Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC "Experts" [Archive]

scooby

13th March 2007, 11:36 PM

Excellent article for people sick of hearing about the NIST and 911 Commission report and other 911 ... 'bunk'. Useful in clearing peoples minds up and illustrating the numerous conflicts of interest involved ...

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC "Experts"

... The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know – mechanics.

This hasn’t prevented many who cling to the official story from using PM as their scientific champion. For example, in his poorly researched hit piece against “conspiracy theorists”, British essayist George Monbiot foists Popular Mechanics upon us, saying they “polled 300 experts” to support their findings.[16] But science is not about popularity, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/911/demo-matrix.jpg

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6765

R.Mackey

13th March 2007, 11:44 PM

As long as they show their work, and produce conclusions that can be independently verified, it makes no difference who produces the report. The "Truth Movement" never seems to grasp this point, as it produces virtually no work of its own, and what little it does fails at first inspection.

Your short-sighted table also fails to take into account the numerous subcontracts and partnerships, spanning literally hundreds of universities, national laboratories, private engineering firms, and contractors. Do you honestly think that the short list of people above single-handedly wrote all 10,000 pages of NIST? Or that they would be able to silence those who did write it, if they exerted an unfair editorial influence?

Complaint noted and rejected.

beachnut

13th March 2007, 11:45 PM

Excellent article for people sick of hearing about the NIST and 911 Commission report and other 911 ... 'bunk'. Useful in clearing peoples minds up and illustrating the numerous conflicts of interest involved ...

Looking for Truth in Credentials: The WTC "Experts"

... The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know – mechanics.

, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6765
Who is the dolt who wrote this crap?

It sounds like sour grapes and from someone too dumb to keep a job! Sounds like it is from a mentally challenged person who was fired for being an idiot.

Let me check now to see who it is! No I think reading your portion of junk is enough to call anything you post as garbage and the people you parrot as nut cases who have no facts. But seems like you suck up this stuff like it was real stuff.

If you would take some time off from being a CTer, you could become educated and see how there are no facts in this piece of stuff from a failed person. I bet this person is on some circuit making money at conventions for truthers.

Did you write this or plagiarize it?

PhantomWolf

13th March 2007, 11:47 PM

Oh, oh, oh, scooby is progressing to cornered CT option #2. When getting your backside handed to you on one topic, start a new thread.

Redtail

13th March 2007, 11:56 PM

scooby

14th March 2007, 12:06 AM

As long as they show their work, and produce conclusions that can be independently verified, it makes no difference who produces the report.

Ah see, you fail again.

The issue at hand here, is not science, it is 'conflict of interest', a judicial concept in the main. It is often used to dismiss unsafe testimony.

Arus808

14th March 2007, 12:08 AM

the issue isn't conflict of interest. that is just posturing on your part.

what about all those scientists that have no allegiance to the USA? you have millions of scientists to pull from...

get to it.

uk_dave

14th March 2007, 12:09 AM

yeah right.

getting the top people in their fields (ARUP, mark loizeaux et al) merely means the woowoos are reduced to snide comments about how those people also work for government agencies.

Much better to have some theology professor commenting on structural engineering, right?

So, the conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger as more and more people are implicated in the cover up.

R.Mackey

14th March 2007, 12:11 AM

My mistake. I thought you were claiming that the reports you see fit to heap scorn upon were incorrect.

Instead, it appears you're fussing over a mere procedural issue.

Fine. Show me how there is a conflict of interest here. I fail to see how membership in, for instance, the Oklahoma City Bombing report would post a conflict of interest with, for example, the NIST WTC report. There is no competition between the two, nor is there information that could not be shared between them. Hence, no conflict of interest.

And as far as "unsafe testimony" goes, that is indeed a matter for science. The reports are independently verifiable. That makes the testimony de facto reliable, end of story.

Brainster

14th March 2007, 12:12 AM

Ah, it's Kevin "I'm certainly not the brightest guy" Ryan, who's plenty bright enough to edit a scholarly urinal, errr, journal.

Exactly how they could find so many experts on the fire-induced collapse of tall buildings is not immediately clear, considering such an event had never happened before. But it did help that the questions were quickly framed as being solely matters of structural engineering, a sub-field of civil engineering, because structural engineers cannot find work without continual government approvals. A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own.

Ah, ergo we should trust the chemistry laboratory manager, because he doesn't have any permits or licenses the government can pull?

It is amazing to read, but Ryan even drops into the OKC swamp:

After spending 25 years dealing with explosive weaponry, General Partin independently studied the damage done to the Murrah building in the month before the evidence was destroyed, and made several strong statements to members of the US Congress. In July of 1995, General Partin wrote to Senator Trent Lott, stating, “The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Aflred P. Murrah Federal Building…was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.” He added “No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a…terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.”

Time for Perry to show up and have the vapors about somebody accusing the Democrats of covering up a terrorist attack on American soil. And in this case I certainly agree with him; the idea that OKC was organized by the government is nutty.

uk_dave

14th March 2007, 12:13 AM

Ah see, you fail again.

The issue at hand here, is not science, it is 'conflict of interest', a judicial concept in the main. It is often used to dismiss unsafe testimony.

Actually, you're partially right there.

Ever consider the 'conflict of interest' posed by those at the top of the 'truther' tree?

No? Didn't think you would have.

Of course Fetzer and Jones and Wood and Reynolds won't have ever designed a building you will have used. Whereas ARUP may well have had a hand in the structural design of many large buildings, some of which you may have visited and trusted your safety to their expertise.

Since you don't trust them to be honest about 9/11, I can only suggest that from now on you stay in your basement and fight 'the man' from there.... don't venture out into the real world because it is designed and built by people you don't trust.

Myriad

14th March 2007, 12:14 AM

So, the conspiracy is getting bigger and bigger as more and more people are implicated in the cover up.

Which raises the interesting question: once everybody is in on the conspiracy, does it matter any more?

Respectfully,
Myriad

DavidJames

14th March 2007, 12:27 AM

Excellent article for people sick of getting their ass kicked by the NIST and 911 Commission report and other 911 ... 'fact based reports'. Useful in fogging peoples minds up and hiding the numerous intelligently written analysis's ...That is what you really wanted to say, until your meds wore off.

WildCat

14th March 2007, 12:36 AM

Another desperation move by the troofers to try to save their dieing movement. Soon, Ryan, Fetzer, and Steven Jones may actually be forced to get a job.

scooby

14th March 2007, 09:06 PM

Perception & Propaganda: Media Analysis of 9/11

Anyone who regularly reads newspapers is by now aware that there are people questioning the official version of events of September 11, 2001. Examples of coverage of the the "9/11 conspiracy theorists", as the mainstream media consistently characterizes the skeptics of the official story, include front-page articles in the Wall Street Journal and feature articles in Time and Popular Mechanics.

In November 2006, Counterpunch.org published a series of articles by Manuel Garcia, Jr. purporting to debunk "conspiracy theories" about the destruction of the World Trade Center.The first article was The Physics of 9/11. http://www.counterpunch.org/physic11282006.html

Manuel Garcia Sees Physics That Don't Exist
by Kevin Ryan
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/garcia.html

Critique of Manuel Garcia's The Physics of 9/11
by Jim Hoffman
http://911review.com/reviews/counterpunch/markup/physic11282006.html

A Quick Review of Manuel Garcia's article "We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist: The Physics of 9/11"
by Kevin Ryan
http://www.stj911.org/critiques/ryan/counterpunch.html

The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
[12.03.07] Alexander Cockburn’s “US: The Conspiracy That Wasn’t,” which is an attack on the 9/11 truth movement, is faulty in virtually every respect. He calls me one of the movement’s “high priests,” as if it were a religious movement, rather than a fact-based movement that involves scientists, engineers, pilots, war veterans, politicians, philosophers, former air traffic controllers, former defense ministers, and former CIA analysts.

http://www.lmd.no/index.php?article=1408

CHF

14th March 2007, 09:11 PM

Ah see, you fail again.

The issue at hand here, is not science, it is 'conflict of interest', a judicial concept in the main. It is often used to dismiss unsafe testimony.

Scooby,

if there are serious flaws in the NIST report then why aren't the rest of the world's engineers crying foul?

Why aren't truthers pointing out the errors?

If the NIST report is flawed then show me a peer-reviewed paper in an engineering journal that explains how.

CHF

14th March 2007, 09:14 PM

Gee, scooby...

Kevin water-boy Ryan on building collapses???

Where did he get his structural engineering degree again?

T.A.M.

14th March 2007, 09:16 PM

Scooby:

I get it. You are saying that instead of The top Scientists in their field working with other top scientists, whom they happen to be connected with, and have a good rapport with, they should have looked for other scientists that they did not know, and had never worked with to help with the SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ON BUILDING SAFETY.

That is simply moronic, paranoid, and simply stupid...alas, not surprising.

TAM:jaw-dropp

scooby

14th March 2007, 09:21 PM

Scooby,

if there are serious flaws in the NIST report then why aren't the rest of the world's engineers crying foul?

Why aren't truthers pointing out the errors?

If the NIST report is flawed then show me a peer-reviewed paper in an engineering journal that explains how.

Why would I bother doing that when all I have to do is ask you for the NIST reports explanation of what happened during the collapse of the WTC and WTC7.

Care to provide it?

I'd love to read what they say happened during the collapses - it was all so quick after all. I believe it's online, and you sound like an expert - so please, point out the relevant section.

LashL

14th March 2007, 09:23 PM

Scooby, there is a thread here on the qualifying of experts for purposes of giving opinion testimony in court. You should read it. Ryan and Hoffman would simply not make the grade to be accepted as experts on the subjects that they purport to opine about.

AZCat

14th March 2007, 09:27 PM

Why would I bother doing that when all I have to do is ask you for the NIST reports explanation of what happened during the collapse of the WTC and WTC7.

Care to provide it?

I'd love to read what they say happened during the collapses - it was all so quick after all. I believe it's online, and you sound like an expert - so please, point out the relevant section. (Bolding mine)

That's the trouble with you truthers - you're willing to spend countless hours scrutinizing YouTube videos, but you won't spend the time to aquire the necessary knowledge to understand the relevant areas of the NIST report. I know this sounds crazy, but you either have to have some prior knowledge of the subject or you need to read the body of the report and the appendices in order to understand the NIST's explanation of the collapses. Expecting someone to spell it out for you without a corresponding effort on your part just sounds childish.

StoneWT

14th March 2007, 09:29 PM

If Ryan believes Partin is credible on OKC, is Partin also credible on the WTC collapses?

“The claims that the explosions and fires would not have generated enough heat to cause the building to collapse are nonsense,” Partin told The New American. “Steel doesn’t have to ‘melt’ as some of these people claim. The yield strength of steel drops very dramatically under heat, and the impact of the airliners would have severely impacted the support columns. When they could no longer support the upper stories and the top started coming down, the dynamic loading caused a very rapid collapse, or ‘pancaking,’ that would have very nearly approached free-fall rate. No demolition charges were needed to accomplish this.”

T.A.M.

14th March 2007, 09:32 PM

If Ryan believes Partin is credible on OKC, is Partin also credible on the WTC collapses?

Now silly, you know the answer to that. If his opinion isnt in keeping with "da twoofer dogma" he could be an archangel, and it wouldnt matter...they would consider him worthless on the matter...or a shill.

TAM:)

Cl1mh4224rd

14th March 2007, 09:37 PM

Remember, folks... If you're the best-of-the-best, the most qualified in your chosen field and, therefore, the one a large percentage of organizations turn to when they need something done right... that only proves you actually work for the NWO.

Incompetent fools are the only truly free people. :rolleyes:

LashL

14th March 2007, 09:39 PM

(Bolding mine)

That's the trouble with you truthers - you're willing to spend countless hours scrutinizing YouTube videos, but you won't spend the time to aquire the necessary knowledge to understand the relevant areas of the NIST report. I know this sounds crazy, but you either have to have some prior knowledge of the subject or you need to read the body of the report and the appendices in order to understand the NIST's explanation of the collapses. Expecting someone to spell it out for you without a corresponding effort on your part just sounds childish.

Indeed. This is a common troofer trait. They are perfectly willing to JAQ off all over the internet, but are sadly unwilling to invest any effort in educating themselves. Rather, they expect others to do their work for them while they revel in their own ignorance.

CHF

14th March 2007, 09:40 PM

Why would I bother doing that when all I have to do is ask you for the NIST reports explanation of what happened during the collapse of the WTC and WTC7.

Care to provide it?

I'd love to read what they say happened during the collapses - it was all so quick after all. I believe it's online, and you sound like an expert - so please, point out the relevant section.

Ah yes, this argument again.

In other words you can't point out where NIST is wrong per se - you can only complain that they didn't model the collapses!

That's a bit like saying: "OK, so you solved the question of why the plane crashed. But you didn't model what happened when it hit the ground! You don't explain how each piece ended up where it did!"

Cuz there's no point, scooby!

Do you want a report that says: "the 79th floor gave way under the collapsing weight, then the 78th floor gave way...and then the 77th, and the 76th...."?

AZCat

14th March 2007, 10:02 PM

Indeed. This is a common troofer trait. They are perfectly willing to JAQ off all over the internet, but are sadly unwilling to invest any effort in educating themselves. Rather, they expect others to do their work for them while they revel in their own ignorance.

Maybe this is a problem we have caused. There are quite a few knowledgeable individuals working as "debunkers" of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and they have proved ready and able to provide rational explanations or analysis of anything the "truthers" have thrown their way. Perhaps a dependency has grown from this and the "truthers" recognize they don't actually have to learn anything - if they post it at one of the various "debunking" sites they'll quickly get all the learned analysis they need.

Just a thought...

scooby

14th March 2007, 10:35 PM

Ah yes, this argument again.

In other words you can't point out where NIST is wrong per se - you can only complain that they didn't model the collapses!

So they have no explanation then?
Hmmm.

So on what scientific basis does this theory of a fire induced total collapse rest exactly? Is there anything published in academia that describes the mechanism by which it occurred, other than the work of the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice?

Schmitt.

14th March 2007, 10:41 PM

... The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics.A quick search of Google Scholars later and I'm going to have to point out that I hear lying is immoral. Just checking the NCSTAR bibliography or MIT website debunks this claim.

CHF

14th March 2007, 10:47 PM

So they have no explanation then?
Hmmm.

So on what scientific basis does this theory of a fire induced total collapse rest exactly? Is there anything published in academia that describes the mechanism by which it occurred, other than the work of the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice?

NIST did indeed explain what triggered the collapse as you well know. Stop playing stupid.

As for the actual collapses, they saw 40,000 and 120,000 ton masses smash through structures that were 95% hollow.

Only a twoofer asks "but how is that possible?"

CHF

14th March 2007, 10:50 PM

By the way scooby, I'm still waiting for you to post some videos that capture the charges going off on 9/11.

You remember....those explosives that we all agree are really loud.

scooby

14th March 2007, 10:54 PM

NIST did indeed explain what triggered the collapse as you well know. Stop playing stupid.

As for the actual collapses, they saw 40,000 and 120,000 ton masses smash through structures that were 95% hollow.

Only a twoofer asks "but how is that possible?"

95% hollow eh?
Like the NIST Report, and the '40,000 and 120,000 ton masses'?

As for the actual collapses - what do NIST say?
What is their explanation for what happened, I'm not interested in gossip - where's the explanation in the report?

Redtail

14th March 2007, 10:56 PM

CHF

14th March 2007, 11:02 PM

95% hollow eh?
Like the NIST Report, and the '40,000 and 120,000 ton masses'?

What do your calculations peg the weight at?

As for the actual collapses - what do NIST say?
What is their explanation for what happened, I'm not interested in gossip - where's the explanation in the report?

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

Understand?

No of course you don't.

scooby

14th March 2007, 11:15 PM

What do your calculations peg the weight at?

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

Understand?

No of course you don't.

No I don't and no scientist would - that's not science, that's 2 paragraphs.

Where are the figures that demonstrate that this explanation is valid?
Where's the science?

Where is the scientific explanation of this new principle, whereby a mass can collapse through itself due to gravity alone?

And where is the link to this statement in the report?

The Doc

14th March 2007, 11:23 PM

Doc: "Hey Scooby it's raining outside"

Scooby: "That's not science... that's one sentence. Where are the figures that demonstrate this explanation is valid? What's the science?"

Seriously dude...

scooby

14th March 2007, 11:44 PM

Doc: "Hey Scooby it's raining outside"

Scooby: "That's not science... that's one sentence. Where are the figures that demonstrate this explanation is valid? What's the science?"

Seriously dude...

It is claimed by theology professor Dr David Ray Griffin and physics professor Dr Steven Jones that the NIST report does not explain how the World Trade Center towers or WTC7 collapsed, and this is a tall one to deny, when it is common knowledge that the report into WTC7 does not exist and the ability to read is a common skill available to anyone.

But go for it anyway - where is the explanation doc?

LashL

14th March 2007, 11:47 PM

Maybe this is a problem we have caused. There are quite a few knowledgeable individuals working as "debunkers" of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and they have proved ready and able to provide rational explanations or analysis of anything the "truthers" have thrown their way. Perhaps a dependency has grown from this and the "truthers" recognize they don't actually have to learn anything - if they post it at one of the various "debunking" sites they'll quickly get all the learned analysis they need.

Just a thought...

Yes, that is probably very accurate, AZCat. Good examples of this have been shown here in recent months when troofers have brought their ludicrous stories here for "pre-bunking" in order to try to fix up the holes in their stories before they publish them.

The pentacon fiasco is a good example, as is the ongoing saga of JDX perpetually relying upon members here to point out the holes in his nonsense so that he can try to patch them before publicizing his "work".

The fact that troofers know that knowledgeable people here will step up to the plate and point out their errors and fallacies has probably contributed to their dependency. That said, they rarely show any tendency to actually educate themselves in the first place, as their skills rarely rise above investigoogling and they seem utterly incapable of making proper use of the learned analysis that they find here. Instead, they use it only to come up with new ways of dodging the facts and evidence, and new ways of pretending that the facts and evidence do not exist.

Sad, really.

LashL

14th March 2007, 11:49 PM

<snip>NIST did indeed explain what triggered the collapse as you well know. Stop playing stupid.

What makes you think he's playing?

jhunter1163

15th March 2007, 12:44 AM

What do your calculations peg the weight at?

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

Understand?

No of course you don't.

Posted by Scooby:

No I don't and no scientist would - that's not science, that's 2 paragraphs.

The NIST report is pretty dry reading. I appreciate your leaving out the other 9,999 1/2 pages.

scooby

15th March 2007, 12:59 AM

The NIST report is pretty dry reading. I appreciate your leaving out the other 9,999 1/2 pages.

Hit me with it, better still hit Dr Steven Jones, they love dry material professors. Just the bit that deals with the collapse of each building. We're talking 10 seconds, 10 seconds and 6 seconds - it's a 10,000 page report on the collapse, surely there is a more thorough explanation, I don't want the preface or the summary - where's the actual explanation?

What I'm really interested in - you've got this falling mass of debris, much of it ejected laterally, therefore reducing the mass available to impact lower floors. Where are the figures on this - how much mass reduction did they estimate from the collapse photo's and the residual debris field - I heard it was something like 5 times the diameter of the base of the tower - I dunno, rule of thumb - reduced by 4 fifths - 20%? I'm guessing - where are the real figures?

beachnut

15th March 2007, 01:04 AM

RUH ROH!!

We have presented at 2 conferences for the 9/11 movement within the past month.

The 9/11 accountability conference in AZ last month and the Freedom and Justice conference in CA just this past weekend.

The attendees were a mixture of people of all ages, classes, etc.

The presenters were people like Dylan Avery, April Gallop, Dave VonKliest, Barbara Honegger, Russ Whitenberg, Steven Jones, Webster Tarpley and of course CIT.

Not a single presenter at either conference suggested that it's possible that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Not a single attendee at either conference spoke out against this or approached me with such a sentiment.

The notion that the movement is split in this regard is a LIE that is perpetuated by a few loud mouths online.

People like Russell Pickering and Jim Hoffman are clearly leading a disinformation campaign to give the appearance of a split when the reality is that virtually everyone who questions 9/11 questions whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon.

The irony is that they present themselves as logical saviours of disinfo while they work night and day to preserve the official story in this regard.

Of course some people online have fallen for the 757 impact conspiracy theory and have abandoned the very questions that got us all started on the movement to begin with......

The anomalous physical evidence at the Pentagon.

Remember this?

The Pentagon Strike (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main)

Most of it is still completely relevant today and this particular animation is almost singlehandedly responsible for bringing 9/11 truth to a wide audience.

Obviously the theories have undergone revisions and some of the questions posed have been debunked.

The global hawk/A3 skywarrior junk has been proven incorrect and although plenty of people still embrace it; the missle theory is dead.

There most certainly was a low flying passenger jet in the area that day.

But the notion that a 757 hit the Pentagon is certainly more ludicrous than a missile and the notion that the movement is actually split on this is a clear farce.

Don't let the disinfobots sway you from the truth.

9/11 was a world wide psychological operation of epic proportions and to think that the perpetrators didn't have the means or balls to fake this part of the plan in their own backyard is disingenuous to say the least.

Sincerely,
Lyte Trip
CIT

Does anyone know this expert's credentials, he works for the dumb side? Like Star Wars but the other side is not dark, they are dumb. They have this big death star of truth, kind of a big beam weapon where darth Fetzer sits with the evail Judy Wood, das beam weapon woman. I know Fetzer looks like jabba the gut, but who would play darth?

LyteTrip, what is he? What makes him qualified to be so dumb? May be Scoooooooby knows?

gumboot

15th March 2007, 01:25 AM

I dunno, rule of thumb - reduced by 4 fifths - 20%? I'm guessing - where are the real figures?

I'm sorry, are you proposing that 80% of the mass of the WTC towers was "ejected laterally" during the collapse?

-Gumboot

The Doc

15th March 2007, 01:43 AM

It is claimed by theology professor Dr David Ray Griffin and physics professor Dr Steven Jones that the NIST report does not explain how the World Trade Center towers or WTC7 collapsed, and this is a tall one to deny, when it is common knowledge that the report into WTC7 does not exist and the ability to read is a common skill available to anyone.

But go for it anyway - where is the explanation doc?

Scooby, you are going to have a very hard time pulling that "WTC7 report does not exist" when it is released this Spring. Unlike Jones analysis, the NIST report has to be peer-reviewed and published. Extensive investigations have to be performed to determine why the towers collapsed. What is common knowledge is that the WTC7 NIST report is due out this year. Wake up.

The NIST report does explain why World Trade Centers 1 and 2 collapsed. We know that the buildings themselves failed due to the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns. That is collapse initiation, according to an analysis conducted by 200 government and private scientists that has been extensively peer-reviewed.

So if we know why the building came down, why does it matter how the building came down? More government funding so we can simply be told what any sane person already knows? Do you want a floor-by-floor analysis of what happened in the 10 seconds that it took each tower to fall? What kind of analysis are you after Scooby?

Do you honestly think any "controlled demolition" plan would rely on the buildings first initiating collapsing due to the failure of inwardly bowed perimeter columns? Tell me Scooby - how does such a controlled demolition work? Man across the street waits until the building starts falling and starts setting of charges? What if the building doesn't fall Scooby? All those un-detonated charges covering the largest crime scene in modern history wouldn't go down too well would it?

I think it is time you got your head around the fact that the NIST report was an investigation to assist future construction methods and determine why the buildings collapsed. The NIST report was not created to debate lunatic conspiracy theorists. Get used to it.

The Almond

15th March 2007, 06:39 AM

... The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST

The Bush scientists? Most of the staff at NIST were hired long before Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. were ever in office. This is the first outright lie in your article, and I expect you'll agree that this characterization of NIST scientists being somehow connected or ingratiated to the Bush administration is both false and libelous.

could produce for their appalling pack of lies

Unsupported assertion.

was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form. When they talk about Mechanics, they do not mean Quantum Mechanics or Statistical Mechanics, or even Classical Mechanics. Popular Mechanics (PM) is simply a gloss-covered advertisement for numerous consumer items ranging from ATVs to lawn mowers. You know – mechanics.

This is opinion, and obviously from someone who is not a regular reader of PM. Pretty pathetic.

This hasn’t prevented many who cling to the official story from using PM as their scientific champion.

Or, rather, a brief companion for the laity.

For example, in his poorly researched hit piece against “conspiracy theorists”, British essayist George Monbiot foists Popular Mechanics upon us, saying they “polled 300 experts” to support their findings.[16] But science is not about popularity, and PM’s “poll” of “structural engineering/building collapse experts” actually consisted of only about 33 people, some of them listed as photographers, media-relations staff and spokespersons. Of those that were engineering-related, most were in some way related to OKC, FEMA, NIST or DOD, and many were responsible for the Weidlinger report, the Pancake Theory, or the NIST report.[17] It turns out that, when it comes to scientific explanations for terrorist acts, it’s a small world after all.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v491/reprehensor/911/demo-matrix.jpg

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6765

The rest of this post is known as "Poisoning the Well" and without Arkan Wolfshade here to direct you to the proper resources, I would suggest wikipedia to allay your ignorance. Nothing that you've shown here proves any form of conflict of interest.
A Chemistry laboratory manager like myself can work without permits or licenses, but people can’t just go out and build a bridge or a tall building on their own.

Kevin Ryan's BS has gotten rather thick lately. Does he think that a chemistry lab is no less under the scrutiny of numerous regulatory agencies? Yes, he must apply for and pay to have hazardous wastes disposed of. Yes, he must apply for and submit to inspections for nuclear or radioactive materials. Those permits and licenses are no less important than any of the bridge building permits.

So on what scientific basis does this theory of a fire induced total collapse rest exactly? Is there anything published in academia that describes the mechanism by which it occurred, other than the work of the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice?
Yes. MIT professors have published several articles, and the NCSTAR was the result of collaborations with dozens of Universities around the US. Leave us not forget, the NCSTAR was subjected to peer review, public review, the Washington Editorial Review Board, another public review and a final peer review before it was published in its final form.

It is claimed by theology professor Dr David Ray Griffin and physics professor Dr Steven Jones that the NIST report does not explain how the World Trade Center towers or WTC7 collapsed

You will now have the honor of being the 4th conspiracy fantasist to have repeated this particularly stupid argument. The entirety of the National Construction Safety Team Act is reprinted at the end of NCSTAR 1. Read it. Point out to me where Congress directs NIST to study the collapse of the WTC towers beyond the collapse initiation state. Point out to me where they direct NIST to model the collapse. Be the first truther to do that.

, and this is a tall one to deny, when it is common knowledge that the report into WTC7 does not exist and the ability to read is a common skill available to anyone.

Appendix L, but then again, your ignorance of the NCSTAR is so deep, it is no wonder why you didn't know this existed. The final report on the WTC 7 collapse is due this year. It does indeed exist, but not in a form that is available for public comment or viewing.

Hit me with it, better still hit Dr Steven Jones, they love dry material professors. Just the bit that deals with the collapse of each building. We're talking 10 seconds, 10 seconds and 6 seconds - it's a 10,000 page report on the collapse, surely there is a more thorough explanation, I don't want the preface or the summary - where's the actual explanation?

So, you want an answer, but you don't want to read it? The NCSTAR explains why the towers collapsed and how NIST arrived at this conclusion. Each test, each experiment, every equation, all of them are covered in the exhaustive detail that is the hallmark of good scientific research. I'm terribly sorry that real science doesn't fit into the truther definition of "research" which is YouTube and Google plus 25 minutes of copy and paste.

What I'm really interested in - you've got this falling mass of debris, much of it ejected laterally, therefore reducing the mass available to impact lower floors. Where are the figures on this - how much mass reduction did they estimate from the collapse photo's and the residual debris field - I heard it was something like 5 times the diameter of the base of the tower - I dunno, rule of thumb - reduced by 4 fifths - 20%? I'm guessing - where are the real figures?

Indeed, where are they? To me, it looks like you're making up numbers.

MRC_Hans

15th March 2007, 07:05 AM

Let's try something else:

Scooby, so you are now building your argument from the (correct) fact that neither the NIST report nor any other official report has analyzed the collapse sequence in detail, right?

We might look into that in a moment, but first:

Can we take it then that you are satisfied with the account of the events that lead up to the collapse sequence. From the hijacking of the planes by Moslem terrorists and up to and including the moment where structural failure initiates collapse?

Hans

Mancman

15th March 2007, 07:25 AM

Hit me with it, better still hit Dr Steven Jones, they love dry material professors. Just the bit that deals with the collapse of each building. We're talking 10 seconds, 10 seconds and 6 seconds - it's a 10,000 page report on the collapse, surely there is a more thorough explanation, I don't want the preface or the summary - where's the actual explanation?

What I'm really interested in - you've got this falling mass of debris, much of it ejected laterally, therefore reducing the mass available to impact lower floors. Where are the figures on this - how much mass reduction did they estimate from the collapse photo's and the residual debris field - I heard it was something like 5 times the diameter of the base of the tower - I dunno, rule of thumb - reduced by 4 fifths - 20%? I'm guessing - where are the real figures?

Firstly, the towers did not collapse in ten seconds:
http://i16.tinypic.com/455alqg.jpg

10 seconds in, debris still 800ft+ away from the ground.

The explanation is simple physics. If we say the top section of WTC2 weighed 110,000 tons, with floor areas of 3716 sqm we can calculate that the failure floor in WTC2 was under a pressure of approx 30 tons/sqm, all taken by columns designed to support that load.

If that 110,000 ton mass drops 3.7m, upon striking the floor below it would exert 10.6 billion newtons of force, or 290 tons/sqm, taken largely by floorslabs which were not designed to take any appreciable vertical load.

The debris 'ejected laterally' was perimeter columns tipping over in large sections. The perimeter columns were not needed to pancake the structure, the 104 floorplates were able to do that, and none of those would have been ejected out of the footprint. Once the floors had been torn from their connections by the falling mass, columns were free of lateral support and thus able to tip over away from the footprint.

CHF

15th March 2007, 07:31 AM

scooby

15th March 2007, 08:20 AM

I'm sorry, are you proposing that 80% of the mass of the WTC towers was "ejected laterally" during the collapse?

-Gumboot

No - so say sorry again.

scooby

15th March 2007, 08:21 AM

Scooby, you are going to have a very hard time pulling that "WTC7 report does not exist" when it is released this Spring ...

Are you saying that the WTC7 report does not exist?

gumboot

15th March 2007, 08:32 AM

No - so say sorry again.

You might want to post a disclaimer to your earlier post then. Because regardless of what you INTENDED to say, what your post actually states is that 4/5 (80%) of the mass of the towers was ejected laterally, thus reducing the mass of the material collapsing the building.

-Gumboot

gumboot

15th March 2007, 08:34 AM

Are you saying that the WTC7 report does not exist?

You did. :faint:

-Gumboot

scooby

15th March 2007, 08:34 AM

The Almond

15th March 2007, 08:35 AM

I'm not building an argument.

How could I, when I'm asking people to think for themselves and make their own minds up?

That's a cute dodge. At least you know when you've been cornered.

scooby

15th March 2007, 09:25 AM

Firstly, the towers did not collapse in ten seconds:
http://i16.tinypic.com/455alqg.jpg

10 seconds in, debris still 800ft+ away from the ground.

The explanation is simple physics. If we say the top section of WTC2 weighed 110,000 tons, with floor areas of 3716 sqm we can calculate that the failure floor in WTC2 was under a pressure of approx 30 tons/sqm, all taken by columns designed to support that load.

The 10 second fig is an approximation, I believe the exact figure is difficult to ascertain precisely, but is a matter of seconds, and well within the capability of a 10,000 page report to describe.

As for the rest of this explanation - is it from the NIST report?

30 tons per square metre - whats that about 38 PSI - something like the pressure in a bicycle tyre? Not much really is it? You don't even get to say 'undreds and undreds' - 38. Hmmm.

No - I'll wait for the official excuses thanks.
When the real figures are published - perhaps we can discuss them then.

DavidJames

15th March 2007, 09:28 AM

I'm not building an argument.

How could I, when I'm asking people to think for themselves and make their own minds up?
But you've already made up your mind, thermite and explosives, without a shred of real evidence. You're a joke, a bad one at that.

scooby

15th March 2007, 09:29 AM

That's a cute dodge. At least you know when you've been cornered.

I think you should know when you've been beaten, cornered doesn't come in to it.

scooby

15th March 2007, 09:31 AM

But you've already made up your mind, thermite and explosives, without a shred of real evidence. You're a joke, a bad one at that.

But there is plenty of real evidence that I have used to base my conclusions on. That you have come to different conclusions - is fine by me. You have every right to your opinion. Just stay out of tall buildings.

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 09:41 AM

The 10 second fig is an approximation, I believe the exact figure is difficult to ascertain precisely, but is a matter of seconds, and well within the capability of a 10,000 page report to describe.

As for the rest of this explanation - is it from the NIST report?

30 tons per square metre - whats that about 38 PSI - something like the pressure in a bicycle tyre? Not much really is it? You don't even get to say 'undreds and undreds' - 38. Hmmm.

No - I'll wait for the official excuses thanks.
When the real figures are published - perhaps we can discuss them then.
actually, it's 19.55 psi. or, 1.6 tons per square foot.
basically, its is 1 volkswagon parked on EVERY SQUARE FOOT of floor space.
Obviously, a V-dub cannot even be compacted to fit in a 1 square foot space, unless you make it really long (tall)

and an automobile tire runs about 35 psi.Ever seen one break a rim? I have. The guy I replace at the tire store my Jr. year of high school died when one blew...
Forcee=pressure x area. it adds up quickly. 14 psi will crush a steel can.
So your point is?

scooby

15th March 2007, 09:42 AM

But you've already made up your mind, thermite and explosives, without a shred of real evidence. You're a joke, a bad one at that.

LOL - I clicked on your 'blog' - my interest lasted less than the collapse of WTC7 - I won't do it again. But I had one laugh, some skeptic you are ...

Politically Correct and Proud of It
March 10th, 2007

"Hello, my name is Dave, I'm politically correct and proud of it...."

So Mr Politically correct and proud of it, which side of the fence would you have been on when the flat earthers were persecuting people like Galileo? And you flounce round on here claiming to be a skeptic - while bragging about your blind obedience to convention on your blog. Hilarious.

DavidJames

15th March 2007, 09:42 AM

But there is plenty of real evidence that I have used to base my conclusions on. That you have come to different conclusions - is fine by me. You have every right to your opinion. Just stay out of tall buildings.Then why are you hiding it (please don't tell me it's the burning stuff flowing out of the building, please you can't be that gullible). More importantly, have you presented your evidence to the proper authorities? What have they said. If you haven't why not. Why would you withhold evidence of mass murder?

DavidJames

15th March 2007, 09:46 AM

LOL - I clicked on your 'blog' - my interest lasted less than the collapse of WTC7, but I had one laugh, some skeptic you are ...

Politically Correct and Proud of It
March 10th, 2007

"Hello, my name is Dave, I'm politically correct and proud of it...."

So Mr Politically correct and proud of it, which side of the fence would you have been on when the flat earthers were persecuting people like Galileo? And you flounce round on here claiming to be a skeptic - while bragging about your blind obedience to convention on your blog. Hilarious.you are a fraud and a coward. You are accusing people of mass murder without a shred of evidence. But wait, you claim you have evidence yet instead what are you doing with it, nothing.

What if you mother was murdered and you read someone on an internet forum claiming to have evidence which would help the investigation, but like you, instead of presenting it to the authorities, just posted in forums.

Thanks for visiting my blog, I hoped you clicked on the ads.

scooby

15th March 2007, 09:54 AM

actually, it's 19.55 psi. or, 1.6 tons per square foot.
basically, its is 1 volkswagon parked on EVERY SQUARE FOOT of floor space.
Obviously, a V-dub cannot even be compacted to fit in a 1 square foot space, unless you make it really long (tall)

and an automobile tire runs about 35 psi.Ever seen one break a rim? I have. The guy I replace at the tire store my Jr. year of high school died when one blew...
Forcee=pressure x area. it adds up quickly. 14 psi will crush a steel can.
So your point is?

14 psi will crush a steel can, but a rubber automobile tyre runs about 35 psi?

What's your point - fudged unscientific analogies - or a call to build with rubber?

What was the loading on the steel supports at the floors that collapsed in PSI? What was the loading that they were designed to support?
Some clues - the core columns were rated to something like 36000 psi, thats what - 18 tons per sq inch? The perimeter columns double that.

How many of your tall VW's would each inch of steel column be able to support - and who cares?

scooby

15th March 2007, 09:58 AM

Then why are you hiding it ...?

Are you retarded?
All this information is freely available and accessible via the web.

If you're too lazy to check it out for yourself, don't expect people like me to do it for you.

scooby

15th March 2007, 10:06 AM

you are a fraud and a coward. You are accusing people of mass murder without a shred of evidence. But wait, you claim you have evidence yet instead what are you doing with it, nothing.

I don't claim that I have evidence, I comment on the fact that many people do, and they have strong support from relatives of the victims of 911 who as a result, want a new investigation.

A larger point here, the 'big picture' - what right do a bunch of anonymous posters here have to deny them that? What right do you have to urinate on the victims of 911 and their relatives by creating arbitrary hurdles they must cross before they are able to petition for redress from their govt, all while you mock them.

That's not very politically correct is it?
Mocking the bereaved.

Augustine

15th March 2007, 10:08 AM

14 psi will crush a steel can, but a rubber automobile tyre runs about 35 psi?

What's your point - fudged unscientific analogies - or a call to build with rubber?

What was the loading on the steel supports at the floors that collapsed in PSI? What was the loading that they were designed to support?
Some clues - the core columns were rated to something like 36000 psi, thats what - 18 tons per sq inch? The perimeter columns double that.

How many of your tall VW's would each inch of steel column be able to support - and who cares?

:rolleyes:
Obviously not an engineer....
For your edification, should you actually elect to take advantage of it, most floors are designed for less than 1 psi. PSI is a unit of pressure, PSF is how floor loads are expressed. Typical office floor load is 100 PSF (which is not code-required, but more a function of leasability). Warehouse space may be 250 psf, heavy warehouse 300 psf, or slightly around 2 PSI.

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 10:12 AM

Rika

15th March 2007, 10:13 AM

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 10:17 AM

stateofgrace

15th March 2007, 10:20 AM

I don't claim that I have evidence, I comment on the fact that many people do, and they have strong support from relatives of the victims of 911 who as a result, want a new investigation.

A larger point here, the 'big picture' - what right do a bunch of anonymous posters here have to deny them that? What right do you have to urinate on the victims of 911 and their relatives by creating arbitrary hurdles they must cross before they are able to petition for redress from their govt, all while you mock them.

That's not very politically correct is it?
Mocking the bereaved.

You don't claim to have any evidence but you do claim the families support your theories right?

You claim they support your insane theories about thermite and explosions inside the towers, right?

You are the one using the families; you are the one that is urinating on the graves of their loved ones. There are genuine unanswered questions regarding 911, which these people deserve answers to. Not some BS about explosives inside the Towers or controlled demolitions of WTC 7 or that Al Qaeda didn't do it. No sir, the families deserve real answers to why it all went so horribly wrong and what has been done to prevent it happening again.

There is no limit to the depravity you idiots will to sink to; there is nothing sacred, not even the grieving of the families. You use this very real grieve and pain to further your own agenda. You use them to justify your silly and stupid conspiracies.

You do not represent the families and you do not speak for them. You are an internet kook who spews rubbish about this dreadful event onto the net. You would do well to remember your place, kook,that being a nobody, an insignificant individual who promotes theories about mass murder.

Rrramon

15th March 2007, 10:26 AM

Scooby, most people here are already highly distrustful of the Bush administration. I personally would love for 9/11 to have been a conspiracy because a)it would mean that Al Qaeda isn't really a threat to us after all, b)we would get to see some members of the administration go to jail and c)the US wouldn't elect another Republican president for the next 50 years.

Why is it do you think people like me reject the conspiracy theories? If it's not because of some Hannity-esque blind allegiance to the government or a childish belief that they can do no wrong, then what is it?

Belz...

15th March 2007, 10:32 AM

Excellent article for people sick of hearing about the NIST and 911 Commission report and other 911 ... 'bunk'.

Oh, this is going to be good.

The only supposedly independent corroboration that the Bush scientists at NIST could produce for their appalling pack of lies was from that old respected scientific institution, Popular Mechanics. This Hearst magazine is not, as most people know, a scientific publication in any way, shape or form.

Had you actually done any research, you might have noticed that a lot of scientists who agree with the "OT" happen to be NON-Americans.

Oh, that's right. All those other people are just barbarians.

Alexander Cockburn’s “US: The Conspiracy That Wasn’t,” which is an attack on the 9/11 truth movement, is faulty in virtually every respect. He calls me one of the movement’s “high priests,” as if it were a religious movement, rather than a fact-based movement that involves scientists, engineers, pilots, war veterans, politicians, philosophers, former air traffic controllers, former defense ministers, and former CIA analysts.

Lots of scientists, I'm sure. Oh, wait. Lots' of loons, too.

Why would I bother doing that when all I have to do is ask you for the NIST reports explanation of what happened during the collapse of the WTC and WTC7.

Hey, no, wait! I've got a better one! Why don't you read it!!

So they have no explanation then?

Really ? So the fact that you DON'T want to check it out yourself means they have no explanation ? Amazing.

No I don't and no scientist would - that's not science, that's 2 paragraphs.

:dl:

Where are the figures that demonstrate that this explanation is valid?
Where's the science?

IN the report. Might want to check that.

Where is the scientific explanation of this new principle, whereby a mass can collapse through itself due to gravity alone?

Strictly speaking, the upper section of the towers were SEPARATE masses. Get it ?

Belz...

15th March 2007, 10:36 AM

The Almond

15th March 2007, 10:41 AM

I think you should know when you've been beaten, cornered doesn't come in to it.

I couldn't help but notice you failed to respond to any of the salient points made against you in this thread. Do you think this makes your position stronger or weaker?

Augustine

15th March 2007, 10:44 AM

So obviously not!
I went to Nuclear Prototype Training in Balston Spa, NY. The reactor was housed in a huge dome, with a 1/2 psi vacuum. Doesn't sound like much, but you had to go through an air lock to get inside, because there was enough force to keep you from being able to open the door.

I hope scooby doesn't live near water. He doesn't grasp that 38 psi would be the pressure on your car door at the bottom of an 80-foot deep lake. Given the CT propensity for foolish experiments, I hope he doesn't try to use his sedan as a bathyscaph... ;)

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 10:47 AM

...IN the report.

What is it with this guy ?
But...but...but -there be 10000 pages of it! Some of them with numbers and + and - signs and stuff among them.
Would they put out that much paper if they weren't trying to hide something? They could reduce it to a 3 minute film!

...
Boy you really must love the sound of your own keyboard.

Why on earth would you need an explanation ? 30 floors worth of building falling down on the remaining 80. That's a huge freaking mass. Why in the blue HELL would you expect the rest of the building to stop it ? What EXACTLY are you expecting this falling mass to do ?
There you go with facts again. What are you trying to hide?
[/ct idiocy mode]

Belz...

15th March 2007, 10:49 AM

I'm not building an argument.

How could I, when I'm asking people to think for themselves and make their own minds up?

I smell a weasel, here.

People shouldn't "think for themselves and make their own minds up". They should follow the evidence and reach the best conclusion. Not the one they want.

The 10 second fig is an approximation, I believe the exact figure is difficult to ascertain precisely, but is a matter of seconds

10 seconds vs 20 might be "a matter of seconds" to you, but x2 collapse time is a huge thing if you're going to claim the collapse time means anything.

30 tons per square metre - whats that about 38 PSI - something like the pressure in a bicycle tyre? Not much really is it? You don't even get to say 'undreds and undreds' - 38. Hmmm.

More like 42 (is that right ?), but not if you have a dynamic load.

But there is plenty of real evidence that I have used to base my conclusions on.

Sure. "Looks like" a controlled demolition. "Approximately 10 seconds", "Much of the mass was ejected sideways".

Real scientific.

If you're too lazy to check it out for yourself, don't expect people like me to do it for you.

And yet that's exactly what you're asking, here, about the NIST report.

DavidJames

15th March 2007, 10:49 AM

I don't claim that I have evidence, I comment on the fact that many people do, and they have strong support from relatives of the victims of 911 who as a result, want a new investigation.

A larger point here, the 'big picture' - what right do a bunch of anonymous posters here have to deny them that? What right do you have to urinate on the victims of 911 and their relatives by creating arbitrary hurdles they must cross before they are able to petition for redress from their govt, all while you mock them.

That's not very politically correct is it?
Mocking the bereaved.
There have been numerous official reports which clearly document the lead up to the attack and the results. These are repots which are laboriously documented and footnoted. Professionals with the knowledge, education and practical experience. Professional who signed the reports and put their careers on the line.

What have you got, loser.
No professional engineering organization repots supporting your side
No professional demolition organization repots supporting your side
No major media supporting your side.
No educational institutions supporting your side.
No efforts to bring criminal charges, not in this country or any other country.
No efforts to bring law suits, there are 100's of kook lawyers but you can't get one to take your case.
No efforts to bring insurance fraud charges.

What does your team do, loser, youtube videos, and incoherent ramblings from losers like you on Internet forums. You have the random disgraced and discredited professor, theologians, writers, musicians and actors.

All spouting the same nonsense, over and over again.

Who's mocking the bereaved, loser.

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 10:54 AM

actually, it's 19.55 psi. or, 1.6 tons per square foot.
basically, its is 1 volkswagon parked on EVERY SQUARE FOOT of floor space.
Obviously, a V-dub cannot even be compacted to fit in a 1 square foot space, unless you make it really long (tall)

and an automobile tire runs about 35 psi.Ever seen one break a rim? I have. The guy I replace at the tire store my Jr. year of high school died when one blew...
Forcee=pressure x area. it adds up quickly. 14 psi will crush a steel can.
So your point is?

My error--it's actually 39.1 so double all the values I gave above. 2 V-dubya's per square foot..:o
Tons-lb-meters--can we pick a single measurement system? I don't give a damn whether its metric or "english"
Just be consistent!
Tons/m^2. What a crock :eek:

Belz...

15th March 2007, 10:56 AM

Oh, and I thought I was waaaayyy off mark. (we ARE using metric tonnes, right ?)

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 11:01 AM

Oh, and I thought I was waaaayyy off mark. (we ARE using metric tonnes, right ?)
Who (with a modicum of sanity) knows? Best we can do is guess...

beachnut

15th March 2007, 11:02 AM

But there is plenty of real evidence that I have used to base my conclusions on. That you have come to different conclusions - is fine by me. You have every right to your opinion. Just stay out of tall buildings.No you have no facts or evidence to support the idiot ideas that you share with 9/11 truth.

The fact you can not present even one fact proves you to be a fact less drone for the 9/11 truth movement. Unable to think for yourself you just talk using the conclusions of idiots in the truth movement of lies.

You are the one talking about lies who is the most disrespectful to those victim of 9/11 because you are tell lies. Lies are your conclusions not based on facts.

You are the problem and you are too challenged in knowledge, experience and research to realize you do not have a single fact to back your conclusions of lies. You are not an expert and you have no expert who have a clue of the reality of 9/11, just nuts and dolts.

milesalpha

15th March 2007, 11:13 AM

LOL - I clicked on your 'blog' - my interest lasted less than the collapse of WTC7 - I won't do it again. But I had one laugh, some skeptic you are ...

Politically Correct and Proud of It
March 10th, 2007

"Hello, my name is Dave, I'm politically correct and proud of it...."

So Mr Politically correct and proud of it, which side of the fence would you have been on when the flat earthers were persecuting people like Galileo? And you flounce round on here claiming to be a skeptic - while bragging about your blind obedience to convention on your blog. Hilarious.

Once again Scooby, the flat earthers who persecuted Galileo were the hard core (Catholic) church people who rejected....science. They rejected facts, formulae, empirical observations et al in favour of the Bible (and had their few "scientists" who would write supporting documents). The scientific community largely supported Galileo, continued his work, and arranged to have his writings smuggled out and published.
Now applying this tempate to the current situation (I am loathe to do this as I am a strong believer in looking a historical event its own merits, but your desperation keeps bringing you back to this bad comparison).
Who most closely resembles the Church authorities?
How large was the segment of the church that wanted to prosecute Galileo?
Who had/has the weight of the scientific community on its side?
Who relied/relies on a few unqualified voices to back their views?
Who had/has an actual and fully expanded theory/explanation?
Which sides claim a conspiracy is at work(as in work of the devil or a cabal of unnamed power mongers)?

The trick with these questions is that they are not simple factoids on the net, you would actually have to do some serious reading to understand the history.

The only real comparison of the two events is in the advance of the power of science in society. In the 17th century the loons had a far greater chance at getting their conspiracy theories accepted. Science now exists as a buffer between the halls of power and the loons, be they intelligent designers or 9/11 conspiracists.

I must admit that, in my view at least, it is very clear where the the general JREF community would be, the same place they are today, going where the real evidence (no youtube videos allowed) takes them.

scooby

15th March 2007, 11:18 AM

:rolleyes:
Obviously not an engineer....
For your edification, should you actually elect to take advantage of it, most floors are designed for less than 1 psi. PSI is a unit of pressure, PSF is how floor loads are expressed. Typical office floor load is 100 PSF (which is not code-required, but more a function of leasability). Warehouse space may be 250 psf, heavy warehouse 300 psf, or slightly around 2 PSI.

See this is why I don't get into technical discussions with 'experts' on the web, it's not my job to educate them, I find the process boring and strangely repetitive. But to illustrate the ugly nature of the hog that you are washing for us, I'll be brutal ...

Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
William E. Luecke
Thomas A. Siewert
Frank W.Gayle

... Pittsburgh-Des Moines (PDM) fabricated the perimeter bifurcation columns from the 4th to the 9th floors, 6,800 tons (Feld 1971). The bifurcation columns are also referred to as the "tuning forks" or the trees. Civil Engineering (1970) reported that Lukens Steel "supplied seven basic grades of carbon and alloy plate steels for use in the welded trees... steels meet yield strength requirements from 36,000 to 65,000 min psi"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3A.pdf

This is the problem with anonymous internet posters in forums, you have all manner of people claiming to be experts, who talk the talk - somebody reading your posts might have been mistaken in thinking that they have learned something from you, when in fact they would emerge from your post knowing less than what they started with with. Stick to bending spoons.

Stellafane

15th March 2007, 11:25 AM

...I'm asking people to think for themselves and make their own minds up?

Actually, I think you're doing nothing of the sort. You're trying to promote a CT, and arguing and insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you -- which, in this forum anyway, is pretty much everyone. Most insulting of all is that you somehow presume to lecture us on how we need to think for ourselves, and make up our own minds, as if we have failed to do so. Ironic too, since it comes from someone who seems to simply parrot statements and claims made by others, statements that have been thoroughly discredited many times on every single point. Doesn't sound much like "thinking for yourself" to me.

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 11:32 AM

See this is why I don't get into technical discussions with 'experts' on the web, it's not my job to educate them, I find the process boring and strangely repetitive. But to illustrate the ugly nature of the hog that you are washing for us, I'll be brutal ...

Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
William E. Luecke
Thomas A. Siewert
Frank W.Gayle

... Pittsburgh-Des Moines (PDM) fabricated the perimeter bifurcation columns from the 4th to the 9th floors, 6,800 tons (Feld 1971). The bifurcation columns are also referred to as the "tuning forks" or the trees. Civil Engineering (1970) reported that Lukens Steel "supplied seven basic grades of carbon and alloy plate steels for use in the welded trees... steels meet yield strength requirements from 36,000 to 65,000 min psi"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3A.pdf

This is the problem with anonymous internet posters in forums, you have all manner of people claiming to be experts, who talk the talk - somebody reading your posts might have been mistaken in thinking that they have learned something from you, when in fact they would emerge from your post knowing less than what they started with with. Stick to bending spoons.
Anybody else hear that loud "Whoosh" as another idea went right over the head?
very gently, I'll tell you this one last time.
Do not confuse the strength of steel to the design load factor.
The floors were (are) normally designed for 125-150 PSF. that is dead load per square feet--includes desks, people, chairs, file cabinets, etc.
Steel Yields (begins to bend) when the force applied to it, multiplied by the length of the piece, times the distance from the shear center to the edge, all divided by the area moment of inertia equals or exceeds the strength in PSI.
The formula for that is sigma=M*C/I
any further questions? Go get a basic statics textbook. Welcome to "Ignore"

The Almond

15th March 2007, 11:34 AM

See this is why I don't get into technical discussions with 'experts' on the web, it's not my job to educate them,

The fact that you believe you have to educate experts in their field of expertise is very telling. Your ego heavily clouds your judgment.

I find the process boring and strangely repetitive.

Imagine how it is for skeptics.

But to illustrate the ugly nature of the hog that you are washing for us, I'll be brutal ...

Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
William E. Luecke
Thomas A. Siewert
Frank W.Gayle

... Pittsburgh-Des Moines (PDM) fabricated the perimeter bifurcation columns from the 4th to the 9th floors, 6,800 tons (Feld 1971). The bifurcation columns are also referred to as the "tuning forks" or the trees. Civil Engineering (1970) reported that Lukens Steel "supplied seven basic grades of carbon and alloy plate steels for use in the welded trees... steels meet yield strength requirements from 36,000 to 65,000 min psi"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3A.pdf

Thank you very much for proving, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you have no earthly idea what you're talking about. What Augustine said is absolutely correct, the design load for a floor is 100~150 pounds per square foot. The compressive strength of the steel that supports said floor is 36+ thousand pounds per square inch.

But why does this make sense to every single engineer here, and not to you?

Because we took classes in how to design buildings. We know that a rectangular beam that is 20 feet long and 1 foot wide with a load of 150 pounds per square foot has a total weight of 3000 pounds bearing on it. If the beam is simply supported, that load produces a bending moment of 0.5*20*3000 = 30 foot*kips. If that beam is 0.1 feet thick, the maximum stress on the beam is given by (30 ft*k)*(0.1/2 ft)/(1*(0.1)^3/12) = 18,000 ksf or 125 ksi or 125,000 psi!!!! That load would break that beam.

The point, in case you missed it, is that Augustine was telling you about design loads that take into account the tensile and compressive strength of steel. NCSTAR 1-3 is talking exclusively about steel strengths, not design loads.

This is the problem with anonymous internet posters in forums, you have all manner of people claiming to be experts, who talk the talk - somebody reading your posts might have been mistaken in thinking that they have learned something from you, when in fact they would emerge from your post knowing less than what they started with with. Stick to bending spoons.
I'm glad this post is quote captured so that I can continue to point to it when discussing 9/11 with you. Beyond anything, this single post shows your ego, and your complete ignorance on matters of structural engineering. Congratulations.

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 11:39 AM

The fact that you believe you have to educate experts in their field of expertise is very telling. Your ego heavily clouds your judgment.

etc........
Beat 'cha to it by 2 minutes!
Now that he's had the same thing said 2 different ways, think he'll hatch on?
I don't

scooby

15th March 2007, 11:41 AM

Really, Mr. Big Picture, what hurdles have we put in their place? Do they have to go through us to get to their government representatives? Cool! Didn't know I had that power.
And mocking them? The only one being mocked here is you, so unless you're one of the bereaved, you're full of it.
As usual, you need to do better. You totally missed the point you were so feebly trying to make.

I don't see you or anyone else on here criticising the gaggle of fools who call such people 'twoofers', as if to imply that they have some kind of mental incapacity. Quite the opposite in fact, all I see is grand pontifications and gleeful "Prove its!'" - something only the guilty and their supporters usually take so much pleasure in saying, safe in the knowledge that nobody knows where the body is buried. But I sense from your tone that my point is well taken - you're a louse and you know it.

These are some of the people that are systematically and fastidiously ridiculed by the majority of posters on here, including your good self ...

Family Members
Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor
Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor
Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor
Ralph D'Esposito, father of Michael D'Esposito, WTC, 96th floor
Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor
Adina D. Eisenberg, sister of Eric Eisenberg, WTC
Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93
Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor
Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW
Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
Paul & Barbara Kirwin, parents of Glenn Davis Kirwin, Cantor Fitzgerald 105th floor
Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter
Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One
Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
David Potorti, brother of James Potorti, North Tower, WTC, Marsh & McLennan
Terry Kay Rockefeller, sister of Laura Rockefeller, North Tower, WTC
Grissel Rodriguez-Valentin, wife of Benito Valentin, WTC1, 94th floor
Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, post-9/11 mother, writer
Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor
Paula Shapiro, mother of Eric Eisenberg, WTC2
Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001
Adele Welty, mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288
Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor
David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Nissa Youngren, daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, flight 175

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

I'd say you owe them an explanation and an apology. And that's before we get to the troops, the people of Afghanistan, the people of Iraq, Islam and whats left of the free world. But we won't hold our breaths though eh?

twinstead

15th March 2007, 11:46 AM

Scooby answer rwguinn and The Almond's posts please.

The Almond

15th March 2007, 11:47 AM

Beat 'cha to it by 2 minutes!
Now that he's had the same thing said 2 different ways, think he'll hatch on?
I don't
My magic 8 ball and Ouiji board are telling me something about a snowball's chance in hell, but the reply is hazy.

And to whit, I actually did the math. Doesn't that give me bonus points or something?

scooby

15th March 2007, 11:49 AM

No you have no facts or evidence to support the idiot ideas that you share with 9/11 truth.

See what I mean, idiots he calls them, tut tut tut ...

Family Members
Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor
Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor
Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor
Ralph D'Esposito, father of Michael D'Esposito, WTC, 96th floor
Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor
Adina D. Eisenberg, sister of Eric Eisenberg, WTC
Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93
Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor
Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW
Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
Paul & Barbara Kirwin, parents of Glenn Davis Kirwin, Cantor Fitzgerald 105th floor
Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter
Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One
Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
David Potorti, brother of James Potorti, North Tower, WTC, Marsh & McLennan
Terry Kay Rockefeller, sister of Laura Rockefeller, North Tower, WTC
Grissel Rodriguez-Valentin, wife of Benito Valentin, WTC1, 94th floor
Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, post-9/11 mother, writer
Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor
Paula Shapiro, mother of Eric Eisenberg, WTC2
Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001
Adele Welty, mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288
Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor
David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Nissa Youngren, daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, flight 175

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 11:59 AM

I don't see you or anyone else on here criticising the gaggle of fools who call such people 'twoofers', as if to imply that they have some kind of mental incapacity. Quite the opposite in fact, all I see is grand pontifications and gleeful "Prove its!'" - something only the guilty and their supporters usually take so much pleasure in saying, safe in the knowledge that nobody knows where the body is buried. But I sense from your tone that my point is well taken - you're a louse and you know it.

These are some of the people that are systematically and fastidiously ridiculed by the majority of posters on here, including your good self ...

Family Members
Joanne Barbara, wife of FDNY Asst. Chief of Dept. Gerard Barbara
Gayle Barker, sister of William A. Karnes, WTC
Michele Bergsohn, wife of Alvin Bergsohn, Cantor Fitzgerald
Derrill Bodley, father of Deora Bodley, passenger on Flight 93
Kathryn C. Bowden, sister of Thomas H. Bowden, Jr. WTC1, 104th floor
Janet Calia, wife of Dominick Calia, Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1
Maggie Cashman, wife of William Joseph Cashman, United Flight 93
Lynne Castrianno Galante, sister of Leonard Castrianno, 1WTC, 105th floor
Elza Chapa-McGowan, daughter of Rosemary Chapa, Pentagon
Bruce De Cell, father-in-law of Mark Petrocelli North Tower, 92nd floor
Ralph D'Esposito, father of Michael D'Esposito, WTC, 96th floor
Loisanne Diehl, Surviving Spouse, Michael D. Diehl, WTC2, 90th floor
Adina D. Eisenberg, sister of Eric Eisenberg, WTC
Jonathan M. Fisher, son of Dr. Gerald Paul "Geep" Fisher, Pentagon
Michael J. Fox, brother of Jeffrey L. Fox, Tower 2, 89th floor
Laurel A. Gay, sister of Peter A. Gay, AA Flight 11
Irene Golinsky, wife of Col. Ronald F. Golinski USA RET, Pentagon
Lori, Jerry, and Beatrice Guadagno, sister and parents of Richard Guadagno, Flight 93
Kristen Hall, daughter of fallen firefighter Thomas Kuveikis 9/11
Kurt D. Horning, father of Matthew D. Horning, WTC Tower One, 95th floor
Jennifer W. Hunt, wife of William C. Hunt, Euro Brokers
John Keating, son of Barbara Keating, passenger on AA Flight 11
L. Russell Keene II, father of Russ Keene III, WTC2, 89th floor, KBW
Peter Kousoulis, sister died in WTC
Paul & Barbara Kirwin, parents of Glenn Davis Kirwin, Cantor Fitzgerald 105th floor
Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli, mother of William E. Krukowski, NYC firefighter
Laura and Ira Lassman, parents of Nicholas C. Lassman, died in WTC, Tower One
Johnny Lee, husband of Lorraine Greene
Alicia LeGuillow, mother of Nestor A. Cintron III
Francine Levine, sister of Adam K. Ruhalter, who died on 9/11
Bob McIlvaine, father of Robert McIlvaine, WTC, Merrill Lynch
Mary McWilliams, mother of FF Martin E. McWilliams- Engine 22
Daryl J. Meehan, brother of Colleen Ann Barkow, WTC 1, 105th floor
Elvira P. Murphy, wife of Patrick Murphy, WTC 1
Natalee Pecorelli, sister of Thomas Pecorelli of Flight 11
James L Perry, M.D and Patricia J. Perry, parents of John W. Perry, Esq., NYPD Officer 9/11
David Potorti, brother of James Potorti, North Tower, WTC, Marsh & McLennan
Terry Kay Rockefeller, sister of Laura Rockefeller, North Tower, WTC
Grissel Rodriguez-Valentin, wife of Benito Valentin, WTC1, 94th floor
Alissa Rosenberg-Torres, widow of Luis Eduardo Torres, post-9/11 mother, writer
Elaine Saber, mother of Scott Saber
Julie Scarpitta, mother of Michelle Scarpitta, WTC Building 2, 84th floor
Paula Shapiro, mother of Eric Eisenberg, WTC2
Elizabeth Turner, wife of Simon Turner, lost on 11th September 2001
Adele Welty, mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288
Joan W. Winton, mother of David Winton, WTC, South Tower, 89th floor
David Yancey, husband of Vicki Yancey, American Airlines Flight 77
Nissa Youngren, daughter of Robert G. LeBlanc, flight 175

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633

I'd say you owe them an explanation and an apology. And that's before we get to the troops, the people of Afghanistan, the people of Iraq, Islam and whats left of the free world. But we won't hold our breaths though eh?
Did you hear the "whoosh"? That was what I actually said going right over your pointy little head. If any of those people want to petition their government representatives to do something, how in the world is my posting on this forum keeping them from doing so? This is a representative democracy, they are free to do so. That list of names is quite impressive. Want to show me where any one of them appears in any of my posts?
The only one I'm mocking is you, loser. YOU. Nobody else. You are not a proxy for them.

And you want to get to the troops? Let's go, small fry. Let's see how much you think you know about military service. Bring it, dude, I love to take down Keyboard Warriors who played some video game and think they know about serving. Wanna compare DD-214's?

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 12:07 PM

My magic 8 ball and Ouiji board are telling me something about a snowball's chance in hell, but the reply is hazy.

And to whit, I actually did the math. Doesn't that give me bonus points or something?
[ct-mensa mode]Sure, you did some math--but where did you get the numbers from? Huh? where did they come from? pulled 'em outta yer hat, huh? whattareya trying to hide, using numbers like that?[/ct mensa mode]:covereyes
I give full points for the math--but whoinheck would build a beam 12 X 1.2 20 feet long? Deduction of 1/2 point for excessive skinnyness in your cross sectian.

Augustine

15th March 2007, 12:09 PM

See this is why I don't get into technical discussions with 'experts' on the web, it's not my job to educate them, I find the process boring and strangely repetitive. But to illustrate the ugly nature of the hog that you are washing for us, I'll be brutal ...

Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
William E. Luecke
Thomas A. Siewert
Frank W.Gayle

... Pittsburgh-Des Moines (PDM) fabricated the perimeter bifurcation columns from the 4th to the 9th floors, 6,800 tons (Feld 1971). The bifurcation columns are also referred to as the "tuning forks" or the trees. Civil Engineering (1970) reported that Lukens Steel "supplied seven basic grades of carbon and alloy plate steels for use in the welded trees... steels meet yield strength requirements from 36,000 to 65,000 min psi"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3A.pdf

This is the problem with anonymous internet posters in forums, you have all manner of people claiming to be experts, who talk the talk - somebody reading your posts might have been mistaken in thinking that they have learned something from you, when in fact they would emerge from your post knowing less than what they started with with. Stick to bending spoons.

Where is the laughing dog when you need him? Oh, I laughed and laughed over this bullheaded response...from someone who apparently does not understand the difference between pressure, uniform load, and stress...and proudly flaunts his ignorance for all to see...

Do tell, are you a member of the American Institute of Steel Construction? What is your member number? Did you enjoy the latest issue of Modern Steel Construction? Perhaps you are a Chartered Engineer? A member of the Institution of Structural Engineers? Steel Construction Institute? What is the British Standard for the design of structural steel using UBs?

Rika

15th March 2007, 12:10 PM

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 12:12 PM

The Almond

15th March 2007, 12:15 PM

[ct-mensa mode]Sure, you did some math--but where did you get the numbers from? Huh? where did they come from? pulled 'em outta yer hat, huh? whattareya trying to hide, using numbers like that?[/ct mensa mode]:covereyes
I give full points for the math--but whoinheck would build a beam 12 X 1.2 20 feet long? Deduction of 1/2 point for excessive skinnyness in your cross sectian.

I chose a skinny beam to show how 150 psf can turn into [some big number] psi. So sue me for trying to save a little hypothetical steel! For Pete's sake, I'm a concrete guy! 0.1 inches of steel sounds like a lot to me!

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 12:20 PM

I chose a skinny beam to show how 150 psf can turn into [some big number] psi. So sue me for trying to save a little hypothetical steel! For Pete's sake, I'm a concrete guy! 0.1 inches of steel sounds like a lot to me!
'S ok-I have worked in area where 2" thick is considered "Sheet metal", and now am trying to reduce from .060" thick to .050" to save weight in a 2 square inch bracket. Both ends of the spectrum, indeed...
All I know about concrete is that yod'd best be ready when the truck shows up, have plenty of wheel barrows and helpers, and it will dry your hands out so fast they crack.

scooby

15th March 2007, 12:42 PM

Anybody else hear that loud "Whoosh" as another idea went right over the head?
very gently, I'll tell you this one last time.
Do not confuse the strength of steel to the design load factor.
The floors were (are) normally designed for 125-150 PSF. that is dead load per square feet--includes desks, people, chairs, file cabinets, etc.
Steel Yields (begins to bend) when the force applied to it, multiplied by the length of the piece, times the distance from the shear center to the edge, all divided by the area moment of inertia equals or exceeds the strength in PSI.
The formula for that is http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?sigma=M*C/I
any further questions? Go get a basic statics textbook. Welcome to "Ignore"

But who was talking about floors?
Are you an idiot?

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 12:51 PM

But who was talking about floors?
Are you an idiot?
no, but apparently you do a remarkable impersonation of one.
Here is the post, in its entirety:
Originally Posted by Augustine http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2428254#post2428254)
:rolleyes:
Obviously not an engineer....
For your edification, should you actually elect to take advantage of it, most floors are designed for less than 1 psi. PSI is a unit of pressure, PSF is how floor loads are expressed. Typical office floor load is 100 PSF (which is not code-required, but more a function of leasability). Warehouse space may be 250 psf, heavy warehouse 300 psf, or slightly around 2 PSI.

See this is why I don't get into technical discussions with 'experts' on the web, it's not my job to educate them, I find the process boring and strangely repetitive. But to illustrate the ugly nature of the hog that you are washing for us, I'll be brutal ...

Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
William E. Luecke
Thomas A. Siewert
Frank W.Gayle

... Pittsburgh-Des Moines (PDM) fabricated the perimeter bifurcation columns from the 4th to the 9th floors, 6,800 tons (Feld 1971). The bifurcation columns are also referred to as the "tuning forks" or the trees. Civil Engineering (1970) reported that Lukens Steel "supplied seven basic grades of carbon and alloy plate steels for use in the welded trees... steels meet yield strength requirements from 36,000 to 65,000 min psi"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3A.pdf (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3A.pdf)

This is the problem with anonymous internet posters in forums, you have all manner of people claiming to be experts, who talk the talk - somebody reading your posts might have been mistaken in thinking that they have learned something from you, when in fact they would emerge from your post knowing less than what they started
Augustine was discussing floor loading-which you started, with the "bicycle tire" alfalfa--and you tried to pull a spin out of your hat by quoting strength of materials at him.

Either you truly are mentally deficient, or you are looking for hot buttons--or both.
The odds, however, are on the deficiency

beachnut

15th March 2007, 01:07 PM

Where is the laughing dog when you need him? Oh, I laughed and laughed over this bullheaded response...from someone who apparently does not understand the difference between pressure, uniform load, and stress...and proudly flaunts his ignorance for all to see...

Do tell, are you a member of the American Institute of Steel Construction? What is your member number? Did you enjoy the latest issue of Modern Steel Construction? Perhaps you are a Chartered Engineer? A member of the Institution of Structural Engineers? Steel Construction Institute? What is the British Standard for the design of structural steel using UBs?
Wait till someone keys his car with 20,000 psi from a bic pen. He is challenged with number and facts. A kid loose with google and no functioning logical neurons.

If he could answer a question I would ask him what he thinks the loading would be on WTC floor per square inch. I would hate to see the dolt attempt then to figure the total weight outcome for his number.

Belz...

15th March 2007, 01:11 PM

This is the problem with anonymous internet posters in forums

Sure thing, "scooby".

Belz...

15th March 2007, 01:16 PM

I don't see you or anyone else on here criticising the gaggle of fools who call such people 'twoofers', as if to imply that they have some kind of mental incapacity.

Oh, but they do.

beachnut

15th March 2007, 01:19 PM

See this is why I don't get into technical discussions with 'experts' on the web, it's not my job to educate them, I find the process boring and strangely repetitive. But to illustrate the ugly nature of the hog that you are washing for us, I'll be brutal ...

Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
William E. Luecke
Thomas A. Siewert
Frank W.Gayle

... Pittsburgh-Des Moines (PDM) fabricated the perimeter bifurcation columns from the 4th to the 9th floors, 6,800 tons (Feld 1971). The bifurcation columns are also referred to as the "tuning forks" or the trees. Civil Engineering (1970) reported that Lukens Steel "supplied seven basic grades of carbon and alloy plate steels for use in the welded trees... steels meet yield strength requirements from 36,000 to 65,000 min psi"

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3A.pdf

This is the problem with anonymous internet posters in forums, you have all manner of people claiming to be experts, who talk the talk - somebody reading your posts might have been mistaken in thinking that they have learned something from you, when in fact they would emerge from your post knowing less than what they started with with. Stick to bending spoons.
Can you explain what this means and why 100 pounds per square foot of office space is not a good number?

Keep it simple I am just a simple pilot from the swamps of Georgia, please.

CHF

15th March 2007, 03:35 PM

I'm not trying to build an argument

I don't claim that I have evidence

Gee wiz, a twoofer gets cornered and all of a sudden he wasn't really trying to prove anything. He was just asking questions this whole time!

Happens every time. :D

scooby

15th March 2007, 03:40 PM

I must admit that, in my view at least, it is very clear where the the general JREF community would be, the same place they are today, going where the real evidence (no youtube videos allowed) takes them.

Yeah I find that doesn't really wash when you read what's said here.
Forget the 911 conspiracy theories - where is the JREF forums list of problems with the official story? It is replete with inconsistencies and half truths and this was obvious from day one. Yet it seems that people claim on here, that there are no problems with it. This is nonsense.

Redtail

15th March 2007, 03:44 PM

Yeah I find that doesn't really wash when you read what's said here.
Forget the 911 conspiracy theories - where is the JREF forums list of problems with the official story? It is replete with inconsistencies and half truths and this was obvious from day one. Yet it seems that people claim on here, that there are no problems with it. This is nonsense.

What are these "inconsistencies and half truths"?

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 03:47 PM

Can you explain what this means and why 100 pounds per square foot of office space is not a good number?

Keep it simple I am just a simple pilot from the swamps of Georgia, please.
How 'Bout it scooby? Gonna answer, or dodge around some more?
We are waiting for you...

Gravy

15th March 2007, 03:50 PM

DavidJames

15th March 2007, 03:50 PM

Yet it seems that people claim on here, that there are no problems with it. This is nonsense.While you're at it, how about quoting all those "people on here" who feel that way.

scooby

15th March 2007, 03:57 PM

Actually, I think you're doing nothing of the sort. You're trying to promote a CT, and arguing and insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you -- which, in this forum anyway, is pretty much everyone. Most insulting of all is that you somehow presume to lecture us on how we need to think for ourselves, and make up our own minds, as if we have failed to do so. Ironic too, since it comes from someone who seems to simply parrot statements and claims made by others, statements that have been thoroughly discredited many times on every single point. Doesn't sound much like "thinking for yourself" to me.

Firstly the official story is a conspiracy theory - didn't you know?
So all this 'CT' stuff is nonsense - a cheap tactic.

And again, I've already done the thinking, I did the thinking in 2002 and came to my conclusions within a year of the event. It was several years before the likes of Prof Steve Jones and David Ray Griffin came along and documented the issue in a more formal manner. I was pleased when they turned up and have been following their successes over the past 2 years with some interest. It is from this position, that I strongly recommend other people pay serious attention to their work and consider it carefully. However unlike the majority of the content I see posted here, I would stress that the final understanding is for them to form.

As an aside, the earliest recorded interview that I have collected discussing our 911 problem, was back in October 2003, though I would not quote it as an authoritative source as neither participant holds any academic qualifications - and lets face it, even they're not enough for some. To watch this 'big foot' conspiracy theory burgeon and spread, and conquer a reluctant mainstream media, well, back to meme's again - it's sure got legs hasn't it?

Augustine

15th March 2007, 03:58 PM

I missed this thread because I have scooby on ignore. He's apparently unaware that in addition to the FEMA/ASCE and NIST reports, Silverstein Properties and the WTC insurers, as adversaries, each commissioned engineering analyses of the tower collapses. These were not government-funded investigations. I don't think I need to tell you what their conclusions were.

scooby is welcome to PM me (pun intended) for a list of experts who worked on these issues and whose conclusions refute the conspiracist claims. I'd post it here but it is very, very long, and I think scooby is just a troll.

I attended a presentation by Allyn Kilsheimer where he related the story that his office got a call asking for him to come to NY after the WTC got hit but prior to its collapse. He had done some work in relation to the 1993 bombing so he was familiar with the building and its design. On his way back to his office, the Pentagon was hit. He watched the news footage in his office, and decided to go to the Pentagon because he knew the towers were going to collapse, and he could do more good at the Pentagon.

Also, it's worth noting that Dr. Zdenek Bazant submitted his preliminary paper demonstrating that the failure of one floor in the towers led to total collapse within two days of the attack. That is how quickly experienced engineers recognized that this was an inevitable result of two extreme loading events on a high-rise structure.

Gravy

15th March 2007, 04:08 PM

I attended a presentation by Allyn Kilsheimer where he related the story that his office got a call asking for him to come to NY after the WTC got hit but prior to its collapse. He had done some work in relation to the 1993 bombing so he was familiar with the building and its design. On his way back to his office, the Pentagon was hit. He watched the news footage in his office, and decided to go to the Pentagon because he knew the towers were going to collapse, and he could do more good at the Pentagon.And he did a helluva job at the Pentagon. FEMA and the other rescue/recovery/stabilization experts sing his praises. Here's (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec02/pentagon_9-06.html) a PBS NewsHour interview with him and W. Lee Evey that you may appreciate.

kookbreaker

15th March 2007, 04:08 PM

Scooby seems to be getting dumber. Is he working with the home-trepaning kit between starting threads?

scooby

15th March 2007, 04:09 PM

Did you hear the "whoosh"? That was what I actually said going right over your pointy little head. If any of those people want to petition their government representatives to do something, how in the world is my posting on this forum keeping them from doing so? This is a representative democracy, they are free to do so. That list of names is quite impressive. Want to show me where any one of them appears in any of my posts?
The only one I'm mocking is you, loser. YOU. Nobody else. You are not a proxy for them.

And you want to get to the troops? Let's go, small fry. Let's see how much you think you know about military service. Bring it, dude, I love to take down Keyboard Warriors who played some video game and think they know about serving. Wanna compare DD-214's?

I was talking about the Iraqi troops, a conscripted army.
If you're dumb enough to join up and surrender independent thought to the Pentagon, and then wave your dishonourable discharge around on here claiming to be a skeptic and proud, well, I'm not impressed.

And before you get excited I know a DD-214 is not a dishonourable discharge - artistic licence, and frankly boredom with armchair warriors from an Army that hasn't fought in a real war since 1945, that just beats up on weaker countries and brags about it. Bullies basically, and cowards many of them.

scooby

15th March 2007, 04:13 PM

Where is the laughing dog when you need him? Oh, I laughed and laughed over this bullheaded response...from someone who apparently does not understand the difference between pressure, uniform load, and stress...and proudly flaunts his ignorance for all to see...

Do tell, are you a member of the American Institute of Steel Construction? What is your member number? Did you enjoy the latest issue of Modern Steel Construction? Perhaps you are a Chartered Engineer? A member of the Institution of Structural Engineers? Steel Construction Institute? What is the British Standard for the design of structural steel using UBs?

What are you talking about? Some asshat on here started pontificating that steel specs are not quoted in PSI, and I posted a document from NIST itself which plainly demonstrates that this is not true.

Is it your contention, that the term PSI is not used to describe the strength of steel?

scooby

15th March 2007, 04:19 PM

Wait till someone keys his car with 20,000 psi from a bic pen. He is challenged with number and facts. A kid loose with google and no functioning logical neurons.

If he could answer a question I would ask him what he thinks the loading would be on WTC floor per square inch. I would hate to see the dolt attempt then to figure the total weight outcome for his number.

What was the loading on the steel support columns - the things holding the floor up? Or is it your contention, that the WTC was a stack of floors holding the steel support beams up? I don't believe this is an accurate way to model the design unless constrained by 'walnut brain'.

scooby

15th March 2007, 04:21 PM

[quote=Tokorona;2428655]I may be new (may?) but... it seems that Scooby's accusing everyone else of being ill-mannered ... while he insults everyone else. Regardless..

As you are the one attempting to disprove the NIST report, the burden of proof is on you. It's part of how we consider proof - that the petitioner must prove it happened, first./quote]

But I'm not attempting to disprove the NIST report, it will stand or fall on it's own merits. Whooooo, look it at go. Bye bye.

Augustine

15th March 2007, 04:21 PM

And he did a helluva job at the Pentagon. FEMA and the other rescue/recovery/stabilization experts sing his praises. Here's (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec02/pentagon_9-06.html) a PBS NewsHour interview with him and W. Lee Evey that you may appreciate.

Prior to 9/11, he was known as something of a character in the engineering community, and he still is a colorful, salty, no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is-and-pardon-my-language MF (probably his own chocie of phrase, seeing as how his hardhat read HMFIC), but for what he did at the Pentagon, he is a hero, but he'll argue with you all day if you try to call him that. He's said he's writing a book, and won't pull any punches in it - that I look forward to! (He also told some stories about getting calls from CTers around the world, and his anger and frustration in dealing with them and explaining some detail that they picked out of a photograph...)

Gravy

15th March 2007, 04:22 PM

Scooby seems to be getting dumber. Is he working with the home-trepaning kit between starting threads?:D I was thinking the same thing. It's as if he was trying really, really, hard not to spew ignorance, but then his trepaning didn't make it all the way through in time, and he blew a cerebral safety valve.

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 04:22 PM

I was talking about the Iraqi troops, a conscripted army.
If you're dumb enough to join up and surrender independent thought to the Pentagon, and then wave your dishonourable discharge around on here claiming to be a skeptic and proud, well, I'm not impressed.

And before you get excited I know a DD-214 is not a dishonourable discharge - artistic licence, and frankly boredom with armchair warriors from an Army that hasn't fought in a real war since 1945, that just beats up on weaker countries and brags about it. Bullies basically, and cowards many of them.
I see you are afraid to take me on honorably. Fine and dandy. You still are talking out your posterior. I wasn't Army, so your finely crafted insult was for naught. Just shows even more of your ignorance.
I seem to remember taking an oath to protect the Constitution, not the Pentagon. But, an oath is something you wouldn't know about. Honor, sacrifice, foreign concepts to you. I challenge you, Keyboard Hero, to show up at a VA hospital and state what you have above. Of course you won't, because like all Keyboard Heroes, you're awfully long on talk, but very, very short on action.

DavidJames

15th March 2007, 04:23 PM

What are you talking about? Some asshat on here started pontificating that steel specs are not quoted in PSI, and I posted a document from NIST itself which plainly demonstrates that this is not true.

Is it your contention, that the term PSI is not used to describe the strength of steel?What's it like scooby, people around here are playing Mozart, Bach, Coltrane and Aretha and you're blowing into wax paper wrapped around a comb.

You're in a league of your own, and you can't see the minors from the Hubble

scooby

15th March 2007, 04:24 PM

Augustine was discussing floor loading-which you started, with the "bicycle tire" alfalfa--and you tried to pull a spin out of your hat by quoting strength of materials at him.

No, I don't believe this is true.

Augustine

15th March 2007, 04:27 PM

What are you talking about? Some asshat on here started pontificating that steel specs are not quoted in PSI, and I posted a document from NIST itself which plainly demonstrates that this is not true.

Is it your contention, that the term PSI is not used to describe the strength of steel?

Are you talking about this asshat?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2428136&postcount=55
...the one who converted a vertical uniform floor loading into PSI, compared it to tire pressure, and then claimed it was column compressive stress? That asshat?

Redtail

15th March 2007, 04:37 PM

I was talking about the Iraqi troops, a conscripted army.
If you're dumb enough to join up and surrender independent thought to the Pentagon, and then wave your dishonourable discharge around on here claiming to be a skeptic and proud, well, I'm not impressed.

And before you get excited I know a DD-214 is not a dishonourable discharge - artistic licence, and frankly boredom with armchair warriors from an Army that hasn't fought in a real war since 1945, that just beats up on weaker countries and brags about it. Bullies basically, and cowards many of them.

Wait. You're saying many of the many of the men and women in the military are cowards and bullies while posting anonymously on an internet forum bragging about thinking for yourself and uncovering the USG murdering 3,000+ of their citizens yet you're just going to wait for the trials to start insted of actually doing something about it?:shocked:

scooby

15th March 2007, 04:38 PM

I see you are afraid to take me on honorably. Fine and dandy. You still are talking out your posterior. I wasn't Army, so your finely crafted insult was for naught. Just shows even more of your ignorance.
I seem to remember taking an oath to protect the Constitution, not the Pentagon. But, an oath is something you wouldn't know about. Honor, sacrifice, foreign concepts to you. I challenge you, Keyboard Hero, to show up at a VA hospital and state what you have above. Of course you won't, because like all Keyboard Heroes, you're awfully long on talk, but very, very short on action.

I would suggest that your oath is something you don't know about either, because posting on here with fools like these, in support of the official story, while your constitution goes up in flames because of it - well, you can keep your support.

I hear Habeas Corpus is about to die a death btw, it's all hanging on one Judge. 800 years of progress erased just like that. And you claim to be a skeptic and a man of honour who swore an oath. Wow.

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 04:39 PM

Wait. You're saying many of the many of the men and women in the military are cowards and bullies while posting anonymously on an internet forum bragging about thinking for yourself and uncovering the USG murdering 3,000+ of their citizens yet you're just going to wait for the trials to start insted of actually doing something about it?:shocked:
Pretty ironic, wouldn't you say?
But also pretty standard.

Redtail

15th March 2007, 04:44 PM

Brainache

15th March 2007, 04:44 PM

But I'm not attempting to disprove the NIST report, it will stand or fall on it's own merits. Whooooo, look it at go. Bye bye.

It is still standing. It has merit. The people you parrot have nothing. If you wake up to that fact, I hope you realise what a complete moron you have been.

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 04:46 PM

I would suggest that your oath is something you don't know about either, because posting on here with fools like these, in support of the official story, while your constitution goes up in flames because of it - well, you can keep your support.

I hear Habeas Corpus is about to die a death btw, it's all hanging on one Judge. 800 years of progress erased just like that. And you claim to be a skeptic and a man of honour who swore an oath. Wow.
So, Keyboard Hero, any proof of this? You heard? Where? The voices in your head?
If our Constitution is going up in flames, what are you doing about it? Whining, wringing your hands, hiding under the sheets? Yeah, that's pretty much all you are able to do. Oh, and post nonsense on internet forums. Mighty heroic! Thank God we have you to protect us from enemies foreign and domestic, unlike the cowards in the military!

kookbreaker

15th March 2007, 04:49 PM

JimBenArm

15th March 2007, 04:55 PM

I didn't know what this "trepanning" was, so did a quick search. Yep, that's about right!

Cl1mh4224rd

15th March 2007, 05:07 PM

But I'm not attempting to disprove the NIST report, it will stand or fall on it's own merits. Whooooo, look it at go. Bye bye.
Ah, so... in the same post you claim you're not trying to disprove the NIST report, saying that it will stand on its own merits, and then you not-so-subtly imply that it fails.

You're a troll and have earned second place on my Ignore list. Congratulations.

rwguinn

15th March 2007, 08:05 PM

Belz...

16th March 2007, 05:29 AM

Firstly the official story is a conspiracy theory - didn't you know?

Not in the usual sense.

A conspiracy "theory" is fine when it assumes that a few people planned a criminal act, then perpetrated that act, especially when the secret need no longer be kept after the fact. There are many examples of this, even for various governments.

But that thousands of people were involved, willingly, in a conspiracy to kill thousands of their own, for no reason whatsoever, without evidence, contra the known laws of physics, and the secret is NEVER, EVER broken ?

The problem with the 9/11 CT is that it assumes that litterally tens of thousands of people, around the world, most of which have NO reason to do what the US government would ask of them, are in on this horrible crime. That is, simply, impossible.

Belz...

16th March 2007, 05:37 AM

And again, I've already done the thinking

Nuh-huh.

In some instances, it's good to let someone do the thinking for you. For example, doing the thinking about general relativity didn't do me any good.

I did the thinking in 2002 and came to my conclusions within a year of the event.

Do you understand that complete lack of knowledge in structural engineering, coupled with the fact that almost every single engineer in the world disagrees with your conclusions, doesn't give your opinion on these matters much weight ?

Evidence, however, would be welcomed.

If you're dumb enough to join up and surrender independent thought to the Pentagon

See ? This is why you're not taken seriously. The above is an appeal to emotions. You're using a cheap tactic to try and convince someone.

CTer: "Do you know that UFOs have been captured at Roswell ?"
Skeptic: "Nah. There is no evidence that they were."
CTer: "Oh, well, if you'd rather be alien-chow..."

It's just rhetorical, and without any form of evidence. But it's supposed to be convincing because it elicits an emotional response. Truth be told, some people here also use this tactic. But if you're trying to convince someone what has any critical thought at all, it won't work, plain and simple.

an Army that hasn't fought in a real war since 1945, that just beats up on weaker countries and brags about it. Bullies basically, and cowards many of them.

The US military ? Perhaps. The men and women of the US military ? I doubt that.

It's kinda cheap that you mention the US hasn't fought "a real war" -- I assume you mean against someone their own size -- since '45. Fact is: There IS no one their own size.

twinstead

16th March 2007, 05:45 AM

Arguing from a position of simple, bind ideology in a debate about science won't get one very far.

Face it Scooby. You cannot win this debate on expertise, so you have decided to insult people and dazzle them with appeals to emotion. You're not the only one guilty of this, on both sides of the debate, but you do manage to attempt this weak technique in a particularly arrogant and transparent way.

Augustine

16th March 2007, 08:19 AM

Bull's eye!
Don't you just love it when amateurs act like management and try to explain our jobs to us?

Sadly, scooby needs to spend more time hitting the books before he can even move up to amateur status. He seems to be the type of chap who fancies himself quite intelligent and "intuitively" smart about things. Unfortunately, in much of engineering and science, intuitive thinking only works when it has a firm foundation in experience and education - two areas scoob appears to be woefully lacking.

Belz...

16th March 2007, 10:02 AM

Sadly, scooby needs to spend more time hitting the books

Wait... wait...

Books ?

What are those ? Can you get'em on Youtube ??

volatile

16th March 2007, 10:23 AM

I hear Habeas Corpus is about to die a death btw, it's all hanging on one Judge. 800 years of progress erased just like that. And you claim to be a skeptic and a man of honour who swore an oath. Wow.

Or "Quick! Change the subject! Maybe everyone will forget I know nothing about structural engineering!"

scooby

16th March 2007, 10:24 AM

Are you talking about this asshat?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2428136&postcount=55
...the one who converted a vertical uniform floor loading into PSI, compared it to tire pressure, and then claimed it was column compressive stress? That asshat?

No this one, who's response to the question ...

"What was the loading on the steel supports at the floors that collapsed in PSI? What was the loading that they were designed to support?"

... was this irrelevance, it seems he can't answer the question ...

:rolleyes:
Obviously not an engineer....
For your edification, should you actually elect to take advantage of it, most floors are designed for less than 1 psi. PSI is a unit of pressure, PSF is how floor loads are expressed. Typical office floor load is 100 PSF (which is not code-required, but more a function of leasability). Warehouse space may be 250 psf, heavy warehouse 300 psf, or slightly around 2 PSI.

Is it your contention, that the weight of the world trade center, rested on its floors?

Is it also your contention that PSF (pounds per square foot) is not a unit of pressure as implied in your post?

And any luck with NIST's explanation of how the buildings collapsed yet?

I'm really interested in what happened during the collapse - why the steel failed on the lower floors. I think it is important to understand this mechanism, as so many buildings around the world are now suddenly at risk due to a flawed design concept and unsafe to work in - so much for engineering eh? I'd ask for my money back. If I lost a relative in the attack, I'd certainly be hauling UL in court for falsifying the WTC steel testing. They claimed the floor truss assemblies would stand for 2 hours in an inferno without failing didn't they? It was certainly something like that - so much for american engineering and the people who certify it.
You an engineer?

If so could you post your CV or something so we know who we're talking to - and your current employment or any other references you may have. Do you build skyscrapers for instance?

If it's up to scratch, you might want to join these guys ... www.ae911truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org)

They've got about a dozen or so architects and a couple of engineers so far but they're recruiting. If you have any engineering questions that you'd like an engineer to answer - I'll be happy to pass them on, or you could ask them and post the response?

I'm sure their numbers can only grow, as any engineer is faced with a simple choice really - either they assert the official story is true, and that the collapse was a catastrophic engineering disaster, thus demonstrating that their assertions are worthless - or they defend their discipline.

Peephole

16th March 2007, 10:34 AM

So on what scientific basis does this theory of a fire induced total collapse rest exactly? Is there anything published in academia that describes the mechanism by which it occurred,
"Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. The most infamous paradigm is the collapse of World Trade Center towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during the crushing of one floor (or group of floors) and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model of progressive collapse is developed. Rather than using classical homogenization, it is found more effective to characterize the continuum by an energetically equivalent snap-through. The collapse, in which two phases-crush-down followed by crush-up-must be distinguished, is described in each phase by a nonlinear second-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of a compacted block of accreting mass. Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given. It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story. Regardless of the load capacity of the columns, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied (for the World Trade Center it is, with an order-of-magnitude margin). The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of mass ejected outside the tower perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. Using inverse analysis, one could identify these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building. Due to a shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of WTC are useless here. It is proposed to obtain such records by monitoring the precise time history of displacements in different modes of building demolitions. The monitoring could be accomplished by real-time telemetry from sacrifcial accelerometers, or by high-speed optical camera. The resulting information on energy absorption capability would be valuable for the rating of various structural systems and for inferring their collapse mode under extreme fire, internal explosion, external blast, impact or other kinds of terrorist attack, as well as earthquake and foundation movements."
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:bNYC5tInFHoJ:www.civil.northwe...Pr ogressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:bNYC5tInFHoJ:www.civil.northwestern .edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf+bazant+verdure&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a)

other than the work of the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice?
They haven't published anything.

scooby

16th March 2007, 10:45 AM

"Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. The most infamous paradigm is the collapse of World Trade Center towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during the crushing of one floor (or group of floors) and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model of progressive collapse is developed. Rather than using classical homogenization, it is found more effective to characterize the continuum by an energetically equivalent snap-through. The collapse, in which two phases-crush-down followed by crush-up-must be distinguished, is described in each phase by a nonlinear second-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of a compacted block of accreting mass. Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given. It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story. Regardless of the load capacity of the columns, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied (for the World Trade Center it is, with an order-of-magnitude margin). The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of mass ejected outside the tower perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. Using inverse analysis, one could identify these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building. Due to a shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of WTC are useless here. It is proposed to obtain such records by monitoring the precise time history of displacements in different modes of building demolitions. The monitoring could be accomplished by real-time telemetry from sacrifcial accelerometers, or by high-speed optical camera. The resulting information on energy absorption capability would be valuable for the rating of various structural systems and for inferring their collapse mode under extreme fire, internal explosion, external blast, impact or other kinds of terrorist attack, as well as earthquake and foundation movements."
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:bNYC5tInFHoJ:www.civil.northwe...Pr ogressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:bNYC5tInFHoJ:www.civil.northwestern .edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf+bazant+verdure&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a)

They haven't published anything.

They produce PDF's just like this guy.

Who is he anyway - is this an official explanation?
I'll give it a read anyway, it looks interesting.
Is it from FEMA or NIST - the people asked to produce an explanation?

Darth Rotor

16th March 2007, 10:52 AM

Time for Perry to show up and have the vapors about somebody accusing the Democrats of covering up a terrorist attack on American soil. And in this case I certainly agree with him; the idea that OKC was organized by the government is nutty.
Perry has been banned for being a spamming fool. A pity he could not keep his focus, some of his CT posts have been fun.

DR

scooby

16th March 2007, 10:58 AM

"The controlled demolition hypothesis has been unambiguously rejected by manistream investigators and by structural engineers.[9] Zdeněk P. Bažant, who was among the first to offer an explanation of the collapses, mentioned the controlled demolition hypothesis in passing in a 2006 paper, co-authored with Mathieu Verdure. Affirming the mainstream consensus as presented in the NIST report, Bažant and Verdure note "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives" as an exception. They trace "strange ideas" about, among other things, controlled demolition, to a "mistaken impression" that safety margins in design would make the collapses impossible. While strictly speaking superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives".[9] To date, however, no such detailed model has been put forward."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_ of_the_World_Trade_Center

Thats interesting, even they agree that there has been no detailed model of the collapse and that this is needed to "dispel the myth of planted explosives"

This implies that their PDF does not dispel any myths, and in their own words too. They're probably being professional and referring to the fact that they weren't involved in the investigation into what happened and wouldn't have had access to the data required to produce an accurate model, or access to any steel samples for testing etc.

I'll still give it a thorough read though, I'm interested in exactly how they have failed to dispel any 'myths of planted explosives'.

Augustine

16th March 2007, 11:02 AM

:dl: oh, scooby, I feel sorry for the village that has lost you...ok, point by point...

Is it your contention, that the weight of the world trade center, rested on its floors?
No

Is it also your contention that PSF (pounds per square foot) is not a unit of pressure as implied in your post?
As implied in my post? Reading comprehension, my good man, work on it. No.

And any luck with NIST's explanation of how the buildings collapsed yet?
Yes, NIST did a rather fine job. The report is very impressive, and a great effort. Have you had any luck reading it and understanding it?

I'm really interested in what happened during the collapse - why the steel failed on the lower floors. I think it is important to understand this mechanism, as so many buildings around the world are now suddenly at risk due to a flawed design concept and unsafe to work in - so much for engineering eh? I'd ask for my money back. If I lost a relative in the attack, I'd certainly be hauling UL in court for falsifying the WTC steel testing. They claimed the floor truss assemblies would stand for 2 hours in an inferno without failing didn't they? It was certainly something like that - so much for american engineering and the people who certify it.

Sigh...buildings around the world are only at risk IF there is an airplane flown into them which spills burning fuel throughout the floors...which they were ALWAYS at risk IF that happened. I imagine that would be a flawed design concept if your belief is that every building should be designed to withstand the deliberate impact and extensive fire from terrorists flying planes into them, as uncommon as that is. In that sense, yes, every skyscraper in the world is "unsafe" because NONE of them have been designed for that.
Sigh...UL did not falsify the WTC steel testing. UL certifies "assemblies" - STANDARD assemblies, not SPECIFIC ones. In other words, they specify that if you apply this much fireproofing to this much steel deck, you have such and such fire rating (which, by the way, does not equate to "standing 2 hours in an inferno", but we can leave that for later, don't want to tax your brain too much). They DO NOT say we went to this building and certified its exact assembly for so many hours. AND they most definitely do not certify ANY ASSEMBLY as being able to withstand the impact of a passenger airplane flying into the floor!!:rolleyes:

You an engineer?

If so could you post your CV or something so we know who we're talking to - and your current employment or any other references you may have. Do you build skyscrapers for instance?

Structural engineer. Licensed PE and SE. Member, ASCE, ACI, AISC, SAME. Blast experience. Have advised States Attorney in construction litigation cases. Nothing in the height range of "skyscrapers", more in the realm of mid- to high-rise.

If it's up to scratch, you might want to join these guys ... www.ae911truth.org (http://www.ae911truth.org/)

They've got about a dozen or so architects and a couple of engineers so far but they're recruiting. If you have any engineering questions that you'd like an engineer to answer - I'll be happy to pass them on, or you could ask them and post the response?
:dl: oh, I practically cried laughing...
Oh, I am absolutely confident that that group will ONLY attract the best and brightest, the CAPTAINS of the industry, with professional affiliations and publications out the wazoo...highly successful, accomplished, and celebrated engineers and architects...:dl:

Thanks for the laughs, scooby!!

Peephole

16th March 2007, 11:03 AM

They produce PDF's just like this guy.
No, they get their papers published in scientific journals.
Who is he anyway - is this an official explanation?
I'll give it a read anyway, it looks interesting.
Is it from FEMA or NIST - the people asked to produce an explanation?
No.

Bazant is a civil engineer at Northwestern University.[1] (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant.html)

The Almond

16th March 2007, 11:08 AM

No this one, who's response to the question ...

"What was the loading on the steel supports at the floors that collapsed in PSI? What was the loading that they were designed to support?"

... was this irrelevance, it seems he can't answer the question ...

It's unfortunate that the way you view yourself and the way the world views you are such disparate quantities. You're trying to save face here by claiming that the argument centered around something it didn't. We're not stupid, and we can see through the BS. If you want to continue making an issue of this, be my guest, but you're only going to appear weaker because of it.

Is it your contention, that the weight of the world trade center, rested on its floors?
And the floors rested upon trusses, which linked to columns, which carried the load to the ground. Congratulations, you've just learned about load paths. But live with your strawmen if you like.

Is it also your contention that PSF (pounds per square foot) is not a unit of pressure as implied in your post?
Is it your contention that a load of 40 psi is insignificant, like in a bicycle tire?

And any luck with NIST's explanation of how the buildings collapsed yet?
I love it when you repost things that have already been debunked. It makes you look worse, and it makes my job easier. How's that reading of the National Construction Safety Team Act coming along? Did you find the section where the Congress directed NIST to study the collapse past the initiation point?

I'm really interested in what happened during the collapse - why the steel failed on the lower floors.
The steel failed at the lower floors because the upper floors fell on them.

I think it is important to understand this mechanism, as so many buildings around the world are now suddenly at risk due to a flawed design concept and unsafe to work in - so much for engineering eh?
Wow! So, as an uneducated, ignorant layman, you've decided there is an engineering flaw in modern buildings? That's an awful lot like you deciding that you have to educate Augustine about steel design. Ego makes a fool of you, my friend.

I'd ask for my money back. If I lost a relative in the attack, I'd certainly be hauling UL in court for falsifying the WTC steel testing. They claimed the floor truss assemblies would stand for 2 hours in an inferno without failing didn't they?
Only if the fireproofing remained in tact. When the fireproofing was stripped, all bets were off.

It was certainly something like that - so much for american engineering and the people who certify it.
You an engineer?
Yep. So is Augustine, an R. Mackey, and Anti-Sophist, and Lurker, and The Grunion.

If so could you post your CV or something so we know who we're talking to - and your current employment or any other references you may have. Do you build skyscrapers for instance?
So, you need someone's license and certification to believe that they're an engineer, but you don't need any qualifications for the wildly moronic statements you routinely make? Absurd.

I'm sure their numbers can only grow, as any engineer is faced with a simple choice really - either they assert the official story is true, and that the collapse was a catastrophic engineering disaster, thus demonstrating that their assertions are worthless - or they defend their discipline.How about this: Engineers look at the relevant data, read the publications and determine what's true? Oh wait, you've already decided for them what's true! I'm so glad we have you around so that we don't have to bother with all that pesky math.

Mashuna

16th March 2007, 11:09 AM

Thats interesting, even they agree that there has been no detailed model of the collapse and that this is needed to "dispel the myth of planted explosives"

No, they say that a detailed model is superfluous, but could dispel the myth of planted explosives.

This implies that their PDF does not dispel any myths, and in their own words too. They're probably being professional and referring to the fact that they weren't involved in the investigation into what happened and wouldn't have had access to the data required to produce an accurate model, or access to any steel samples for testing etc.

You think? I think you've just made up a random opinion to bolster your own beliefs. No change there then.

Augustine

16th March 2007, 11:13 AM

Quote from Dr. Bazant (von Karman medal winner, scoob) in his "PDF" (gotten to this part yet, scoob?):

"As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure
scenario was as follows:..."

Darth Rotor

16th March 2007, 11:17 AM

I was talking about the Iraqi troops, a conscripted army.
If you're dumb enough to join up and surrender independent thought to the Pentagon, and then wave your dishonourable discharge around on here claiming to be a skeptic and proud, well, I'm not impressed.

And before you get excited I know a DD-214 is not a dishonourable discharge - artistic licence, and frankly boredom with armchair warriors from an Army that hasn't fought in a real war since 1945, that just beats up on weaker countries and brags about it. Bullies basically, and cowards many of them.
I dare you to share those words with Mary Tillman, coward.

JBA was in the Navy, as was I. My bretheren in arms in the Army, some of whom are close personal friends, are people who you just personally insulted, and whose boot soles you are not worthy of licking.

You would be well served to hide behind your net pseudonym, coward.

DD 214: look it up, and find out what it actually is.

DR

RAMS

16th March 2007, 11:23 AM

Dave Rogers

16th March 2007, 11:29 AM

"While strictly speaking superfluous, one of the effects of a more detailed modeling of the progressive collapse, they say, could be to "dispel the myth of planted explosives".[9] To date, however, no such detailed model has been put forward."

Thats interesting, even they agree that there has been no detailed model of the collapse and that this is needed to "dispel the myth of planted explosives"

I've seen some quite bizarre behaviour on the part of the 911 truth movement, but by far the most bizarre is exemplified by Scooby here. He posts a quote for everyone to read, then quite openly asserts it says something different to what it actually says. It's so weird I can't even think of a name for it - it puts mere self-debunking to shame. I mean, just look at it. He posts a quote saying that a detailed model of the collapse is superfluous, then openly says that the quote says it is needed. I just fail to comprehend the state of mind that could lead someone to say such a thing.

Snoopy, have you the faintest idea what the word "superfluous" means?

Dave

rwguinn

16th March 2007, 11:40 AM

It's unfortunate that the way you view yourself and the way the world views you are such disparate quantities. You're trying to save face here by claiming that the argument centered around something it didn't. We're not stupid, and we can see through the BS. If you want to continue making an issue of this, be my guest, but you're only going to appear weaker because of it.
And the floors rested upon trusses, which linked to columns, which carried the load to the ground. Congratulations, you've just learned about load paths. But live with your strawmen if you like.
Naw--The floors are independent structures, using sky hooks and unobtanium

Is it your contention that a load of 40 psi is insignificant, like in a bicycle tire?
It's only a square inch. The fact that each floor was 480,000 square inches seems to have escaped him. Also the fact that Pressure times area is a force, and that at 40 psi, the structure was capable of carrying 19,200,000 lb, or 9600 TONS, not counting structure.

I love it when you repost things that have already been debunked. It makes you look worse, and it makes my job easier. How's that reading of the National Construction Safety Team Act coming along? Did you find the section where the Congress directed NIST to study the collapse past the initiation point?
The steel failed at the lower floors because the upper floors fell on them.
Wow! So, as an uneducated, ignorant layman, you've decided there is an engineering flaw in modern buildings? That's an awful lot like you deciding that you have to educate Augustine about steel design. Ego makes a fool of you, my friend.
Only if the fireproofing remained in tact. When the fireproofing was stripped, all bets were off.
Yep. So is Augustine, an R. Mackey, and Anti-Sophist, and Lurker, and The Grunion.
As am I--PE, Mechanical engineering, specializing in Structural analysis, stress and dynamic loading.

So, you need someone's license and certification to believe that they're an engineer, but you don't need any qualifications for the wildly moronic statements you routinely make? Absurd.
While hiding anonymously himself--unless he truly is a talking dog*
How about this: Engineers look at the relevant data, read the publications and determine what's true? Oh wait, you've already decided for them what's true! I'm so glad we have you around so that we don't have to bother with all that pesky math.

*-nah--that Great dane is too smart to be THIS Scooby.

and, BTW:
GO AGGIES__WHUP UP on those T-Sippers tonight!

negativ

16th March 2007, 11:44 AM

I was talking about the Iraqi troops, a conscripted army.
If you're dumb enough to join up and surrender independent thought to the Pentagon, and then wave your dishonourable discharge around on here claiming to be a skeptic and proud, well, I'm not impressed.

And before you get excited I know a DD-214 is not a dishonourable discharge - artistic licence, and frankly boredom with armchair warriors from an Army that hasn't fought in a real war since 1945, that just beats up on weaker countries and brags about it. Bullies basically, and cowards many of them.

Wow. You don't really know much of anything about... anything, do you?

Hell, even I'm offended by that, and I'm neither a veteran nor do I have much of a family history of military service, save for my grandmother's brother who served in the Pacific during WWII. I know a guy whose MOS is 18D and that's about it. Yet I somehow find this personally insulting. Good job.

Minadin

16th March 2007, 11:47 AM

Is it your contention that a load of 40 psi is insignificant, like in a bicycle tire?

By the by, Scooby, before you answer this, you might want to realize that a 40 PSI load on a floor, if you were to place an object on 1 square foot of a building's floor to generate that load, the object would weigh almost 6,000 pounds. That's about 50x what we normally use as a rule of thumb for what is an "acceptable" loading condition. Anything over about .6x usually means I'm calling my structural engineer to doublecheck my figures; this, I don't think I would bother him on.

T.A.M.

16th March 2007, 11:55 AM

Amen!

Navy, Cambodia, 1971-72, 73-74.

Good post, Shame on such hominids.

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
behold the rage dot com
________________________________
Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

Welcome to the fourm RAMS. Look around and you'll find alot of info on the REAL Truth about 9/11, not the crapload the 9/11 truth movement dishes out.

TAM:)

The Almond

16th March 2007, 11:58 AM

Naw--The floors are independent structures, using sky hooks and unobtanium

My statics professor told us that all of those weightless, infinitely rigid beams were made of unobtanium, and that you had to wake up really early to go to the physics lab to get them.

As am I--PE, Mechanical engineering, specializing in Structural analysis, stress and dynamic loading.

Sorry about forgetting you there. Is 40 lashes with a wooden slide rule still standard punishment these days?

rwguinn

16th March 2007, 12:29 PM

My statics professor told us that all of those weightless, infinitely rigid beams were made of unobtanium, and that you had to wake up really early to go to the physics lab to get them.

Sorry about forgetting you there. Is 40 lashes with a wooden slide rule still standard punishment these days?

Either that, or explain MC/I to an idiot.
Both are equally painful.

No-I retract that. Even 40 lashes with an Alminum slide rule would be less painful.
Therefore, you have paid your debt.

Belz...

16th March 2007, 01:11 PM

I'm really interested in what happened during the collapse - why the steel failed on the lower floors. I think it is important to understand this mechanism, as so many buildings around the world are now suddenly at risk due to a flawed design concept and unsafe to work in

Yeah, assuming they get rammed by giant jets.

Or did you miss that part ?

I'd ask for my money back.

"Listen, man. When we built this thing I thought it could for sure resist the impact of a 767 at full speed. I think you owe me. Big time."

If I lost a relative in the attack, I'd certainly be hauling UL in court for falsifying the WTC steel testing.

What part of "30 floors coming down" didn't you understand ?

Did you fail elementary physics, or just the part about KINETIC energy ?

I'm sure their numbers can only grow, as any engineer is faced with a simple choice really - either they assert the official story is true, and that the collapse was a catastrophic engineering disaster, thus demonstrating that their assertions are worthless - or they defend their discipline.

Non sequitur. False dichotomy. Circular reasoning. Appeal to emotions. I think that's a new record.

T.A.M.

16th March 2007, 01:45 PM

Sayng that the collapse of the towers was a catastrophic engineering disaster, is like saying that a bullet going through a hockey helmet is a catastrophic disaster in hockey helmet design...

TAM:)

pagan

16th March 2007, 01:48 PM

Sayng that the collapse of the towers was a catastrophic engineering disaster, is like saying that a bullet going through a hockey helmet is a catastrophic disaster in hockey helmet design...

TAM:)

Did the hockey helmet desintegrate into a fine powder?

T.A.M.

16th March 2007, 01:56 PM

No, but I bet it would if it fell 110 storeys, or if it had 18 storeys of a building fall on it, even from 12 feet up...

TAM:)

rwguinn

16th March 2007, 01:57 PM

Did the hockey helmet desintegrate into a fine powder?
Just the part in the bullet's path.
Kinda like a pair of towers that used to be in NYC

scooby

16th March 2007, 02:26 PM

So, Keyboard Hero, any proof of this?

Proof of what - the news?

It's not my problem that you do not keep yourself informed of current events.

scooby

16th March 2007, 02:30 PM

Is it your contention that a load of 40 psi is insignificant, like in a bicycle tire?

No, it was my illustration that "oh so many tons per sq metre" actually boils down to the kind of thing you get in ordinary tyre pressures. Something anybody can identify with.

The rest ... yawn.

T.A.M.

16th March 2007, 02:35 PM

The "Mark of Woo" is growing stronger in this one....lol

TAM:)

scooby

16th March 2007, 02:40 PM

I dare you to share those words with Mary Tillman, coward.

JBA was in the Navy, as was I. My bretheren in arms in the Army, some of whom are close personal friends, are people who you just personally insulted, and whose boot soles you are not worthy of licking.

You would be well served to hide behind your net pseudonym, coward.

DD 214: look it up, and find out what it actually is.

DR

Iraq had a Navy?

scooby

16th March 2007, 02:43 PM

It is still standing. It has merit. The people you parrot have nothing. If you wake up to that fact, I hope you realise what a complete moron you have been.

Well you're easily hoodwinked.

It doesn't explain how the buildings collapsed and there is no report into WTC7.

That's zero out of 10.
Or none out of three to be more precise, which is also zero.

rwguinn

16th March 2007, 02:47 PM

No, it was my illustration that "oh so many tons per sq metre" actually boils down to the kind of thing you get in ordinary tyre pressures. Something anybody can identify with.

The rest ... yawn.:jaw-dropp :dl:
Which is why engineers can design stuffs that stand up to airplane crashes, wind loads, people walking around in them, Driving cars and trucks over them, and other things--the stuff that causes you to "yawn" is stuff we know to be crucial.

"... The reason Magrat was a better healer was because she thought it mattered. The reason Granny Weatherwax was a better witch was because she knew it doesn't"--Terry Pratchett (paraphrased from memory)

The "Mark of Woo" is growing stronger in this one....lol

TAM:)
The darkside has a firrm grip on him...

RAMS

16th March 2007, 02:50 PM

Yeah, assuming they get rammed by giant jets.

Or did you miss that part ?

"Listen, man. When we built this thing I thought it could for sure resist the impact of a 767 at full speed. I think you owe me. Big time."

What part of "30 floors coming down" didn't you understand ?

Did you fail elementary physics, or just the part about KINETIC energy ?

Non sequitur. False dichotomy. Circular reasoning. Appeal to emotions. I think that's a new record.

I'm in tears over some of these responses by you, TAM and so many others. Utterly brilliant and so much fun to read. Yours above to this post were simply hilarious and I read it again just for the laughs.

Where the hell were all of you during the UFO-Puke wars I was in for 3 years? You would have smoked them alive.

Great stuff, people.

Robert

Minadin

16th March 2007, 03:04 PM

No, it was my illustration that "oh so many tons per sq metre" actually boils down to the kind of thing you get in ordinary tyre pressures. Something anybody can identify with.

Well, I tried. Maybe something weighing 3 tonnes and only covering a single square foot doesn't impress you. If you spread that 40 PSI load out over an area of a small car, let's say, which for the purpose of this example will be 6' x 14', about the size of a Honda Civic . . . that car would weigh in at 483,840 lbs., or almost 242 tons. (roughly 220 metric) The 2005 Civic weighs in at about 2,450 lbs (1.225 tons), so that is roughly equivalent to the weight of 200 Honda Civics.

Augustine

16th March 2007, 03:14 PM

No, it was my illustration that "oh so many tons per sq metre" actually boils down to the kind of thing you get in ordinary tyre pressures. Something anybody can identify with.

The rest ... yawn.

Tell me, Dr. Scooby, if you have an internal pressure of 40 psi in your tire, what is the stress in the rubber? You may make any assumptions necessary to solve the problem (if any are required ;) ), just show your work!! I look forward to more comedy from you!

Augustine

16th March 2007, 03:19 PM

Iraq had a Navy?

More education for you, scooby...yes, they did.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/navy.htm

JimBenArm

16th March 2007, 07:49 PM

Proof of what - the news?

It's not my problem that you do not keep yourself informed of current events.
No, that for sure isn't your problem. It's much more obvious!

Don't think I've ever met a brain transplant donor before! How's that working for you?

cloudshipsrule

16th March 2007, 10:16 PM

Here-in lies the problem with people like ole' scoob. With no real comprehension for anything scientific, it's easy to jump ship from reality and land in the CT ocean. People like scoob can't make the mental transition from everyday, common physics (40psi inflation of an inner tube) to the type of calculations needed to analyze events such as the WTC collapses.

Scoob, do you know how much total force would be exerted on a piece of note book paper if 40psi of force were applied to every square inch of the paper?

TruthSeeker1234

16th March 2007, 11:36 PM

As long as [Government 9/11 Scientists] show their work, and produce conclusions that can be independently verified, it makes no difference who produces the report. The "Truth Movement" never seems to grasp this point, as it produces virtually no work of its own, and what little it does fails at first inspection.

OK, R. When and where did NIST "show their work" with regard to their computer model? Have they released it? Last I checked, they weren't really clear about all those input values.

And how about the structural drawings for the twin towers? If those were made public, some other folks could have a crack at creating a computer model on Ansys software. Perhaps this time we could let it run past the point of "collapse initiation", you know, just to see what happens.

How about Purdue? They've been pretty stingy with details on their plane simulations as well.

R.Mackey. Stand up for scientific method, and demand that government 9/11 scientists allow their work to be replicated.

Cl1mh4224rd

16th March 2007, 11:48 PM

OK, R. When and where did NIST "show their work" with regard to their computer model? Have they released it? Last I checked, they weren't really clear about all those input values.
Have you asked them?

scooby

17th March 2007, 12:06 AM

Did the hockey helmet desintegrate into a fine powder?

And did the helmet next to it disintegrate in sympathy?
Are we looking at another 'magic bullet' theory?

gumboot

17th March 2007, 02:02 AM

For what it's worth, if you inflate a regular car tyre to 40 psi you're liable to get a blow out. 30-32 psi is about standard.

-Gumboot

gumboot

17th March 2007, 02:05 AM

It seems people like Pagan and Scooby have missed some key moments in their childhood development. Fortunately my sister is a primary school teacher, so I can help them.

Now, pay attention.

Today's lesson is about knowing and not knowing.

If you can remember something that you have learned, that means you KNOW it. We can know lots of things all at once. That's because our minds are really good at remembering lots of different things.

In the world, there are some people who know more than you know. That's because they have learned more than you. When you talk to these people, pay close attention. If you listen carefully to them you can learn what they know, and soon you'll know just as much as them!

-Gumboot

Brainache

17th March 2007, 07:21 AM

Well you're easily hoodwinked.

It doesn't explain how the buildings collapsed and there is no report into WTC7.

That's zero out of 10.
Or none out of three to be more precise, which is also zero.

OK Scoob I give up. There is really no point in me engaging with someone like you.

All of this stuff has been explained to you countless times by people with better knowledge of engineering than I will ever have. You seem to think that, because you refuse to even try to understand them, that they are wrong.

Here's a tip: Please try not to be so proud of your ignorance, it just makes it worse. Unless of course you like the sound of all the scornful laughter aimed at you, in which case, enjoy!
HA ha.

So on that note I leave you in the capable hands of the serious brains here at JREF. If I reply to you again it will be purely for laughs.

twinstead

17th March 2007, 08:22 AM

The truth movement is filled to the brim with folks like Pagan, Scooby, Christopher7 and all the other brainiacs who come here and arrogantly proclaim we are all brainwashed fools.

With this attitude and brain power, coupled with the total lack of legitimate evidence, this is a movement doomed to obscurity.

It's that arrogance that keeps them unable to even realize it.

Darth Rotor

17th March 2007, 08:46 AM

For what it's worth, if you inflate a regular car tyre to 40 psi you're liable to get a blow out. 30-32 psi is about standard.

-Gumboot
Nope.

The tires on my daughters VW have a max of 60 psi, and an inflation limit of 42 psi.

The tires on my Saturn carry a manufacturers recommended max pressure of 44 psi, but I keep them and 40-41. FOr a smoother ride, keeping them at about 34 is good, but it shortens tire life a bit.

DR

The Almond

17th March 2007, 12:33 PM

No, it was my illustration that "oh so many tons per sq metre" actually boils down to the kind of thing you get in ordinary tyre pressures.

It's good to see you admitting where you're wrong. Consider how silly this has made you look.

The rest ... yawn.
Translation: I didn't understand your post because I don't want to. I didn't respond to it because I can't.

scooby

17th March 2007, 01:25 PM

kookbreaker

17th March 2007, 03:39 PM

My bicycle tyres take 60psi.

And road bike tires take 100-150 psi. What's your point? Gumboot specifically mentioned car tires. Not bike tires.

A W Smith

17th March 2007, 04:56 PM

My bicycle tyres take 60psi.

your from the UK ? Paul? Llttleguy?

R.Mackey

17th March 2007, 10:33 PM

OK, R. When and where did NIST "show their work" with regard to their computer model? Have they released it? Last I checked, they weren't really clear about all those input values.

And how about the structural drawings for the twin towers? If those were made public, some other folks could have a crack at creating a computer model on Ansys software. Perhaps this time we could let it run past the point of "collapse initiation", you know, just to see what happens.

How about Purdue? They've been pretty stingy with details on their plane simulations as well.

R.Mackey. Stand up for scientific method, and demand that government 9/11 scientists allow their work to be replicated.
I missed this one. Your strange new avatar threw me.

NIST "showed their work" through a process called independent validation -- in my own circles at NASA, this is called a "Non-Advocate Review" or NAR. NIST issued subcontracts to different firms, one firm creating and executing the models, a totally different firm evaluating the results in detail. From http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/LERA_Award.htm:
NIST has considered at length the appropriateness of involving LERA, the original structural engineering design firm, in its investigation. NIST has concluded that the firm’s unique knowledge of the intended behavior of the original design is important to capture in developing its baseline model, but that LERA’s work should be limited and appropriate reviews should be put into place.

Consequently, NIST has implemented rigorous procedures to mitigate potential conflicts of interest, consistent with all federal procurement laws and regulations, and is confident in the integrity and objectivity of the deliverables to be accepted from the contractor. The procedures to mitigate potential conflicts of interest include the following steps:

The contractor shall have no role in the investigation other than providing NIST with the deliverables associated with the above tasks.

The contractor shall not provide any findings, conclusions, or recommendations from its work on the three tasks. These are the sole and exclusive responsibility of NIST.

The scope of work in this contract is limited to the three tasks listed above. It does not involve – in any way – the analysis of aircraft impact damage to the towers, the structural response of the towers to the fires, or the collapse sequence of the towers.

NIST will conduct a comprehensive, independent review of each of the three tasks performed by the contractor. This review includes line-by-line review of the structural databases as well as extensive in-house verification and validation of the reference structural models and the baseline performance analyses.

...

NIST also will award a contract to another firm or individual through an open, competitive solicitation to conduct an independent third-party review and critique of each of the three tasks.

This review includes random checks of the databases; appropriateness of the models for their intended uses considering model representation and assumptions, level of detail, and model geometry and material properties; and appropriateness of the baseline performance analyses and accuracy of the results.

I honestly don't know what you expect. You're upset because you didn't get a personal copy of a grid file, one that you couldn't comprehend and certainly couldn't use if you got it, is that it?

If you want to invalidate the NIST model, you don't do it by getting their files and rerunning them. You'll just get the same answers without understanding a thing. What you do is either look at the results (something you haven't done) or you build your own model and see how it compares. Purdue and two different insurance companies performed the latter step independently and all got consistent results. I've run some extremely simplified calculations, and they check too.

What have you done?

T.A.M.

17th March 2007, 10:42 PM

what has he done...see my sig, for the answer...

TAM:)

scooby

17th March 2007, 10:47 PM

And road bike tires take 100-150 psi. What's your point? Gumboot specifically mentioned car tires. Not bike tires.

Gumboots an ******* and he's not the only one?

T.A.M.

17th March 2007, 10:54 PM

Gumboots an ******* and he's not the only one?

rather abrupt...you been drinkin' there scoob?

TAM:)

scooby

17th March 2007, 11:42 PM

rather abrupt...you been drinkin' there scoob?

TAM:)

Not at all, haven't had a drink for about a month now.
Most of the stuff on here doesn't merit more than a quick reply if that.

beachnut

18th March 2007, 12:16 AM

Not at all, haven't had a drink for about a month now.
Most of the stuff on here doesn't merit more than a quick reply if that.
Even more so for your fact-less posts.

gumboot

18th March 2007, 02:09 AM

Gumboots an ******* and he's not the only one?

Reported.

-Gumboot

gumboot

18th March 2007, 02:14 AM

Nope.

The tires on my daughters VW have a max of 60 psi, and an inflation limit of 42 psi.

The tires on my Saturn carry a manufacturers recommended max pressure of 44 psi, but I keep them and 40-41. FOr a smoother ride, keeping them at about 34 is good, but it shortens tire life a bit.

DR

I would argue they're not "regular" car tyres. 30-34 is standard for normal car tyres, but there always are different types that have variations.

What kind of Saturn do you drive, and what sort of VW does your daughter have?

-Gumboot

Belz...

18th March 2007, 07:01 AM

OK, R. When and where did NIST "show their work" with regard to their computer model? Have they released it? Last I checked, they weren't really clear about all those input values.

Oohh... An anarchist. How cute.

Belz...

18th March 2007, 07:03 AM

It doesn't explain how the buildings collapsed and there is no report into WTC7.

There's no report on 7 WTC ? That's new. Christopher7 keeps arguing about it. I'm sure he'll be delighted to hear it doesn't exist.

That's zero out of 10.
Or none out of three to be more precise, which is also zero.

10 and 3 are far from equivalent.

And did the helmet next to it disintegrate in sympathy?
Are we looking at another 'magic bullet' theory?

Ah, the magic bullet. The quintessential example of how CTers misunderstand reality. Nice you bringing that up.

Gumboots an ******* and he's not the only one?

So, let me get this straight. Your bike tires take 60 psi, so the WTC didn't collapse ?

T.A.M.

18th March 2007, 07:07 AM

Oohh... An anarchist. How cute.

What more do you expect from someone who has never had any form of power or responsibility...they simply rebel against such things.

"I've never been the man, so down with him!"

TAM:)

gumboot

18th March 2007, 07:19 AM

So, let me get this straight. Your bike tires take 60 psi, so the WTC didn't collapse ?

Things like this make me sympathise with the mice at the end of Hitchhikers.

ARTHUR: You can't have my brain.
MOUSE: Why not.
ARTHUR: I'm using it!
MOUSE: Hardly!

-Gumboot

The Doc

18th March 2007, 07:29 AM

scooby, truthseeker...

How much of the NIST report have you read?

rwguinn

18th March 2007, 08:16 AM

Things like this make me sympathise with the mice at the end of Hitchhikers.

ARTHUR: You can't have my brain.
MOUSE: Why not.
ARTHUR: I'm using it!
MOUSE: Hardly!

-Gumboot
Actually, I hearken to the old saw:
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience"

R.Mackey

18th March 2007, 12:33 PM

I would argue they're not "regular" car tyres. 30-34 is standard for normal car tyres, but there always are different types that have variations.

What kind of Saturn do you drive, and what sort of VW does your daughter have?

Not that this is any more than an anecdote, but in my experience "regular" tires have a wider range of operation than they used to.

I own a light truck and a sports car. The sports car wears Y-rated rubber that will take up to 46 PSI, and I adjust it between 32 and about 38 to dial in handling characteristics. This is somewhat unusual rubber.

The light truck wears very basic mud 'n snows. The tires will take 44 PSI, recommend 40 in a typical application, but the truck manufacturer suggests 28 PSI, and that's what it gets. I was surprised at this apparent mismatch but it is real, and I've verified that the truck is happiest there.

I believe tire pressures have increased over the last decade due to a push for higher fuel efficiency, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Gravy

18th March 2007, 01:00 PM

I believe tire pressures have increased over the last decade due to a push for higher fuel efficiency, but that's pure speculation on my part.

That's what the the Air lobby wants you to think. Glad to see you're resisting their pressure.

rwguinn

18th March 2007, 02:28 PM

Not that this is any more than an anecdote, but in my experience "regular" tires have a wider range of operation than they used to.

I own a light truck and a sports car. The sports car wears Y-rated rubber that will take up to 46 PSI, and I adjust it between 32 and about 38 to dial in handling characteristics. This is somewhat unusual rubber.

The light truck wears very basic mud 'n snows. The tires will take 44 PSI, recommend 40 in a typical application, but the truck manufacturer suggests 28 PSI, and that's what it gets. I was surprised at this apparent mismatch but it is real, and I've verified that the truck is happiest there.

I believe tire pressures have increased over the last decade due to a push for higher fuel efficiency, but that's pure speculation on my part.
You can increase the pressure with the lower-profile tires--less shear load on the rim. My experience has been that rim failure is more disasterous than tire failure, since rim failure spews out a lot of sharp, pointy, hard shrapnel.
The automakers are tuning the tire/suspension system to handle higher pressures for better mileage. Obviously, lower rolling friction means better efficiency.
The tire and suspension are 2 springs in series, with the top spring having a dashpot in parallel with it--the shock absorber. In that system, like capacitors in series, total stiffness is less than the lowest spring rate, so the suspension has to soften up to bring the total down--the tire used to be the most compliant--and probably still is, but the stiffness of the tire is much higher nowdays--especially with those really low profile tires...
Tire damping is inherent in the material--typically about 20-30% of critical, but that changes with the stiffer material--generally decreasing?I gueess we could make a rolling damper, but I Don't want to think about that one.

T.A.M.

18th March 2007, 06:15 PM

That's what the the Air lobby wants you to think. Glad to see you're resisting their pressure.

The Air Lobby...ha...they're all a bunch of blow-hards.

TAM:)

Augustine

19th March 2007, 10:00 AM

And how about the structural drawings for the twin towers? If those were made public, some other folks could have a crack at creating a computer model on Ansys software. Perhaps this time we could let it run past the point of "collapse initiation", you know, just to see what happens.

I honestly don't know what you expect. You're upset because you didn't get a personal copy of a grid file, one that you couldn't comprehend and certainly couldn't use if you got it, is that it?

If you want to invalidate the NIST model, you don't do it by getting their files and rerunning them. You'll just get the same answers without understanding a thing. What you do is either look at the results (something you haven't done) or you build your own model and see how it compares. Purdue and two different insurance companies performed the latter step independently and all got consistent results. I've run some extremely simplified calculations, and they check too.

What have you done?

CTers like to pretend that NIST is the only model, and if they only had the data that is being kept from them by the evil conspiracy, they could produce a model that would refute the whole collapse "story".

The pictures below are taken from a paper presented at the Proceedings of the International Conference on the Protection of Structures in Nov 2002 by Lu XinZheng of the Department of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing.

The argument that NIST is the only model or that there have been no independent models is pure charade.

Belz...

19th March 2007, 10:10 AM

CTers like to pretend that NIST is the only model, and if they only had the data that is being kept from them by the evil conspiracy, they could produce a model that would refute the whole collapse "story".

<giggle>, they couldn't even model the collapse of a pile of china dishes.

Darth Rotor

19th March 2007, 12:07 PM

I would argue they're not "regular" car tyres. 30-34 is standard for normal car tyres, but there always are different types that have variations.

What kind of Saturn do you drive, and what sort of VW does your daughter have?

-Gumboot
My wife's minivan has tire pressure 38 psi. My next door neighbor has a Toyota Avalon: tire pressure 36 psi.

You lowballed it, gumboot. No big deal, it was a nitpick. ;)

DR

Darth Rotor

19th March 2007, 12:14 PM

Iraq had a Navy?
Did, and does (albeit rather small, mostly patrol boats) but since I was in the US Navy, your question is irrelevant.

Then again, you are only relevant insofar as how much good people's air you are using up, oxygen thief.

DR

TruthSeeker1234

19th March 2007, 05:07 PM

What have you done? [to attempt to validate NIST's work]

I have written letters to the NY/NJ port authority, and to NIST, requesting copies of the structural drawings of the twin towers, and asking how much it would cost. I've recieved no reply at all.

Sorry, Mackey, NIST's shell game does not cut it for science. It would be as if Einstein announced, "I have derived a formula that shows an equivalence between mass and energy". When asked what the formula was, Einstein replied, "I'm not going to tell you. I've shown it to some guys at Dewey, Cheetum and Howe, and they say it's cool. They won't show you the formula either, but trust us, it's cool."

No.

NIST ignored crucial evidence, assumed the conclusion, and does has not allowed independent verification.

You're right, the idea is for independent researchers to build a correct model of a twin tower with AnSys. I think NIST should just release their model to the public, since:

A] The law says that what they produce is public domain and
B] It is in the interest of science and
C] We paid for it

But really, the structural docs for the twin towers should be released.

The reason this has not happened is clear. Once someone builds a model, it will not explode into dust, no matter how much damage, sagging, creep, and anything else is applied. You know it. And I know it.

TruthSeeker1234

19th March 2007, 05:20 PM

scooby, truthseeker...

How much of the NIST report have you read?

Oh, I slogged through almost all of it for two weeks, a year ago. Huge amounts on the plane crash, which is irrelevant, because something broke perimeter columns, and something started fires. It doesn't make much difference what.

Huge amounts on the fires. Their computer model totally disagrees with any of their actual real world temperature data.

But it doesn't matter.

Assume the hottest fires. Assume fires that melt steel. Assume thermite. Assume as many core columns servered as you want.

It doesn't matter.

Assume all 287 columns disappeard at the 96th floor instantly, allowing the top to just drop. There is no way that even this absurd situation could produce the disintegration, the strangely toasted cars, the round holes, the disappearance of WTC4 south wing, the hollowing out of WTC6, the fizzies, etc. Just no way.

WildCat

19th March 2007, 05:26 PM

stateofgrace

19th March 2007, 05:30 PM

Assume all 287 columns disappeard at the 96th floor instantly, allowing the top to just drop. There is no way that even this absurd situation could produce the disintegration, the strangely toasted cars, the round holes, the disappearance of WTC4 south wing, the hollowing out of WTC6, the fizzies, etc. Just no way.

So what did TS ? (http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:dXr5ypjU3eYJ:www.journalof911studie s.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf+Gregory+S.+Jenkins+the+overwhelming&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk)

Even your fellow twoofers don't agree with you.

A W Smith

19th March 2007, 05:35 PM

Assume the hottest fires. Assume fires that melt steel. Assume thermite. Assume as many core columns servered as you want.

It doesn't matter.

Assume all 287 columns disappeard at the 96th floor instantly, allowing the top to just drop. There is no way that even this absurd situation could produce the disintegration, the strangely toasted cars, the round holes, the disappearance of WTC4 south wing, the hollowing out of WTC6, the fizzies, etc. Just no way.

So of what use would the entire set of WTC blueprints be to you? You hope to find a discrepancy in a bar joist dampener connection perhaps? A problem with the verticle bolt connections between perimeter column connections? You do not even have the professional credentials to interpret them. Of course they are ignoring you. You are clearly a nutter!

twinstead

19th March 2007, 05:42 PM

Why do you think that only you can see these things, and no one else can?

This confuses me too. The strangely burned cars, the round holes, all that other stuff are things that ONLY TROOTHYDUDE CAN SEE.

He is basing his entire theory on these things as if the whole world is with him, as if these strange and exotic anomalies are so clear and so obvious that anybody with eyes can see them, except for us evil debunkers and a world full of corrupt experts.

Troothydude you're a crackpot, nothing more, nothing less. You are the internet equal of some wild-eyed bearded homeless guy ranting on a street corner.

Belz...

20th March 2007, 05:41 AM

I have written letters to the NY/NJ port authority, and to NIST, requesting copies of the structural drawings of the twin towers, and asking how much it would cost. I've recieved no reply at all.

And THAT's the whole of your research ? Amazing. What boldness.

Sorry, Mackey, NIST's shell game does not cut it for science. It would be as if Einstein announced, "I have derived a formula that shows an equivalence between mass and energy". When asked what the formula was, Einstein replied, "I'm not going to tell you. I've shown it to some guys at Dewey, Cheetum and Howe, and they say it's cool. They won't show you the formula either, but trust us, it's cool."

You're assuming, here, that no independent body of scientists and experts replicated their results. I do believe Mack corrected you on this.

NIST ignored crucial evidence, assumed the conclusion, and does has not allowed independent verification.

1) Which crucial evidence are we talking about, here ? The type of evidence that only YOU can see in PICTURES ?

2) Assumed their conclusion ? About the collapse ? Then why make a 10,000 page report.

But really, the structural docs for the twin towers should be released.

I agree, if only to shut Christophera up.

The reason this has not happened is clear.

Now, who's assuming his conclusion ?

Once someone builds a model, it will not explode into dust.

Of course not, since we showed that's not what happened.

Assume all 287 columns disappeard at the 96th floor instantly, allowing the top to just drop. There is no way that even this absurd situation could produce the disintegration, the strangely toasted cars, the round holes, the disappearance of WTC4 south wing, the hollowing out of WTC6, the fizzies, etc. Just no way.

All of which didn't happen except in your twisted mind. You've been schooled on all these points before. Do you have a memory disorder ?