this? If so, I would be happy to shoot very large holes in your (supposed) understanding. Care to give it a go?

Go for it. It's there in front of you. Shoot away.

[TruthersLie]

handwave some more bill..

then run and hide from simple videos like anthony lawson's.

run and hide billy boy.

[FineWine]

I see the old weakness setting in with you again Finewine.lol


Hey, a great substantive response, Bill! So, we agree that Greening is a real scientist and you are an uneducated fanatic. Your constant avoidance of the point's devastating implications shows that we also agree that the collapsing floors are the BIG PART. Now, Greening showed how he measured the deceleration. You can't criticize his methodology because you don't know anything. Your empty-headed hatred has let you down again, Bill.

Another poster, Gumboot, who bulks very large in all the mad Ace Baker threads, is a video expert who points out that the quality of the videos available to you armchair experts simply doesn't permit the sort of analysis you pretend to do.

You watched Ace's "debate," didn't you? Ace did very, very poorly.

[bill smith]

Hey, a great substantive response, Bill! So, we agree that Greening is a real scientist and you are an uneducated fanatic. Your constant avoidance of the point's devastating implications shows that we also agree that the collapsing floors are the BIG PART. Now, Greening showed how he measured the deceleration. You can't criticize his methodology because you don't know anything. Your empty-headed hatred has let you down again, Bill.

Another poster, Gumboot, who bulks very large in all the mad Ace Baker threads, is a video expert who points out that the quality of the videos available to you armchair experts simply doesn't permit the sort of analysis you pretend to do.

You watched Ace's "debate," didn't you? Ace did very, very poorly.

Go to bed FineWine. It will be another day tomorrow. I'm finshed toying with you for today.

[FineWine]

Go to bed FineWine. It will be another day tomorrow. I'm finshed toying with you for today.


Oh, gee, Bill, and just when I thought I was starting to catch up. We tigers are so grateful when aged, diseased sheep only toy with us. We'd hate it if we had to face your full strength.

Yes, you're quite finished today. You've been beaten to the usual bloody pulp. You were destroyed on every stupid issue you raised. Same old, same old.

[NobbyNobbs]

Bill: post 137?

[bill smith]

Are you suggesting that the reality of the situation should be akin to Wile E. Coyote slamming into the face of a cliff and sliding down?



And a 200 grain .45 caliber bullet is .0184% of my body weight, but I have no doubt about its ability to penetrate my skin without an apprpeciable loss of speed.. Your point?

That's a lot more likely than ol' Wile making a cartoon cut-out in 33 14'' steel box columns when you think about it.

A bullet is not a good analogy. That is a dense lump of of a heavy metal. A plane is 100-some tons of mostly light thin aluminium spread out all over the place with the only really dense parts being the two six-ton engines and parts of the landing gear.

[beachnut]

Tht's a lot more likely than ol;;Wile making a cartoon cut-out in 33 14'' box columns when you think about it.

A bullet is not a good analogy. That is a dense lump of of a heavy metal. A plane is 100-some tons of mostly light thin aluminium spread out all over the place with the only really dense parts being the two six-ton engines and parts of the landing gear.
Why do they building planes out of Aluminum? Strength. Sorry you really need some engineering knowledge if you are going to make up anti-intellectual BS and have it go down easier.

Stop posting junk science and get some education.

Please tell us how much energy the plane impacts on 911 were before you post your delusional tripe.

How do birds bring down planes or damage steel? How do deer cause damage to cars? You ideas on mass and energy lack knowledge and logic. Why do you insist on posing delusions on 911? How does karate work?

[FineWine]

Tht's a lot more likely than ol' Wile making a cartoon cut-out in 33 14'' box columns when you think about it.

A bullet is not a good analogy. That is a dense lump of of a heavy metal. A plane is 100-some tons of mostly light thin aluminium spread out all over the place with the only really dense parts being the two six-ton engines and parts of the landing gear.


Earth to Bill: Mackey devoted one entire part of his three-part lecture to the physics of the plane crashes. Will you ever watch it?

Remember, Bill, a fluffy bird can damage a titanium fan blade. Morgan Reynolds is hiding under his bed and Fetzer is nuts.

[alexi_drago]

That's a lot more likely than ol' Wile making a cartoon cut-out in 33 14'' steel box columns when you think about it.

A bullet is not a good analogy. That is a dense lump of of a heavy metal. A plane is 100-some tons of mostly light thin aluminium spread out all over the place with the only really dense parts being the two six-ton engines and parts of the landing gear.

Could a water ballon made of rubber only a fraction of a mm thick break a window?

[beachnut]

Could a water ballon made of rubber only a fraction of a mm thick break a window?
You expect someone to use physics when their expertise is posting delusions made up by other people?

[bill smith]

Why do they building planes out of Aluminum? Strength. Sorry you really need some engineering knowledge if you are going to make up anti-intellectual BS and have it go down easier.

Stop posting junk science and get some education.

Please tell us how much energy the plane impacts on 911 were before you post your delusional tripe.

How do birds bring down planes or damage steel? How do deer cause damage to cars? You ideas on mass and energy lack knowledge and logic. Why do you insist on posing delusions on 911? How does karate work?
I agree that birds can bring down a delicate fragile aircraft but can you show me evidence for your assertion that they can damage steel ?

[bill smith]

Could a water ballon made of rubber only a fraction of a mm thick break a window?

Can you give an example ?

[FineWine]

I agree that birds can bring down a dlelicate fragle aircraft but can you show me evidence for your assertion that they can damage steel ?


Mackey explained how paint flakes moving 10,000 mph can damage a space shuttle. When will you watch his lecture, Bill? Tell us what he gets wrong. I say that you could shoot a tomato through a brick wall if you accelerated it sufficiently. What do you think, Bill? Are all the physicists wrong?

[FineWine]

Can you give an example ?

Uh, how about a few you've run away from?

Water cutting steel;

Human hands breaking bricks.

[bill smith]

Earth to Bill: Mackey devoted one entire part of his three-part lecture to the physics of the plane crashes. Will you ever watch it?

Remember, Bill, a fluffy bird can damage a titanium fan blade. Morgan Reynolds is hiding under his bed and Fetzer is nuts.

Do you have a link to that particular episode ?

[Grizzly Bear]

Uh, how about a few you've run away from?

Maybe he needs visuals.... (any bets pn whether or not he'll be able to comprehend?)

Water cutting steel;
rAH0M9KP6H4

Human hands breaking bricks.
otHZwjElXwQ&NR=1

Or perhaps he should look up a few catastrophic cases of wind harmonics:
j-zczJXSxnw

Or perhaps what happens when part of the insulation is knocked off damaging the heat shield on a space shuttle:
1oBTzbKx0jo

[FineWine]

Do you have a link to that particular episode ?


I don't remember which one of the three shows it was. I think it was the last one. Look for the thread devoted to these shows.

[TruthersLie]

Griz.

He has already run away from 5 videos showing the no plane crap is just that...

run and hid, then tried to hand wave them away.

poor widdle billy boy... getting picked on for his lies and delusions.

[NobbyNobbs]

That's a lot more likely than ol' Wile making a cartoon cut-out in 33 14'' steel box columns when you think about it.

A bullet is not a good analogy. That is a dense lump of of a heavy metal. A plane is 100-some tons of mostly light thin aluminium spread out all over the place with the only really dense parts being the two six-ton engines and parts of the landing gear.

Please tell me which equation for the transfer of energy involves the density of either of the materials involved.

And while you mull that over...

"A tornado can drive a straw through a telephone pole."
FACT: The forces inside a tornado are incredible, and still poorly understood. But they are certainly strong enough to turn otherwise harmless items into deadly missiles.


Source (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadosafety.html)

[tfk]

Tom, don't you get the impression that Bill Smith is a crazy old Jew-hater? I could be wrong--maybe he's another angry, uneducated kid--but I sense someone whose head has ossified, whose brain overflows with unexamined prejudices, who simply has lost whatever ability he once had to process new information.
.
Well, well, well.

From the speed and insistence of Billy's reply, it would appear that Billy doesn't relish the thought of my sharing what I know about him.

I gave up trying to figure Bill out a long time ago. Who cares... He clearly doesn't really believe the nonsense that he spouts. He simply enjoys the illusion of significance. He like standing up & saying 2+2=34, and watching the math teachers go into a frenzy. When they catch on to that game & stop responding, he'll move on to "you math teachers are all fakes & frauds". You know, typical 12 year old fantasies.

The only mildly interesting aspect of his character is that he is completely unconcerned with his character's public humiliation. Who knows why. Who cares.

My guess: A kid, mid 20s, with a financial investment in moving 9/11 merchandise.

I'll happily share with you the things that I know. It's a fair bunch.

I'll cc Billy on all of it, of course. Which will give Billy an opportunity to address anything that he wants. Wouldn't want to be considered a gossip, now...

Tom

[tfk]

Actually I have measured it. So has T.. There is no deceleration of the plane.
.
What the hell are you doing, bringing my initial into your lunacy.

You couldn't measure it if your life depended on it.

If you wish to lie about your own nonsense, be my guest. But do NOT, EVER, claim to speak for me on ANY issue.

Now, I'd be happy to have you either provide a link to ANYPLACE that I ever said that plane didn't slow down, or issue a formal retraction of that blatant lie.

T

[alienentity]

For some reason mrcoddy doesn't want to engage anyone on the forum directly, but he did send another message indicating that he's reading the thread.

'Yes I am an engineer, regardless of the childish attempts to say otherwise on the forum.

There is a 'debunk' for everything the truth movement has... this much is obvious. But these 'debunks' are not scientifically possible.

The molten metal for example... the best the debunkers have is "Underground fires made from office materials"

Just take a moment to ask yourself if that's physically possible.. and again please THINK about it...

The office materals were blown into powder with the rest of the building. There were no in-tact desks, carpets etc etc to burn. They were powdered aong wit the rest of the buildiong.

Do you honestly believe that such tiny fragmemnts of flammable material could somehow join together under tonnes & tonnes of concrete dust (and remember that dust is widely used as a fire extinguisher), with very little oxygen... and burn hot enough for over a month... enougfh to make & maintain metal in a MOLTEN state?

The fires in the WTC were extinguished as soon as destruction ('collapse') initiated. The fact that you believe that all of these flammable materials somehow magically gathered under tonnes of fine dust... ignited themselves & burned in such a way that it created pools of molten metal... is really pure fantasy.

Post this on JREF if you like... allow morons to do your thinking for you... to say "He's not an engineer" or "He's an Idiot" or whatever... but please actually THINK about what you are claiming.... that a 'collapse' somehow turned 100s of tonnes of metal into liquid... how?


Please sir, please use your OWN brain & stop being influenced by others.'

[~enigma~]

For some reason mrcoddy doesn't want to engage anyone on the forum directly, but he did send another message indicating that he's reading the thread.
Aw...the less than human baby is afraid of big ole Jref.

[alienentity]

I'm enjoying family time this weekend, but I will respond directly to one obvious error in mrcoddy's message. That would be:

'The molten metal for example... the best the debunkers have is "Underground fires made from office materials'

This is a transparent strawman argument, as nobody I know thinks that the fires were fueled purely by office materials. I've never seen a debunker use that particular argument.

In any case, AFAIK, you had acres of hydrocarbon-based carpet, various flammable fuels in generator tanks located throughout building 7, gasoline from car tanks.

So I think this particular claim is falsified.

Here's another claim he makes which I think is clearly false:

'The fires in the WTC were extinguished as soon as destruction ('collapse') initiated.'

This is demonstrable nonsense. In fact, as soon as the collapses finished, there were burning materials all over the place, igniting many vehicles on the roads, starting massive fires in WTC buildings (incl. building 7, of course). Further, the rubble piles themselves were emitting large quantities of smoke from various fires buried within.

The claim by mrcoddy is false, it's not a serious point. Another logical inconsistency with his reasoning is that, on the one hand while there were vast sources of organic flammables throughout the rubble, he cannot accept they could have been concentrated enough to burn AT ALL! He denies ANY burning of this material.
But then he insists that another material, thermite, as the source of the fires. Thermite, even if you allow for it's presence, would have existed in much smaller quantities than other flammable materials and would also have been scattered by the violence of the collapses. But, strangely, due to the magical qualities ascribed to it by truthers, thermite would have somehow magically remained intact and ready to burn in large quantities. (of course, if the fires were actually out, nothing would have ignited the thermite........oops!)

The logical contradictions are there to see. I doubt whether most truthers are able to comprehend them however.

One final point: regarding the WTC dust, and the 'thermite chips' allegedly contained within. I can't remember the exact percentage of the chips by weight in the dust (which was mostly insulation, gypsum, glass fragments and so on) but I think it was something like .1%.

It would be interesting to see whether this dust is flammable with or without the chips. If it is not, then the chips wouldn't make any difference, they're such a tiny percentage of it's composition. Then, it would be the dust itself which was the main material to burn.

Anyway, there are a number of other unproven and unsubstantiated assumptions about thermite made by truthers, which undermine the strength of any conclusions based on them. One of the strongest countering pieces of evidence is the lack of evidence of temperatures sufficient to melt steel, which would be easily spotted if thermite was actually present.
However, the famous eutectic erosion documented by FEMA actually proves the opposite, that temps never rose in those cases above 1000C. Not hot enough for thermite or thermate, sorry!

And on and on it goes.

[~enigma~]

I'm enjoying family time this weekend, but I will respond directly to one obvious error in mrcoddy's message. That would be:

'The molten metal for example... the best the debunkers have is "Underground fires made from office materials'

This is a transparent strawman argument, as nobody I know thinks that the fires were fueled purely by office materials. I've never seen a debunker use that particular argument.

In any case, AFAIK, you had acres of hydrocarbon-based carpet, various flammable fuels in generator tanks located throughout building 7, gasoline from car tanks.

So I think this particular claim is falsified.

Here's another claim he makes which I think is clearly false:

'The fires in the WTC were extinguished as soon as destruction ('collapse') initiated.'

This is demonstrable nonsense. In fact, as soon as the collapses finished, there were burning materials all over the place, igniting many vehicles on the roads, starting massive fires in WTC buildings (incl. building 7, of course). Further, the rubble piles themselves were emitting large quantities of smoke from various fires buried within.

The claim by mrcoddy is false, it's not a serious point. Another logical inconsistency with his reasoning is that, on the one hand while there were vast sources of organic flammables throughout the rubble, he cannot accept they could have been concentrated enough to burn AT ALL! He denies ANY burning of this material.
But then he insists that another material, thermite, as the source of the fires. Thermite, even if you allow for it's presence, would have existed in much smaller quantities than other flammable materials and would also have been scattered by the violence of the collapses. But, strangely, due to the magical qualities ascribed to it by truthers, thermite would have somehow magically remained intact and ready to burn in large quantities. (of course, if the fires were actually out, nothing would have ignited the thermite........oops!)

The logical contradictions are there to see. I doubt whether most truthers are able to comprehend them however.

One final point: regarding the WTC dust, and the 'thermite chips' allegedly contained within. I can't remember the exact percentage of the chips by weight in the dust (which was mostly insulation, gypsum, glass fragments and so on) but I think it was something like .1%.

It would be interesting to see whether this dust is flammable with or without the chips. If it is not, then the chips wouldn't make any difference, they're such a tiny percentage of it's composition. Then, it would be the dust itself which was the main material to burn.

Anyway, there are a number of other unproven and unsubstantiated assumptions about thermite made by truthers, which undermine the strength of any conclusions based on them. One of the strongest countering pieces of evidence is the lack of evidence of temperatures sufficient to melt steel, which would be easily spotted if thermite was actually present.
However, the famous eutectic erosion documented by FEMA actually proves the opposite, that temps never rose in those cases above 1000C. Not hot enough for thermite or thermate, sorry!

And on and on it goes.
[truther rant]The thermite scattered during the collapse but considering we are talking NYC, most of the cars were rusted and there apparently was a cheese factory underneath the WTC that provided the aluminum (yes it is in cheese...look it up you sheeple) so there was thermite in the rubble pile.
[/truther rant]

[Grizzly Bear]

For some reason mrcoddy doesn't want to engage anyone on the forum directly, but he did send another message indicating that he's reading the thread.

If he doesn't want to start speaking for himself here, then that's his decision, however speaking to him via proxy seems rather pointless. I take his claim of being an engineer at face value, but his claims are bonkers... and I'm already spending time on my own response to the 29 engineers from AE911 paper which addresses most of the crap this guy's peddling, and repeating this material to incompetents in brief isn't going to get anything through his noggin.

If he wants to claim that thermite is responsible for molten steel months following the collapse, he's responsible for demonstrating how the incendiaries remained in just the right mixture to allow for the reaction after having a damn skyscraper collapse all on top of it when ordinary office materials got ground to powder from the force of a 200,000 ton masher, and how the reaction lasted for 8 months. He'll have a jolly time, I'm sure.... considering thermite burns quite rapidly... remember the 2000 pounds of it myth busters used to try and cut a car in half... it got expended in less than an hour and it failed to cut the car completely

[Sam.I.Am]

Landfill fires are pretty common and can burn underground for months. Coal seam fires can burn underground for years. Powdered debris means nothing, look up grain elevator explosions or flour bombs. The simple fact of the matter is that underground fires happen on a regular basis. The thermal temps at ground zero were measured at up to 1300 degrees f, this is an undisputed fact despite your incredulity about it. This is enough to melt aluminum and lead. These two materials were present in abundance in and on the towers.

The dust that you mention as a fire extinguishing agent is applied directly to the base of the fire and not sprayed about willy nilly in the general direction of the fire. Any gap in the coverage means that the fire will still burn.

The debris also acted as an insulating blanket. Holding in the heat is how you raise temperatures higher than what the fuel being burned can do all by itself. How hot do you think an incinerator designed to burn human waste can get to? I've seen one such incinerator fueled by #2 fuel oil go from 1400f to over 2000f in mere minutes with the burners off, burning nothing but human waste during burn-out (shutting it down) more than once, and we were trying like hell to keep it from doing so (it was bad for the rake arms).

You might be an engineer but you don't seem to know a whole lot about the chemical reaction that we call fire.

[FineWine]

I don't remember which one of the three shows it was. I think it was the last one. Look for the thread devoted to these shows.


My guess was wrong. Ryan Mackey explained the physics of the planes' penetration of the buildings in the second show:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8184528465256118271

[bill smith]

My guess was wrong. Ryan Mackey explained the physics of the planes' penetration of the buildings in the second show:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8184528465256118271

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

[TruthersLie]

AE and Griz.

No he certainly could be an engineer.
a sanitation engineer
a landscaping engineer

or maybe he is in higher company
an electrical engineer or
a software engineer.

You know... people who have NO qualifications, and NO understanding but hold on to the title of "engineer" in a death grip because they don't want to be called programmers/technicians.

IMHO.

I love the twoof strawmen he throws up (and they are easily PROVEN to be false).

so my bet is landscape engineer.

[JihadJane]

No, the funny part is when some internet nobodies whose postings have yet to indicate they know anything at all about anything presume to question the expertise of a real scientist, trained in things said posters couldn't even begin to comprehend in a million years. And after abundantly demonstrating their total ignorance and foolishness, instead of slinking off in utter humiliation as any self-respecting adult would do, remain so completely clueless that they actually make what they assume are clever remarks about it. Now that's funny!

It is common to be knowledgeable about one topic and ignorant about many others.

So what if the towers disintegrated because of impact and fire. Who does that let off the hook?

[tfk]

Actually I have measured it. So has T.. There is no deceleration of the plane.

.
What the hell are you doing, bringing my initial into your lunacy.

You couldn't measure it if your life depended on it.

If you wish to lie about your own nonsense, be my guest. But do NOT, EVER, claim to speak for me on ANY issue.

Now, I'd be happy to have you either provide a link to ANYPLACE that I ever said that plane didn't slow down, or issue a formal retraction of that blatant lie.

T

Bill,

Please retract your lie immediately.

Tom

[bill smith]

Bill,

Please retract your lie immediately.

Tom

Well it was on the topix forum. I'm sure you have extensive records of the posts involved. You could esily put up those posts and we can have another look. My recollection is that we were in broad agreement that the plane did not slow down when penetrating the massive steel barrier of WTC2.

[tfk]

Well it was on the topix forum. I'm sure you have extensive records of the posts involved. You could esily put up those posts and we can have another look. My recollection is that we were in broad agreement that the plane did not slow down when penetrating the massive steel barrier of WTC2.
.
This really tears it, Bill.

You're a fool. A clown. And now, a liar.

You cannot understand the simplest of concepts. I worked my ass off & got an Ivy League engineering degree.
You work in food service. I worked my ass off & invented products that have saved about a quarter million lives.
You produce one brain dead stupid theory after another. I put in some thought & effort and produce engineering explanations.
You don't care about these topics in the slightest. I do.

You have consistently lied about one topic after another after another since I've known you.

That's your own business. That's YOUR reputation.

But now, you choose to lie about my statements & opinions. That is MY reputation that you trammel with the ludicrous suggestion that I'd agree with any of your inane opinions.

And then have the unmitigated gall to tell me that I should go research your nonexistent lie, so that I can clean up your mess.

Your behavior has crossed the line from buffoonish to despicable.

Your statement is a lie. I presented to the readers at Topix NIST's CLEAR presentation of their analyses in NCSTAR1-2, which show the plane losing about 70% of its velocity while penetrating the outer wall.

Your understanding is nonexistent. Your memory is convenient to the moment. You possess zero concept of truth or honor.

Do NOT suggest, ever again, that you possess the ability to speak for me on any topic.

tk

[GlennB]

bill seems to have slipped well out of "having a bit of a giggle" into plain malice, so it begins to look like I could have been wrong all along.
And note the weasel words ... "my recollection" ...

[tfk]

bill seems to have slipped well out of "having a bit of a giggle" into plain malice, so it begins to look like I could have been wrong all along.
And note the weasel words ... "my recollection" ...
.
He's a buffoon, whose only talent is to be insufferably annoying as often as possible. Your basic garden variety troll.

He runs several puppets on that other forum, Topix. Outright, blatant lies and antisemitism is a cornerstone of those. Up until now, he kept those traits away from "bill smith". I guess he got bored, being slapped around so badly.

The amusing part of all of this is that, while I quoted NIST's analysis, bill's stated opinion on this issue was that the plane would HAVE to have bounced off the towers, because aluminum could never have passed thru steel.

So, therefore the plane was either: a hologram, AND CGI'd into the broadcast video with NWO agents in the crowd all pointing at the sky and saying "Look, a plane is about to hit the towers" and thereby impressing a false memory into all the credulous people around them AND there was a "molecular disintegrator beam" built into the front of the plane AND military plane AND Remotely Piloted Vehicle.

I use the word "AND" intentionally. Because he simply swapped from one theory to the next to the next. I'm sure I've forgotten some.

And these are the opinionS with which, he claimed above, I agreed with him. ???? Go figure.

Anyway, bill has pulled his last prank as far as I'm concerned. He's off to ignore, and it's like the sun just came out. Or someone opened a window...

You've got a stronger stomach than I do, Glenn.

:rolleyes:

Tom

[twinstead]

bill et all seem to think that debating on this forum is like some Star Trek forum where one group is saying Star Trek Next Generation is better than Star Trek Voyager and another group disagrees.

The professionals on this forum basically represent the rank-and-file of engineers world-wide, and is a good indication of how the truther's theories would be--and are--received in the real world.

Truthers are an odd bunch

[bill smith]

bill seems to have slipped well out of "having a bit of a giggle" into plain malice, so it begins to look like I could have been wrong all along.
And note the weasel words ... "my recollection" ...

So where's he malice then Glenn ?

[beachnut]

The rest of the evidence put forward by 1000s of whistleblowers & experts supports the physical evidence Nanothermite found in the WTC dust. I know its just paint right? The editor of the Open Physics journal resigned Ive heard it all. But what you must remember is that this paper has been OPEN PEER REVIEWED.

What an idiotic idea to believe as Jones lies about thermite being used to destroy the WTC. How dumb do you have to be to fall for a big lie made up 4 years after 911 because Jones does not like the Iraq war which has nothing to do with 911.

Nano-thermite is a big scam; who is dumb enough to fall for it? Jones supports the Hoffman delusion of thermite chips in the ceiling tiles with remote detonators. That is insanity.

[bill smith]

What an idiotic idea to believe as Jones lies about thermite being used to destroy the WTC. How dumb do you have to be to fall for a big lie made up 4 years after 911 because Jones does not like the Iraq war which has nothing to do with 911.

Nano-thermite is a big scam; who is dumb enough to fall for it? Jones supports the Hoffman delusion of thermite chips in the ceiling tiles with remote detonators. That is insanity.

I never heard about that. Do you have a link ? I have a somewhat similar theory myself.

[twinstead]

I never heard about that. Do you have a link ? I have a somewhat similar theory myself.

You are about as qualified to come up with a "theory" about 911 as my 7 year-old daughter. Please don't forget that.

[Justin39640]

Exactly what I say. The plane passed through that massive steel barrier without any of the flimsy panels coming loose and fluttering down on the outside and it lost zero velocity due to the impact. In fact in th case of WTC1 the 155-foot long aircraft went hrough the perimeter columns and hit the core about 60 feet in. So about 100 feet of he fuselage should have been sticking out and momentarily showing that tremendous final shattering blow against he core columns. But guess what ?....hey, it did not allow a few measly core columns to slow it down either and went in without any hesitation or jolt at all.

http://www.ugo.com/music/hip-hop-album-covers/images/entries/Licensed-to-ill.jpg

[BigAl]

Nice. You could rotate that 90 degrees CCW and call it "Flight 93"

[Justin39640]

Bill is different from Christophera, Chris7, ultima1, Heiwa and the rest. They, deluded though they are, actually have some belief in what they say.

Bill does it for fun, but it seems to me that it has reached the level of an obsession with him.

You won't get a rational response from Heiwa because he's incapable of that.

You will get the most irrational response possible from Bill, because that is his objective.

bill is the truther version of 'Mad Libs'?

[triforcharity]

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.


Um, I don't think NIST is in any position to release such documents as the blueprints. Those belong to whomever owned them.

Just like the tapes from the Hotels near the Pentagon, or any other evidence that they used. Its not theirs to give out.

Der.


PS, I am sure this has been pointed out to bill, but I wanted to reiterate it.

Oh, and that stupid plane again??? Come on, we discussed this a long time ago. Nost sure where, but I know that I poked more holes in this theory of yours than swiss cheese.

[NobbyNobbs]

Bill: post 206?

[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

[Dave Rogers]

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.

It didn't. The upper block rotated about its centre of mass. Whatever moved to one side below that centre was balanced by an amount of equal moment of inertia moving the opposite direction above that centre. Why can't truthers understand elementary geometry?

Dave

[Newtons Bit]

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.


Um, I don't think NIST is in any position to release such documents as the blueprints. Those belong to whomever owned them.

Just like the tapes from the Hotels near the Pentagon, or any other evidence that they used. Its not theirs to give out.

Der.


PS, I am sure this has been pointed out to bill, but I wanted to reiterate it.

Oh, and that stupid plane again??? Come on, we discussed this a long time ago. Nost sure where, but I know that I poked more holes in this theory of yours than swiss cheese.

They wouldn't know what to do if they had their hands on the construction documents. Truthers don't understand the basic principles of how and why buildings stand up.

[~enigma~]

They wouldn't know what to do if they had their hands on the construction documents. Truthers don't understand the basic principles of how and why buildings stand up.
Sure they do. Remember that net force equals zero so truthers think that buildings can't collapse and that they stand for all eternity.

[jaydeehess]

Are we back to the aluminium bulldozer theory again ? The bread cutting the knife and so on ?

How does that theory work for using water to cut steel plate bill?

[jaydeehess]

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.

[jaydeehess]

Getting back to initial failure and the PBS doc that bill linked to;
That doc did not refer to a massive largely remaing core bill. At least not the part you linked to.
However I do note that the roofline is seen to move downward and the core is not seen spearing up through it so we do know that the core did fail.

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.

[newton3376]

I just noticed this......

AE and Griz.

No he certainly could be an engineer.
a sanitation engineer
a landscaping engineer

or maybe he is in higher company
an electrical engineer or
a software engineer.

You know... people who have NO qualifications, and NO understanding but hold on to the title of "engineer" in a death grip because they don't want to be called programmers/technicians.

IMHO.

I love the twoof strawmen he throws up (and they are easily PROVEN to be false).

so my bet is landscape engineer.

An electrical engineer isn't an engineer but is a programmer or a technician?

Huh? How is an electrical engineer not an engineer?

[TruthersLie]

I just noticed this......



An electrical engineer isn't an engineer but is a programmer or a technician?

Huh? How is an electrical engineer not an engineer?

Newton.

I was not actively mocking electrical engineers. They go through a ******** of courses (I wanted to be an civil engineer, and in the basic engineering courses, electrical engineers were there with me in my 3 years of courses).

The main point I was trying to make is that if you are talking about eletrical engineering, that is VASTLY different than talking about civil, mechanical or structural engineering. And to conflate an electrical engineering degree to be able to discuss structural engineering is like comparing a podiatrist to a neurosurgeon. I know which one I'm going to if I have massive head trauma.

That was the intent of the reply. I was using it in a mocking fashion because over 1/2 of the AEtruth "engineers" are EE or software engineers, who are WAY out of their depth when even starting to discuss the towers or wtc7.

I ment no disrespect to any electrical engineers (beyond the twoofer ones).

[deep]

That was the intent of the reply. I was using it in a mocking fashion because over 1/2 of the AEtruth "engineers" are EE or software engineers, who are WAY out of their depth when even starting to discuss the towers or wtc7.


Over half? I only see around 70 of them.

[newton3376]

Newton.

I was not actively mocking electrical engineers. They go through a ******** of courses (I wanted to be an civil engineer, and in the basic engineering courses, electrical engineers were there with me in my 3 years of courses).

I was pretty sure you weren't....

The main point I was trying to make is that if you are talking about eletrical engineering, that is VASTLY different than talking about civil, mechanical or structural engineering. And to conflate an electrical engineering degree to be able to discuss structural engineering is like comparing a podiatrist to a neurosurgeon. I know which one I'm going to if I have massive head trauma.

Agreed.

That was the intent of the reply. I was using it in a mocking fashion because over 1/2 of the AEtruth "engineers" are EE or software engineers, who are WAY out of their depth when even starting to discuss the towers or wtc7.

I have no idea why they buy into that crap.....and yes they are WAY out of their depth. I agree 100%.

They do kind make other electrical engineers look bad by buying into the truther garbage...

I ment no disrespect to any electrical engineers (beyond the twoofer ones).

I thought that's what you were saying....and I agree.....
:)

[TruthersLie]

Over half? I only see around 70 of them.

this is from a person who was running down the actual credentials of the ae911 twoof "architects and engineers"

check the numbers there
http://ae911truth.info/xls/ae911truth-archeng640lie.xls

so instead of 640 degreed and licensed architects, they had less than 300.

why is it you twoofs lie so much?
http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-view_blog.php?blogId=1

[TruthersLie]

Newton.

I can also only state it was late and I was tired when I wrote it, so I was being a bit snarky.

Now when I need electrical issues mapped out, circuitboards, transformers etc, I know that I will HAPPILY call my electrical engineering friends and I wont' call my structural engineering friends.

On the AETWOOF engineers and architects... I love that they had barney rubble, fred flintstone and george jetson all signed up as engineers who supported the twoof movement at one point.

What I also find very interesting is their list of 29 structural engineers who buy into the twoof woo... They have several structural engineers listed on their petition who have highrise experience who buy into the twoof movement. BUT NOT ONE OF THEM was in the 29 engineers listed... that by itself amazes me... so instead of having people with high rise experience, they have road constrution folks, ship engineers, an oil rig engineer, bridge builders.... go figure.

[deep]

this is from a person who was running down the actual credentials of the ae911 twoof "architects and engineers"


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?

[TruthersLie]

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?

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. The same group which has signed up landscaping engineers, sanitation engineers and others (I wouldn't be surprised to find railroad engineers on it)

Feel free to double check the work if you disagree with it. I know that givent he choice of believing AEtwoof or someone else independently checking the credientials, I'll take the latter every time.

[newton3376]

Newton.

I can also only state it was late and I was tired when I wrote it, so I was being a bit snarky.

Now when I need electrical issues mapped out, circuitboards, transformers etc, I know that I will HAPPILY call my electrical engineering friends and I wont' call my structural engineering friends.


Just remember....not all of us EE's are crazy ;)

On the AETWOOF engineers and architects... I love that they had barney rubble, fred flintstone and george jetson all signed up as engineers who supported the twoof movement at one point.

ROFL

Never heard that one before now....the more I learn about the TM the more disturbed I am....

What I also find very interesting is their list of 29 structural engineers who buy into the twoof woo... They have several structural engineers listed on their petition who have highrise experience who buy into the twoof movement. BUT NOT ONE OF THEM was in the 29 engineers listed... that by itself amazes me... so instead of having people with high rise experience, they have road constrution folks, ship engineers, an oil rig engineer, bridge builders.... go figure.

That is a bit odd....although at this point not much about the truthers surprises me....I just close my eyes and shake my head at them...

[deep]

Feel free to double check the work if you disagree with it. I know that givent he choice of believing AEtwoof or someone else independently checking the credientials, I'll take the latter every time.


How can anyone double-check it? This person doesn't even describe the process used for determining which names were "bad".