Has Anyone Seen A Realistice Explanation For Free Fall Of The Towers?

[Christophera]

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

You haven't demonstrated sufficient mastery of this concept to be using it to draw conclusions.

You haven't demonstrated anything but an internet connection. If this is not true you will be able link to your web site demonstrating commen sense in analysis and explanation of this.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2951&stc=1&d=1157386298

[Christophera]

Christophera believes that acting in a stupid manner somehow mocks the skeptics on this board. However, it merely shows him to be a buffoon. His behavior is another example of CTs lying for the 'truth'.

If a pixel covers 3 feet and an object is 3 inches (12-to-1), the object isn't going to show up. Christophera, I'm shocked that you don't understand this basic rule that even a middle school student would be familiar with. Is your life so meaningless that you are driven to create fake letters, documentaries, and dictionary passages? Place the 3,000 victims ahead of your desire for self-esteem.

If an object is 3 inches and there are 100 of them in a line, viewed slightly off but basically along the line, then your entire premise proves that the image shows rebar. Thank you.

[MortFurd]

Common sense.
"Common sense" says the towers fell after being smashed and set on fire by crashing a couple of big airplanes into them.

The gibberish you come up with is completely non-sensical.

You have yet to show proof of your concrete core.
Explosives would not have retained their strength if placed when the towers were built.
Explosives could not have been placed after the towers were built due to the amount of work needed to place the charges. You can't just chuck 'em in a corner and hope for the best. Check on REAL controlled demolitions, and you will find that there is a preparation period of months, with professionals working all day every workday on the task.
As mentioned many times, the photos you point to couldn't possibly show 3" rebar. A 3" object would be pretty much invisible at the resolution of the photos you have shown.
As noted by more knowledgeable people, rebar isn't made in 3" diameter. It is possible that 3" rebar was special made for the WTC, but you have yet to show any proof of that.


If you need attention so badly, then why don't you just go streaking? That would be far less disgusting than spewing the garbage you have posted here and on your site.

[MortFurd]

If an object is 3 inches and there are 100 of them in a line, viewed slightly off but basically along the line, then your entire premise proves that the image shows rebar. Thank you.
It proves nothing of the sort.

That such a row of objects would be visible from the correct angle under the correct conditions is true, but has nothing to do with the statement made.

I'd give you a clue, but I seriously doubt you'd know what to do with it.

[MortFurd]

Not porous enough to allowed continued oxidation. It is a far better seal over long periods of time than cellophane.


I think we're all going to have to all kick in a few bucks and send Chrisophera to an engineering school.

Water seeps through concrete. Basements have to have special sealants used to keep out the water in places where the water table is too high. If water can get through, then air can seep through. Concrete SUCKS as a sealant.

Concrete is NOT air tight. It will not prevent oxidation. Go out and have a look at a piace of rebar taken out of a piece of concrete. It will be rusted.

One more little tip:
Have you ever seen concrete poured? I have. Pouring concrete would pretty much strip anything as soft as C4 right off of the rebar.

All of this ignoring, of course, that you've yet to prove that there was a concrete core - let alone a concrete core with explosive coated 3" rebar. Where'd the custom made 3" rebar (that can't be seen in your photos) come from?

This is what "social promotion" in school gets you.

[Gravy]

The rebar is lower and is obviously comprised of many fine elements compared to the heavy structural steel.
Then you retract your claim that it's visible in your photo, correct?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044fbefcf85bc4.jpg

Again, for comparison:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879044f9a5254a103.jpg

[Gravy]

If an object is 3 inches and there are 100 of them in a line, viewed slightly off but basically along the line, then your entire premise proves that the image shows rebar.
So, you see a solid mass of...something. You claim that, although you can't see it, inside that...something there must be 3" rebar on 4' centers, hundreds of feet of which was somehow left standing when every bit of of the millions of pounds of concrete that encased it magically dissolved. Is that correct, Chris?

[CptColumbo]

Common sense.

COMMON SENSE!!??

Common sense, led you to ignore the building's design?

Common sense, led you to ignore the photographic evidence from before during and after the construction of the twin towers?

Common sense, led you to ignore the reports of the builders?

Common sense, led you to ignore eyewitness accounts of the building from before it was finished, after it was finished, and after it's collapse?

Common sense, led you to ignore the chemical properties of explosives?

Common sense, led you to ignore the logistics of what you propose?

Common sense, led you to ignore the laws of physics?

Common sense, led you to ignore to ignore the evidence provided to you here and at the other sites you have frequented?

Common sense, led you to ignore evidence that you confirm at first, than deniy when you discover it disproves your theory?

Christophera,
As you are unable and unwilling to engage in a honest discussion of the events of 9-11-01, I see no point to continuing this dialogue. I leave this thread with some observations of your behavior that have led me to compile this profile of you. Usually in my profession I do this face to face, but since I have no desire to meet you I must depend on your writings here and on other sites. There is no point in you answering it, as I doubt you could be honest with yourself let alone with us, and I will not be back to read it anyway.

1. You are a white male. The common race and sex of CTers, based on the conferences I have attended and seen coverage of.

2. You are between the ages of 18-25. You may be older, but this is based on your maturity level and your social skills. If you are older than this something happened in your past that stunted your emotional growth. Also, your use of the Internet as your sole source of research indicates that you are from a more recent generation.

3. You were raised primarily by one guardian. This is not to mean, your parents were divorced or one died, one or both could have been traveling and absent from the house. Your penchant for sensational statements has led me to believe this. Bids for attention. Also, your lack of social skills indicates to me that you didn't have many different people to interact with growing up.

4. You had either one or no siblings, if you had one he/she was older and most likely a female. For the reasons I stated above, it is likely you didn't have many people to interact with, and that wouldn't interact with you.

5. The lack of social skills also leads me to believe that you grew up either in the suburbs, or moved around often.

6. Your education might go beyond High School, but not by much. Your lack of vocabulary and knowledge of the classics, leads me to think that if you went beyond high school it was probably a technical college. Also, your dependence on the Internet for your research, rather than reference books and other sources (as well as the Internet) indicates to me that you haven't done much studying.

7. If you act with your friends the way you do on the Internet, you probably don't have many. You would most likely have one or two close friends, who have friends that include you in their circle. If you were to alienate yourself from the primary they all would reject you.

8. Your job is hard to place, but it is possibly in the service industry. You seem to keep random hours for some one with a white-collar job, and don't seem the type to sit still for industrial work.

Again, these are guesses based on your writings on the forums I have read. If you act very differently off-line I would be very surprised.

MEB-SG

PS if others here have anything further to add, feel free. PM me if you have any questions.

[Gravy]

One more little tip:
Have you ever seen concrete poured? I have. Pouring concrete would pretty much strip anything as soft as C4 right off of the rebar.
You're forgetting the sooper seekrit epoxy coating the Chris claims was over the C-4, epoxy that was made to withstand the weight of milliions of pounds of concrete pressing it into the squishy C-4. After all, we can't have all that rebar wiggling around inside the concrete, now, can we? If that happened, the concrete would immediately collapse under its own weight. The special epoxy prevented that.

Oh, wait a minute. If there was C-4 on the rebar, why is the rebar still standing, and how did the concrete dissolve around it? Chris will have to fill us in on that.

I think we're making progress. Slowly, but we're getting there.

[R.Mackey]

2. You are between the ages of 18-25. You may be older, but this is based on your maturity level and your social skills. If you are older than this something happened in your past that stunted your emotional growth. Also, your use of the Internet as your sole source of research indicates that you are from a more recent generation.
Pure speculation here, but I think your age estimate is low. He claims to have been "fighting" Sept. 11th since 1999. Admittedly his ability to distinguish past years is impaired (i.e. "watched a video in ... when was it again?"), but certainly he claims he started before 2001, thus a minimum of six years of his crusade against reality. I don't see a kid 11-19 years old diving into this nonsense. I would guess some kind of mental break, probably as a young adult, triggered all of this.

Seven years wasted, utterly wasted in hallucination, antagonism, and fear. The human tragedy is enough to make one weep.

[einsteen]

@Gravy

I did my homework, there are definitely two towers standing

Do you agree with that fact or do you disagree and think that there is one tower standing because someone cut and pasted an other image over the two towers at the debunking site.

Do I have to explain the pictures with aspect ratios, I'm sure Gravy that you are intelligent enough to see that there are two towers standing.

[Belz...]

But isn't that the classical pancaking that NIST also rejects now ?

Do you deny that the air had to go somewhere ?

I've seen hours of Steven E. Jones (I don't know what his reputation is but he is no crackpot or something like that and a respected scientist as fas as I know)

Guess again.

and he calculated about 4000kg that should be placed, 10 strong people can do that in 10 times.

Ridiculous. Hunstman made the calculation, too, and the resulting amount was ludicrously high. 4 tons to demolish a 110-storey building ? I'd like to see some calculations for that.

I cannot post URLs but there was a power-down also once, and what about damned wtc7 that is admitted to be a CD (this starts at the bottom of course)

With this I mean a domino-effect transfers it's energy with a limited speed, it can not be faster than a free-fall speed,

You might have missed the part where I said that free-fall isn't a speed.

to be more mathematical the group speed of the effect vg cannot be larger than a point mass you drop, i.e. vg(t) <= v_free(t). If the ploom is part of the effect this is violated.

The last time I saw really big things collapse, they usually do so in a very chaotic way. You claim to know how that should've happened ?

even if there is no structural resistance it will be delayed because of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy.

Before quoting the first law of thermodynamics to people here, you might want to actually calculate how much time it took for the whole thing to collapse.

If no explosives cause the ploom what then is the reason ? It's definitely no air, because it's gray *****. Therefore the effect is in fact faster than free fall.

It's faster than "free fall" because of its colour ? I don't get that part.

Correct me if I'm wrong but what they do is postulating a kind of collapse theory and claim it must behave in a way that is consistent with the empirical data, that's the other way around.

Well, theory HAS to agree with data.

Alright then. It carried the load for 30 years and 50 minutes...

A non-moving load. Let's build a diagram.


------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
------------------------


Assuming all these dashes are external support columns, and I take out about 25% of them, and many of the rest are subjected to intense heat, do you think they can handle the same load they handled for the past 30 years ? Once ONE floor collapses, do you think the floors below are built to handle a moving mass of 32 floors ? I'd like an answer to both these questions, please.

[Belz...]

Is there any way to contact him and confirm his story ?

Not for you.

Well, that's very convenient. Unfortunately, for me it means your story is unvalidated, and therefore useless.

I'm not a theorist, I have facts about all of my assertions and because things are so screwed up, they need explanations so theory falls short of describing my explanations of possibilities.

It doesn't matter if you have facts or not, which you don't. The point is it's your theory, and it's about a conspiracy, making you a conspiracy theorist and your website about that conspiracy theory a CONSPIRACY THEORY SITE. Ergo, you lied.

[Belz...]

Correct no rebar shown there. But here there is rebar.

The concrete is the dust. The rebar would be behind the rectangles formed by the interior box colums and the floor beams.

So you DON'T see it, yourself ? And you've been claiming to see it all along in that other, far fuzzier picture you keep posting ? AND NOW you say it "would" be there ?

You are one dishonest debated, chris.

obsfucational

You're going to need to find a new pet word.

[kevin]

ETA: Damn! The diagram doesn't work. Imagine that's a square. Damn software.

put code markers around it and adjust the spaces for a true fixed spaced font, then I believe it will work:


------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
------------------------

[Belz...]

I at least have an image of the concrete core.

Nope. You have an image of something you THINK is the concrete core. Boy, I wonder what you would've done if that plume of smoke didn't get caught on film.

No I didn't forget. You forgot my explanation. Or, dissociateed it

You're a psychologist, now ?

What is your basis for making this claim?

Common sense.

Common sense tells you the earth is flat, chris.

The rebar is lower and is obviously comprised of many fine elements compared to the heavy structural steel.

Chris, that's because the PICTURE IS SMALLER.

[kevin]

Oh, wait a minute. If there was C-4 on the rebar, why is the rebar still standing, and how did the concrete dissolve around it? Chris will have to fill us in on that.

This was no ordinary RDX, oh no, this was super-secret RDX that can only explode in one direction -- away from the rebar. Jeez are you dense?

[Belz...]

1. You are a white male

2. You are between the ages of 18-25.

3. You were raised primarily by one guardian

4. You had either one or no siblings, if you had one he/she was older and most likely a female. For the reasons I stated above, it is likely you didn't have many people to interact with, and that wouldn't interact with you.

5. The lack of social skills also leads me to believe that you grew up either in the suburbs, or moved around often.

6. Your education might go beyond High School, but not by much.


As usual, Columbo, I find broad generalisations insulting to the extreme. We don't know anything about this person, other than the poor logic skills he has. Please refrain from lumping him together with people that might belong to those categories as well.

[Belz...]

If an object is 3 inches and there are 100 of them in a line, viewed slightly off but basically along the line, then your entire premise proves that the image shows rebar.

Non sequitur, I do believe.

Not porous enough to allowed continued oxidation.

You've never actually SEEN rebar after a few years, have you ?

[Christophera]

Nope. You have an image of something you THINK is the concrete core. Boy, I wonder what you would've done if that plume of smoke didn't get caught on film.



You're a psychologist, now ?



Common sense tells you the earth is flat, chris.



Chris, that's because the PICTURE IS SMALLER.

So now the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is smoke. You need glasses.

I'm better than I psychologist, I use truth.

No, your damaged brain tells YOU it is flat.

Compare the height of the building to the left moron. The tallest rebar is at the corner of the core and hiding behind the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg).

It is clear from your post you have ZERO integrity.

Stop the personal attacks. Do not use name calling to argue your point.

[Belz...]

I mean that building (wtc7) couldn't be saved because of damage and fire and they decided to bring it down, how did they place those bombs after the 911 events, that was quick!

Speculation.

What an insult to the people who noticed this, the brave Americans noticing in which way their country is under attack.

Appeal to emotion.

[Belz...]

So now the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) is smoke. You need glasses.

No, you need to admit that you're not omnipotent and that the little you can see in that image doesn't lead to the conclusion that your concrete core exists, especially since you claim it was blown up a full 20 seconds before the picture was taken.

I'm better than I psychologist, I use truth.

Then I'm sure those psi will be happy to learn from you how to do their job.

No, your damaged brain tells YOU it is flat.

That's an interesting assertion. Do you mean to tell me that, had no one told you, you could've discovered by mere visual observation that the earth is a spheroid ?

Compare the height of the building to the left moron. The tallest rebar is at the corner of the core and hiding behind the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg).

So... a stick of 50 foot-long rebar is sticking out of the wall ?

It is clear from your post you have ZERO integrity.

You're assuming that I'm lying. Again, speculation.

Your post has been reported.

[Christophera]

This was no ordinary RDX, oh no, this was super-secret RDX that can only explode in one direction -- away from the rebar. Jeez are you dense?

The RDX on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so constrcution continued.

The horizontal bar was tied in and that is what removed the concrete keeping the vertical bar intact. This is the reason the spire exists at all.

[Christophera]

You've never actually SEEN rebar after a few years, have you ?

Big DUH on you moron. We were talking about concrete.

[Brainache]

So is Chris going for the suicide by Mod tactic? So he can go and tell people how he was silenced by those evil skeptics who refused to see the TRUTH?
I believe we were warned of this.

[Christophera]

Concrete is NOT air tight. It will not prevent oxidation. Go out and have a look at a piace of rebar taken out of a piece of concrete. It will be rusted.

One more little tip:
Have you ever seen concrete poured? I have. Pouring concrete would pretty much strip anything as soft as C4 right off of the rebar.


I've operated a hydraulic breaker for weeks on end breaking rebar out of concrete, guess what? No rust until it sits in the air for awhile.

If you are stupid enough to pour/pump the concrete directly onto the rebar you are correct, however with a little care such is easily avoidable.

[Christophera]

So, you see a solid mass of...something.

No, it is not solid. It is many fine elements.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)

[Gravy]

The tallest rebar is at the corner of the core and hiding behind the spire (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg).
So you admit that rebar cannot be seen in the photo, which you have claimed – more than 30 times – shows "3" rebar on 4' centers." Am I correct?

[delphi_ote]

If this is not true you will be able link to your web site demonstrating commen sense in analysis and explanation of this.
Okay. Let's forget about common sense for a while. Master English first, then we'll talk.

[Gravy]

@Gravy

I did my homework, there are definitely two towers standing

Do you agree with that fact or do you disagree and think that there is one tower standing because someone cut and pasted an other image over the two towers at the debunking site.

Do I have to explain the pictures with aspect ratios, I'm sure Gravy that you are intelligent enough to see that there are two towers standing.
Let's make a friendly bet. If you're right, I'll make 50 copies of Loose Change and distribute them at Ground Zero. If I'm right, you have to read the Popular Mechanics debunking book and post a report that discusses its main points.

Agreed?

[MortFurd]

No, it is not solid. It is many fine elements.

3" REBAR ON 4' CENTERS (http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/spire_dust-3.jpg)
Broken record. We've got a PC with a runaway process repeatedly posting the same photo with the same comment.


Take a real good look at that photo, Christophera. Then take a good look at the photos that the other folks here have dug up taken from the same location.

Tell me how your photo is supposed to be proof of 3 inch rebar, when three inch anything is below the resolution of the picture.

[Stellafane]

Big DUH on you moron. We were talking about concrete.


Cut the crap, Chris. It's blatantly obvious you want to be suspended or banned here so you can go running back to your CT buddies and claim we silenced you because we'e afraid of the truth. It's equally obvious that nothing -- including a testimonial directly from God -- will get you to admit that your pathologically foolish insistence on 3" rebar and central cores (whatever the hell relevance they may have to anything outside your own mind) is utterly wrong. If you want to leave, just leave already. Don't go around hurling insults because you no longer have the stomach for this.

[Gravy]

Tell me how your photo is supposed to be proof of 3 inch rebar, when three inch anything is below the resolution of the picture.
INVISIBAR! TM

NONCRETE! TM

[T.A.M.]

Re:Christophera

Good luck banning him. If he were doing this crap at LC he would have been gone weeks ago. Not here. It will take alot more than this to get him banned here.

That said, I am now convinced the best thing to do with this guy, is just ignore him. He is unreasonable, he exhibits clear signs of Borderline and Schizotypal Personality Disorder, and for those reasons, he is not open to learning, logic or reason.

I guess you could use him as a "sounding board" for practice against (dare I say this) reasonable and sane CTers...

TAM

[Shrinker]

@Gravy

I did my homework, there are definitely two towers standing

Do you agree with that fact or do you disagree and think that there is one tower standing because someone cut and pasted an other image over the two towers at the debunking site.

Do I have to explain the pictures with aspect ratios, I'm sure Gravy that you are intelligent enough to see that there are two towers standing.

einsteen, care to explain this? Both images supposedly taken at different times during the day, yet appear to be strangely similar.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/361744fc7e032c3c7.jpg

Love the name by the way - works on many levels..

[Gravy]

einsteen, care to explain this? Both images supposedly taken at different times during the day, yet appear to be strangely similar.
You, sir, are spoiling my fun.

[Shrinker]

Agh, sorry, missed your 'bet' post! Anyway, you don't think he'll actually change his mind do you?

[Regnad Kcin]

Mr. Brown:

That you demonstrate no integrity, honor, consideration, humanity, shame, or manners should tell you something. That you possess an inordinate amount of ego, pride, and arrogance should tell you something. That you are a proven liar should tell you something.

I leave you to what most likely will be a lifetime of delusions. Good luck.

[Gravy]

In 1990 I saw the best documentation besides the construction plans. A very intimate video documentary produced by BBC called "The Construction Of the twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and mostly about the concrete core because it was the most difficult aspect of the construction.
The RDX on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, and the concrete was poured before the "special plastic anti corrosion/vibration coating" was tested. After testing it was determined that it was no longer viable as a protectant. Removal of the concrete was considered but the cost and delay was too much so constrcution continued.
Bolding mine.

That's it for me. I'll buy you a beer, Regnad.

ETA: please get help, Christophera. You are not well.

[Belz...]

Big DUH on you moron. We were talking about concrete.

I don't know why I even bother, but you DO know that rebar is INSIDE concrete, and that the porous nature of concrete allows for the oxygen to get TO the rebar and rust it, right ? Or do you think they make the rebar with rust to begin with ?

[Architect]

Correct no rebar shown there. But here there is rebar.

No, it's not.

[Belz...]

The RDX on the vertical bar was exposed for months due to bad weather, the documentary actually had this information, .

Is your documentary made of the same stuff as your invisicretetm ?

[Dog Town]

In 1990 I saw the best documentation besides the construction plans. A very intimate video documentary produced by BBC called "The Construction Of the twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and mostly about the concrete core because it was the most difficult aspect of the construction.

Never paid much attention to this thread b4. I remember a doc airing with the same title. Don't believe it was BBC, could be wrong. The whole first hour of it was indeed about problems and concrete. The bathtub like retaining walls, is what they talked about being a nitemare. River a stones throw away,size of holes needed without disturbing surrounding buildings, etc...
None of this other stuff though, maybe he has confused the retaining walls, for a core.
/my.02

[Belz...]

Never paid much attention to this thread b4. I remember a doc airing with the same title. Don't believe it was BBC, could be wrong. The whole first hour of it was indeed about problems and concrete. The bathtub like retaining walls, is what they talked about being a nitemare. River a stones throw away,size of holes needed without disturbing surrounding buildings, etc...
None of this other stuff though, maybe he has confused the retaining walls, for a core.
/my.02

That's what we figured a few pages ago. Since I've seen the OTHER, very interesting documentary here (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building_pop_01_qry.html), I can only summise that chris is confused between the "bathtub" of the WTC complex and the core itself.

[Dave_46]

If a pixel covers 3 feet and an object is 3 inches (12-to-1), the object isn't going to show up. Christophera, I'm shocked that you don't understand this basic rule that even a middle school student would be familiar with. Is your life so meaningless that you are driven to create fake letters, documentaries, and dictionary passages? Place the 3,000 victims ahead of your desire for self-esteem.

I addressed the resolution of the pictures back in post 917. He/She won't listen

That image shows a wide view, and I have tried to make an estimate of the width of the view at the distance of the collapse. My estimate is that it is at least 600 ft. Assuming this, and noting that the image is 400 pixels wide, I make that 1.5 ft per pixel. How can we see 3" reinforcing bar, it will only be 1/6 of a pixel wide. Your 4' centres would be what? 2.5 pixels. The resolution is not good enough to show that detail.

Dave

Dave

[StoneWT]

Dave,

He is using CTs as a substitute for a social life. I've seen a lot of people pontificate on theories in order to make up for a lack of social skills and education. He HAS to continue spewing his idiocy because to quit would be to look himself in the mirror and see himself as just a plain, ordinary joe. He wouldn't see the brilliant theorist of his imagination that is BETTER than a trained psychologist. He would see a bitter, hate-filled shmuck driven to mock the 3,000 victims of 9/11.

[einsteen]

I guess I'm two years out of time then and indeed have to do more homework before the conclusions,
if I compare this
(replace - by / and -- by ://)
http--img518.imageshack.us-img518-6392-whatthenj1.jpg
it's a different position of course but how can we draw conclusions if one positions a camera
and only sends out the part where it looks like the red lines imply two buildings. At least
one of them is fake then or both. I'm emberassed, you folks must have had some ROLF and LOL.
This is a bad way of presenting alternative theories, how the hell can
he say it was 09:30 in the morning then before the collapse (is it a lie or was he disinformed), thank you mr Vonkleist
I went through some material a friend gave me and I now just found his own reaction, but then
he shows a different helicopter view and some other smoke. Another 0 score from Krankensteen
and humble apologizes

[einsteen]

Oh yeah, the reason that I came here is that I'm at some other boards and believed in alternate 911 things for 75%, I think it's good to look seriously at the other views, just like politics.. you guys turned me to 50%

[rwguinn]

CT thought process:
"Thunder! Lightning! Didja ever notice how often they occur together?"

[sleahead]

Excellent news, Einsteen. It is rare for a CT to think for themselves, they usuall follow the CT herd. Here's a heads up for you: the list of liars in the "truth" movement is very long.

[einsteen]

Ok but there are some things that are still open questions. Is it also not a little bit true that CTs pop-up because the puzzle is not yet completed ?

[Pardalis]

Is it also not a little bit true that CTs pop-up because the puzzle is not yet completed ?

The fact that there are CTists out there is not a proof that something is a miss in the 9/11 events, if that is what you are saying. It's only a proof that humankind can be very stupid sometimes.

[delphi_ote]

Ok but there are some things that are still open questions. Is it also not a little bit true that CTs pop-up because the puzzle is not yet completed ?
There are always open questions about any event in history, but conspiracy theorists rarely address genuine questions. Rather than investigating things with an open mind, they decide what they believe is true and work backward. In my opinion, these conspiracy theories say more about the theorist than they say about the object of the theory.

[Alareth]

Ok but there are some things that are still open questions. Is it also not a little bit true that CTs pop-up because the puzzle is not yet completed ?

Many things leave unanswered questions. This does not automatically mean conspiracy.

Many CT's appear becuase there are people that are distrustful or paranoid. They WANT an alternative to things that are otherwise easily and logically explained.

[sleahead]

Ok but there are some things that are still open questions. Is it also not a little bit true that CTs pop-up because the puzzle is not yet completed ?

What things do you consider are still open?.

[T.A.M.]

Einsteen:

Good news, that you are open to examining the evidence, critically analyzing it, and drawing your own conclusions. Make sure you maintain this attitude, for the CTers will try to persuade you with their song and dance.

If you are ever presented with evidence that you cannot understand, or flies in the face of your reason, seek out Solid Evidence and logical explanations, and you will do just fine.

TAM

[Stellafane]

...Is it also not a little bit true that CTs pop-up because the puzzle is not yet completed ?

Hi einsteen. I agree it is a little bit true -- but only a little. I think it's more true to say that CTs pop up because some people, for a variety of reasons that have been discussed elsewhere in this forum, need to believe in them. So they begin with a conclusion (their first and biggest mistake) and then look for whatever shreds of evidence can be put forth to arguably support that conclusion. Sometimes the results are sort of reasonable, or at least coherent (e.g. Churchill knew about Pearl Harbor beforehand but said nothing so the U.S. would join WWII). Most times, it's total nonsense (e.g. the Moon Landing hoax). 9/11 CTs, in my opinion, fall very much in the latter category.

[einsteen]

Ok, I refer to some stuff I found recently, for example questions 1,3,6,12,14 from
http--911research.wtc7.net-reviews-nist-WTC_FAQ_reply.html
And then there are all those other things (too many) like the 5 frames of the thing that hits the
pentagon near the ground. Show the vaporized plane or whatever it was and the CT'ers have
no ground. What's so secret about it, we are allowed to see pictures from inside why not a video
of da plane, da plane. I'm sure there must be more video evidence of what happened, i guess if I walk
there with a toothpick they notice me.

ps. I wish I never started with the 911 thing, I don't sleep very well last time

[Architect]

I already did. These morons create so much garbage you lost track of it.

"Are you under the impression that columns that are assembled as segments can resist torsion? Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot steel member that is "assembled" can resist torsion. Are you under the impression that a 1300 foot piece of steel called a column can resist torsion better than 4 steel perimeter shear walls in a box shape?"

Your question doesn't make sense.

[Belz...]

At least one of them is fake then or both.

Perhaps. Could someone bring me up to speed on this ?

I'm emberassed, you folks must have had some ROLF and LOL.

When someone admits their mistakes ? Never.

[Belz...]

Oh yeah, the reason that I came here is that I'm at some other boards and believed in alternate 911 things for 75%, I think it's good to look seriously at the other views, just like politics.. you guys turned me to 50%

Wanna go for 0% ? Read Gravy's guide or watch Screw Loose Change.

The fact that there are CTists out there is not a proof that something is a miss in the 9/11 events, if that is what you are saying. It's only a proof that humankind can be very stupid sometimes.

I respectfully disagree, Panther-man. I think CTs, like religion, are based on ignorance, pure and simple, not stupidity, per se. Only in the most extreme cases can we put the person's intelligence or sanity in question.

[Belz...]

ps. I wish I never started with the 911 thing, I don't sleep very well last time

Don't worry. With some luck logic and reason will sort that out for you.

[Christophera]

No, it's not.

Whoa, .......... powerful statement, look at all the evidence. Stand back folks, the ARCHITECT speaks.

If you cannot understand my questions, it proves you are ........ fake.

[Architect]

Whoa, .......... powerful statement, look at all the evidence. Stand back folks, the ARCHITECT speaks.

If you cannot understand my questions, it proves you are ........ fake.

No. It proves you're talking nonsense mate.

[Christophera]

Never paid much attention to this thread b4. I remember a doc airing with the same title. Don't believe it was BBC, could be wrong. The whole first hour of it was indeed about problems and concrete. The bathtub like retaining walls, is what they talked about being a nitemare. River a stones throw away,size of holes needed without disturbing surrounding buildings, etc...
None of this other stuff though, maybe he has confused the retaining walls, for a core.
/my.02

Yes, that seems like the same one because it was the only one that was 2 hours in length. First the design process, Yamasaki rejecting the steel core columns that Robertson proposed, then Yamasaki trying out the idea of the prestressed core that the BBC still thinks was the core,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1540000/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

then the tub and the water intrusions into the excavation dominated. After that the basment walls and the core foundation, then the core.

After that the slowdown was the core and the limited number of welders with security clearances and getting the butt welds done on the oversize rebar of the core. How about the unscheduled evacuations of the concrete crews from the floors just before concerte was ready to pour? Remember, the concrete contractor flipped out 'cause there were 40 guys sitting around for 3-4 hours while the PA messed around, he threatened a law suit.

[Christophera]

No. It proves you're talking nonsense mate.


And, you have totally ignored a completely independent account of built in explosives as a pretender working with the deniers would do.

Charges Placed In WTC
Towers When Built?

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

Which corroborates the information here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

[Belz...]

Yes, that seems like the same one because it was the only one that was 2 hours in length. First the design process, Yamasaki rejecting the steel core columns that Robertson proposed, then Yamasaki trying out the idea of the prestressed core that the BBC still thinks was the core,

Wasn't that diagram made in 2001, shortly after the attacks ? Surely, the BBC know better by now. You're using the tried-and-true CT strategy of relying on old, discredited and murky information rather than up-to-date data.

ALSO: Is it possible that you're confusing the tub of the WTC complex with the core ? We HAVE seen concrete used in the former's construction.

[Belz...]

http://www.rense.com/general48/chargesplacedinWTC.htm

Which corroborates the information here,

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

I submit you don't know what "corroborate" means.

"On day, as the lead consultant engineer was in my lab talking just about "stuff", I asked him, "Sometime in future, in 50 years or so, how are these Twin Towers are going to be taken down as tall as they were going to be and as tight as land is in a crowded city, without causing fast destruction to other buildings?"

He was standing upright. He outstretched his right arm with his palm down. And said, "Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam" as he lowered his hand down one imaginary floor at a time. All the way down to the floor. "

Thus showing he doesn't know how to properly demolish a building. Doing it from the top down is highly dangerous. If this is how they planned to do it "without causing [...] destruction to other buildings" then they're truly morons.

[T.A.M.]

Ok, I refer to some stuff I found recently, for example questions 1,3,6,12,14 from
http://www.911research.wtc7.net-reviews-nist-WTC_FAQ_reply.html
And then there are all those other things (too many) like the 5 frames of the thing that hits the
pentagon near the ground. Show the vaporized plane or whatever it was and the CT'ers have
no ground. What's so secret about it, we are allowed to see pictures from inside why not a video
of da plane, da plane. I'm sure there must be more video evidence of what happened, i guess if I walk
there with a toothpick they notice me.

ps. I wish I never started with the 911 thing, I don't sleep very well last time

See if I can help...a little. I am by no means the most knowledgable, but I can often direct you to the answer If I don't have it myself.

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

1. The "multiple" impact comment is based on one interview article (it alludes me now) and contradicts the testimony of L. Robertson, one of the two original Structural Engineers who worked on the WTC. He says it was designed to withstand the "impact" of a (single) 707. Of course, designing is far from a failsafe. In their design for such a thing, they could not have accounted for (i) angle of impact, (ii) height of impact (what floor).
2. It was designed for a 707, which is 20% smaller than a 767.
3. The building actually did stand up to the impact, it did so for 50 min (S Tower) and 70 min (N Tower) respectively. There were no calculations to determine how long they would stand once hit.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

Ok, that is like asking "How could a man land on the moon in 1969, since noone had ever landed on it prior to then?" That is a bit of an extreme case I know, so to approach the point a bit more scientifically.

No other building had ever been hit by a plane the size of a 767, and have 5000 Gallons of fuel drain through out it, setting off 6-8 floors of office fires reaching 1000-1200C in temperature before either, so it is an unfair comparison. It was the COMBINATION of severe damage from the aircraft impact, along with the WIDESPREAD FIRES that resulted in the eventual collapses. That said there is an article which proves this statement wrong...

FPE article on previous collapses (http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153)

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

1. These are approximates. There are more than one approximations out there that vary from 9-15 seconds for the collapses. Either way, if you look at what happened, you would expect not much better than near free fall anyway. You see, the overwhelming energy and momentum caused by the drop of the 18-20 floors of building above the impact zones even a modest 1-2 floors upon initialization of the collapse process, insured that little if any resistance was met as it continued down (read NIST FAQ yourself, and their other reports...you will see this). thus, for all intensive purposes, they would have collapsed at near free fall speed (8-9 seconds).

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

1. Why would NIST look for such evidence? Was it in their mandate to look into every idea someone comes up with as a possible cause for the collapse, regardless of how far fetched. They didn't look into Aliens shooting magic beams into it, or into "cloaked" planes launching missiles into the buildings where we think we see plane impacts (believe it or not this is proposed by some CTers).
2. There were thousands of people who worked on the cleanup of the WTC, including many who were demolition experts. None of them saw any sign of explosives, or other possible causes...

Implosionworld/Protec article (http://www.implosionworld.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf)

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

They have explained that those who were originally designated to work on the WTC7 case were diverted to the completion of the other elements of the NIST report until recently. There is an interim report, which I doubt will change much, from them on building WTC 7...

NIST REVIEW SITE (http://www.nistreview.org/)

Go down the list until you find the "Interim Report on WTC 7" it is about 80% of the way down the first list of PDF files.

Finally, wrt the Pentagon Plane video:
the cameras that the footage was taken from are security cameras that take pictures at a rate of about 1-2 per second, not real time (20-30fps).

The other sources of footage are the property of the businesses that they were confiscated from. Once the FBi is finished with them (if not already) they will be given back to their owners. Ask yourself this...who has asked for the footage? What response did they get? Show me the proof that they asked and show me the response they got.

TAM

[Christophera]

I submit you don't know what "corroborate" means.

Thus showing he doesn't know how to properly demolish a building. Doing it from the top down is highly dangerous. If this is how they planned to do it "without causing [...] destruction to other buildings" then they're truly morons.

I submit you should forget trying to anaylze anything here.

THINK, any atempt to demo from the the bottom threatens to cause toppling, how dangerous would that be by comparison to starting at the top with a building over 1/4 mile tall? OMG take his freakin' computer away.

[Dog Town]

THINK

K, Quit SCREAMING!

[Christophera]

K, Quit SCREAMING!

What else do sheep respond to?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2958&stc=1&d=1157419382

[R.Mackey]

I submit you should forget trying to anaylze anything here.

THINK, any atempt to demo from the the bottom threatens to cause toppling, how dangerous would that be by comparison to starting at the top with a building over 1/4 mile tall? OMG take his freakin' computer away.
Another file in "precious, precious irony" folder...

Wrong again. You underestimate the energy needed to add any significant angular momentum to the structure -- which is vast. It isn't going to topple sideways by accident. Hence why when they actually fell, the tops did cant a few degrees, but did not topple the entire structure sideways. It's simply not going to happen.

OMG indeed.

[gumboot]

What else do sheep respond to?

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2958&stc=1&d=1157419382


Lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs in mass suicides. It's an urban legend.

-Andrew

[Levantine]

Lemmings don't actually jump off cliffs in mass suicides. It's an urban legend.

-Andrew

But that picture is irrefutable proof! Where's your picture demonstrating Lemmings NOT following eachother off a cliff? You lack integrity! Integrity, I say!

[gumboot]

But that picture is irrefutable proof! Where's your picture demonstrating Lemmings NOT following eachother off a cliff? You lack integrity! Integrity, I say!

In this (http://www.kitten-stork.com/images/cutekitten.jpg) photo you can clearly see no lemmings falling off a cliff.

-Andrew

[Pardalis]

Ok, I refer to some stuff I found recently, for example questions 1,3,6,12,14 from
http--911research.wtc7.net-reviews-nist-WTC_FAQ_reply.html

911 research is an unrelieable source of information, I suggest you don't read it.

And then there are all those other things (too many) like the 5 frames of the thing that hits the
pentagon near the ground. Show the vaporized plane or whatever it was and the CT'ers have
no ground. What's so secret about it, we are allowed to see pictures from inside why not a video
of da plane, da plane. I'm sure there must be more video evidence of what happened, i guess if I walk
there with a toothpick they notice me.

ps. I wish I never started with the 911 thing, I don't sleep very well last time
emphasis mine

What is your age?

The 9/11 thing? :mad:

Need I remind you that almost 3 000 people died that day, I suggest you take this subject matter more seriously.

[realitybites]

THINK, any atempt to demo from the the bottom threatens to cause toppling, how dangerous would that be by comparison to starting at the top with a building over 1/4 mile tall? OMG take his freakin' computer away.
Yes, yes.... Collapsing from the top is MUCH safer. Especially for the evil, maniacal gubmint hell-bent on killing its own citizens, but compassionate enough to not kill TOO many of its own citizens. Yes....

[T.A.M.]

in Einsteen's defence, I don't think English is his first language, and there may be some "generic" words such as thing, thrown in for speed, rather than ignorance.

TAM

[Levantine]

In this (http://www.kitten-stork.com/images/cutekitten.jpg) photo you can clearly see no lemmings falling off a cliff.

-Andrew

That's clearly CIA disinfo cleverly disguised as a 3" kitty on a 4' patch of grass. Clearly you've been taken in by this clever ruse. Open your eyes to the truth, man!

[T.A.M.]

Yes, yes.... Collapsing from the top is MUCH safer. Especially for the evil, maniacal gubmint hell-bent on killing its own citizens, but compassionate enough to not kill TOO many of its own citizens. Yes....

ah, but see toppling might result in the north tower falling on WTC7, which would spoil their plans to CD it later that day...:)

TAM

[Pardalis]

in Einsteen's defence, I don't think English is his first language, and there may be some "generic" words such as thing, thrown in for speed, rather than ignorance.

TAM

If you're right I apologize to Einsteen, but English isn't my first language either, but I try to choose my words before I post them, especially when it has to do with the murder of 3 000 people.

[T.A.M.]

From my limited encounters with him, he seems genuine, if not misguided, but I doubt he meant disrepsect. That being said, a reminder to take more time in word selection seems appropriate, perhaps to him...and many of us...

:)
TAM

[Z]

Until he can show proof that concrete stops oxidation... which it doesn't... I have to consider him a liar and a fool.

And his anecdotal (and probably falsified) tale of busting out unrusted rebar from concrete doesn't jibe with reality. Much like the falsified letters he posts, etc.

Chris is a liar.

[Dog Town]

Until he can show proof that concrete stops oxidation... which it doesn't... I have to consider him a liar and a fool.

And his anecdotal (and probably falsified) tale of busting out unrusted rebar from concrete doesn't jibe with reality. Much like the falsified letters he posts, etc.

Chris is a liar.

The voice of reason. He is beyond learning. Mack has got sainthood from him and KT, and I am not even kinda in that way!Religion that is. Teaching might really be wasted on them. Hate to even have to have thunk the thought!

[Christophera]

Another file in "precious, precious irony" folder...

Wrong again. You underestimate the energy needed to add any significant angular momentum to the structure -- which is vast. It isn't going to topple sideways by accident. Hence why when they actually fell, the tops did cant a few degrees, but did not topple the entire structure sideways. It's simply not going to happen.

OMG indeed.

With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling. With a steel perimeter, cutting charges all the way around are mandatory to keep it going down straight, and they better all detonate. Another reason the collapse notion is OUT TO LUNCH because that would never happen to the ground. The top would fall towards the impact damage and that would be ALL that happens.

Yea, OMG. Get real.

[Pardalis]

With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling. With a steel perimeter, cutting charges all the way around are mandatory to keep it going down straight, and they better all detonate.

Do you realise how crazy you sound?

Another reason the collapse notion is OUT TO LUNCH

Out to lunch???????????????????????????

because that would never happen to the ground. The top would fall towards the impact damage and that would be ALL that happens.

Yeah, right, the structure could support the immense mass and velocity of the falling top section... :rolleyes:

[Christophera]

Until he can show proof that concrete stops oxidation... which it doesn't... I have to consider him a liar and a fool.

And his anecdotal (and probably falsified) tale of busting out unrusted rebar from concrete doesn't jibe with reality. Much like the falsified letters he posts, etc.

Chris is a liar.

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.

Not one of my solid inquiries has been answered.

Peabody never explained what was wrong with the wrong tower fell first statement. Somebody tried and failed to respond adequately to my rebuttals.

The fake architect can't even understand common sense questions.

No one has even tried to make a common sense account of what the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2 is if it's not concrete.

Let alone coming up with a competent explanation for the mushrooming tower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) photo.

One hundred 3 inch bars in a line, waving around, caught in a pixelated photo proving their small size is completely misrepresented by a bogus analysis.

What is true is you folks are a bunch of lying, manipulating clowns.

Got any good recipes?

[Pardalis]

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.

Not one of my solid inquiries has been answered.


You. are. a. f*king. lunatic.

[Dog Town]

Another file in "precious, precious irony" folder...

Wrong again. You underestimate the energy needed to add any significant angular momentum to the structure -- which is vast. It isn't going to topple sideways by accident. Hence why when they actually fell, the tops did cant a few degrees, but did not topple the entire structure sideways. It's simply not going to happen.

OMG indeed.

With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling. With a steel perimeter, cutting charges all the way around are mandatory to keep it going down straight, and they better all detonate. Another reason the collapse notion is OUT TO LUNCH because that would never happen to the ground. The top would fall towards the impact damage and that would be ALL that happens.

Yea, OMG. Get real.

I'm no engineer, but Christ , what are you missing here lad? The path of least resist, was down with that amount of mass! And a tube construct. What is your true expectation of this day? You think it should have fallen over? Your own double speak is about how it should have handled two 707's!

[Brainache]

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.

Not one of my solid inquiries has been answered.

Peabody never explained what was wrong with the wrong tower fell first statement. Somebody tried and failed to respond adequately to my rebuttals.

The fake architect can't even understand common sense questions.

No one has even tried to make a common sense account of what the core (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/southcorestands.gif) of WTC 2 is if it's not concrete.

Let alone coming up with a competent explanation for the mushrooming tower (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg) photo.

One hundred 3 inch bars in a line, waving around, caught in a pixelated photo proving their small size is completely misrepresented by a bogus analysis.

What is true is you folks are a bunch of lying, manipulating clowns.

Got any good recipes?

Chris I hope you are aware that to see the answers you seek all that is required of you is to actually read the responses from other people.
Maybe not mine so much coz I'm basically just a smartarse, but people like Gravy and RMackey and Gumboot and Architect etc.
The only lying and manipulation I've seen on this thread has come from you.
Some of the folks here are quite talented clowns thank you very much. I think clowns are very important in these troubled times.(as are good recipes).

[R.Mackey]

With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling. With a steel perimeter, cutting charges all the way around are mandatory to keep it going down straight, and they better all detonate. Another reason the collapse notion is OUT TO LUNCH because that would never happen to the ground. The top would fall towards the impact damage and that would be ALL that happens.

Yea, OMG. Get real.
Is that a fact.

How about you compute for me just how much angular momentum would be added to a WTC tower if you suddenly took away half the supports at the bottom, before the remaining columns were stressed to failure. Give it a try.

I'll bet you have no idea how to even set up the problem.

If it was a demolition, sure you would cut all the columns to make it fall symmetrically. But there is absolutely no way you're going to get that tower to actually fall over, not by cutting ANY combination of supports.

By the way, fix your ugly avatar already.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Peabody never explained what was wrong with the wrong tower fell first statement.Though I had bid you adieu with my last post, I'll address your towers-fell-in-the-wrong-order inaccuracy. I suspect it'll be for naught, but what the hey.

First, I was attempting to walk you through the simple deductive process when I initially engaged you on the matter. But your general unresponsiveness proved continually taxing. Then, when you returned after your suspension (not "ban," as you lied on the physorg forum), you continued your difficult manner.

But let's get to it.

The 110-story WTC 1 was struck first by a Boeing 767 at approx. 490 mph. The floors damaged were between 93 and 99. This left 11 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 102 minutes after impact.

The 110-story WTC 2 was subsequently struck by a Boeing 767 at approx. 590 mph. The floors damaged were between 77 and 85. This left 25 undamaged stories above. The tower fell 56 minutes after impact.

Please don't tell me I have to explain this any further.

[Regnad Kcin]

Oh, by the way...

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers...Name them.

[MortFurd]

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.

The only one here possibly aiding and abetting murderers is YOU, Christophera. You continually distract from the fact that the towers were attacked and destroyed by a group of terrorists.

YOU keep trying to blame someone else for the attacks, providing cover and lessening the pressure to try and stop future attacks.

[Gravy]

Ok, I refer to some stuff I found recently, for example questions 1,3,6,12,14 from
http--911research.wtc7.net-reviews-nist-WTC_FAQ_reply.html
And then there are all those other things (too many) like the 5 frames of the thing that hits the pentagon near the ground. Show the vaporized plane or whatever it was and the CT'ers have no ground. What's so secret about it, we are allowed to see pictures from inside why not a video of da plane, da plane. I'm sure there must be more video evidence of what happened, i guess if I walk there with a toothpick they notice me.
einsteen,

A large airliner once crashed two blocks from my home. There are no photos or videos of the plane crashing.

How do we know it crashed?

Please think about that and apply your answer to the crash of flight 77.

[gumboot]

A large airliner once crashed two blocks from my home.


It was that close? :eye-poppi

And ChristopherA:

You are absolutely hilarious.

-Andrew

[stateofgrace]

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.

(snip)

What is true is you folks are a bunch of lying, manipulating clowns.

Got any good recipes?

Chris.

I take exception to these remarks and find them highly offensive. You do not know me or anybody else here. Many people here have gone to a great deal of time to explain to you in detail what happened on that dreadful day.

Many have also spent a great deal of time looking at and researching these conspiracy theories. They do this on your behave, to try and reason with you and introduce some form of rationality into your line of thinking.

This has clearly failed and your suborn refusal to accept or even consider what people say to you warrants my pity.
Pity by virtue of the fact you will not see or never accept there are perfectly reasonable and far more plausible explanations to the small anomalies you feel are so important.

The very least you could do is say "Gee, I’m sorry I guess I got it wrong”. After all you are the one that is defending the perpetrators of this dreadful act and you are the one that is wrongly accusing perfectly innocent people of being involved in mass murder.

You are equally accusing perfectly normal, sane people of defending mass murderers.

You have my pity.

[chipmunk stew]

With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling. With a steel perimeter, cutting charges all the way around are mandatory to keep it going down straight, and they better all detonate. Another reason the collapse notion is OUT TO LUNCH because that would never happen to the ground. The top would fall towards the impact damage and that would be ALL that happens.

Yea, OMG. Get real.
Common sense wins out over expertise yet again!
Nice one, Chris! Way to stick up for the layman!

[chipmunk stew]

One hundred 3 inch bars in a line, waving around...

...a pixelated photo...
...completely misrepresented by a bogus analysis.
Fixed.

[NeilC]

The entire case for the conspiracy can be summed up by Chris's comment: "because that would never happen".

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It was that close? :eye-poppi



http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/12/newyork.crash/

[delphi_ote]

Oh, by the way...

Name them.
And while he's at it, he could tell us how each one of those was involved and give some evidence to prove the accusation.

But I'm a dreamer. I predict his answering your question will be too much to hope for.

[Hellbound]

Just a side comment, here.

C-4 (at least, none of the C-4 I've seen) is not just "wrapped in cellophane". There is a cellophane inner wrapper (much thicker than what most people think of when they hear cellophane), which is surrounded by a vacuum-sealed wrapper (an airtight plastic). THis is then placed inside a heavy carboard container with a lid.

Now, perhaps the wrapping is different for civillian C-4? I dunno, but I suspect not that much.

Unless you're storing your C-4 in sunlight, or poking holes in your carboard box, plastic wrapper, and cellophane wrapper, you aren't letting any air make contact with your C-4. And under these conditions you only get 10 years.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Perhaps we can just get this thread locked. It is going nowhere. Christophera is not interested in actually discussing anything and I think we've presented most, if not all, easily found evidence debunking his hypothesis.

[KingMerv00]

I'm done with this thread.

Chris has given me something new to fear...people like him walk amongst us. To me, that is much scarier than C4. At least I know C4 is chemically stable.

[Z]

Just a side comment, here.

C-4 (at least, none of the C-4 I've seen) is not just "wrapped in cellophane". There is a cellophane inner wrapper (much thicker than what most people think of when they hear cellophane), which is surrounded by a vacuum-sealed wrapper (an airtight plastic). THis is then placed inside a heavy carboard container with a lid.

Now, perhaps the wrapping is different for civillian C-4? I dunno, but I suspect not that much.

Unless you're storing your C-4 in sunlight, or poking holes in your carboard box, plastic wrapper, and cellophane wrapper, you aren't letting any air make contact with your C-4. And under these conditions you only get 10 years.


I wasn't even going to go there, but you're right.

C-4 is wrapped in an extremely airtight package, while concrete is certainly not airtight.

C-4 added in the construction process, I would guess, might last three-four years before becoming unstable - either turning into inert clay, or catching fire / exploding in some unpredictable fashion.

[Belz...]

I submit you should forget trying to anaylze anything here.

THINK, any atempt to demo from the the bottom threatens to cause toppling, how dangerous would that be by comparison to starting at the top with a building over 1/4 mile tall? OMG take his freakin' computer away.

I submit you're never seen a controlled demolition. If you have, you might have noticed that NONE of them is done from the top down.

[Belz...]

With a building of those proportions and steel perimeters, all it takes is a few pieces of steel on one side down low not going away properly, and it's toppling.

Once more, how would you know this ? Common sense, again ?

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense.

You mean, noncommonsense.

Oh, and appeal to emotion, again.

Peabody never explained what was wrong with the wrong tower fell first statement. Somebody tried and failed to respond adequately to my rebuttals.

So, you're saying that a heavier load has no bearing on how long a damaged floor can hold said load ?

No one has even tried to make a common sense account of what the core of WTC 2 is if it's not concrete.

I have. Smoke. You can see it in other collapses, so even you could probably find it.

One hundred 3 inch bars in a line, waving around, caught in a pixelated photo proving their small size is completely misrepresented by a bogus analysis.

That one's just plain dishonest.

[einsteen]

I said before that English is not my first language, apologies, I will later install an English version of word with the check utility. Sometimes I have to be careful in my formulation, I'm a little bit too impulsive sometimes.
I used 911research only in relation with the NIST questions, if it's unreliable there must be a debunk site I assume ?
And I rejected a lot of things, I'm open minded and if something is wrong then it's wrong, simple for me.

@T.A.M.
This thread is about the collapses and I gave some other examples but I will concentrate on the collapse only in this thread from now on.
.
1) What does the 20% difference in mass between a 707 and 767 matter if the kinetic energy goes with the velocity squared, a 707 has
a higher cruise speed than a 767. Both towers should have survived then with the speed of impact.

3) I don't care about the amount of Gallons of fuel, 5000 is an impressive number but without emotions in physics that's only a constant
in your equations, Mg for example, don't forgot that the buildings where also extremely huge and strong, don't forgot that the plane
can carry 5 times more and this impact then is a high contradiction with 1) where the 707 impact is about the same as a 767, I even have
found calulations where they say it is even less, but let's take it about the same. The designers always take a huge margin, if you
consider a kind of bell-curve then there will be a small chance that a plane will take down a building. In Holland there are the Deltaworks,
it's constructed in a way that a failure of a sluice is 1/10,000 or something like that. In the years of the wtc design they already went to
the moon, it's extremely unlikely that a jet will bring down the building then. IMO near impossible,but I'm no Einstein

6) I think the way too fast argument needs to be worked out in more detail. We need numbers.

12) Please UFO's and Aliens are not relevant. But with this you admit that the whole science to be done is done under the assumption of
a a spontaneous autonome progressive collapse that just happend, nobody expected it, not the highly trained people around that died etc.
Wasn't it James Randi himself who said that scientists are trained to do science but not to play detective. To do science you have
to start with imput variables, assumptions etc.
The implosion world article: Well well well, of course it doesn't look like a classical controlled demolition from bottom to top, what else
would 'they' (this is no politics, I don't know who 'they' are) do if they want to blow up a building. Waiting 50 minutes, determine the exact
location of impact and then blow it up from bottom to top, OH YEAH! However the collapse of wt7 looks definitely like such a classical controlled demolotion, no doubt about it.

14) This report gives no conclusions. Please forgive me if I draw my own conclusions now. I have a product of chances in my head that are near zero.

[Architect]

1) What does the 20% difference in mass between a 707 and 767 matter if the kinetic energy goes with the velocity squared, a 707 has
a higher cruise speed than a 767. Both towers should have survived then with the speed of impact.


Right and wrong. The engineers assumed a slow moving 707 coming in from landing, not a larger high speed aircraft. Hence the problem.



3) I don't care about the amount of Gallons of fuel, 5000 is an impressive number but without emotions in physics that's only a constant
in your equations, Mg for example, don't forgot that the buildings where also extremely huge and strong,


Crunch some numbers and then come back to us. You'll find that you're wrong. And the point of the fuel is that it started a fire right across the floorplate, at much the same time, and fire protection measures weren't designed for that kind of load.

6) I think the way too fast argument needs to be worked out in more detail. We need numbers.

What, like the one by Frank Greening?

nobody expected it, not the highly trained people around that died etc.

Sorry mate, but in my office we loooked at the live pictures on line and one of us - can't remember who -said "that's going to come down". And know what? It did.

[Pardalis]

I used 911research only in relation with the NIST questions, if it's unreliable there must be a debunk site I assume ?

http://www.911myths.com/index.html is a good place to start. You could also read the NIST report itself.

And I rejected a lot of things, I'm open minded and if something is wrong then it's wrong, simple for me.

That's nice to hear, I respect that and hope you will stick to that motto.

Alot of CTists have come to this forum saying the very same things, but have shown to be real jackasses. I sincerely hope you are not yet another.

1) What does the 20% difference in mass between a 707 and 767 matter if the kinetic energy goes with the velocity squared, a 707 has
a higher cruise speed than a 767. Both towers should have survived then with the speed of impact.

And they did, they remained standing after the impacts. They didn't collapse because of the force of the impacts, but because of the structural damage they caused and the fires that compromised the strenght of the supporting structure.

3) I don't care about the amount of Gallons of fuel, 5000 is an impressive number but without emotions in physics that's only a constant
in your equations, Mg for example, don't forgot that the buildings where also extremely huge and strong, don't forgot that the plane
can carry 5 times more and this impact then is a high contradiction with 1) where the 707 impact is about the same as a 767, I even have
found calulations where they say it is even less, but let's take it about the same. The designers always take a huge margin, if you
consider a kind of bell-curve then there will be a small chance that a plane will take down a building. In Holland there are the Deltaworks,
it's constructed in a way that a failure of a sluice is 1/10,000 or something like that.

I'm not sure I understand. But you should care about the amount of fuel because the fire that it ignited is one of the two contributing causes of the collapse, which are the fire and the structural damage of the impacts.

In the years of the wtc design they already went to
the moon, it's extremely unlikely that a jet will bring down the building then. IMO near impossible,but I'm no Einstein

Why would the WTC collapse be related with the moon landing? These seem to be two completely unrelated technologies. I'm not sure what you meant by that...

6) I think the way too fast argument needs to be worked out in more detail. We need numbers.

You want numbers? Read the NIST report.

But with this you admit that the whole science to be done is done under the assumption of a a spontaneous autonome progressive collapse that just happend, nobody expected it, not the highly trained people around that died etc.

I'm having a hard time following you. Who died? The people who built the WTC? Even if they did, why would it matter? Structural engeneers of today are perfectly able to understand the WTC construction and make a valid study of the collapse.

Waiting 50 minutes, determine the exact
location of impact and then blow it up from bottom to top, OH YEAH!

What does that mean? Do you agree with that assessment? It think it's sounds completely stupid.

However the collapse of wt7 looks definitely like such a classic demolotion,
no doubt about it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644bed1fba333b.jpg
Can you tell what this animal is, what it is most closely related to?

14) This report gives no conclusions. Please forgive me if I draw my own conclusions now. I have a product of chances in my head that are near zero.

Again, I don't understand what you mean. What are your qualifications BTW?

[T.A.M.]

@T.A.M.
This thread is about the collapses and I gave some other examples but I will concentrate on the collapse only in this thread from now on.

Ok...fair enough. I am disappointed that afte rall I and everyone has show you, all logical, that you have garnished so little from it. I guess we really have our work cut out to convince you.



1) What does the 20% difference in mass between a 707 and 767 matter if the kinetic energy goes with the velocity squared, a 707 has
a higher cruise speed than a 767. Both towers should have survived then with the speed of impact.

They did survive the impact. Remember, I said to you, most experts were surprised that the towers stood up for so long AFTER THE IMPACT. When they designed the building, they didnt do calculations about "How long will it stand up after impact." THE TOWERS DID REMAIN STANDING AFTER THE IMPACTS...56 and 102 minutes respectively.


3) I don't care about the amount of Gallons of fuel, 5000 is an impressive number but without emotions in physics that's only a constant
in your equations, Mg for example, don't forgot that the buildings where also extremely huge and strong, don't forgot that the plane
can carry 5 times more...

I didn't put it there for exagerration, or to impress. It is actually only half of the fuel the jet was carrying (10,000Gallons). You notice that I said the fuel was merely an ignitor for the larger fires that encompassed 8-10 floors of each building.


and this impact then is a high contradiction with 1) where the 707 impact is about the same as a 767, I even have
found calulations where they say it is even less, but let's take it about the same. The designers always take a huge margin, if you
consider a kind of bell-curve then there will be a small chance that a plane will take down a building. In Holland there are the Deltaworks,
it's constructed in a way that a failure of a sluice is 1/10,000 or something like that. In the years of the wtc design they already went to
the moon, it's extremely unlikely that a jet will bring down the building then. IMO near impossible,but I'm no Einstein

A bit hard to understand this bit of post Einsteen...sorry, I will do my best. The buildings stood up after the impact, but the damage from the planes was severe. It cut through many of the vertical columns, particularly the weaker ones in the outer part of the building. This SUBSTANTIALLY weakened the ability of those floors, where things were severed, to hold up the static weight they were designed to uncut. Luckily there was enough redundancy in the column numbers, so the building didn't initially collapse. Almost instantly after the explosion, the Jet fuel sprayed through out the floors, 8-10 atop, and also likely drained down the elvator shafts. Fire balls coming out of the elevators at the bottom floors lends credence to this. It was the COMBINATION of the IMPACT DAMAGE, and the fires that led to the collapse.

All the design calculations in the world do not guarantee the buildings wouldn't collaspe...



6) I think the way too fast argument needs to be worked out in more detail. We need numbers.

NIST has, hundreds of pages. So have MIT Civil engineers. If you look, the calculations are done...many times.

See my links I posted earlier for you...and this...

MIT CIVIL ENGINEERS REVIEW OF WTC (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/)


12) Please UFO's and Aliens are not relevant. But with this you admit that the whole science to be done is done under the assumption of
a a spontaneous autonome progressive collapse that just happend, nobody expected it, not the highly trained people around that died etc.
Wasn't it James Randy himself who said that scientists are trained to do science but not to play detective. To do science you have
to start with imput variables, assumptions etc.

My point with the UFOs etc was to show you that there were numerous other REMOTE possibilities that were not looked at. Why...because the evidence at hand did not point to any of them.

James Randi is right. NIST had a lot more than just scientists. That is what the 9/11 Commission was for. NIST simply looked at the facts of the collapse, gathered the evidence, and came up with the "MOST LIKELY" Hypothesis.


The implosion world article: Well well well, of course it doesn't look like a classical controlled demolition from bottom to top, what else
would 'they' (this is no politics, I don't know who 'they' are) do if they want to blow up a building. Waiting 50 minutes, determine the exact
location of impact and then blow it up from bottom to top, OH YEAH! However the collapse of wt7 looks definitely like such a classic demolotion,
no doubt about it.

The number of things they would have to do differently, and hope it would work...since we no the WTC 1&2 didnt comedown looking like a classical demolition, lets look at what would be involved to create a demolition that would look like the WTC 1&2 Collapses...

1. Massive amounts of explosives, the equivalent of the amount you would plant on the bottom floor of a standard CD, would need to be placed on every floor, so that no matter what level the building was hit, they could detonate them at that level to "Initiate" the collapse. Now a standard demolition of a regular old 30 Storey building, like the landmark tower we showed earlier via youtube, would take, done properly 4 months with unlimited access to the building in question. What you are suggesting involves much more explosives, which would require more people, more time, harder to hide.

2. You would require a remote control device that could set off the detonation at any level, so that when the planes hit, henchman X could press the proper button to set the explosives at the "impact" floor.

3. You would then have to hope and pray that the building would come down as planned, despite this type of Demolition NEVER having been tried before.

4. You would still have to blow out all the other floors, and once that happened, the bottom would give way, and you should have seen a classical demolition anyway...we didn't.

So you see, to pull off the suggested "Atypical" Demolition that would corrispond with the falling of WTC1&2 is so far fetched, so "Outthere" so "Implausible" that we do not even entertain it here.


14) This report gives no conclusions. Please forgive me if I draw my own conclusions now. I have a product of chances in my head that are near zero.

I am really disappointed that you read that well written article by Demolition EXPERTS, that nobody asked them to write...they wrote it of their own accord, and from everything they said, all you can reply is that you feel there is nearly zero chance that they were right. So I guess Steven Jones Science is better...his explanation more reasonable? I think we are losing you to the Dark side...

TAM

[Regnad Kcin]

...THE TOWERS DID REMAIN STANDING AFTER THE IMPACTS...50 and 70 minutes approximately.56 and 102, to be precise.

[T.A.M.]

noted...will edit

[Pardalis]

The number of things they would have to do differently, and hope it would work...since we no the WTC 1&2 didnt comedown looking like a classical demolition, lets look at what would be involved to create a demolition that would look like the WTC 1&2 Collapses...

1. Massive amounts of explosives, the equivalent of the amount you would plant on the bottom floor of a standard CD, would need to be placed on every floor, so that no matter what level the building was hit, they could detonate them at that level to "Initiate" the collapse. Now a standard demolition of a regular old 30 Storey building, like the landmark tower we showed earlier via youtube, would take, done properly 4 months with unlimited access to the building in question. What you are suggesting involves much more explosives, which would require more people, more time, harder to hide.

2. You would require a remote control device that could set off the detonation at any level, so that when the planes hit, henchman X could press the proper button to set the explosives at the "impact" floor.

3. You would then have to hope and pray that the building would come down as planned, despite this type of Demolition NEVER having been tried before.

4. You would still have to blow out all the other floors, and once that happened, the bottom would give way, and you should have seen a classical demolition anyway...we didn't.

So you see, to pull off the suggested "Atypical" Demolition that would corrispond with the falling of WTC1&2 is so far fetched, so "Outthere" so "Implausible" that we do not even entertain it here.


This is excellent, TAM.

[T.A.M.]

danke...:)

[Stellafane]

...http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888644bed1fba333b.jpg
Can you tell what this animal is, what it is most closely related to?

Hyrax, most closely related to the elephant, right?

(Great visual -- shows that the untrained glance is no match for the educated investigation.)

[einsteen]

With the moon landing I only wanted to say that technology and science where quite far at that time. If a building should survive a 707 I assume that they also did statistical calculations. In science there are always error margins. If a building should survive a 707 that in fact means that the chance is near 1 that it should stand.

Ok TAM you are right that 'how long do they stand' is another question, may I then draw the conclusion is that the designers in fact said, the building can withstand the impact of a plane, but we don't know how long, maybe 1 second, maybe 1 minute. It doesn't make sense to me. If that isn't included it is the weakest link and surviving an impact has no scientifical meaning.

Please convince me.

Ok, the official reports, to me it looks like a kind of open source version of a software package like windows XP, no single person can read and understand everything, it will take a few human lives. We have to accept it then. But then if should become widely accepted and general knowledge to the public, it should be reproducable in one way or another.

I've spend an hour to read the F.R. Greening thing, I got lost and stopped after his energy dissipation etc. There are about 30 assumptions he mades, but he doesn't get the exact collapse time. I've seen other calculations on internet, one gives 14 seconds and another much more, they are anonym but they take the problem from a totally different point of view, this one is easy to understand and I cannot belive the experts are able to debunk that because it is basic classical mechanics.

The problem with the real collapse time is that you have to make assumptions and the starting situation can only be estimated. To me it looks like the real precise calculation cannot be solved analytically, then there are numerical methods of course. Ok, it would indeed be very arrogant to doubt that what a whole bunch of scientists did is wrong, I'm just an average individual that can be ignored. It's unlikely also that they are all part of a hidden agenda. Ok then, assuming they can calculate the exact time of collapse and that it is in agreement with what happened, then we get another painful question..

All this scientifical work has been done afterwards, how did the terrorists know where to hit a floor and how did they succeed with their plastic knives, if they hit it at the top the block would not fall because there was not enough mass and momentum to let the rest collapse, did those Arabs do all those complex calculations on a stone somewhere and though, we have to hit it there, at that time only knowing the scientifi fact that the WTC should survive a plane.

They really had their lucky day.

IMO wtc7 is still a different story, there is no convincing answer.

[Pardalis]

Please convince me.

Guys, this doesn't sound good...

[Pardalis]

IMO wtc7 is still a different story, there is no convincing answer.

Read this please.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1857649&postcount=83

ETA: is it me, or has your English dramatically improved since your last post, Einsteen?

[Stellafane]

You folks are aiding and abetting murderers and doing so without even being reasonable, just counting on your backing each others nonsense...What is true is you folks are a bunch of lying, manipulating clowns.

Still trying to get yourself banned, I see. Trouble is, this isn't the LC forum, where you can get banned for telling JDX or TheQuest that their clothes don't match all that well today. Listen, why don't we do as has been suggested and just lock this thread? That way you can declare your little victory and be done with it. In the interim, I will follow others and exit this thread. It's devolved way past funny, now it's just disturbing.

Oh, but before I go, I did want to point out the one thing you said that is 100% totally true:

...Not one of my solid inquiries has been answered.

Agreed...because, Chris my man, you somehow managed to post some 660+ times without actually making any "solid inquiries."

[einsteen]

Read this please.


ETA: is it me, or has your English dramatically improved since your last post, Einsteen?

It's still me check my IP address and my wife can only say yes and no and is sleeping now, did you confuse with someone else's text maybe ?

[Pardalis]

With the moon landing I only wanted to say that technology and science where quite far at that time. If a building should survive a 707 I assume that they also did statistical calculations. In science there are always error margins. If a building should survive a 707 that in fact means that the chance is near 1 that it should stand.

You realise this doesn't make any sense.

no single person can read and understand everything, it will take a few human lives.

Are you saying reading the official reports is a life threatening activity? :eek:

I've seen other calculations on internet, one gives 14 seconds and another much more, they are anonym but they take the problem from a totally different point of view, this one is easy to understand and I cannot belive the experts are able to debunk that because it is basic classical mechanics.

Forget about my comment on your English improving, I don't understand anything here.

The problem with the real collapse time is that you have to make assumptions and the starting situation can only be estimated.

So is the "end situation". There is no precise way to time the collapse sequence all the way down. Besides, it is irrelevant to the NIST report.

All this scientifical work has been done afterwards, how did the terrorists know where to hit a floor and how did they succeed with their plastic knives, if they hit it at the top the block would not fall because there was not enough mass and momentum to let the rest collapse, did those Arabs do all those complex calculations on a stone somewhere and though, we have to hit it there, at that time only knowing the scientifi fact that the WTC should survive a plane.

This is a fallacy Post hoc, ergo propter, I think. http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

With the moon landing I only wanted to say that technology and science where quite far at that time. If a building should survive a 707 I assume that they also did statistical calculations. In science there are always error margins. If a building should survive a 707 that in fact means that the chance is near 1 that it should stand.
Ok TAM you are right that 'how long do they stand' is another question, may I then draw the conclusion is that the designers in fact said, the building can withstand the impact of a plane, but we don't know how long, maybe 1 second, maybe 1 minute. It doesn't make sense to me. If that isn't included it is the weakest link and surviving an impact has no scientifical meaning.


The build team did a post completion analysis, based solely upon the plane's impact (fuel burning, and subsequent materials native to the tower burning were not modelable, and therefore not included) and was made under the assumption it would be slower, and less fuel laden than the 767's turned out to be. Max takeoff weight of a 707 is 333,600 lb (151,320 kg), and of a 767 is 395,000 lb (179,170 kg); the potential weight of the 767 is 118% of the 707. The 767 also had the capability of holding ~1000 more gallons of fuel than the 707.

[einsteen]

@Arkan - Ok, in other words then, it would probably then also not withstand a 707 attack.
@Pardalis - I mean reading 10,000s of papers and verifying is not doable.
@Pardalis - They had their lucky day then, ok ?

[Pardalis]

@Pardalis - I mean reading 10,000s of papers and verifying is not doable.

I know, I was just joking around. :D

@Pardalis - They had their lucky day then, ok ?

They wanted to inflict as much damage as they could, they unfortunately did very well.

[einsteen]

oh btw someone mentioned Gravy's guide, is that the loosechangeguide, I've read it, still have some points of course but will re-read it.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

@Arkan - Ok, in other words then, it would probably then also not withstand a 707 attack.
@Pardalis - I mean reading 10,000s of papers and verifying is not doable.
@Pardalis - They had their lucky day then, ok ?

It would be better to say that; given the tools available at the time and that they were not specifically designed to withstand an impact; the engineers thought that they would survive. However, to my knowledge, no one has reevaluated those calculations since more powerful computers have become available to model things such as the fuel fire after the impact.

It is not unlike weather forecasting 40 years ago vs weather forecasting today.

[Belz...]

1) What does the 20% difference in mass between a 707 and 767 matter if the kinetic energy goes with the velocity squared, a 707 has
a higher cruise speed than a 767. Both towers should have survived then with the speed of impact.

They did.

[T.A.M.]

I agree. I think that in the initial calculations for the 707 impact (which I believe were done with the existing design specs, as an afterthought. I don't think they modified any of the original plans to accomidate such an impact) they figured that if a 707 hit the tower, it would survive, and remain standing, but as was said, teh variables they could not, or did not take into account were...

1. Impact Location (which floor)
2. Subsequent fires of 8-10 floors with temps 1000-1200C
3. Plane Reaching Inner Core

TAM

[Belz...]

With the moon landing I only wanted to say that technology and science where quite far at that time. If a building should survive a 707 I assume that they also did statistical calculations.

I still don't see it. Who cares how far SPACESHIPS have gone through space ? You design a building to stand, not to go to mars. Completely different design calculations that have little or nothing to do with one another anyway.

Why would you build a skyscraper to resist a terrorist attack back in the 60s ? All you need is to withstand an impact by a plane lost in the fog, in which case it isn't going to fly at full speed.

By the way, you're still wrong even if you ignore my above comments. The WTC construction began in 1966.

In science there are always error margins. If a building should survive a 707 that in fact means that the chance is near 1 that it should stand.

Speculation.

the building can withstand the impact of a plane, but we don't know how long, maybe 1 second, maybe 1 minute. It doesn't make sense to me. If that isn't included it is the weakest link and surviving an impact has no scientifical meaning.

They didn't have sophisticated computers in the early 60s. They couldn't model the effect of the fire.

Please convince me.

Uh-oh.

Ok, the official reports, to me it looks like a kind of open source version of a software package like windows XP, no single person can read and understand everything, it will take a few human lives.

Now that's idiotic. Obviously, lots of people can understand it, and just because you can't doesn't mean that the report is suspicious.

But then if should become widely accepted and general knowledge to the public, it should be reproducable in one way or another.

As soon as Gravy, Delphi and the others provide the materials I've asked and Mack finds those design schematics, we can start building that life-sized, mock WTC for our test-demolition.

I've spend an hour to read the F.R. Greening thing, I got lost and stopped after his energy dissipation etc. There are about 30 assumptions he mades, but he doesn't get the exact collapse time.

Although assumptions are often bad, they're necessary when you simply don't have the data.

I've seen other calculations on internet, one gives 14 seconds and another much more, they are anonym but they take the problem from a totally different point of view, this one is easy to understand and I cannot belive the experts are able to debunk that because it is basic classical mechanics.

So, in your opinion, these are simple calculations and couch potatoes on the internet are better qualified than experts to analyse the situation ?

It's unlikely impossible also that they are all part of a hidden agenda.

Here, I fixed that for you.

All this scientifical work has been done afterwards, how did the terrorists know where to hit a floor

That one's easy: aim the plane in the center of the building and throttle up.

and how did they succeed with their plastic knives,

Now you're beign dishonest and that kinda sets me off. Have you EVER used a utility knife ? They're scary, to say the least.

if they hit it at the top the block would not fall because there was not enough mass and momentum to let the rest collapse, did those Arabs do all those complex calculations on a stone somewhere and though,

Arabs or not they have sufficient mental acumen, like most humans, to think that one through for five minutes. I can see it now:

"Osama, should we hit the 110th floor ?"

"No, you idiot, hit them as low as you can. What are you, retarded ?"

[Belz...]

@Arkan - Ok, in other words then, it would probably then also not withstand a 707 attack.

Not at those speeds, probably.

@Pardalis - I mean reading 10,000s of papers and verifying is not doable.

Of course it is.

@Pardalis - They had their lucky day then, ok ?

No. Not okay.

[einsteen]

I watched a part of that 911eyewitness video, because someone showed a picture from it, although to debunk something... and after the collapse you can see those cores falling like mikado later, it's amazing. I still don't understand what those explosions are they show before the big crunch.
What I like about this is that it just silently shows the whole event. I'm still becoming cold if I see it..

What I've watched so far is the InPlane site movies (haven't seen Michael Moore because that's obviously propaganda, I got it from a friend but still have to watch it) Confronting The Evidence, painful deceptions. A lot of Jones, also the discovery channel or BBC movie about how could they collapsed some other smaller movies and of course Loose change 2nd, but that was the last one. Everyone mentions that thing but I think it is the worst movie because it's a kind of one-direction-traffic. I think a good movie should only show individual events, no rubbish like a tower that looks like two, and discuss with people who agree and disagree. For the first time in my home country they are going to show alternative views on tv, just watched a discussion program, but they discussed both views and also mentioned the debunking sites.

[Pardalis]

Is anything that we are saying sinking in so far Einsteen?

[Christophera]

Out to lunch???????????????????????????

Yeah, right, the structure could support the immense mass and velocity of the falling top section... :rolleyes:

Uh, ................ I ask for accountability and I get the above. Reason not available, hmm, ........... must be OUT TO LUNCH! The laws of conservation of energy deny you are reasonable.


Try some emotional reasoning.


Your children will suffer because you cannot use truth to aid in the protection of their lives, their futures. A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures. Your lack of acceptance will cause your mis decision and demise for those you love in all ways in your failure to use truth.

Mankind did not find its way down the better path it has walked at times and in ways by using your gifts of communication that you use in the ways you are now using them.

Knowledge and power serve love, because love protects life.







Dumbsh#ts.

Whattsa' matta w'dat? Are your children going to complain?

[einsteen]

@Belz,

Did you read all papers from A-Z ?

So, in your opinion, these are simple calculations and couch potatoes on the internet are better qualified than experts to analyse the situation

Answer: No, but let me explain what I mean

If you have a point mass for example and it follows a track to the ground, you can use a complex way of calculating the velocity as a function of time v(t) or distance, x(t), finally when it hits the ground or is at height x1 at time t1, then you have a speed of v(t1), alternatively you can use the kinetic energy formula to find the speed at height x1. They should be the same.

[Gravy]

oh btw someone mentioned Gravy's guide, is that the loosechangeguide, I've read it, still have some points of course but will re-read it.
Thanks for reading it. There will be a new version out in a few days with twice as much information.

[chipmunk stew]

Uh, ................ I ask for accountability and I get the above. Reason not available, hmm, ........... must be OUT TO LUNCH! The laws of conservation of energy deny you are reasonable.


Try some emotional reasoning.


Your children will suffer because you cannot use truth to aid in the protection of their lives, their futures. A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures. Your lack of acceptance will cause your mis decision and demise for those you love in all ways in your failure to use truth.

Mankind did not find its way down the better path it has walked at times and in ways by using your gifts of communication that you use in the ways you are now using them.

Knowledge and power serve love, because love protects life.







Dumbsh#ts.

Whattsa' matta w'dat? Are your children going to complain?
(when the bong hits wear off, this is going to sound really stupid when you read it back to yourself)

[Architect]

All this scientifical work has been done afterwards, how did the terrorists know where to hit a floor and how did they succeed with their plastic knives, if they hit it at the top the block would not fall because there was not enough mass and momentum to let the rest collapse, did those Arabs do all those complex calculations on a stone somewhere and though, we have to hit it there, at that time only knowing the scientifi fact that the WTC should survive a plane.



1. What made you think that they analytically planned to collapse it they way they did? Do not confuse happy (for them) chance with a deliberate plan.

2. They weren't plastic knives, Einsteen, and well you know it. The reports just said knives, American security sources said "boxcutters", however "boxcutters" are better known to the rest of the world as Stanley knives and have a whole track record in serious attacks in my country.

[KingMerv00]

I retract my previous post. This thread is interesting again:

Uh, ................ I ask for accountability and I get the above. Reason not available, hmm, ........... must be OUT TO LUNCH! The laws of conservation of energy deny you are reasonable.


Try some emotional reasoning.

Oh THAT'S what we are forgetting! Quickly everyone, be sure to factor emotions into your physics calculations!

How about you try reasonable emotions?


Your children will suffer because you cannot use truth to aid in the protection of their lives, their futures.

I don't plan on having kids. Thanks.

A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures.

My race? Which race would that be?

My sense of justice must be all out of whack. I like to blame the people who actually caused 9/11.

Your lack of acceptance will cause your mis decision and demise for those you love in all ways in your failure to use truth.

My grammar and spelling skills suck...no doubt. Oh the other hand, I still have to laugh at this.

Mankind did not find its way down the better path it has walked at times and in ways by using your gifts of communication that you use in the ways you are now using them.

Knowledge and power serve love, because love protects life.

What in the blue hell are you talking about?


Dumbsh#ts.

Whattsa' matta w'dat? Are your children going to complain?

Assuming Chris is not a troll:

Don't ban him. He is trying to martyr himself. Ironic really.

[Architect]

Agreed...because, Chris my man, you somehow managed to post some 660+ times without actually making any "solid inquiries."

Delete "solid", add "competent and understandable".

As far as I can gather, Chris believes that

(a) The core was concrete, in direct contrast to the links he posts

(b) That the rebar was C4 coated, in the complete absence of any substantive evidence that such material was used.

(c) That the building was exploded (with the C4) but the rebar somehow stood on it's own thereafter.

ad infinitum.

Nuts.

[chipmunk stew]

Listen, why don't we do as has been suggested and just lock this thread?
What, and risk Chris derailing other threads with
3" rebar on 4' centers?

[Foolmewunz]

Diff't thread about five minutes ago.....
LashL reports Killtown is on radio RIGHT NOW with Dylan



http://www.rbnlive.com/listen32k.pls

[einsteen]

1. What made you think that they analytically planned to collapse it they way they did? Do not confuse happy (for them) chance with a deliberate plan.

2. They weren't plastic knives, Einsteen, and well you know it. The reports just said knives, American security sources said "boxcutters", however "boxcutters" are better known to the rest of the world as Stanley knives and have a whole track record in serious attacks in my country.

1. I mean why not taking a nuclear reactor or something like that, if nobody knows what would happen they also wouldn't know. With the knowlegde that you only will kill a few people on the floor of impact why would you do it? If someone's purpose is to kill as many people as possible you wouldn't hit the WTC only to show that you are able to hijack a plane and show what you can do as a kind of status, you would hit a target to kill as many people as possible. They had their lucky day, another near zero chance to add to the product of chances, this does not proof that they had that knowledge, they couldn't have that but it's at least suspicious that they choose this target

2. Ok Archie, this was not meant to be seriously, it just popped in my mint and I added it

[stateofgrace]

Try some emotional reasoning



Ok Chris, whatever you say.

Please, please, please. Please stop going on about the concrete cores, nobody believes you, even the guys across at LC don't believe you. So please. Please for the love of god and Jesus and all things sacred stop going on about them. Please.....please.... please.

Is that emotional enough for you?

[T.A.M.]

Einsteen...

I believe there is a video where Osama is talking to some of his fellow Al-Qeada friends, and in the convo they admit they were SURPRISED, but pleased when the towers actually collapsed. If they were SURPRISED it happened, I doubt they planned it.

TAM

[LashL]

Ok Chris, whatever you say.

Please, please, please. Please stop going on about the concrete cores, nobody believes you, even the guys across at LC don't believe you. So please. Please for the love of god and Jesus and all things sacred stop going on about them. Please.....please.... please.

Is that emotional enough for you?


Very good! But you forgot, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!1111elevenoneone!!!"

;)

[KingMerv00]

Ok Chris, whatever you say.

Please, please, please. Please stop going on about the concrete cores, nobody believes you, even the guys across at LC don't believe you. So please. Please for the love of god and Jesus and all things sacred stop going on about them. Please.....please.... please.

Is that emotional enough for you?


*Weeps on stateofgrace's shoulder*

He's hurt so many people!! :cry1

[T.A.M.]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4220657430794722240&q=usual+suspects

At 6:21 of this video Osama is translated as saying they only counted for casualties from the impact floors and the people on the floors above, not the entire buildings, so obviously they didn't expect them to collapse...

TAM

[einsteen]

Einsteen...

I believe there is a video where Osama is talking to some of his fellow Al-Qeada friends, and in the convo they admit they were SURPRISED, but pleased when the towers actually collapsed. If they were SURPRISED it happened, I doubt they planned it.

TAM

Is that this Osama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpAB8vn5VXo

Even Stevie Wonder sees that's a different man, and I disagree with the debunking in which Gravy shows another frame. He got me of course with those two buildings.. but this is something different, if quality decreases information is lost and things might look the same, here it even doesn't look the same after loss of information...

[T.A.M.]

watch the whole video. There are other videos where is face is a little more "pudgy" or "fat" which is the main complaint CTers have with it. They compare other pictures of him from other footage, to this footage.

Even better, is watch the martyr will video tapes of the hijackers..the ones that supposedly don't exist.

TAM

[Pardalis]

I retract my previous post. This thread is interesting again:

There's a morbid fascination about Christophera isn't it? We keep coming back to him.

I don't plan on having kids. Thanks.

Too bad, the world needs more of your kind, KingMerv. :D

[Pardalis]

If someone's purpose is to kill as many people as possible you wouldn't hit the WTC only to show that you are able to hijack a plane and show what you can do as a kind of status, you would hit a target to kill as many people as possible. They had their lucky day, another near zero chance to add to the product of chances, this does not proof that they had that knowledge, they couldn't have that but it's at least suspicious that they choose this target

You got it all wrong. Not only did they want to kill and create as much damage as possible, Al Qaeda also targeted these sites for their symbolical value:

The WTC is the symbol of the American economic superpower
The Pentagon is the symbol of US military strength
The Capitol or the White House (I don't recall which one was the actual target) are the symbols of democracy.

[Pardalis]

Even Stevie Wonder sees that's a different man, and I disagree with the debunking in which Gravy shows another frame. He got me of course with those two buildings.. but this is something different, if quality decreases information is lost and things might look the same, here it even doesn't look the same after loss of information...

Here is a very probable explanation:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1612444#post1612444

[einsteen]

I hope I got it wrong, I hope. I'll read the tread later because I have to sleep, is there a raw version somewhere, then the virtualdub filters can do some work..;)

[Patricio Elicer]

Uh, ................ I ask for accountability and I get the above. Reason not available, hmm, ........... must be OUT TO LUNCH! The laws of conservation of energy deny you are reasonable.


Try some emotional reasoning.


Your children will suffer because you cannot use truth to aid in the protection of their lives, their futures. A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures. Your lack of acceptance will cause your mis decision and demise for those you love in all ways in your failure to use truth.

Mankind did not find its way down the better path it has walked at times and in ways by using your gifts of communication that you use in the ways you are now using them.

Knowledge and power serve love, because love protects life.









Dumbsh#ts.

Whattsa' matta w'dat? Are your children going to complain?

Christophera, you are continuously derailing the thread with unrelated matters. Please stay focused on the subject of discussion.

[Kelly]

I don't follow these threads, but I thought some might want to know that there is a show on (US) PBS right now about the collapse of the towers.

[Christophera]

Delete "solid", add "competent and understandable".

As far as I can gather, Chris believes that

(a) The core was concrete, in direct contrast to the links he posts

(b) That the rebar was C4 coated, in the complete absence of any substantive evidence that such material was used.

(c) That the building was exploded (with the C4) but the rebar somehow stood on it's own thereafter.

ad infinitum.

Nuts.

We have 2 roles dominating this thread in the denial crew, we have the garbage men, and the deniers. When the deniers fail to support their denial with reason, they count on the garbage men to bury the reasonable explanations of the issue with loads of crap.

Then later they all complain about how much crap there is and want the promoter of truth to dig trough all the crap to find the reasonable explanation that was certainly read by everyone of the crew but since they have no use for the truth they are unreasonably selective with evidence to enable denial and don't care about the explanation anyway so don't bother explaining anything at all.


core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

[Metullus]

Christophera, you are continuously derailing the thread with unrelated matters. Please stay focused on the subject of discussion.Therein lies the rub, no? How can one stay focused upon that which is only a mirage?

[KingMerv00]

We have 2 roles dominating this thread in the denial crew, we have the garbage men, and the deniers. When the deniers fail to support their denial with reason, they count on the garbage men to bury the reasonable explanations of the issue with loads of crap.

Then later they all complain about how much crap there is and want the promoter of truth to dig trough all the crap to find the reasonable explanation that was certainly read by everyone of the crew but since they have no use for the truth they are unreasonably selective with evidence to enable denial and don't care about the explanation anyway so don't bother explaining anything at all.


core wall at its base (http://algoxy.com/psych/images/core.corner.arrow.col.jpg)


http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html


And so we have Chris's emotional collapse...er demolition. A fitting capstone to this thread.

[Christophera]

Originally Posted by Christophera;
Uh, ................ I ask for accountability and I get the above. Reason not available, hmm, ........... must be OUT TO LUNCH! The laws of conservation of energy deny you are reasonable.


Try some emotional reasoning.


Your children will suffer because you cannot use truth to aid in the protection of their lives, their futures. A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace


Christophera, you are continuously derailing the thread with unrelated matters. Please stay focused on the subject of discussion.

I'm questioning your reasons for discussing unreasonably dummie. Without evidence dummie. Ilogocally dummie. Get the point dummie? Your whole reason for posting is f*cked up. The denial crew has a mental, emotional, spiritual problem contrary to higher human instinct. Reptilian behavior.

Darkness = unknowingness

[KingMerv00]

Too bad, the world needs more of your kind, KingMerv. :D

Gee I hope not. Nothing would ever get done with my laziness.

[Pardalis]

Reptilian behavior.

Ah. So now he shows his real colors. David Icke I presume?

[KingMerv00]

Ah. So now he shows his real colors. David Icke I presume?

What a horrible thing to say. Chris and Killtown combined on their worst days are NOTHING compared to David Icke.

Something to shoot for though.

[Regnad Kcin]

No response to my last two posts, Mr. Brown?

[Regnad Kcin]

Christophera, you are continuously derailing the thread with unrelated matters. Please stay focused on the subject of discussion.I'm questioning your reasons for discussing unreasonably dummie. Without evidence dummie. Ilogocally dummie. Get the point dummie? Your whole reason for posting is f*cked up. The denial crew has a mental, emotional, spiritual problem contrary to higher human instinct. Reptilian behavior.

Darkness = unknowingnessOur friend seems to be angling for a banning. What a surprise!

[T.A.M.]

Don't ban him...he is just looking for it so he can go tell his fellow whiners that the big bad JREF wolves Huffed and Puffed and blew his house down...

I'd say just lock the thread, and let him post as he likes...doesn't seem to be doing much harm...more like a mosquito than anything else.

TAM

[kevin]

Yeah, I'd actually like to split the einsteen discussion into a seperate thread. christophera is starting to remind me of one of those little kids that screams while mommy is on the phone.

[Pardalis]

What a horrible thing to say. Chris and Killtown combined on their worst days are NOTHING compared to David Icke.

Something to shoot for though.

Yeah, you're probably right, Christophera doesn't even have a brittish accent anyways... :D

[Christophera]

Our friend seems to be angling for a banning. What a surprise!

You won't argue that light is knowing?

Reasoning as to accounting for your intentions, how they relate to your instinctual understanding of the purpose of truth.

[Brainache]

You won't argue that light is knowing?

Reasoning as to accounting for your intentions, how they relate to your instinctual understanding of the purpose of truth.


I might be way out of line here, but why do you think that truth has a purpose?
In my language truth isn't directed anywhere. It has no purpose beyond its own existence.
A thing is either true or not true.

I can't say that a truth has a purpose.
In the context of this thread you are denying the truth and stating some strange lie over and over again.
Are you saying that restating a lie often enough can turn it into a "truth" which serves your purpose?

[einsteen]

an interesting vid I got by email

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

I've no conclusions at the moment and have to leave

[Shrinker]

Einsteen, can I suggest you start a new thread to discuss something of interest? I was impressed by the way you owned up to your mistake earlier and would like to follow more of your discussions but this thread is far too noisy.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Einsteen, can I suggest you start a new thread to discuss something of interest? I was impressed by the way you owned up to your mistake earlier and would like to follow more of your discussions but this thread is far too noisy.

For not being a native English speaker, einsteen has done a remarkable job of communicating better than many that have come here from LCF.

[Stellafane]

For not being a native English speaker, einsteen has done a remarkable job of communicating better than many that have come here from LCF.

Being a non-psychotic probably helps.

[KingMerv00]

You won't argue that light is knowing?

Reasoning as to accounting for your intentions, how they relate to your instinctual understanding of the purpose of truth.

I mean this in the nicest possible way...you aren't making sense.

What does "light is knowing" mean?

[Pardalis]

an interesting vid I got by email

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

I've no conclusions at the moment and have to leave

It's called a spam, Einsteen. :rolleyes:

ETA: let's predict Einsteen will come back to us in a few hours with a conclusion taken out of his ass that will state something like there couldn't have been a plane hitting the Pentagon.

[Belz...]

The laws of conservation of energy deny you are reasonable.

They do no such thing.

Try some emotional reasoning.

Have you stooped that low, now ?

Your children will suffer because you cannot use truth to aid in the protection of their lives, their futures.

Pardalis is Canadian. Don't you know anything ?

A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures.

Sounds like idealistic crap to me.

Your lack of acceptance will cause your mis decision and demise for those you love in all ways in your failure to use truth.

Are you out of arguments, now ?

Knowledge and power serve love, because love protects life.

Okay now we're completely down woo lane.

[Belz...]

@Belz,

Did you read all papers from A-Z ?

So, in your opinion, these are simple calculations and couch potatoes on the internet are better qualified than experts to analyse the situation

Answer: No, but let me explain what I mean

If you have a point mass for example and it follows a track to the ground, you can use a complex way of calculating the velocity as a function of time v(t) or distance, x(t), finally when it hits the ground or is at height x1 at time t1, then you have a speed of v(t1), alternatively you can use the kinetic energy formula to find the speed at height x1. They should be the same.

Yeah, sure. uh-huh. What's your point ?

[Belz...]

They had their lucky day, another near zero chance to add to the product of chances, this does not proof that they had that knowledge, they couldn't have that but it's at least suspicious that they choose this target

No, it isn't, unless you start with your conclusion. From that point of view, anything is extremely unlikely. Ever studied statistics ?

2. Ok Archie, this was not meant to be seriously, it just popped in my mint and I added it

9/11 is no laughing matter.

[Belz...]

Even Stevie Wonder sees that's a different man,

Then all those experts and skeptics must REALLY be blind, eh ?

[Belz...]

I'm questioning your reasons for discussing unreasonably dummie. Without evidence dummie. Ilogocally dummie. Get the point dummie? Your whole reason for posting is f*cked up. The denial crew has a mental, emotional, spiritual problem contrary to higher human instinct. Reptilian behavior.

Darkness = unknowingness

Suicide by mod pending.

[Belz...]

You won't argue that light is knowing?

Light is knowing ? So now you're into new age crap ?

Reasoning as to accounting for your intentions, how they relate to your instinctual understanding of the purpose of truth.

I think you snapped during the week-end.

[Belz...]

an interesting vid I got by email

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

I've no conclusions at the moment and have to leave

...So what does it prove ?

Plane hits concrete... both explode.

[azazal]

...So what does it prove ?

Plane hits concrete... both explode.


Or, from http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html

The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom — including both engines — onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). Previous tests used F-4 engines at similar speeds. The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test. The test established that the major impact force was from the engines. The test was performed by Sandia National Laboratories under terms of a contract with the Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo. To view and download footage or still photos, click on the links or the images below.

[Regnad Kcin]

You won't argue that light is knowing?

Reasoning as to accounting for your intentions, how they relate to your instinctual understanding of the purpose of truth.Yes. Yes, it's all clear to me now.

[T.A.M.]

You won't argue that light is knowing?

Reasoning as to accounting for your intentions, how they relate to your instinctual understanding of the purpose of truth.

Light is actually both a particle and wave, behaving like either in various situations. The speed of light, represented by the constant "c", is 299,792,458 m/s (299,792 km/s approximately).

knowing:

From Dictionary.com

know1  /noʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[noh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, knew, known, know‧ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully.
2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here?
3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it.
4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor.
5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually fol. by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread.
6. to be able to distinguish, as one from another: to know right from wrong.
7. Archaic. to have sexual intercourse with.
–verb (used without object)
8. to have knowledge or clear and certain perception, as of fact or truth.
9. to be cognizant or aware, as of some fact, circumstance, or occurrence; have information, as about something.
–noun
10. the fact or state of knowing; knowledge.
—Idioms
11. know the ropes, Informal. to understand or be familiar with the particulars of a subject or business: He knew the ropes better than anyone else in politics.
12. in the know, possessing inside, secret, or special information.

The rest of your UNEEDED verbal diarrhea, is, i gather suppose to translate as follows...

"our instinctive understanding of the purpose of "truth" is affected by our motive?" My best guess at your verbal ejaculate...

TAM

[realitybites]

Sunshine is love.

[KingMerv00]

Feelings are sound, man.

[Hellbound]

What if D-O-G...really spells cat?

[TK0001]

A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures.

Am I wrong, or is he posturing himself as an alien here?





alsotheydidn'tfreefallkthankskbye

[Metullus]

Am I wrong, or is he posturing himself as an alien here?If you think about it that would explain a lot...

[chipmunk stew]

What if D-O-G...really spells cat?
What if the "blue" I see is different from the "blue" you see?

[Dog Town]

Sunshine is love.

Yes but time is money...or is that opium? Hmmmm?

What if D-O-G...really spells cat?

Ahemm! *coughs*

[delphi_ote]

I mean why not taking a nuclear reactor or something like that, if nobody knows what would happen they also wouldn't know. With the knowlegde that you only will kill a few people on the floor of impact why would you do it? If someone's purpose is to kill as many people as possible you wouldn't hit the WTC only to show that you are able to hijack a plane and show what you can do as a kind of status, you would hit a target to kill as many people as possible. They had their lucky day, another near zero chance to add to the product of chances, this does not proof that they had that knowledge, they couldn't have that but it's at least suspicious that they choose this target
Don't forget that people with this same mentality bombed the towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing) several years before 9/11 in an effort to bring both towers down, but completely failed. Until 9/11, people thought this was an unrealistic goal.

They instead turned their focus to something more "spectacular." Something we wouldn't be able to ignore and laugh off so easily: giant planes flying into important buildings. Bin Laden himself said he was suprised the buildings collapsed (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/response/investigation/011213.binladen.tape.html).
We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (...Inaudible...) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for.

[delphi_ote]

It's called a spam, Einsteen. :rolleyes:

ETA: let's predict Einsteen will come back to us in a few hours with a conclusion taken out of his ass that will state something like there couldn't have been a plane hitting the Pentagon.
Can we take it easy on einsteen and not be negative about things he hasn't even done yet? The guy has been willing to listen and learn. He's also been humble enough to admit some of his own mistakes, and we all know that isn't an easy thing to do. Maybe we're not all on the same page yet, but einstein seems to be trying to apply some critical thinking to his own ideas. Let's give him a chance.

[Architect]

With the knowlegde that you only will kill a few people on the floor of impact why would you do it? If someone's purpose is to kill as many people as possible you wouldn't hit the WTC only to show that you are able to hijack a plane and show what you can do as a kind of status, you would hit a target to kill as many people as possible.


A few people? What, apart from the large number on the plane and the hundreds on each floor? That not enough?!? :jaw-dropp

Anyway, I think the point is not how many are killed but rather that it's a high-profile spectacular, as the IRA used to call them.

[Pardalis]

Let's give him a chance.

OK, I'm always willing to give someone a chance, but Einsteen has this eerie similarity to geggy. :D

[Dragon]

Can we take it easy on einsteen and not be negative about things he hasn't even done yet? The guy has been willing to listen and learn. He's also been humble enough to admit some of his own mistakes, and we all know that isn't an easy thing to do. Maybe we're not all on the same page yet, but einstein still trying to apply some critical thinking to his own ideas. Let's give him a chance.Agreed. I've been a (very) occasional poster on the 9/11 threads but a keen follower. I think einsteen's link has some relevance to the Pentagon attack - i.e. the F4 in the video was "atomised" because it crashed into a concrete block at 480mph. We all know what the CTers have made of the lack of obvious wreckage from the 757 that crashed into the Pentagon (the walls of which are made of concrete) at a similar speed.

Also, I spotted a noteable comment down the page in "Comments and Responses" Take an 80-lb. bag of cement and hoist it on your shoulder. No problem, right? Now drop one on your shoulder from 10 feet up. Use your time in the hospital to think about the difference between static and live loads...

[ArmillarySphere]

Am I wrong, or is he posturing himself as an alien here?
Or else he's claiming we've been bred to bring out some specific trait. Now if he'd said species...

</petpeeve>

[apathoid]

A chance of harmony and sustainability. peace and strenght based in knowledge. Your race will suffer becaue your vision does not include a sense of justice, fairness and understanding of our natures.


Am I wrong, or is he posturing himself as an alien here?

Freudian slip?

[Pardalis]

Pardalis is Canadian. Don't you know anything ?

Only technically Belz, only technically... ;) :D

[Hellbound]

What if the "blue" I see is different from the "blue" you see?

That's, like, deep man...

...deep blue!

:D

[Hellbound]

Only technically Belz, only technically... ;) :D

This is true.

I mean, under the NWO, aren't we all really on the same side?

:D

[Metullus]

This is true.

I mean, under the NWO, aren't we all really on the same side?

:DThats what they want you to think. But it is the layers, man, layers. Like an onion. Every "us" and "them" are on a different layer...

Nobody is on anybody else's side; thats how they get us...

Like the man said: "Nothing is ever what it seems but everything is exactly what it is."

[Christophera]

I might be way out of line here, but why do you think that truth has a purpose?
In my language truth isn't directed anywhere. It has no purpose beyond its own existence.
A thing is either true or not true.

I can't say that a truth has a purpose.
In the context of this thread you are denying the truth and stating some strange lie over and over again.
Are you saying that restating a lie often enough can turn it into a "truth" which serves your purpose?

By your judgement, you must be used to twisting the meanings of things.

The truth has the purpose of protecting life, if it won't so that, there's no one to appreciate it.

[kevin]

Christophera - I wrote PBS and asked them if they had ever produced a documentary titled "The Construction of the Twin Towers. Below is their response:


Thank you for writing to PBS.

PBS distributes a great number of programs and it is very difficult to track down information about a program without knowing its exact title. Unfortunately, I was unable to locate a program that matches your description.

I did find a PBS Web site which has an eighteen-minute film called BUILDING THE WORLD TRADE CENTER that was produced by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1983 with original footage of the towers under construction. Here is a link to that site:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html

I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help and thank you again for writing. We hope you continue to enjoy and support your local PBS member station.

Sincerely,
Rosie
PBS Viewer Services



At 09:16 PM 8/31/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>User Information -
>
>Name : Kevin
>Zip Code :
>Email :
>Program Name : The Construction Of The Twin Towers
>Nature of Comments : neutral
>Mailing List Opt-in :
>Wants catalog :
>
>Comments : I'm trying to find a documentary that I believe aired on PBS in
>the early 90's call "The Construction Of The Twin Towers"`~``~`Do you know
>if PBS ever produced such a documentary? I'm aware of the post 9/11
>documentaries but I was looking for something prior to that.`~``~`Thank
>you,`~`Kevin
>
>Catalog Name :
>Catalog Street Address :
>Catalog City :
>Catalog State :
>Catalog Zip Code :

[Gravy]

Christophera - I wrote PBS and asked them if they had ever produced a documentary titled "The Construction of the Twin Towers. Below is their response:
Sorry to butt in, but Chris has also said it was produced by the BBC. He remembers vividly how they described planting the C-4 during construction. Yes, in 1990, the British Broadcasting Corporation produced and aired a documentary which said the Twin Towers were packed with demolitions explosives. Must be true. Chris remembers it vividly (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039).

[T.A.M.]

Nice find Kevin. Just watched in full. No sign of the Concrete Core.

TAM:)

[kevin]

Sorry to butt in, but Chris has also said it was produced by the BBC. He remembers vividly how they described planting the C-4 during construction. Yes, in 1990, the British Broadcasting Corporation produced and aired a documentary which said the Twin Towers were packed with demolitions explosives. Must be true. Chris remembers it vividly (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039).

Heh. Well next time I feel like kicking a dead horse when it's down I'll write the BBC and ask them the same thing and get the same reply.

[Brainache]

By your judgement, you must be used to twisting the meanings of things.

The truth has the purpose of protecting life, if it won't so that, there's no one to appreciate it.

Now you make me think we are quibbling over definitions.
Truth in my definition is: That which is. As opposed to that which is not.

You seem to be talking about an inflatable life jacket or possibly some kind of rigid head wear.

[delphi_ote]

The truth has the purpose of protecting life, if it won't so that, there's no one to appreciate it.
Hmm... are you ascribing "purpose" to the abstraction "truth" in an anthropomorphic sense (i.e. Are you saying, "The truth wants to protect life because it wants people to appreciate it")? Are you saying that things which don't protect people's lives aren't true? Are you saying that in order to protect life, we have to tell the truth?

I'm not really sure what you mean by this, Christophera. I'm skeptical of the first two, but if you meant the third thing, I can agree with that.

[delphi_ote]

Sorry to butt in, but Chris has also said it was produced by the BBC. He remembers vividly how they described planting the C-4 during construction. Yes, in 1990, the British Broadcasting Corporation produced and aired a documentary which said the Twin Towers were packed with demolitions explosives. Must be true. Chris remembers it vividly (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039).
I frequently remember my dreams very vividly. I also remember events in books and movies very vividly. Maybe Chris is mistaken about the origin of a real memory.

[Pardalis]

I'm skeptical of the first two, but if you meant the third thing, I can agree with that.

Well, we sometimes have to lie to protect people's lives too.

[Pardalis]

Christophera, Cpt Columbo wrote to the BBC regarding the program "Contruction of the Twin Towers" you say you have seen some years ago.

This is what they replied:



I have been unable to trace the programme to which you refer. With the BBC commissioning so many different programmes, including those made by independent production companies, obtaining additional details can be a real problem.

Most information databases only store information under a specific title rather than a general description. If you are sure the programme was broadcast on BBC television, and can provide any further details about it I would be more than happy to search again.

In the meantime, it may be worthwhile contacting 'BBC Written Archives', who may have some documentation regarding the series. Please note that the Written Archives cannot supply copies of programmes. You can reach them at the following address:

BBC Written Archives Centre
Caversham Park
Reading
RG4 8TZ, UK
Telephone: 0118 948 6281
Fax: 0118 946 1145
Email: heritage@bbc.co.uk

You may find the following section from the bbc.co.uk 'News' website which looks at the events of this now infamous in great detail to of some interest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...day_of_terror/

I realise this may be of some disappointment to you however I hope we can provide you with a fuller answer should you choose to contact us again.

I would like to thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC.

Regards

James Kelly
BBC Information

[delphi_ote]

Well, we sometimes have to lie to protect people's lives too.
Too true. Maybe I should've said "we sometimes have to tell the truth." Even corrected, I'm still not entirely sure what this statement means or how it relates to everything else we've been discussing, though. Hopefully Christophera will return to us long enough to explain.

[Christophera]

Sorry to butt in, but Chris has also said it was produced by the BBC. He remembers vividly how they described planting the C-4 during construction. Yes, in 1990, the British Broadcasting Corporation produced and aired a documentary which said the Twin Towers were packed with demolitions explosives. Must be true. Chris remembers it vividly (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1895911&postcount=3039).

Error:
No, never said the BBC, that is the bogus prestressed concrete core. PBS is who produced it and I do not expect anyone to find it from PBS,

Error and Distortion:
The DOC didn't describe building the towers with C4 coated rebar. It did describe a special plastic coating that turned out to be flammable.

We need an explanation for what happened and standard planting of explosives will not do.

[R.Mackey]

Error:
No, never said the BBC, that is the bogus prestressed concrete core. PBS is who produced it and I do not expect anyone to find it from PBS,

Error and Distortion:
The DOC didn't describe building the towers with C4 coated rebar. It did describe a special plastic coating that turned out to be flammable.

We need an explanation for what happened and standard planting of explosives will not do.
Dude, like, I'd swear I just clicked through Gravy's links and saw where you did say that, but, you know, I wouldn't want to interfere with your own personal truth. Truth is goodness and the savior of our lives. Electric yellow's got me by the brain banana, man.

I might have dreamed this, but I thought the buildings were smashed into by big ol' jumbo jets! ZZzoooowww... CRASH! Big fires. They stood up for a while all twisted and burning, but no building could stand up to that forever. Way more intense than standard planting of explosives, man. It was horrible.

No wait a minute, that's what really happened. And it was even more horrible than I can describe. All those poor people. Drag.

I don't want to joke about this anymore.

[Dog Town]

Ahem... Christoph,
In 1990 I saw the best documentation besides the construction plans. A very intimate video documentary produced by BBC called "The Construction Of the twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and mostly about the concrete core because it was the most difficult aspect of the construction.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711242&postcount=660
Pardon???

[Alareth]

Error:
No, never said the BBC, that is the bogus prestressed concrete core. PBS is who produced it and I do not expect anyone to find it from PBS,


Bolding mine.

Could that perhaps be because you are making it up to support your irrational claims? You've already created false quotes from one of the buildings designers so it's not unreasonable to believe that this is also a false statement.

Or, will you claim that all copies of this and references to it to have been destroyed as part of a grand coverup?

I'm in favor of the first one.

[hellaeon]

ffs Christophera, why do you continue to make such a fool of yourself. You still arrogantly refuse to be corrected or even better correct yourself.

Jeebus.

Dont throw any stones at the glass windows while your there...

[Christophera]

Ahem... Christoph,

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1711242&postcount=660
Pardon???

3000 dead. Evidence destroyed and my typo is an issue. Must be that reptilian thing.

[Christophera]

ffs Christophera, why do you continue to make such a fool of yourself. You still arrogantly refuse to be corrected or even better correct yourself.

Jeebus.

Dont throw any stones at the glass windows while your there...

How can you correct that which you will not acknowledge? Either one, what you pretend to correct or, ..... what it is after you say you have corrected it.

PHONEY

[Architect]

3000 dead. Evidence destroyed and my typo is an issue. Must be that reptilian thing.

That wasn't a typo mate. You culpably misrepresented evidence. And you got caught.

Why should any of us waste any more time on you, if you just fabricate "facts" and hand-wave away cogent arguments?

Get help, and get it fast.

[chipmunk stew]

...You still arrogantly refuse to be corrected or even better correct yourself....
How can you correct that which you will not acknowledge?...
Couldn't've said it better myself, Chris.

[Belz...]

Only technically Belz, only technically... ;) :D


I mean, under the NWO, aren't we all really on the same side?

Pardalis meant he's a separatist, Huntsman. In other words, an ANARCHIST !!! ;)

[Belz...]

Error:
No, never said the BBC, that is the bogus prestressed concrete core. PBS is who produced it and I do not expect anyone to find it from PBS,

Actually you DID say BBC:

"In 1990 I saw the best documentation besides the construction plans. A very intimate video documentary produced by BBC called "The Construction Of the twin Towers". It was 2 hours in length and mostly about the concrete core because it was the most difficult aspect of the construction. "

ETA: "3000 dead. Evidence destroyed and my typo is an issue. Must be that reptilian thing."

TYPO ? Reptilian ? What the hell ?


Error and Distortion:
The DOC didn't describe building the towers with C4 coated rebar. It did describe a special plastic coating that turned out to be flammable.

"The World Trade Center was designed poorly. See, here how the rebar is coated in a special plastic substance that happens to be flammable. Of course, we're not engineers, but ...woah! That wall just collapsed." :rolleyes:

[kevin]

Epoxy coatings of rebar was invented in the early 60's. Apparently it took 7 years to figure out it was flammable? And it was allowed in the building codes all that time without testing. Yeah, right.

And why would PBS know nothing about this documentary they created?

[delphi_ote]

Pardalis meant he's a separatist, Huntsman. In other words, an ANARCHIST !!! ;)
They're on our side, too. Didn't you get the memo? I wrote it on the cardboard in the middle of your roll of duct tape (on the side beneath the tape, of course.)

[Hellbound]

Anarchists are great.

The difference between anarchy and tyranny is about 26 hours and one cache of weaponry.

[einsteen]

It's called a spam, Einsteen. :rolleyes:

ETA: let's predict Einsteen will come back to us in a few hours with a conclusion taken out of his ass that will state something like there couldn't have been a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Ok, spam..

plane + special absorbing wall = dust
plane + traditional non absorbing wall = hole + wreckage etc.

then plane + pentagon is a kind of combination of it, ok but that's no real science.. I think I wait for my conclusions after the release of the video, I just was thinking a little bit.

[einsteen]

Yeah, sure. uh-huh. What's your point ?

Ok, a little repect from my side then that you went through all papers and verified it all.

[einsteen]

No, it isn't, unless you start with your conclusion. From that point of view, anything is extremely unlikely. Ever studied statistics ?

A reasonable amount. But of course I agree you cannot take real conclusions at this stage.

[Pardalis]

I do not expect anyone to find it from PBS,


Why the hell not?

[einsteen]

Can we take it easy on einsteen and not be negative about things he hasn't even done yet? The guy has been willing to listen and learn. He's also been humble enough to admit some of his own mistakes, and we all know that isn't an easy thing to do. Maybe we're not all on the same page yet, but einstein seems to be trying to apply some critical thinking to his own ideas. Let's give him a chance.
Thanks..

[MortFurd]

Why the hell not?

Well, it's been SUPPRESSED. PBS works for the gubmint. (insert tinfoil hat rolleyes smiley here.)

[Pardalis]

plane + special absorbing wall = dust
plane + traditional non absorbing wall = hole + wreckage etc.


How about:

lay person + disinformation = conspiracy belief

[Stellafane]

3000 dead. Evidence destroyed and my typo is an issue. Must be that reptilian thing.

Your typo?

You said you saw documentary produced by the BBC (or PBS) that supported your claim for a concrete core for the WTC, the central theme upon which this long, sordid thread is based. No such documentary exists. Therefore I'm calling it:

You are a liar.

On an internet forum, where credibility and veracity is basically all you have, being proved a liar excludes you from any further respect or response.

It's there for all to see, folks, illuminated by the evidence of his own words. Christophera is a proven liar.

[delphi_ote]

How about:

lay person + disinformation = conspiracy belief
I think einsteen is saying he understands the point that was made about why the crash in the video is different than a plane crashing into a building, and that maybe the Pentagon crash was a little in between the two. He said this wasn't exactly science, and in a sense I don't think it is. The idea that the re-enforced walls in the Pentagon would've done a lot of damage to the plane is definitely a logical argument, but I could see where you might hold off on some proof somewhere along the line if you were being conservative.
I think I wait for my conclusions after the release of the video
I'm not sure what video he's waiting for, though.

[einsteen]

I assume this has been debunked..., but IMO 5 frames is silly to consider as a video. With the release of 5 frames they don't debunk the idea it must be something else, it's in high contrast with the planes crashing in the towers where a lot of videomaterial is available. I've heard that the FBI took some tapes, if that is true then they could give the ultimate debunking very easily

I admit it is understandable that there are only a few frames from that view because of the speed of the object. With about 850 km/s and a framerate of 25 per second the object takes a step of 9.4m per frame, the shutter speed will say something about the resolution.

quite inspiring to read this however

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

[Belz...]

They're on our side, too. Didn't you get the memo? I wrote it on the cardboard in the middle of your roll of duct tape (on the side beneath the tape, of course.)

Oh... I kinda... needed to use that duct tape, man.

It's okay, though. They'll never know what I did. They can't find out, can they ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The Pentagon security camera that was released was 1 fps iirc.

[Belz...]

Ok, a little repect from my side then that you went through all papers and verified it all.

Uh, no.

I assume this has been debunked..., but IMO 5 frames is silly to consider as a video. With the release of 5 frames they don't debunk the idea it must be something else, it's in high contrast with the planes crashing in the towers where a lot of videomaterial is available. I've heard that the FBI took some tapes, if that is true then they could give the ultimate debunking very easily

Sorry. The FBI didn't see a good reason to manufacture a fake tape to silence you guys. They were lazy, that day, and decided to show the real thing.

What ? You're going to pay 10,000 dollars for a cheap parking lot camera ?

[missyvanwinkle]

I just heard where National Public Radio is about to do an interview re: CTs (and debunking same.)

Miss

[missyvanwinkle]

Turns out the interview was rather short, primarily a book tour promo for "Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America" by Bob Goldberg, professor of history at the University of Utah. He was joined by Jim Meigs, editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics.

I was proud of the kids for specifically fielding calls from CTs, what with so many call-in shows screening to make sure only sycophants get through.

Here's the link to the NPR site if you want more:
npr.orgtemplates/story/story.php?storyId=5782277
(add the requisite URL stuff up front since I'm a newbie)

Missy

[kevin]

Welcome to the board. Here's the clickable version:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5782277

i think these are usually available on iTunes via podcast the next day too. I may grab one of those and listen to at work.

[einsteen]

The Pentagon security camera that was released was 1 fps iirc.

Could you calculate the speed for me then, I'm lost

[apathoid]

Could you calculate the speed for me then, I'm lost

You originally wrote:
I admit it is understandable that there are only a few frames from that view because of the speed of the object. With about 850 km/s and a framerate of 25 per second the object takes a step of 9.4m per frame, the shutter speed will say something about the resolution.

Whats to calculate? 1 frame per second, not 25. A plane moving at 530 mph or 780 feet/sec will travel 780 feet, or 5 fuselage lengths, between security camera frames..

[einsteen]

Uh, no.
What ? You're going to pay 10,000 dollars for a cheap parking lot camera ?

I also don't get this, this is the Pentagon not McDonald's or the whammyburger.