My First Ever Banning [Archive]

View Full Version : My First Ever Banning

Pages : [1] 2

Architect

23rd May 2007, 10:08 AM

Well lads, I'm not sure that it merits a thread, but what the heck.

I went to LCF. I had a good look around. I started discussing issues. Mindful of the reports of banning on the slightest grounds, I was excrutiatingly polite and took great care not to break any of the rules. Jackchit actually went as far as to agree with me on one post, although it was nothing to do with 911.

But today, after just a couple of days, there was a mass culling of those of us who weren't part of "the movement". Not just me, but a few others too; langoose, dripp, and others.

No explanation, no warnings.

The admin responsible seems to be someone called IVXX, whose avataar is some bloke on a megaphone.

This isn't a great surprise, obviously, because time and time again they've shown a remarkably flexible approach to their concept of free speech. However it seems rather more ironic than usual as one of their newest threads is entitled I've Just Been Banned from the Msnbc Forum and includes this little gem:

What the hell can I do about tis? I guess I should be flattered that they thought I was so much of a threat that they had to BAN me!

[sigh]

;)

e^n

23rd May 2007, 10:11 AM

IVXXs avatar is Alex Jones' appearance in the film A Scanner Darkly. Still congratulations on your ban, I have no idea why they banned you but if they can ban you for nothing I expect it won't be long before I'm gone too.

chippy

23rd May 2007, 10:12 AM

Architect

23rd May 2007, 10:17 AM

Yeah, I've been reading your posts and you have been very respectful and polite with all of your answers. That you should get banned and Roxdog, Lucus, and Terrorcell get to stay, despite them saying something insulting nearly every time they post, shows how incredibly lopsided their admin-ing is.

I wouldn't let it bother you too much. Their lack of objectivity will ultimately be their undoing.

By the way, where is this msnbc forum?

Edit: what's with "banned" and "admin" being highlighted like that?

It seems ironic that the mob complaining about censorship not only did the same thing, but unlike most forums didn't even bother to give any reason. Just KABOOM.

The funny things is that a few of the blokes were actually okay, and I was having quite a sensible PM discussion with one regarding general structural issues around tall buildings.

And I haven't highlighted banned and admin. You've got me paranoid now! :eek:

R.Mackey

23rd May 2007, 10:19 AM

Edit: what's with "banned" and "admin" being highlighted like that?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82129

Well, Architect, what can I say? People are often jealous of their fantasies. Would you welcome a chess grandmaster over to play checkers?

ref

23rd May 2007, 10:24 AM

chippy

23rd May 2007, 10:29 AM

How do you get to this "msnbc forum"?

Architect

23rd May 2007, 10:32 AM

I got banned there too today, that was my second time. We were on some same threads. I was Ding. I think I got banned because of the responses I wrote on the "questions to debunkers" thread. I also commented on that MSNBC ban thread, they were so sure they were telling the truth because they were banned :cool:

Did you get any warning either? I was actually midway through a post when it happened! And they most have logged my ISP or something, because it just doesn't like let me even have a wee peek!

Actually I was quite enjoying the discussion with Strawman by PM. Seemed like a sterling chap. Misguided, but no malice or ill intent, just a desire to try and discuss matters.

As regards MSNBC (whoever they are), did you notice the outrage because they went so far as to delete the Truth chappies posts!! :boggled:

Architect

23rd May 2007, 10:33 AM

How do you get to this "msnbc forum"?

I did a search on google.co.uk and it came up at the head of the list!

ref

23rd May 2007, 10:33 AM

How do you get to this "msnbc forum"?

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.a...sparam=Page%3D1 (http://www.24topproxy.com/index.php/0111110A/687474702s626s617264732r6q736r2r636s6q2s4q534r4243 626s617264732s7468726561642r617370783s746872656164 69643q32383337363326626s61726473706172616q3q506167 6525334431)

Argh, I can't copy it because I'm on a proxy.

uk_dave

23rd May 2007, 10:36 AM

The tenets of the 'truth' movement....

Dissent will not be tolerated. We know how we would run the world.
Don't question our beliefs (even politely and patiently).
We don't want debate to find the truth, we want discussion and agreement.
Don't spoil our fun with inconvenient facts.
We're sad and lonely and the 911 'truth' is just a facade behind which we can talk about guns and who we fantasise about shagging.

ref

23rd May 2007, 10:39 AM

Did you get any warning either? I was actually midway through a post when it happened! And they most have logged my ISP or something, because it just doesn't like let me even have a wee peek!

Actually I was quite enjoying the discussion with Strawman by PM. Seemed like a sterling chap. Misguided, but no malice or ill intent, just a desire to try and discuss matters.

As regards MSNBC (whoever they are), did you notice the outrage because they went so far as to delete the Truth chappies posts!! :boggled:

I noticed their outrage :p I pointed to them my bannings on LCF, prisonplanet and 9/11 blogger. They didn't respond.

I had no warning whatsoever. Just gone.

You can have a peek by going to www.proxy.org (http://www.proxy.org) and entering the address there. Otherwise you can't get there anymore.

MSNBC, a combination of Microsoft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft) and NBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC), otherwise known as Microsoft National Broadcast Channel is a 24-hour cable news channel in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), and a news website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website). :)

Björn Toulouse

23rd May 2007, 10:50 AM

How does LCF notify you that you have been banned?

Architect

23rd May 2007, 10:52 AM

Proxy sites, sock puppets, false names? Why not just call myself PDoh and be done with it! :)

e^n

23rd May 2007, 10:57 AM

The reason you can't browse is you still have the cookie from their site in your browser, clear any cookies and you should be able to browse as a guest.

CurtC

23rd May 2007, 10:57 AM

How does LCF notify you that you have been banned?
It's like this: you try to view the board, and you see a message that you don't have permission.

Hans

23rd May 2007, 10:58 AM

[/687474702s626s617264732r6q736r2r636s6q2s4q534r4243 626s617264732s7468726561642r617370783s746872656164 69643q32383337363326626s61726473706172616q3q506167 6525334431"]XXX://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.a...sparam=Page%3D1[/URL]

Man what is on that site? The national proxy (of the UAE) shut down that site with a stern warning that it has un-Islamic content.

Architect

23rd May 2007, 10:59 AM

The reason you can't browse is you still have the cookie from their site in your browser, clear any cookies and you should be able to browse as a guest.

Naw, I'd done that.

scissorhands

23rd May 2007, 11:00 AM

CurtC

23rd May 2007, 11:00 AM

I have no idea why they banned you but if they can ban you for nothing I expect it won't be long before I'm gone too.

e^n, I read your post over there, where someone asked whether you have any remaining questions at all, that you answered that you'd like to know why the other Pentagon videos haven't been released.

What I'd like to know is, why do you think there are other Pentagon videos?

e^n

23rd May 2007, 11:06 AM

What I'd like to know is, why do you think there are other Pentagon videos?

There is at least the traffic camera which was viewing that side of the pentagon, although there are rumours that it was actually impacted by the edge of the starboard wing. This may have destroyed it and caused it to capture pretty much nothing.

It's hard to say, but I'm sure whatever happens someone in the truth community won't believe it.

bje

23rd May 2007, 11:13 AM

I got banned there too today, that was my second time. We were on some same threads. I was Ding. I think I got banned because of the responses I wrote on the "questions to debunkers" thread. I also commented on that MSNBC ban thread, they were so sure they were telling the truth because they were banned :cool:

Me too. I was langoose. I lasted longer this time than other times. Architect was calm, reasonable, rational, and honestly addressed their questions and assertions - despite the invective he took. So is e^n. There was absolutely no objective reason for Architect to be banned. But then objectivity is a dirty word over there.

In the end, blanket banning of non-truthers is the only way admin there has to protect their members from the real world.

CurtC

23rd May 2007, 11:13 AM

Ahh, e^n, I had the impression you were referring to cameras actually at the Pentagon, in addition to the two parking lot security videos that we have. Didn't know you were talking about other cameras in the vicinity, at other buildings etc.

The VDOT camera - is there a reason to think that its video was being taped? I really don't know, but it seems like a camera like that is used as a real-time indicator of traffic conditions, so the owners probably wouldn't bother taping the video coming off it.

There were other videos confiscated by investigators, but the FOIA request was specifically to have videos released that showed the plane or the impact, and they released the two additional ones from the Citgo and from the hotel across the freeway. Are there any others that you suspect the government is withholding?

ref

23rd May 2007, 11:14 AM

Man what is on that site? The national proxy (of the UAE) shut down that site with a stern warning that it has un-Islamic content.

I have no idea :D I tried to link to the msnbc link on the LCF Forum, but the proxy gave this address.

bje

23rd May 2007, 11:15 AM

Naw, I'd done that.

Both screwloose and invision cookies?

ref

23rd May 2007, 11:17 AM

The reason you can't browse is you still have the cookie from their site in your browser, clear any cookies and you should be able to browse as a guest.

Worked for me.

ref

23rd May 2007, 11:18 AM

So now I can post the real link to the MSNBC thread they talked about :D

http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?threadid=283763&boardsparam=Page%3D1

Mince

23rd May 2007, 11:20 AM

Gratz on your banning Architect. I'm on my 30th (just received one yesterday). And then in the very thread that caused my banning, I read this gem:

by look-up
I would have been embarrassed to watch The View before Rosies started speaking the truth on the show...

It's a shame that censorship has reached these levels...

Do they not see their own blatant hypocracy?

*emphasis added

Calcas

23rd May 2007, 11:23 AM

Add me to the list. I won't say who I was but I had been posting for well over a month and was always respectful. I just disagreed.

Que sera sera. Thier ship is sinking and all they can do is this.

http://kaykays.com/coffeemonkeys/strips/2003/23.SeeHearSpeakNoEvil.png

bje

23rd May 2007, 11:30 AM

Don't we get some award for getting banned at LCF?

Calcas

23rd May 2007, 11:40 AM

Don't we get some award for getting banned at LCF?

Oliver used to hand out patches but it was getting to be a full time job. I would have a sleeve full by now...

The Silver Shadow

23rd May 2007, 11:41 AM

Don't we get some award for getting banned at LCF?
Isn't Oliver working on one for Killtown right now?

Disbelief

23rd May 2007, 11:47 AM

I got banned about 3 weeks ago. I even sent Dylan a note asking him why I was banned since I mostly posted in the skeptics forum. Of course, I got no response.

Minadin

23rd May 2007, 11:52 AM

Architect

23rd May 2007, 12:32 PM

I see that the fellows are posting to me even after my banning, which does make me wonder....

The mass of the upper floors was considerable; if one assumes a nominal total weight of ten fluffernutters per square metre, one could assume a donkey might eat them, especially if he were hungry. As observable critcal data, the donkeys *ss being on fire is not relevant to the weight of the half eaten fluffernutters......... I'm with mirage memories. Go seek more approval at Jref. Stop your obstructionist behavior here, e^n. Don't go away angry, just go away. :lol:

kookbreaker

23rd May 2007, 12:37 PM

Gotta love the rank cowardice of the trooth movement.

Mince

23rd May 2007, 12:44 PM

I see that the fellows are posting to me even after my banning, which does make me wonder....

Heh. I especially love when a moderator (IVXX especially) gives his opinion on the subject matter (the final word) and then, in the very same post, closes the thread because it is irrelevant.

Architect

23rd May 2007, 12:53 PM

That seemed to be a strategy close to his heart today, telling us he was closing the threads because the <expletive of choice> didn't deserve the attention. Which was strange, because their members were giving it plenty of attention!

jaydeehess

23rd May 2007, 01:05 PM

just go away

Seems to be a common phrase, or one similar to it that rule 8 does not allow posting here, to be used just as one is banned.

IVXX (or four-twenty) is as much a ban Nazi as any other conspira-loon.

One would think that in the final post in which the admin states a personal opinion on the topic and then bans a poster , that he would have the common decency to give his reason for banning that poster. But that would require actually thinking of a reason that would not reveal the pure hypocrisy of these sites.

paraphrasing a well know "Seinfeld" episode
"No posts for you"

Quad4_72

23rd May 2007, 01:09 PM

Well Architect thats what you get for questioning their "movement"!

Architect

23rd May 2007, 01:11 PM

jaydeehess

23rd May 2007, 04:17 PM

Amusingly, if you look at the second last post here, Roxdog seems to think that my LCF avatar is actually me. :D

It's so nice to find that the CT movement is so well versed in current affairs and politics beyond the bounds of the USA.

(in a bad representation of the proper accent)
It cannae be. Tha' is no a big man.

jaydeehess

23rd May 2007, 04:22 PM

I checked out a few of Architect's posts over there.

Nope, no nastiness from him but you can see all the usual suspects charging in and not bothering with the topic at hand at all. Rather they often simply snipe.

That happens here as well when we get a CT posting. People gang up and bring up other topics. I try not to do that but know that I am guilty of it, it must be human nature. The big difference would be that they do not get banned soley for disagreeing with us.

jackchit

23rd May 2007, 05:10 PM

Brainache

23rd May 2007, 05:16 PM

I will pm IVXX and ask why you were banned, I may not agree with you on all issues but I think its your right to be able to post in a forum that is supposedly a "truth" forum.
As long as you are within the rules.

Jeez Jack, you'll be pretty busy if you do that for everone who has been banned from LCF for nothing more than polite disagreement. Send one for me (beachrain).

jackchit

23rd May 2007, 05:48 PM

Jeez Jack, you'll be pretty busy if you do that for everone who has been banned from LCF for nothing more than polite disagreement. Send one for me (beachrain).
Lets see if we get anywhere with Architect before we start asking questions and demanding answers.

Calcas

23rd May 2007, 05:49 PM

I will pm IVXX and ask why you were banned, I may not agree with you on all issues but I think its your right to be able to post in a forum that is supposedly a "truth" forum.
As long as you are within the rules.

Architect was one of at least a half dozen that got banned for no reason. Ask him what precipitated the latest "purging" of free speech.

Brainache

23rd May 2007, 05:50 PM

Lets see if we get anywhere with Architect before we start asking questions and demanding answers.

I look forward to hearing all about it.

bje

23rd May 2007, 07:03 PM

Lets see if we get anywhere with Architect before we start asking questions and demanding answers.

Asking questions is why we got attacked to begin with. Getting no answers is why we were banned.

Björn Toulouse

23rd May 2007, 07:14 PM

It's like this: you try to view the board, and you see a message that you don't have permission.

Are you sure that amounts to being banned there? I have never posted there but lurk a lot. I encounter that message loads of times but if I keep nosing around different threads, some will allow me access, and then I can get to where I want to go.

Many times I am "asked to log in" when I first hit the forum. I log in and it brings me right back to the log in page. So I just click the Loose Change Forum link at the top left and then I am "welcomed" in and am there with the threads.

LCF is the only forum where I have encountered such obstacles but I still manage to get past them. That's why I ask - is this the only way one is notified that they have been banned, that one has no permission? If so, then I have been banned and redeemed many, many times there.

Calcas

23rd May 2007, 08:25 PM

Are you sure that amounts to being banned there? I have never posted there but lurk a lot. I encounter that message loads of times but if I keep nosing around different threads, some will allow me access, and then I can get to where I want to go.

Many times I am "asked to log in" when I first hit the forum. I log in and it brings me right back to the log in page. So I just click the Loose Change Forum link at the top left and then I am "welcomed" in and am there with the threads.

LCF is the only forum where I have encountered such obstacles but I still manage to get past them. That's why I ask - is this the only way one is notified that they have been banned, that one has no permission? If so, then I have been banned and redeemed many, many times there.

If you only "lurk", then you can't be banned. I also get the message "you do not have permission..." frequently but it's probably due to my proxy and/or cookies.

We KNOW we are banned when, as a poster, our ID under our name says "gone." Check out any of the posts still there by Architect or the others. The posts are still there but under their name it says "gone."

And no, they never give a warning or even an explanation. They just ban you.

Björn Toulouse

23rd May 2007, 08:43 PM

If you only "lurk", then you can't be banned. I also get the message "you do not have permission..." frequently but it's probably due to my proxy and/or cookies.

We KNOW we are banned when, as a poster, our ID under our name says "gone." Check out any of the posts still there by Architect or the others. The posts are still there but under their name it says "gone."

And no, they never give a warning or even an explanation. They just ban you.

Thanks. That explains it more clearly for me. I knew I couldn't be truly banned without ever having posted. Something like that though happened with me and an xian board once.

Slayhamlet

23rd May 2007, 09:02 PM

There's a pretty funny post on the first page of that MSNBC thread:

A QUIZ

Who would you most likely avoid at a party?

a. An old girlfriend

b. Someone you have owed money to for over a year

c. Someone with poor personal hygiene

d. A 9-11 Conspiracy Theorist

:D

CurtC

23rd May 2007, 09:30 PM

We KNOW we are banned when, as a poster, our ID under our name says "gone." Check out any of the posts still there by Architect or the others. The posts are still there but under their name it says "gone."

Right, but even before that, you just try to access the main forum page, and you get the "do not have permission" message. Then you can delete your invision cookies, then you can look at a thread you've posted in and see that you've been banned.

However, the first time I was kicked out last year, I was not actually banned, but merely suspended for three years.

PhantomWolf

23rd May 2007, 09:47 PM

As far as I know, Gravy is still on the there, but not allowed to post list.

The Truth Movement: Ask Questions! Demand Answers! But not from us or we'll ban you.

Architect

24th May 2007, 01:14 AM

Architect

24th May 2007, 01:44 AM

I all the usual suspects charging in and not bothering with the topic at hand at all. Rather they often simply snipe.

That happens here as well when we get a CT posting. People gang up and bring up other topics. I try not to do that but know that I am guilty of it, it must be human nature.

I'd agree with this; I was amazed at how quickly some people (and not just obvious candidates such as 28th) came in with nasty insults rather than posts.

I've said before, and I'll doubtless say it again, we display some aspects of the same affliction on occassion; we may not use the same abusive language, but we gang up and generally poke fun at them. I don't think that it reflects well upon us.

It's all in stark contrast to the very measured (some would say staid) tones of BAUT forum where I (and if I recall correctly JayDee) kicked off. I do wonder if we should adopt to the middle ground somewhere between the two styles.

jackchit

24th May 2007, 03:31 AM

OK here is the reply
Architect was ban cause he was here to do nothing but distract and disrupt. From his first post you could tell he was here just to troll.
Remember i am just the messenger.

The Doc

24th May 2007, 03:39 AM

I know you're just the messenger Jack, so this isn't directed at you.

LC bans everyone for "being disruptive" or "trolling". If asking questions and demanding answers is "being disruptive", the irony meter would explode.

"Being disruptive" isn't an excuse. Anyone who disagrees with the moderators 9/11 theories at LCF, proves the moderators wrong, or someone who asks a difficult question to a moderator is a "troll". What a crock.

"Truth seekers" my ass.

Architect

24th May 2007, 03:44 AM

Well, anyone who reads my posts over there can make up their own minds; given that posted discussions included the nature of the damage to the basement and the likely pattern/outcome of localised CD then I think it would be fair to say that the fellow is being deeply unfair.

In fact I can't think of any occassion we've ever done something even vaguely similar here (see, by way of example, Christophera).

jackchit

24th May 2007, 05:33 AM

CurtC

24th May 2007, 06:49 AM

I've said before, and I'll doubtless say it again, we display some aspects of the same affliction on occassion; we may not use the same abusive language, but we gang up and generally poke fun at them. I don't think that it reflects well upon us.

I agree with this. I cringe when a new poster shows up and is immediately accused of being a sock, or of hiding his truther beliefs in his early posts. Witness what has recently happened with coughymachine, who asked a simple question and was pounced on because it reminded some people here of how truthers have acted in the past.

jaydeehess

24th May 2007, 07:04 AM

I agree with this. I cringe when a new poster shows up and is immediately accused of being a sock, or of hiding his truther beliefs in his early posts. Witness what has recently happened with coughymachine, who asked a simple question and was pounced on because it reminded some people here of how truthers have acted in the past.

I too cringe at this from members here. It is way too close to what happens to us at the other sites.

As Architect says, the civility level is much higher at other forums, most notably at BAUT (you are correct sir, I came here from there), and adoption of level in between that and what we see here would be in order , IMHO.

I am pleased with the posts in this thread by jackchit in regards to his civility and engagement in the topic at hand.

jaydeehess

24th May 2007, 07:14 AM

IVXX states:
Architect was ban cause he was here to do nothing but distract and disrupt. From his first post you could tell he was here just to troll

Well that is probably the excuse (as I hesitate to characterize it as "reason") for my own banning there. Oddly though, at the time I was involved in illustrating Killtown's no-plane-at-Shankesville conjectures to be rather stupid. The irony is that lately it seems that no-plane theories are no all that acceptable at LCF. It would be difficult to label me a troll for making arguements similar to those of some CT's in good standing at LCF.

I believe (its been a while now) that I did make some references to my assessment of Killtown's intelligence but there are the very same type of references made by others still in good standing. Frankly I never make any post with the vitriol in some of IVXX's posts themselves.

Architect

24th May 2007, 07:17 AM

The vitriol there suprised me, I must admit; I know of few (if any) forums stirving for credibility which would allow the language and downright nasty attacks which characterise some of the posters at LCF, notably the ever-delightful RoxDog and chums.

Hyperviolet

24th May 2007, 07:55 AM

Amusingly, if you look at the second last post here, Roxdog seems to think that my LCF avatar is actually me. :D

It's so nice to find that the CT movement is so well versed in current affairs and politics beyond the bounds of the USA.

Ahh big Al Salm!

Reading your posts there, Architect, i really do not see why you were banned other than the fact that you had a different point of view. You were almost too appeasing. Weird.

Stellafane

24th May 2007, 08:02 AM

Ahh big Al Salm!

Reading your posts there, Architect, i really do not see why you were banned other than the fact that you had a different point of view. You were almost too appeasing. Weird.

Actually, what the LC mod said about Architect was true. He "distracted" them from their fantasy world by telling them the truth, and he "disrupted" Avery's little flock by encouraging them to think for themselves. Can't have that now, can we?

Architect

24th May 2007, 08:11 AM

Ahh big Al Salm!

I'll come clean. It's a fair cop. LCF rumbled me.

I am actually Alex Salmond, aka Supreme Ruler of all Scotland.

When the NWO said that world leaders had to become personally involved in the forthcoming campaign, I took them seriously. Bet you never realised that "Gravy" was wee Sturgie. The only giveaway was the Partick Thistle link.

I have good reason to believe that 28th Kingdom is actually Dr. Reid.

:boxedin:

Hyperviolet

24th May 2007, 08:13 AM

I'll come clean. It's a fair cop. LCF rumbled me.

I am actually Alex Salmond, aka Supreme Ruler of all Scotland.

When the NWO said that world leaders had to become personally involved in the forthcoming campaign, I took them seriously. Bet you never realised that "Gravy" was wee Sturgie. The only giveaway was the Partick Thistle link.

I have good reason to believe that 28th Kingdom is actually Dr. Reid.

:boxedin:

:boxedin:

i say nothing

Rolfe

24th May 2007, 08:54 AM

It's remarkable how similar all this is to the repeated bannings of sceptics on the homoeopathy boards. One board allowed a "sceptics" forum, moderated by MRC Hans, who was civility itself, but even they had a sudden purge and all were gone. I lost count of how many times I was banned, it was five or six I think. Under several identities.

We haven't been there for a while, maybe it's time to start the dialogue going again. Could be instructive.

Regarding badges, the scheme regarding the homoeopathy "trolling" brigade is that anyone banned from a homoeopathy board may, if they with, ask Darat for the forum designation "Anti-homeopathy illuminati member". You could consider a similar designation for the anti-CT brigade, I suppose.

Rolfe.

Architect

24th May 2007, 09:07 AM

Some people have nothing to fear but honest debate, which does nothing but expose shoddy thinking and force everyone to think much more closely about what they say and do. Too many beliefs and opinions are founded on but the most cursory analysis of fact or evidence, and I hasten to add that this isn't restricted to the CT movement. Homeopathy. Astrology. Scientology!

It's quite amusing to watch the wilder planning objectors get caught this way at public inquiries when, of course, they have to answer.

I remember a senior lecturer in sociology or somesuch at a leading Scottish university happily calling Ove Arup "liars" in both the press and in his evidence, until their structural analysis landed on the table with a thump and the lawyer began "let's start at page 1, shall we? Perhaps you could tell me where the lies are there...". The guy made it to page 12 before he retracted his entire evidence.

As for titles and so on, Oliver used to make cracking badges for those who got ignored by 28th Kingdom and his ilk. I had one in Welsh. I believe it was the weather forecast in Tredegar, reflecting a series of what he clearly felt were deeply annoying posts in that fair language (courtesy of S4C).

;)

Minadin

24th May 2007, 10:15 AM

My 2 peneth for what its worth, whenever you frequent a forum with an opposing opinion to general concesus you are likely to be viewed by the admins a little more "strictly" than those who run with the staus quo.
I myself on this forum have been the subject of numerous post deletions with the reason cited as 'civility violation' whereas those who have called me names and called me a liar etc have not received the same treatment.
This is also true at the LC forum, I don't think that Architect deserved to be banned but I don't have the evidence of his "trolling" that IVXX seems to have to justify the ban.
Having a completely impartial admin is probably impossible when dealing with this subject matter, so while these bans may not be right they are inevitable, its human nature.

Jack - I think that several of the posts that you believe were deleted have actually been split off and moved to the "Abandon all Hope" and / or "Flame War" forums. I'm not sure if that accounts for all of them, but I don't want you to mistakenly think poorly of the Mod Team here, who in my experience have been extremely even-handed and transparent in their actions. I usually get a PM or some other form of notification when one of my posts is moved, with an explaination.

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 10:39 AM

Dave Rogers

24th May 2007, 10:44 AM

Architect

24th May 2007, 10:58 AM

Considering the abuse that's been wielded in the past here against members of LC in the JREF Conspiracy Forum, backlash is to be expected.

I'm not sure what the grievance against architect was but from at least one member's response (I don't recall the name), he was rather abusive to that member here.

My only issue with him was his failure to address the subject and tendency to steer with questions rather than give thoughtful responses.

Unquestionably he was polite but sometimes politeness is not the issue.

MM

Not a single rule was broken, not a single insult hurled. No point put to me was evaded - quite the opposite, as I asked for further information and links on several occassions. Although some posters were willing to debate, the majority stopped only to utter insults and be rude.

On this basis I think you would really be struggling to find a valid reason for the expulsion which, you will recall, came without so much as a warning or an e-mail telling me what had been done.

Why are LCF afraid of honest debate, MM?

VespaGuy

24th May 2007, 11:20 AM

Considering the abuse that's been wielded in the past here against members of LC in the JREF Conspiracy Forum, backlash is to be expected.

There is no 'backlash'. There is nothing to lash back at.

Sure, there are many posters here who are very agressive. And this is a skeptics forum... if you come here with extraordinary claims you will be asked to back them up. Considering how many times the same old long debunked canards keep surfacing, it's not surprising that regulars here have little patience.

Skeptics have been banned for asking questions at LCF long before 'truthers' starting posting here. There has never been a purge of conspiracy theorists here, as there have been skeptic purges at LCF. As a matter of fact, CTs that follow the forum rules are more than welcome here, and folks on either side of the issue are suspended or banned accordingly. Being anti-conspiracy does not gain special favors here... just ask Troy.

I'm not sure what the grievance against architect was but from at least one member's response

Who?

(I don't recall the name),

oh...

he was rather abusive to that member here.

So you don't know what was said or who it was said to. Got it.

My only issue with him was his failure to address the subject and tendency to steer with questions rather than give thoughtful responses.

Unquestionably he was polite but sometimes politeness is not the issue.

Exactly. Civility is not important on LCF (roxdog is proof of that). As long as you 'follow the leader' there, you're okay. If you ask the wrong questions, or attempt to discuss anything that may poke a hole in the CT fantasy, you are banned.

The differences between LCF and this forums are many. Your own welcome presence here is proof of that.

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 11:29 AM

Are you suggesting that it's acceptable for LCF to ban people based on posts they've made at JREF?

Dave

Not at all!

I don't like banning. There are many options available that don't require such an extreme response.

MM

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 11:32 AM

Not a single rule was broken, not a single insult hurled. No point put to me was evaded - quite the opposite, as I asked for further information and links on several occassions. Although some posters were willing to debate, the majority stopped only to utter insults and be rude.

On this basis I think you would really be struggling to find a valid reason for the expulsion which, you will recall, came without so much as a warning or an e-mail telling me what had been done.

Why are LCF afraid of honest debate, MM?

I don't believe there is a fear of honest debate.

I do think there is a concern about hidden agendas and disingenuous behavior.

MM

Architect

24th May 2007, 11:42 AM

Really? Then why no warnings? Why no guidance on acceptable conduct? Why none of the modding we see on other boards such as urban75 or BAUT?

aggle-rithm

24th May 2007, 11:45 AM

Jeez Jack, you'll be pretty busy if you do that for everone who has been banned from LCF for nothing more than polite disagreement. Send one for me (beachrain).

Me, too. I'm under a three-year suspension, no explanation offered.

Calcas

24th May 2007, 11:47 AM

I don't believe there is a fear of honest debate.

I do think there is a concern about hidden agendas and disingenuous behavior.

MM

Of course you're entitled to your opinion but I disagree that there isn't a fear of honest debate.

Architect was doing JUST that. In fact, he was bending over backwards to be polite and civil. He was questioning a number of "facts" and asking for evidence and clarification. How could that be considered disingenous or having a hidden agenda when he was clear where he was coming from?

aggle-rithm

24th May 2007, 11:48 AM

Architect was ban cause he was here to do nothing but distract and disrupt. From his first post you could tell he was here just to troll.

Exactly the sort of semi-literate response one would expect.

It helps LCF that the rules are so poorly defined that anything could be used as justification for banning.

Architect

24th May 2007, 11:48 AM

How do u know it was 3 years? I take it that you got some sort of notification?

aggle-rithm

24th May 2007, 11:50 AM

Well that is probably the excuse (as I hesitate to characterize it as "reason") for my own banning there. Oddly though, at the time I was involved in illustrating Killtown's no-plane-at-Shankesville conjectures to be rather stupid.

Hey, me too!

aggle-rithm

24th May 2007, 11:52 AM

Ahh big Al Salm!

Reading your posts there, Architect, i really do not see why you were banned other than the fact that you had a different point of view. You were almost too appeasing. Weird.

Nothing weird about it. That's the behavior we expect from people who would have to move a considerable distance to the left to qualify as Nazis.

Rolfe

24th May 2007, 11:55 AM

I don't believe there is a fear of honest debate.

I do think there is a concern about hidden agendas and disingenuous behavior.

MM
You mean, nobody's allowed to come on that board with any intention to put a contrary point of view? It seems to me that any pre-formed opinion that the Twin Towers came down exactly as everybody (but a few goof-balls) thinks they did is construed as a "hidden agenda", and any attempt to post in such a way as to put over the arguments for this opinion is "disingenuous behaviour".

The entire board sounds like nothing more than a mutual admiration society with a closed membership list.

Rolfe.

Architect

24th May 2007, 11:56 AM

AKA the Scottish Labour Party :dig:

aggle-rithm

24th May 2007, 11:56 AM

Considering the abuse that's been wielded in the past here against members of LC in the JREF Conspiracy Forum, backlash is to be expected.

Sorry, don't buy it. Their wretched behavior has been around far longer than the Conspiracy Forum at JREF.

aggle-rithm

24th May 2007, 12:01 PM

As a matter of fact, CTs that follow the forum rules are more than welcome here, and folks on either side of the issue are suspended or banned accordingly. Being anti-conspiracy does not gain special favors here... just ask Troy.

I think the only problem here is that members are far more likely to report a violation against someone that they disagree with, and look the other way if it's a comrade-in-arms. The forum mods/admins can only act on what they know about.

Architect

24th May 2007, 12:02 PM

Isn't that why we're getting the special "extra" scrutiny from the mods at the moment?

twinstead

24th May 2007, 12:02 PM

IMO LC, and perhaps even the entire truth movement, will NEVER gain any sort of respect as long as they continue to stifle dissent.

We don't always treat truthers with the utmost respect here, but they have to work extra extra hard to get banned; they are never banned simply for holding a contrary opinion.

aggle-rithm

24th May 2007, 12:03 PM

How do u know it was 3 years? I take it that you got some sort of notification?

No, when I tried to post I got a message saying I would be unable to post until May, 2009.

So I have two years left.

aggle-rithm

24th May 2007, 12:05 PM

R.Mackey

24th May 2007, 12:07 PM

I don't believe there is a fear of honest debate.

I do think there is a concern about hidden agendas and disingenuous behavior.

If you don't mind, I'd like to hear you give an example of a "hidden agenda" or "disingenuous behavior" that would warrant such treatment. I'll be highly surprised if you can come up with one that seems reasonable for Architect, and absolutely shocked if it's not mere speculation, but actually supported by evidence.

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 12:08 PM

There is no 'backlash'. There is nothing to lash back at.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion..and that's all it is.

Sure, there are many posters here who are very agressive. And this is a skeptics forum... if you come here with extraordinary claims you will be asked to back them up. Considering how many times the same old long debunked canards keep surfacing, it's not surprising that regulars here have little patience.

What may be 'old hat' for you is new stuff for first timers. If you want to wear the hat of a professional skeptic, then you have to have the patience necessary to cover old ground.

I'm sure doctors grow weary of people with the same health conditions but that doesn't mean they switch to a nasty bedside manner.

Skeptics have been banned for asking questions at LCF long before 'truthers' starting posting here. There has never been a purge of conspiracy theorists here, as there have been skeptic purges at LCF. As a matter of fact, CTs that follow the forum rules are more than welcome here, and folks on either side of the issue are suspended or banned accordingly. Being anti-conspiracy does not gain special favors here... just ask Troy.

What is your point. JREF is far more than just the Conspiracy Forum. It's a much larger and more professional entity than the largely amateur volunteer driven LC Forum. I'm sure there are many here who would support banning if JREF and the moderators would sanction it.

Who?

oh...

So you don't know what was said or who it was said to. Got it.

I suggest you talk to architect not me. I have no intention of fighting other people's battles.

Exactly. Civility is not important on LCF (roxdog is proof of that). As long as you 'follow the leader' there, you're okay. If you ask the wrong questions, or attempt to discuss anything that may poke a hole in the CT fantasy, you are banned.

The differences between LCF and this forums are many. Your own welcome presence here is proof of that.

Welcome..smile..that's kinda funny. Let's say at best, I'm tolerated.

Lets not forget your side is defending a Conspiracy Theory. The only difference is it's the Official Conspiracy Theory and derives all the benefits of being on side with all the money and power. My side, which believes in an Alternative Conspiracy Theory is the under dog and suffers all the disadvantages that come with that status.

MM

twinstead

24th May 2007, 12:11 PM

aggle-rithm

24th May 2007, 12:15 PM

Calcas

24th May 2007, 12:16 PM

aggle-rithm

24th May 2007, 12:16 PM

With all due respect to the truth movement, to us we are on the side with the evidence and logic.

I don't seem to have been on the receiving end of any of the money and power that you attribute to our 'theory'.

That's way more respect than they're due.

Architect

24th May 2007, 12:23 PM

Lets not forget your side is defending a Conspiracy Theory. The only difference is it's the Official Conspiracy Theory and derives all the benefits of being on side with all the money and power. My side, which believes in an Alternative Conspiracy Theory is the under dog and suffers all the disadvantages that come with that status.

With respect, one of the reasons that LCF et al are the underdogs (if you will) is that there is no cogent theory; it is fairly obvious, even on the LCF site, that the death beams and the no-planes theories are no longer considered plausible but some of the other leading lights of the movement do continue to endorse them. Even though they're obviously bunkum.

The second main issue is a failure to present evidence in a manner which most people would consider plausable or rigirous. Let me give you a simple example, and one which I don't think you would disagree with.

The susceptibility of iron and then steel structures to even normal fires has been recognised since the mid 19th century. Since the WWII we have seen many studies across the world testing the fire resistance of steel assemblies and developing fire protection systems. It is an issue covered in depth in the building regulations since long before I was born.

Yet a constant argument we see is that steel cannot be damaged by normal fires; that heat is wicked away too fast; that it doesn't in fact weaken at quite modest temperatures.

Now it's fairly obvious to the man in the street and the professionals that this fire hypothesis is rubbish. But the Truth movement keep marketing it as damning evidence, stopping only to refine the definition - "high rise steel building" is the current cathcphrase. And when the argument is rebuffed, they don't go out and get detailed reports which show that steel is impervious - they simply shout the original points, but much more loudly!

You will see that I made a similar point on LCF regarding the damage in the basements. Okay, damage occurred and LCF think it is indcative of a bomb. But what kind of damage? Where is it? Are there other plausible interpretations based upon the evidence? How were the lift shafts constructed and is the movement of the fuel possible? And so on. There is little attempt to interrogate the theory, and hence ensure it is robust, before it is presented as another damning coup.

[sigh]

CurtC

24th May 2007, 12:38 PM

Of course you're entitled to your opinion but I disagree that there isn't a fear of honest debate.

I think in their paranoid world view, it is impossible to have seen their evidence and then honestly still think it was really an act of Muslim terrorists. Therefore anyone who defends the official story is not debating honestly, but just stirring up trouble for whatever reason.

How do u know it was 3 years? I take it that you got some sort of notification?
I too was suspended for three years, and I can't recall exactly how I found out. I think it was sent to me in an email message. I don't recall being even able to read the boards while suspended (until I anonymized myself be deleting their cookies). But this was on the old board last year that eventually imploded.

Calcas

24th May 2007, 12:44 PM

I too was suspended for three years, and I can't recall exactly how I found out. I think it was sent to me in an email message. I don't recall being even able to read the boards while suspended (until I anonymized myself be deleting their cookies). But this was on the old board last year that eventually imploded.

I agree. I seem to remember getting banned for 3 years also on the old board just before it blew up. I believe every time I tried to sign on it said something to the effect that I was suspended until some date in 2009.

I don't think they do that on the new board...you just get axed.

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 12:56 PM

If you don't mind, I'd like to hear you give an example of a "hidden agenda" or "disingenuous behavior" that would warrant such treatment. I'll be highly surprised if you can come up with one that seems reasonable for Architect, and absolutely shocked if it's not mere speculation, but actually supported by evidence.

Well I'd hate to surprise or shock you RM.

Obviously you feel I'm ignoring your NIST defence.

Here's something more to your liking;

Some basic factual information extracted from the NIST report;

WTC1 (North Tower) structural and insulation damage after 767 impact;
Boeing 767 targets 95th floor 'lighter core' dead center.

35 of 240 exterior columns severed, 2 heavily damaged. 15%
6 of 47 core columns severed, 3 heavily damaged. 13%
43 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors

WTC2 (South Tower) structural and insulation damage after 767 impact;
Boeing 767 targets 80th floor right corner partially impacting heavier core.

33 of 240 exterior columns severed, 2 heavily damaged. 14%
10 of 47 core columns severed, 3 heavily damaged. 21%
39 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors

Prior to the final NIST report, MIT professor Thomas Eager wrote in a major scientific journal that the effects of the Boeing 767 crashes would have been insignificant, because "the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure."

In WTC2 (South Tower), NIST estimates that 10 core columns were severed. This is not a logical expectation for a number of reasons;

The WTC2 (South Tower) 80th floor (impact zone) core columns were thicker as the lower floors had to support greater upper building load, compared to the WTC1(North Tower) 95th floor (impact zone). Thus the WTC2 core columns should have been more difficult to sever.

The WTC2 (South Tower), was struck near the right corner, and NIST admits it's right engine exited the building without significant obstruction.

In reality, only the planes left wing and engine would have been able to do any core damage. Having been largely destroyed breaking through the perimeter wall, the wing could not have done much damage to the core leaving only the single engine. NIST claims that an engine would severe one column at most.

NIST determines greater damage to WTC2 (South Tower) even though they figured it's heavier core was only impacted by one engine and wing debris. In spite of the fact that fewer core columns were in the WTC2 (South Tower) flight path, and in spite of their greater strength and weight, NIST accepted a severing of 10 WTC2 core columns and only 6 in WTC1 (North Tower) which was struck dead center and had weaker and lighter core columns.

Apparently NIST severed the other 9 columns via computer simulations using the most severe case scenario.

I would have mentioned this stuff before but I got bogged down in so much NIST trivia.

I know this is off this thread topic but have a meeting in a moment and I don't have time to locate that original thread this better connects to.

MM

R.Mackey

24th May 2007, 01:00 PM

Well I'd hate to surprise or shock you RM.

Obviously you feel I'm ignoring your NIST defence.

Here's something more to your liking;

Some basic factual information extracted from the NIST report;

Just answer my question, please.

For those who are confused, Miragememories is referring to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79311), wherein you will see him repeatedly refuse to answer even the simplest of questions, much as he has just done yet again.

I'm also not at all of the opinion he's "ignoring" my defense, given that the thread above shows him to be utterly vanquished.

Belz...

24th May 2007, 01:08 PM

Belz...

24th May 2007, 01:13 PM

What is your point. JREF is far more than just the Conspiracy Forum. It's a much larger and more professional entity than the largely amateur volunteer driven LC Forum. I'm sure there are many here who would support banning if JREF and the moderators would sanction it.

What the hell is that supposed to mean ?

Welcome..smile..that's kinda funny. Let's say at best, I'm tolerated.

That's already much better than what they do over at LC.

Lets not forget your side is defending a Conspiracy Theory.

You have no idea what a Conspiracy Theory is, if you think the "official" story is a CT.

The only difference is it's the Official Conspiracy Theory and derives all the benefits of being on side with all the money and power. My side, which believes in an Alternative Conspiracy Theory is the under dog and suffers all the disadvantages that come with that status.

That's nice. How exactly does this support your point ?

VespaGuy

24th May 2007, 01:14 PM

What may be 'old hat' for you is new stuff for first timers. If you want to wear the hat of a professional skeptic, then you have to have the patience necessary to cover old ground.

"Professional skeptic"? Who's claiming to be that? I (like most here) have full-time jobs and spend free time on a skeptical forum. Nobody is professing to be a "professional skeptic" here that I know of.

(Besides, who wants to go "Pro"? Then you can't compete in the "skeptic olympics".)

I'm sure doctors grow weary of people with the same health conditions but that doesn't mean they switch to a nasty bedside manner.

Unless you're claiming that 9/11 conspiracy belief is an illness, I don't see the analogy.

(by the way, see how much tolerance your doctor has if you go to his office, listen to his diagnosis, and then say "thanks, Doc, but I have a homeopathic pill I bought at Bread & Circus. Even though I know nothing about medicine, I'm going to take this homeopathic pill instead of your prescription." Now do that every time you go to see him. I doubt he will keep that same pleasant bedside manner)

What is your point. JREF is far more than just the Conspiracy Forum. It's a much larger and more professional entity than the largely amateur volunteer driven LC Forum.

If you are claiming that the JREF has more "professionals" as members, I whole-heartedly agree. But membership here is just as voluntary as the LC forum.

If you are talking simply of the moderation, I agree that Dylan and the crew at LCF are extremely unprofessional.

I'm sure there are many here who would support banning if JREF and the moderators would sanction it.

Without anything to back that up, I'll assume that you are simply pulling it out of thin air.

I suggest you talk to architect not me. I have no intention of fighting other people's battles.

You are the one that brought up this mysterious person. You don't want to back up what you said? Fine.

Are you beginning to understand why some folks here have little patience?

Welcome..smile..that's kinda funny. Let's say at best, I'm tolerated.

Tolerance is a virtue unknown to the LCF crowd.

If you were expecting a parade with flowers, I'm sorry for the dissappointment. This is a skeptical and critical thinking forum. If you make a claim, you'd be prepared to defend it.

Lets not forget your side is defending a Conspiracy Theory. The only difference is it's the Official Conspiracy Theory and derives all the benefits of being on side with all the money and power.

No. Just because you call it one, does not make it so. Is it possible that nobody has corrected you on this.

Yes, there was a conspiracy to attack the US by hijacking passenger planes and flying them into buidlings. That is not a 'conspiracy theory' as the term is used in popular language.

My side, which believes in an Alternative Conspiracy Theory is the under dog and suffers all the disadvantages that come with that status.

Your side suffers from lack of evidence, and lack of anything resembling an actual theory.

VespaGuy

24th May 2007, 01:18 PM

I think the only problem here is that members are far more likely to report a violation against someone that they disagree with, and look the other way if it's a comrade-in-arms. The forum mods/admins can only act on what they know about.

I agree. My point should have been that once the mod team receives a report, the label of "truther" or "skeptic" does not weigh on their decision.

This is obviously not the case at LCF.

Architect

24th May 2007, 01:26 PM

I'm not sure that beating up MM exactly looks good in a thread complaining about shabby treatment at LCF, you know......

twinstead

24th May 2007, 01:30 PM

I'm not sure that beating up MM exactly looks good in a thread complaining about shabby treatment at LCF, you know......

Acknowledged we treat CTs shabbily here sometimes. We shouldn't, but as long as he isn't banned, we're still one up on LC.

At least MM can post his responses to us.

scissorhands

24th May 2007, 01:47 PM

I think the case with LCF is that its not meant as a forum for debate in the first place. The underlying reason for its existence is to pimp whatever abortion of a film that Dylan comes up with next.
Its populated by a high proportion of gullible teenagers that doubtless embarrass him with their inane posts on a daily basis.But they are HIS gullible teenagers and his bread and butter market.
Therefore its hardly surprising that the mods there have so little tolerance of dissent.
Avery isnt that bright, but he knows about customer loyalty.

VespaGuy

24th May 2007, 01:48 PM

I'm not sure that beating up MM exactly looks good in a thread complaining about shabby treatment at LCF, you know......

"Beating up"?

C'mon Architect, MMs original post had some spurious claims. Folks called him on them.

Nobody's yelling "shill" or "troll", nobodies hurling insults, and he's most definately not being suspended or banned.

twinstead

24th May 2007, 01:53 PM

Architect

24th May 2007, 01:55 PM

"Beating up"?

C'mon Architect, MMs original post had some spurious claims. Folks called him on them.

Nobody's yelling "shill" or "troll", nobodies hurling insults, and he's most definately not being suspended or banned.

I dunno, it read it a bit "shouty".

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 02:11 PM

The entire board sounds like nothing more than a mutual admiration society with a closed membership list.

Rolfe.

I couldn't let that statement go by without comment.

You have just described the JREF Conspiracy Forum on the button!

MM

VespaGuy

24th May 2007, 02:15 PM

I dunno, it read it a bit "shouty".

Ok, I'll give you that (although I think that most debates read that way.)

However, member behaviour and moderation behaviour are two different things. The issue at hand was the lopsided moderation at LCF. The only reason the JREF moderation was even brought up was because MM claimed that the LCF bans were 'backlash'.

Since the JREF moderation has been extremely fair, and since the Conspiracy Forums didn't even exist when dissenting opinions were initially being purged from LCF, I think it's pretty obvious that MMs 'backlash' reasoning is hogwash.

Rika

24th May 2007, 02:15 PM

The facts notwithstanding, eh, MM? Seriously, we aren't a mutual admiraiton society becuase we like to have facts.

VespaGuy

24th May 2007, 02:19 PM

I couldn't let that statement go by without comment.

You have just described the JREF Conspiracy Forum on the button!

MM

Care to explain why you think the JREF has closed membership?

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 02:20 PM

Just answer my question, please.

For those who are confused, Miragememories is referring to this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79311), wherein you will see him repeatedly refuse to answer even the simplest of questions, much as he has just done yet again.

I'm also not at all of the opinion he's "ignoring" my defense, given that the thread above shows him to be utterly vanquished.

So you'd rather discuss personality treatments rather than engineering fallacies for a change?

I never saw you deal with my challenge to your "fuel momentum capable of taking out core columns" belief!

NIST negates it as I sourced, but you ignored that response and stayed with your rhetoric.

Sorry. You'd rather talk about bs bannings which I have no involvement in and can only express an opinion which I have.

MM

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 02:23 PM

Ok, I'll give you that (although I think that most debates read that way.)

However, member behaviour and moderation behaviour are two different things. The issue at hand was the lopsided moderation at LCF. The only reason the JREF moderation was even brought up was because MM claimed that the LCF bans were 'backlash'.

Since the JREF moderation has been extremely fair, and since the Conspiracy Forums didn't even exist when dissenting opinions were initially being purged from LCF, I think it's pretty obvious that MMs 'backlash' reasoning is hogwash.

Wrong!

I never said moderators were responding as backlash.

I was referring to how some and I emphasize some LC members were voicing ill feeling about JREF as what I interpreted to be backlash from their ill treatment here.

MM

uk_dave

24th May 2007, 02:31 PM

Prior to the final NIST report, MIT professor Thomas Eager wrote in a major scientific journal that the effects of the Boeing 767 crashes would have been insignificant, because "the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure."

Well I'd hate the shock you but the tower DID survive the initial impact of the plane.

Of course what you wilfully ignore is the FACT that the subsequent fire compounded the initial damage to the point where the structure failed.

Now, I know that you know this.
You know that you know this.

So, why do you continue to spin?

VespaGuy

24th May 2007, 02:39 PM

Wrong!

I never said moderators were responding as backlash.

I was referring to how some and I emphasize some LC members were voicing ill feeling about JREF as what I interpreted to be backlash from their ill treatment here.

MM

It's obvious to anyone who reads the thread what you were saying, MM.

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 02:44 PM

It's obvious to anyone who reads the thread what you were saying, MM.

You can put whatever spin you like on my words.

I have no idea what the LC moderators think as they have never corresponded with me.

I do see in their posts, what various LC members feel and it was those reactions that prompted my response.

Go back to Mindreading 101.

MM

Belz...

24th May 2007, 02:49 PM

I couldn't let that statement go by without comment.

You have just described the JREF Conspiracy Forum on the button!

MM

Well, well. Miragememories' first Tu Quoque of the day.

Architect

24th May 2007, 02:53 PM

MM - you and Jackchit seem to agree that nothing was done to warrant the banning, but neither of you are party to the mods decision. You also think that the mods there may feel a bit embattled and hence this could colour their response to JREFers. You both reckon we at JREF can be a wee bit like that too, and jump down people's throats. Agreed?

Vespa - They're not particularly supporting the mods decision, they seem to acknowledge that LCF may not be quite as open to sceptic views as one would expect, and all of us at JREF reckon it's evidence of a deeper schism. We know that Roxdog and others are nasty beyone belief, but we also acknowledge that sometimes we jump down CTers throats the moment they appear. Agreed?

Right, can we get back to technical issues? And please MM, stop putting "drop" in bold and repeating it all the time. It doesn't help. Let's all stick to evidence and science. Except in the case of Kingdom, who might want to consider it for the first time!

:crowded:

VespaGuy

24th May 2007, 03:02 PM

You can put whatever spin you like on my words.

I have no idea what the LC moderators think as they have never corresponded with me.

I do see in their posts, what various LC members feel and it was those reactions that prompted my response.

Go back to Mindreading 101.

MM

Your original post, directed at nobody, in a thread about banning and lopsided moderation at LCF, with no mention of LC members 'feelings', said that backlash was expected.

It would definately take a mind-reader to interpret it to mean what you say it meant.

But no worries; we can now agree that the banning was not backlash for truther treatment here, correct?

VespaGuy

24th May 2007, 03:04 PM

Vespa - They're not particularly supporting the mods decision, they seem to acknowledge that LCF may not be quite as open to sceptic views as one would expect, and all of us at JREF reckon it's evidence of a deeper schism. We know that Roxdog and others are nasty beyone belief, but we also acknowledge that sometimes we jump down CTers throats the moment they appear. Agreed?

Agreed. And I apologise for the MM derail.

uk_dave

24th May 2007, 03:08 PM

OK, so let's say we frequent a forum where the general consensus is that on a sunny day the sky is blue.

Then along comes a poster who wants us to believe that actually the sky is purple.

Is that poster required to justify his/her claim?

Now, let's say we frequent a forum where everyone believes that the sky is purple.

And along comes a poster who wants us to believe that the sky is actually blue.

Is the poster required to convince us that the sky is blue, or are we required to convince the poster that the sky is purple?

Architect

24th May 2007, 03:12 PM

I'm from Scotland. The sky is grey.

:confused:

ETA: but clearly been photshopped in my avatar

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 03:29 PM

Well I'd hate the shock you but the tower DID survive the initial impact of the plane.

I don't see your point David? My point was in regard to the gross exaggeration of NIST's damage claims.

WTC1 was hit dead center on the 95th floor where the core was lighter and weaker because it was engineered for less overhead load (15 floors) than the core on the 80th floor of WTC2 which carried 30 floors.

WTC1's core would have lined up with the both of the 767 engines as well as the landing gear (as R. Mackey likes to point out).

Surprisingly, NIST decided WTC1 received less core damage than WTC2 which was hit off center in the corner. WTC2's stronger core was impacted by only one engine and whatever fragments from the left wing which survived the impact with the perimeter wall.

NIST decided WTC2 had 67% more of it's stronger core columns severed (10 of 47) than for WTC1 (6 of 47).

Certainly this aided their fire hypothesis as the amount of initial core damage was critical to their achieving a successful simulated collapse initiation!

Of course what you wilfully ignore is the FACT that the subsequent fire compounded the initial damage to the point where the structure failed.

Now, I know that you know this.
You know that you know this.

So, why do you continue to spin?

All things being equal, WTC2 (South Tower) should have had less structural damage and because of the corner impact, less fire, yet it collapsed in roughly half the time of WTC1 (North Tower).

MM

Quad4_72

24th May 2007, 03:36 PM

Certainly this aided their fire hypothesis as the amount of initial core damage was critical to their achieving a successful simulated collapse initiation!

MM

Here you seem to be suggesting that NIST is involved in the conspiracy by intentionally altering their evidence to make it fit their theory. Please provide some evidence as to why NIST would do this and what they stand to gain. Were they paid off? If you are going to suggest that NIST is trying to cover up the murder of thousands, you need some EVIDENCE.

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 03:43 PM

Right, can we get back to technical issues? And please MM, stop putting "drop" in bold and repeating it all the time. It doesn't help. Let's all stick to evidence and science. Except in the case of Kingdom, who might want to consider it for the first time!

:crowded:

I use emphasis (BOLD), when I feel it's necessary for people to actually stop and consider a statement more carefully than they appear to be doing.

DROP may not be a nice technical term but it's meaning is clear to engineers and lay people alike.

You ignored it's use at LC, never responding, but instead redirecting via questions about my opinions on other reports.

Greening was particular concerned about NIST's failure to address the exact means of sudden onset collapse initiation (DROP) and so am I.

The large kinetic energy requirement for the Official Conspiracy Theory collapse hypothesis is based on this 1 floor DROP.

MM

Miragememories

24th May 2007, 04:52 PM

Here you seem to be suggesting that NIST is involved in the conspiracy by intentionally altering their evidence to make it fit their theory. Please provide some evidence as to why NIST would do this and what they stand to gain. Were they paid off? If you are going to suggest that NIST is trying to cover up the murder of thousands, you need some EVIDENCE.

When I speak of NIST, I'm thinking usually of the NIST Administration. These are the people who set policy, determine priorities, wield real decision making power etc. etc.

Yes I believe NIST administrators have an agenda and continue to follow a path that is based more on political belief and obedience, than loyalty to scientific truth.

Provide evidence you say.

If you didn't pick up my point in the earlier post about the disparate damage between WTC1 and WTC2, then short of the NIST administrators making a public confession, I don't see you accepting anything I bring to the table.

The leaders of the U.S. government were openly stating the chosen theory long before NIST had to give it any thought. The public witnessed the once in a lifetime (hopefully) traumatizing televised 'shock and awe' event of 9/11, they were immediately told the Official Conspiracy Theory, the major media gave their unanimous support, mass opinion quickly solidified in favor of the what became a well entrenched Official Conspiracy Theory and any nay sayers were quickly accused of being unpatriotic, nutcases or closet terrorists.

NIST, a branch of the U.S. government's Commerce Dept., was given the funding and the assignment to investigate the technical details of 9/11 and the WTC. NIST administrators who were overseeing this major investigation are career public administrators. They knew which way the wind was blowing.

Since I don't suggest or have any reason to believe NIST was involved in what transpired on 9/11, I'm sure they never considered a lack of objectivity to be evil.

They had two choices. Either aircraft damage and fire brought the towers down or it was a controlled demolition.

Make the numbers crunch for choice No.1 through tight overseering of the investigation or "damn the torpedoes" and risk a wide open objective investigation that might result in a conclusion of choice No.2 and have to present that finding publicly.

We all know the likely horrific consequences that would have resulted from a choice No.2 finding.

MM

Belz...

24th May 2007, 07:27 PM

Surprisingly, NIST decided WTC1 received less core damage than WTC2 which was hit off center in the corner.

I find your use of the word "decided" somewhat dishonest.

Certainly this aided their fire hypothesis as the amount of initial core damage was critical to their achieving a successful simulated collapse initiation!

Circular reasoning. You're assuming they lied, and then fitting a theory to explain it.

All things being equal, WTC2 (South Tower) should have had less structural damage and because of the corner impact, less fire, yet it collapsed in roughly half the time of WTC1 (North Tower).

Less CORE structural damage. Or did you forget what part of the building held most of the mass up ? Also, you might have missed the fact that the airplane hit much lower. Or will you ignore that and not respond, like every truther before you, whenever I mention that ?

Yes I believe NIST administrators have an agenda and continue to follow a path that is based more on political belief and obedience, than loyalty to scientific truth.

Provide evidence you say.

Wouldn't you ask for the same ?

Belz...

24th May 2007, 07:32 PM

If you didn't pick up my point in the earlier post about the disparate damage between WTC1 and WTC2, then short of the NIST administrators making a public confession, I don't see you accepting anything I bring to the table.

Again, you're assuming your conclusion.

The leaders of the U.S. government were openly stating the chosen theory long before NIST had to give it any thought.

So in order to be credible to you, an investigation's conclusion has to be at odds with the original assessment ?

The public witnessed the once in a lifetime (hopefully) traumatizing televised 'shock and awe' event of 9/11, they were immediately told the Official Conspiracy Theory, the major media gave their unanimous support, mass opinion quickly solidified in favor of the what became a well entrenched Official Conspiracy Theory and any nay sayers were quickly accused of being unpatriotic, nutcases or closet terrorists.

And what part of this do you find suspicious ? People well-versed in Bin Laden's history were quick to single him out; many of them didn't have any affiliation with the government. Hell, the first thing _I_ thought was "terrorists!" before anyone else said anything about it. And the response to nay-sayers ? What do you expect from people ? Remember communist paranoia back in the day ?

NIST, a branch of the U.S. government's Commerce Dept.,

and therefore thoroughly evil,

was given the funding and the assignment to investigate the technical details of 9/11 and the WTC. NIST administrators who were overseeing this major investigation are career public administrators. They knew which way the wind was blowing.

Speculation. We can go on all day about what you think went on in other people's heads, but in the end you simply have no evidence to support your claim. All you have is your opinion that people in power are uniformly bad, and that all government employees are mindless drones that obey orders without question or remorse.

Make the numbers crunch for choice No.1 through tight overseering of the investigation or "damn the torpedoes" and risk a wide open objective investigation that might result in a conclusion of choice No.2 and have to present that finding publicly.

We all know the likely horrific consequences that would have resulted from a choice No.2 finding.

Yes, and we also all know that any expert from outside the US would have been quick to point out the obvious flaws in the reports had this been true.

Or do you ?

R.Mackey

24th May 2007, 09:54 PM

So you'd rather discuss personality treatments rather than engineering fallacies for a change?

I never saw you deal with my challenge to your "fuel momentum capable of taking out core columns" belief!

NIST negates it as I sourced, but you ignored that response and stayed with your rhetoric.

Sorry. You'd rather talk about bs bannings which I have no involvement in and can only express an opinion which I have.

I'm really finding your behavior hard to understand, Miragememories.

For what it's worth, I answered your "fuel momentum vs. core column" question (a simple case of you conflating two arguments) in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2581955#post2581955), as part of a three week project where I argued you to a standstill on NIST. But that's neither here nor there. None of this has the slightest bearing on this thread, or on what I asked you.

You said (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2629306#post2629306) that the Loose Change forums were concerned about "hidden agendas and disingenuous behavior." I don't know what that means. So I asked you this question:

If you don't mind, I'd like to hear you give an example of a "hidden agenda" or "disingenuous behavior" that would warrant such treatment. I'll be highly surprised if you can come up with one that seems reasonable for Architect, and absolutely shocked if it's not mere speculation, but actually supported by evidence.

This has nothing to do with bannings, and everything to do with your opinion. So why won't you answer? I simply don't see your problem.

Slayhamlet

24th May 2007, 10:00 PM

Dave Rogers

25th May 2007, 02:32 AM

Not at all!

I don't like banning. There are many options available that don't require such an extreme response.

You've missed the point. Do you think it's acceptable for LCF to take disciplinary action against a member based on posts that member has made at JREF? Because that's what you're suggesting is happening.

Dave

Architect

25th May 2007, 04:41 AM

According to the delightful chaps on LCF I've not been banned, I've run away in fear of the arguments.

LOL. man they were loosers. bet they couldnt take the FACTS and ran away.

Witty or what, eh?

Meanwhile one of the Truthers is feeling the pressure from his own colleagues!

I see what's going on here. I am some sort of "infiltrator" by asking that question and will be forever held in suspicion for that. I see now,.

Listen you paranoid little slanderous PUNK. I am not here for your acceptance or "friendship". I am here to learn and possibly share information about the SUBVERSION of our country. I could care less about your personal feelings about me. When I hear voice recordings of people being MURDERED by a building falling on them, the last thing I think about is YOUR drama with the "JREF'ers"and your paranoia about who "might be lurking " in your precious WORLD errr forum.

Your slander is noted, NEVER address me again here on this forum, in fact pretend I'm not here. I have no tolerance for slander. It has jaded the 9/11 community and I won't tolerate it from you. Not on your [rule8] life pal.

I'm warming to this fellow, despite his rather strange theories.

bje

25th May 2007, 06:27 AM

When I speak of NIST, I'm thinking usually of the NIST Administration. These are the people who set policy, determine priorities, wield real decision making power etc. etc.

Yes I believe NIST administrators have an agenda and continue to follow a path that is based more on political belief and obedience, than loyalty to scientific truth.

Provide evidence you say.

If you didn't pick up my point in the earlier post about the disparate damage between WTC1 and WTC2, then short of the NIST administrators making a public confession, I don't see you accepting anything I bring to the table.

Here's the issue you and doubters at LCF need to address:

NIST's evidence, procedures, methodology, the qualifications of its invstigators, and its conclusions are fully open and transparent to everyone including, and especially, every qualified person in the world schooled in the disciplines used to study the collapses.

Furthermore, public hearings were held and the ability to submit public comments was present throughout the process.

Anyone in the world may challenge any part of the entire NIST investigation. But, in so doing, any challenge is subject to the same standards. You are entitled to question aspects you do not understand; you are also responsible for listening to the answers and either accept them or rebut them. You need to provide a plausible rebuttal with evidence.

What we see at LCF and with the entire 9/11 Truth Movement is quite different.

We hear repeated assertions and that have been answered repeatedly, yet the answers are rejected without any cogent rebuttal. If your claim is debunked, you have the obligation of demonstrating that the debunking is wrong; you don't ever to do that.

Your entire narrative is infused with claims of political motivation, coverups, dastardly deeds, but with no supporting evidence. When asked to provide a cogent and plausible scenario of how the entire "plot" that forms the basis of your claims was planned and executed successfully from A to Z with a small number of people, never seen, never found out, you guys never will answer the question.

Whether you admit it to yourself or not, the burden of proof is all on your shoulders. There are great knowledgeable people here who are offering their help - but you summarily dismiss them because - you know this - they bring you facts inconvenient to your desired conclusion.

When you cannot get beyond the same claims that were debunked up to 5 years ago, when you refuse to address issues that are inconvenient to your "narrative", you will go nowhere.

It's time for some intellectual honesty from you guys.

Pookster

25th May 2007, 07:03 AM

Well Architect thats what you get for questioning their "movement"!

I think this post is spot on. I long ago realized that the "truth movement" is in many ways a religion. Just look at the signs of it - the blind faith of many in the movement, ignoring or explaining away any facts that go against their faith, etc. The Government/NWO/The Empire/etc. is the equivalent of Satan. Architect was in their "church" questioning their beliefs. It quickly became apparent to them that he wasn't there seeking guidance to turn from his sinful ways. No, Architect was disingenuous with his questions. To them, it was clear he had a hidden agenda. It quickly became obvious that he was there to turn people away from their church. Therefore, Satan was cast out.

Calcas

25th May 2007, 11:06 AM

I think this post is spot on. I long ago realized that the "truth movement" is in many ways a religion. Just look at the signs of it - the blind faith of many in the movement, ignoring or explaining away any facts that go against their faith, etc. The Government/NWO/The Empire/etc. is the equivalent of Satan. Architect was in their "church" questioning their beliefs. It quickly became apparent to them that he wasn't there seeking guidance to turn from his sinful ways. No, Architect was disingenuous with his questions. To them, it was clear he had a hidden agenda. It quickly became obvious that he was there to turn people away from their church. Therefore, Satan was cast out.

Yup.

Try and go to a Scientology meeting and ask questions...

jaydeehess

25th May 2007, 11:59 AM

posting with having only read a few of the recent posts

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Prior to the final NIST report, MIT professor Thomas Eager wrote in a major scientific journal that the effects of the Boeing 767 crashes would have been insignificant, because "the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure."

He stated it would be "insignificant"????? Perhaps you'd like to quote his reference in this regard. Say, the sentence containing the word "insignificant" as well as the sentences bracketing that one.

As for the damage to the core of WTC 1 & 2, you of course are well aware that the outer wall of WTC1 that was hit was twice as far from the core as was the outer wall of WTC 2 that was hit? The buildings had a square outer perimeter but the core was rectangular.

Then there is the fact that the plane that hit WTC 2 was going faster and turning intowards the center of the building when it hit, but we can just set that aside since you will not believe those facts from NIST anyway. You really have no choice but to accept that that first fact though, the construction detail of the buildings.

CurtC

25th May 2007, 03:35 PM

Dylan just posted a new thread:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9843

In which he links to a video of the South Tower collapsing. I'm not sure exactly what his point is of posting it.

However, he just posted this:I notice the skeptics are eerily quiet on this.
Uhh, yeah! They've been banned. Makes me want to sign up over there (again) just to post that.

Arus808

25th May 2007, 06:16 PM

Dylan just posted a new thread:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=9843

In which he links to a video of the South Tower collapsing. I'm not sure exactly what his point is of posting it.

However, he just posted this:
Uhh, yeah! They've been banned. Makes me want to sign up over there (again) just to post that.

Maybe he thinks that we should make a big stink here... you know, since we are banned there, then we should put the discussion here.

Belz...

26th May 2007, 04:07 AM

Most of the Truthers have been banned from here as well. P'Doh more than his share of times, in fact.

Of course, over here it's because they simply get banned on purpose.

kookbreaker

26th May 2007, 08:05 AM

Most of the Truthers have been banned from here as well. P'Doh more than his share of times, in fact.

Not really. Truthers usually just run away. conspiracybeliever (RoxDog) was never banned. He just ran away. Christophera and Christopher7 were not banned AFAIK. Miragememories, etc.

Most of the 'banned CTs' were just Pdoh sock puppets.

Of course, over here it's because they simply get banned on purpose.

There were a couple of suicide my mods, yes.

Belz...

27th May 2007, 08:21 AM

Not really. Truthers usually just run away. conspiracybeliever (RoxDog) was never banned. He just ran away. Christophera and Christopher7 were not banned AFAIK. Miragememories, etc.

Well, many of the non-banned ones were suspended once or twice, at least, and some didn't come back.

gumboot

27th May 2007, 08:47 AM

Christophera was banned.

Put it this way, in the (nearly) year that I have posted here, I have seen tonnes and tonnes of CTers banned (and they couldn't all be socks). From memory, Perry Logan is the only 9/11 debunker I have ever seen banned.

-Gumboot

Liszt

27th May 2007, 08:55 AM

I thought Perry Logan was banned because he insisted on including a link in his sig to that God awful website of his.

I´m Logar from the planet Logar!

It doesn´t even make sense.

kookbreaker

27th May 2007, 09:52 AM

Not the case with Perry. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77002&highlight=Perry+Logan)

Miragememories

27th May 2007, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Miragememories http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2629927#post2629927)
Surprisingly, NIST decided WTC1 received less core damage than WTC2 which was hit off center in the corner.

I find your use of the word "decided" somewhat dishonest.

I find your conclusion somewhat totally wrong!

Originally Posted by Miragememories http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2629927#post2629927)

Certainly this aided their fire hypothesis as the amount of initial core damage was critical to their achieving a successful simulated collapse initiation!

Circular reasoning. You're assuming they lied, and then fitting a theory to explain it.

They had a given belief and it influenced them. Everything about the 'tone' of the NIST report indicated no doubts or concerns about the believed cause. Can you cite any statements that suggest "not a foregone conclusion"?

Less CORE structural damage. Or did you forget what part of the building held most of the mass up ? Also, you might have missed the fact that the airplane hit much lower. Or will you ignore that and not respond, like every truther before you, whenever I mention that ???? Your point? Why would I ignore that? Of course I know it hit lower..duh! It hit 15 floors lower, where the core was stronger and the 767 hit WTC2 off center thus avoiding most of the core and doing even less critical damage.

MM

CptColumbo

27th May 2007, 05:53 PM

I find your conclusion somewhat totally wrong!

MM
I find that sentence to be totally somewhat absolutely kinda completely incomprehensible. :)

Mancman

27th May 2007, 06:14 PM

??? Your point? Why would I ignore that? Of course I know it hit lower..duh! It hit 15 floors lower, where the core was stronger and the 767 hit WTC2 off center thus avoiding most of the core and doing even less critical damage.

MM

Have you considered that a 767 travelling at 472mph (211m/s) has only 68% of the energy of a 767 at 570mph (254m/s).

Architect

28th May 2007, 03:39 AM

MM

Basic structures, lesson 14: the corners are usually the strongest part of a structure because of (amongst other things) the bracing action, and damage at these locations can have a disproportionately greater effect (subject to various caveats).

Incidentally it is overly simplistic to suggest that the core carried most of the weight of the towers. The outer structural envelope was, of course, self-bearing. The core and the envelope shared the floor loadings more or less equally (the lack of a cantilever mechanism in the design is a giveaway). Therefore the core supported it's own weight, any centrally located services, and of course the antennae. It also was designed to help the composite structure resist the overturning moment (technical term, sorry).

Belz...

28th May 2007, 05:40 AM

I find your conclusion somewhat totally wrong!

What conclusion ? That your use of the word "decided" seems dishonest to me ? You've got a lot of nerve telling me what goes on in my head.

They had a given belief and it influenced them.

Speculation. You have no idea what they believed.

Everything about the 'tone' of the NIST report indicated no doubts or concerns about the believed cause.

Again, you're projecting your own thoughts upon other people. Stick to the evidence; and please don't tell me you're a psychologist.

Can you cite any statements that suggest "not a foregone conclusion"?

Nope. Why ? Because it's not my job to disprove a negative. Please try again.

It hit 15 floors lower, where the core was stronger and the 767 hit WTC2 off center thus avoiding most of the core and doing even less critical damage.

Wow. You answered this without actually reading this part of my post:

Or did you forget what part of the building held most of the mass up ?

That would be the perimeter columns. Or did the plane avoid those, too ?

aggle-rithm

29th May 2007, 08:16 AM

I find your conclusion somewhat totally wrong!

They had a given belief and it influenced them. Everything about the 'tone' of the NIST report indicated no doubts or concerns about the believed cause. Can you cite any statements that suggest "not a foregone conclusion"?

??? Your point? Why would I ignore that? Of course I know it hit lower..duh! It hit 15 floors lower, where the core was stronger and the 767 hit WTC2 off center thus avoiding most of the core and doing even less critical damage.

MM

MM,

Your belief system is based upon a certain chain of logic. What you're trying to do is to get us to focus on a single link in the chain that's made of, say, twine, to distract us from all the other links that are made of soggy spagetti strands, if not missing entirely.

Sorry, I'm not biting.

Miragememories

29th May 2007, 02:38 PM

I'm really finding your behavior hard to understand, Miragememories.

For what it's worth, I answered your "fuel momentum vs. core column" question (a simple case of you conflating two arguments) in this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2581955#post2581955), as part of a three week project where I argued you to a standstill on NIST.

Well when I get time I'll take a look at how you explain your belief that the unspent fuel had sufficient kinetic energy to wreak havoc on core columns.

Currently I'm interested in the more important issue of how NIST tweaks model parameters to achieve predetermined results ie. collapse initiation.

In their WTC2 simulation, as I've previously stated, NIST simulated the South Tower plane impact and achieved a collapse initiation. In spite of the Boeing 767-200 only hitting the corner, the core columns being heavier and stronger at the lower 80th floor, and the core only being partially impacted unlike the dead center impact of WTC1. NIST decided WTC2 had 10 columns severed and WTC1 had only 6 columns severed, even though the WTC1 columns at the 95th floor were lighter and weaker.

The supposed justification for this disparity is because in the computer modeled severe case simulation, NIST gave the 767-200 a speed of 570 mph which gave it greater momentum and kinetic energy. They also said they tweaked their models but stayed within reality.

If NIST is being so honest and scientifically realistic in the numbers they use, how can you condone their extreme, and I do mean extreme use of aircraft speed to create the necessary damage to make their collapse initiation hypothesis work?

A few facts which I'm sure you are well aware of;

The Boeing 767-200 is rated for a cruising speed of 530 mph and maximum speed of 568 mph (at 35,000 ft.).

Eduardo Kausel, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states; "The speed of the plane that crashed onto the South Tower can be determined with greater confidence than that of the North Tower. This is because there are several videos taken from different angles available which show the last few seconds prior to the collision.
...we conclude that a best estimate for the speed of approach is 225 m/s (i.e. 810 km/hr, or 503 mph).

This speed is in excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers, who reported
that “Flight 175 had screamed south over the Hudson Valley at about 500 miles per hour, more
than double the legal speed”.
web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf

503 mph is a significantly lower speed than 570 mph.

In their less severe case NIST used 521 mph and in their baseline they used 546 mph. NIST was still using numbers that exceeded the careful analysis of MIT's Professor Kausel. Unfortunately for NIST, those numbers failed to create a collapse initiation so they tweaked the speed upwards until they found a number that would achieve their desired expectations. The magic number turned out to be 570 mph to achieve collapse initiation success.

NIST says this was within reality, even though their computer model now is being made to simulate a 767 at 1,000 ft in heavy air, tweaked to fly 12 mph faster than the 767-200's maximum speed at 35,000 feet where air is extremely thin and offers little air speed resistance.

Care to comment?

MM

aggle-rithm

29th May 2007, 02:42 PM

Stay on topic, please.

Mancman

29th May 2007, 03:06 PM

The supposed justification for this disparity is because in the computer modeled severe case simulation, NIST gave the 767-200 a speed of 570 mph which gave it greater momentum and kinetic energy. They also said they tweaked their models but stayed within reality.

If NIST is being so honest and scientifically realistic in the numbers they use, how can you condone their extreme, and I do mean extreme use of aircraft speed to create the necessary damage to make their collapse initiation hypothesis work?

Are you aware that estimates for the speed of Flight 175 go as high as 590mph?

Rika

29th May 2007, 03:14 PM

United Airline Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 near the 80th floor with an estimated speed of. 545 mph ± 18 mph. Intense fireballs then formed on ...
www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05173.pdf

I don't see 570. Am I blind or someting?

rwguinn

29th May 2007, 03:25 PM

I don't see 570. Am I blind or someting?
[/size]
Well, he didn't mean that Literally (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2641174#post2641174)

Hokulele

29th May 2007, 03:29 PM

The Boeing 767-200 is rated for a cruising speed of 530 mph and maximum speed of 568 mph (at 35,000 ft.)

568 mph is the maximum cruising speed at that altitude. The max specification speed for a 767-200 is 592 mph.

jaydeehess

29th May 2007, 10:31 PM

568 mph is the maximum cruising speed at that altitude. The max specification speed for a 767-200 is 592 mph.

Oddly enough it seems that the guys at the controls were quite the scoff-laws concerning the safe operation of the aircraft they had commandeered and were pushing them to the limits of their velocity without regard as to what effect this might have on the engines or airframe................

jaydeehess

29th May 2007, 10:38 PM

Currently I'm interested in the more important issue of how NIST tweaks model parameters to achieve predetermined results ie. collapse initiation.

Wow, I never saw any of that in the NIST report and I did read quite a bit of it.

They did run their simulations several times, changing parameters of the aircraft impacts and compared the sim results against what could be determined to have actually occurred as per the photographic and video record of the damage inflicted on the buildings.

PhantomWolf

29th May 2007, 10:45 PM

Oddly enough it seems that the guys at the controls were quite the scoff-laws concerning the safe operation of the aircraft they had commandeered and were pushing them to the limits of their velocity without regard as to what effect this might have on the engines or airframe................

Most aerospace engineers I have heard discussing it think that the airframe of 175 would have been seriously damaged by the turn it did to hit WTC 2 and that had it missed, they would have been in an unrecoverable stall so would have crashed anyways. Very safe flying that.

R.Mackey

29th May 2007, 11:02 PM

Well when I get time I'll take a look at how you explain your belief that the unspent fuel had sufficient kinetic energy to wreak havoc on core columns.

Still refusing to answer my question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2629413#post2629413), eh? Disappointing, but not surprising.

Tell you what: If I show you again how you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, will you go away? Or at least ask for help, rather than stamping your feet and calling attention to your mistakes?

I'll give this one last try.

The supposed justification for this disparity is because in the computer modeled severe case simulation, NIST gave the 767-200 a speed of 570 mph which gave it greater momentum and kinetic energy. They also said they tweaked their models but stayed within reality.

If NIST is being so honest and scientifically realistic in the numbers they use, how can you condone their extreme, and I do mean extreme use of aircraft speed to create the necessary damage to make their collapse initiation hypothesis work?

Fine, let's talk about honesty.

For starters, NIST states their estimate of Flight 175's impact speed, given in Table 6-3 of NIST NCSTAR1-2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf), as 542 MPH +/- 24. Table 6-2 gives the individual results from single videos, seen to span from 523 +/- 31 to 573 +/- 55 MPH, and this overlaps Dr. Kausel's result. However, 546 MPH appears as the baseline figure in the actual model, for reasons given explicitly by NIST on page 158:

Initial results from the simplified motion analysis produced a mean speed for UAL 175 of 546 mph. This speed was therefore used in the global impact analysis, discussed in Chapter 7. Subsequent refinement of the analysis and associated uncertainties produced the slightly lower mean value of 542 mph as discussed above. Since this difference in speed was less than 1 percent and well within the uncertainty range, the speed used for the impact analysis was not modified.

What does this mean? It means that their "extreme" case wasn't extreme at all, but within the bounds of uncertainty, as supported by the evidence. Your comment is nothing but hyperbole.

NIST further comments directly on Dr. Kausel's results, same report, page 165, and explains not only that the report you happen to have cherry-picked is an outlier, but further identifies a likely cause of the discrepancy:

Table 6–7 compares the results of the various motion analyses for the UAL 175 impact. The Hart-Weidlinger and the analyses presented here were consistent with the exception of the lateral approach angle. The MIT estimates of impact speed were low compared to the other analyses. However, assuming a lateral approach angle of 20 degrees would have increased the MIT estimate of the UAL 175 impact speed to about 524 mph. The simplified analysis (NIST NCSTAR 1-5A) yielded a speed that was very close to that obtained in this study.

Now on to your other amateur, misleading, and inaccurate points:

A few facts which I'm sure you are well aware of;

The Boeing 767-200 is rated for a cruising speed of 530 mph and maximum speed of 568 mph (at 35,000 ft.).
I am aware. I am also aware that the design speed is not the true upper limit the vehicle is capable of. My automobile is designed for a cruising speed of 100 kph, but will easily do more than double that.

In their less severe case NIST used 521 mph and in their baseline they used 546 mph. NIST was still using numbers that exceeded the careful analysis of MIT's Professor Kausel. Unfortunately for NIST, those numbers failed to create a collapse initiation so they tweaked the speed upwards until they found a number that would achieve their desired expectations. The magic number turned out to be 570 mph to achieve collapse initiation success.

Multiple fallacies here.

First, NIST's numbers are consistent with Dr. Kausel's, albeit slightly higher. Both numbers contain large uncertainties. Dr. Kausel was unable to adequately estimate experimental error, as he did not know the locations of observers, was unable to obtain original videos, and could not always account for speedups or format changes of his inputs. Parallax, frame-per-second differences in videos, and motion of the camera as it tracked the aircraft are all large contributors to his error, as NIST noted and I have demonstrated above. Dr. Kausel, who unlike you is a responsible scientist, even identifies this in his paper (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf):

Pitfalls in determining the speed from videos
The velocity of the two Boeing 767-200 planes that were crashed onto the Twin Towers is not precisely known, especially the speed of the North Tower plane. The speed calculations are made more complicated by the following facts:

The original format in which the videos were recorded is not only unknown to me, but they were also converted back and forth (once or twice) between the American NTSC format and the British PAL system. These two video standards differ in various aspects, which include the number of frames displayed each second and the screen resolution. ...
Some of the videos include running time counters or indices.
Many of the videos have clearly been slowed down by a factor of perhaps two or three, in order to show in more impressive detail the incoming planes immediately before collision. ...
The filming position was generally not known to me, a situation that introduced an unknown degree of geometric perspective or parallax effect. However, in most cases these recording positions appeared to have been sufficiently distant from the target that the parallax effect could safely be disregarded.
In many videos, the camera either panned or zoomed into the target (or both), a situation that greatly complicates the determination of flight distances.

Second, NIST did not run cases until they achieved collapse initiation. The "more severe" case, which included the 570 MPH initial condition, was selected on the basis of impact model results which most closely matched observation just after impact. I've corrected (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2523822#post2523822) this bald-faced lie of yours endlessly in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79311).

Third, the NIST number wasn't "tweaked" at all. It represents the reasonable "one-sigma" upper bound given uncertainties in the measurements. It is an entirely reasonable choice of input.

Fourth, as NIST explained before, the dominant factor in damage assessment is the angle of impact, not the speed. This is partly why WTC 1 collapsed in a manner similar to WTC 2, even though Flight 11 impacted at a mere 443 MPH +/- 30, which is well below even the lower number you argue for here. This fact also demonstrates that, unlike your claims, the lower impact speeds might very well have led to a collapse.

NIST says this was within reality, even though their computer model now is being made to simulate a 767 at 1,000 ft in heavy air, tweaked to fly 12 mph faster than the 767-200's maximum speed at 35,000 feet where air is extremely thin and offers little air speed resistance.

767's are not drag-limited. They are control-limited.

Care to comment?

At this point, I am not sure any further conversation with you is warranted, given that you clearly lack all of the requisite technical background to even cite papers adequately.

And you still haven't answered my question. I don't understand what you're afraid of.

aggle-rithm

30th May 2007, 07:37 AM

Still refusing to answer my question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2629413#post2629413), eh? Disappointing, but not surprising.

Tell you what: If I show you again how you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, will you go away? Or at least ask for help, rather than stamping your feet and calling attention to your mistakes?

I'll give this one last try.

Fine, let's talk about honesty.

For starters, NIST states their estimate of Flight 175's impact speed, given in Table 6-3 of NIST NCSTAR1-2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf), as 542 MPH +/- 24. Table 6-2 gives the individual results from single videos, seen to span from 523 +/- 31 to 573 +/- 55 MPH, and this overlaps Dr. Kausel's result. However, 546 MPH appears as the baseline figure in the actual model, for reasons given explicitly by NIST on page 158:

What does this mean? It means that their "extreme" case wasn't extreme at all, but within the bounds of uncertainty, as supported by the evidence. Your comment is nothing but hyperbole.

NIST further comments directly on Dr. Kausel's results, same report, page 165, and explains not only that the report you happen to have cherry-picked is an outlier, but further identifies a likely cause of the discrepancy:

Now on to your other amateur, misleading, and inaccurate points:

I am aware. I am also aware that the design speed is not the true upper limit the vehicle is capable of. My automobile is designed for a cruising speed of 100 kph, but will easily do more than double that.

Multiple fallacies here.

First, NIST's numbers are consistent with Dr. Kausel's, albeit slightly higher. Both numbers contain large uncertainties. Dr. Kausel was unable to adequately estimate experimental error, as he did not know the locations of observers, was unable to obtain original videos, and could not always account for speedups or format changes of his inputs. Parallax, frame-per-second differences in videos, and motion of the camera as it tracked the aircraft are all large contributors to his error, as NIST noted and I have demonstrated above. Dr. Kausel, who unlike you is a responsible scientist, even identifies this in his paper (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf):

Second, NIST did not run cases until they achieved collapse initiation. The "more severe" case, which included the 570 MPH initial condition, was selected on the basis of impact model results which most closely matched observation just after impact. I've corrected (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2523822#post2523822) this bald-faced lie of yours endlessly in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79311).

Third, the NIST number wasn't "tweaked" at all. It represents the reasonable "one-sigma" upper bound given uncertainties in the measurements. It is an entirely reasonable choice of input.

Fourth, as NIST explained before, the dominant factor in damage assessment is the angle of impact, not the speed. This is partly why WTC 1 collapsed in a manner similar to WTC 2, even though Flight 11 impacted at a mere 443 MPH +/- 30, which is well below even the lower number you argue for here. This fact also demonstrates that, unlike your claims, the lower impact speeds might very well have led to a collapse.

767's are not drag-limited. They are control-limited.

At this point, I am not sure any further conversation with you is warranted, given that you clearly lack all of the requisite technical background to even cite papers adequately.

And you still haven't answered my question. I don't understand what you're afraid of.

It's exactly this type of reckless fact-wielding that gets people banned at CT forums! ;)

(Like how I got us back on topic?)

Miragememories

30th May 2007, 02:52 PM

Fine, let's talk about honesty.

For starters, NIST states their estimate of Flight 175's impact speed, given in Table 6-3 of NIST NCSTAR1-2 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2Draft.pdf), as 542 MPH +/- 24. Table 6-2 gives the individual results from single videos, seen to span from 523 +/- 31 to 573 +/- 55 MPH, and this overlaps Dr. Kausel's result. However, 546 MPH appears as the baseline figure in the actual model, for reasons given explicitly by NIST on page 158:

The numbers NIST decided to use, are what is really important.

These are the numbers that NIST used;

NIST's Table9-10. Input parameters for additional WTC 2 global impact analyses.
Base Case 546 mph plain and simple.
Less Severe 521 mph
More Severe 570 mph

I'm most concerned with the 570 mph used for obvious reasons.
Not only does it well exceed Dr. Kausel's meticulous calculations which arrive at a figure of 503 mph, but he found this calculation to be in "excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers".

Given the importance of a large projectile's mass and speed, NIST heavily relied on their 570 mph Flight Parameter to achieve collapse initiation.

Originally Posted by NIST NCSTAR1-2, page 158
Initial results from the simplified motion analysis produced a mean speed for UAL 175 of 546 mph. This speed was therefore used in the global impact analysis, discussed in Chapter 7. Subsequent refinement of the analysis and associated uncertainties produced the slightly lower mean value of 542 mph as discussed above. Since this difference in speed was less than 1 percent and well within the uncertainty range, the speed used for the impact analysis was not modified.

What does this mean? It means that their "extreme" case wasn't extreme at all, but within the bounds of uncertainty, as supported by the evidence. Your comment is nothing but hyperbole.

NIST further comments directly on Dr. Kausel's results, same report, page 165, and explains not only that the report you happen to have cherry-picked is an outlier, but further identifies a likely cause of the discrepancy:

In the bounds of NIST's chosen uncertainty!

"Bounds of uncertainty", is a convenient engineering means of saying "realm of possibility". They are using the "+" side of a +/- error factor to validate the credibility of an upper number. They are using the "-" side of a +/- error factor to validate the credibility of their number of with more accurate estimates, like Dr. Kausel's.

My statement was not hyperbole! NIST used 570 mph as stated in Table 9-10. It WAS extreme because it not only ignores Dr. Kausel's carefully determined results, but the design specifications for UAL 175. A Boeing 767-200 has a maximum rated speed of 568 mph at it's normal cruising altitude of 35,000 feet in thinner atmosphere!

At UAL 175's impact altitude of approximately 1,000 feet, it would have a maximum speed significantly reduced due to far greater air resistance.

Page 165 basically gives a rambling explanation for a table of possible speeds based on the videos it used for reference. Regardless of NIST's uncertainty range, based on those video calculations, NIST has to acknowledge the actual speeds possible for that plane and reference their calculations to a design reality and not a video based error factor range of possibilities.

Keep in mind that Dr. Kausel's statement "The velocities listed in this table for the two WTC planes are in excellent agreement with flight data based on radar provided by the NTSC"

Now on to your other amateur, misleading, and inaccurate points:

Arrogantly saying it is so does not make it so.

Originally Posted by Miragememories http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2642388#post2642388)
A few facts which I'm sure you are well aware of;

The Boeing 767-200 is rated for a cruising speed of 530 mph and maximum speed of 568 mph (at 35,000 ft.).

I am aware. I am also aware that the design speed is not the true upper limit the vehicle is capable of. My automobile is designed for a cruising speed of 100 kph, but will easily do more than double that.

That's it? Your earthbound car's cruising speed? Based on that logic, you are suggesting a 767-200 could attain 1136 mph. We aren't talking about cars which perform better at low altitude. At 35,000 feet, there are no speed limits, no traffic cops, minimal air resistance and few restrictions to place on maximum cruising speed. Time is money.

Flying at 1,000 feet, maximum cruising speed and aircraft stability are greatly effected.

Originally Posted by Miragememories http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2642388#post2642388)
In their less severe case NIST used 521 mph and in their baseline they used 546 mph. NIST was still using numbers that exceeded the careful analysis of MIT's Professor Kausel. Unfortunately for NIST, those numbers failed to create a collapse initiation so they tweaked the speed upwards until they found a number that would achieve their desired expectations. The magic number turned out to be 570 mph to achieve collapse initiation success.

Multiple fallacies here.

First, NIST's numbers are consistent with Dr. Kausel's, albeit slightly higher. Both numbers contain large uncertainties. Dr. Kausel was unable to adequately estimate experimental error, as he did not know the locations of observers, was unable to obtain original videos, and could not always account for speedups or format changes of his inputs. Parallax, frame-per-second differences in videos, and motion of the camera as it tracked the aircraft are all large contributors to his error, as NIST noted and I have demonstrated above. Dr. Kausel, who unlike you is a responsible scientist, even identifies this in his paper (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf):

The number NIST had success with was significantly higher!.

I am aware of the challenges Dr. Kausel encountered and I confined my post to the WTC2 impact for that very reason. Now you are conveniently "cherry picking" to distort things in your favor! The statement you quote was specifically introductory to his WTC1 estimates which as we all know had very poor video coverage.

Regarding WTC2 which is the focus of my posting, Dr. Kausel, as you well know, had this to say;

"Velocity of South Tower plane

The speed of the plane that crashed onto the South Tower can be determined with greater confidence than that of the North Tower. This is because there are several videos taken from different angles available which show the last few seconds prior to the collision."

After all his careful effort in calculating the impact speed for UA-175 which struck WTC 2, Dr. Kausel had this to say: "This speed is in excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers, who reported that “Flight 175 had screamed south over the Hudson Valley at about 500 miles per hour, more than double the legal speed."

Second, NIST did not run cases until they achieved collapse initiation. The "more severe" case, which included the 570 MPH initial condition, was selected on the basis of impact model results which most closely matched observation just after impact. I've corrected (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2523822#post2523822) this bald-faced lie of yours endlessly in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79311).

Obviously, based on the fact that only the more severe case model lead to collapse initiation, NIST needed a big number to achieved that desired result. Obviously I have no whistle blower to state that NIST was aware in advance that if they interpreted impact model results for an arrived figure of 570 mph that they would achieve a successful collapse initiation.

That does not change the fact that the unrealistic 570 mph parameter caused a simulated collapse initiation where as the NIST baseline 546 mph parameter was unsuccessful, and that Dr. Kausel was quite confident in his calculations of 503 mph.

Regarding NIST's objectivity and lack of bias;

Ronald Hamburger, one of the structural engineers who contributed to the NIST report, was in conversation with Michael Green following a lecture he (Hamburger) had just given. Green asked: "Was your group given the task of explaining how the Towers collapsed, based on the assumption that the collapse was caused solely by the damage from the impact of the planes and the subsequent fire?" Hamburger replied, simply, "yes."

Third, the NIST number wasn't "tweaked" at all. It represents the reasonable "one-sigma" upper bound given uncertainties in the measurements. It is an entirely reasonable choice of input.

And it's just a mere coincidence that this questionable "reasonable" choice of input was the parameter that lead to a successful collapse initiation.

Considering NIST themselves chose the baseline speed of 546 mph to be the most accurate and that this speed failed to achieve collapse initiation, and especially considering Dr. Kausel's confident belief that his calculations of a real speed of 503 mph were accurate, I find it preposterous that you can confidently state that a successful choice of 570 mph was "entirely reasonable."

Fourth, as NIST explained before, the dominant factor in damage assessment is the angle of impact, not the speed. This is partly why WTC 1 collapsed in a manner similar to WTC 2, even though Flight 11 impacted at a mere 443 MPH +/- 30, which is well below even the lower number you argue for here. This fact also demonstrates that, unlike your claims, the lower impact speeds might very well have led to a collapse.

That sounds like a "slight of hand" argument. "Forget about speed, it's the penetration angle that's really important." kind of reasoning.

Increasing the weight, material strength and particularly the air speed of the 767 for the worst case scenario certainly was a major factor in the total momentum and kinetic energy component delivered in the impact, especially considering the impact angle was only adjusted by 1 degree from the baseline impact angle parameter.

I don't see the validity of your comparison of impact angles with WTC1.

WTC1 More Severe Trajectory Pitch of 7.6 degrees was used.
WTC1 Base Case Trajectory Pitch of 10.6 degrees was used.
WTC1 More Severe Orientation Pitch of 5.6 degrees was used.
WTC1 Base Case Orientation Pitch of 8.6 degrees was used.

WTC2 More Severe Trajectory Pitch of 5.0 degrees was used.
WTC2 Base Case Trajectory Pitch of 6.0 degrees was used.
WTC2 More Severe Orientation Pitch of 4.0 degrees was used.
WTC2 Base Case Orientation Pitch of 5.0 degrees was used.

Also, Flight AA-11 struck the North Tower 15 stories higher (95th floor) where the columns would be expected to be lighter and weaker than those at the South Tower's 80th floor which were supporting 15 stories of additional load. Yet the North Tower was estimated by NIST to have only 6 core columns severed and they estimated the South Tower with it's corner hit, to have had 10 core columns severed.

Originally Posted by Miragememories http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2642388#post2642388)
NIST says this was within reality, even though their computer model now is being made to simulate a 767 at 1,000 ft in heavy air, tweaked to fly 12 mph faster than the 767-200's maximum speed at 35,000 feet where air is extremely thin and offers little air speed resistance.

767's are not drag-limited. They are control-limited.

So I guess when pilots at 35,000 feet talk about ETA being effected by head winds or tail winds, they're not referring to the effects of air resistance on the speed of the plane?

Since I do believe they are indeed referring to the fact that air movement, and thus it's density both must effect the achievable air speed, and considering the Boeing 767-200's maximum cruising speed is 568 mph @35,000 feet; at 1,000 feet, I would expect the effects of heavier air to be even more dramatic.

At this point, I am not sure any further conversation with you is warranted, given that you clearly lack all of the requisite technical background to even cite papers adequately.

And you still haven't answered my question. I don't understand what you're afraid of.

You are entitled to inflate your self opinion as much you like.

Believe me I'm not in fear of your questions. I may be bored by dogmatic NIST rhetoric, but I'm hardly afraid of responses that rely on mockery and ridicule to bolster weak arguments.

MM

Corsair 115

30th May 2007, 08:39 PM

A Boeing 767-200 has a maximum rated speed of 568 mph at it's normal cruising altitude of 35,000 feet in thinner atmosphere! "Rated maximum speed" does not mean that's the maximum speed the aircraft is actually physically capable of, it's just the speed that the manufacturer advises not be exceeded in normal operation.

Your earthbound car's cruising speed? Based on that logic, you are suggesting a 767-200 could attain 1136 mph. Actually, he suggested no such thing. What he was saying was exactly what I've said above - that the maximum rated speed does not necessarily equal the maximum speed the vehicle is physically capable of achieving.

Flying at 1,000 feet, maximum cruising speed and aircraft stability are greatly effected.I suggest you think about what that all-important word "cruising" means.

So I guess when pilots at 35,000 feet talk about ETA being effected by head winds or tail winds, they're not referring to the effects of air resistance on the speed of the plane? No, they are referring to winds. You know, the thing which makes clouds move across the sky. Flying into the jetstream is quite significant since it is a very fast-moving stream of air.

...and considering the Boeing 767-200's maximum cruising speed is 568 mph @35,000 feet; at 1,000 feet, I would expect the effects of heavier air to be even more dramatic.I suggest you think about what that all-important word "cruising" means.

Oh, okay, I'll tell you: cruising speed means the speed at which the aircraft travels the furthest distance per unit of fuel consumed. In other words, its fuel efficiency. The best cruising speed depends on a variety of factors, such as the aircraft's weight, altitude, weather conditions, and so forth, but this commonly will fall within a certain range of speeds. Thus, a 568 MPH maximum cruising speed means that's the fastest the aircraft can go and still be fuel efficient.

The maximum speed physically possible by the aircraft is something else entirely.

That maximum physically possible speed is not something that's going to be mentioned much by a manufacturer simply because it's not something that the aircraft would ever come close to in normal day-to-day operation. Commerical pilots are not going to be out there flying their aircraft to the edge of its flight envelope.

R.Mackey

31st May 2007, 12:17 AM

Thank you, Corsair 115. I was reasonably certain that every single person other than Miragememories understood my points.

To Miragememories, as usual, you are completely out to lunch. I will demonstrate this one last time, and then you are on your own.

I'm most concerned with the 570 mph used for obvious reasons.
Not only does it well exceed Dr. Kausel's meticulous calculations which arrive at a figure of 503 mph, but he found this calculation to be in "excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers".
I explained where the 570 MPH came from. It was the one-sigma upper bound of their measurements, offset by 4 MPH from an early calculation error.

The air traffic controller comment "about 500 MPH" contains only one significant digit. It is therefore reasonable to assume that 550 MPH would be "in excellent agreement," and even 600 MPH is "in agreement." Take some science classes.

Given the importance of a large projectile's mass and speed, NIST heavily relied on their 570 mph Flight Parameter to achieve collapse initiation.

This is a lie.

In the bounds of NIST's chosen uncertainty!

"Bounds of uncertainty", is a convenient engineering means of saying "realm of possibility". They are using the "+" side of a +/- error factor to validate the credibility of an upper number. They are using the "-" side of a +/- error factor to validate the credibility of their number of with more accurate estimates, like Dr. Kausel's.
This is a pack of lies. The +/- reflects the standard deviation of their measurements, plus their estimated experimental error which is assumed to be uncorrelated. It is not "convenient" and it was not chosen strictly to create a veneer of credibility. Take some statistics classes.

My statement was not hyperbole! NIST used 570 mph as stated in Table 9-10. It WAS extreme because it not only ignores Dr. Kausel's carefully determined results, but the design specifications for UAL 175. A Boeing 767-200 has a maximum rated speed of 568 mph at it's normal cruising altitude of 35,000 feet in thinner atmosphere!
Your statement is hyperbolic. The one-sigma upper bound is never "extreme," and the rated speed is in no way the maximum speed possible. I'll illustrate with examples below.

At UAL 175's impact altitude of approximately 1,000 feet, it would have a maximum speed significantly reduced due to far greater air resistance.
You are clearly not an aeronautical engineer. I am. Listen up: The flat and level top speed increases with altitude for most aircraft, due to engine inlet performance and maximum permitted stress. But the maximum speed actually decreases with altitude for a 767, because as you climb, the sound speed decreases, and it is primarily compressibility effects that limit control. There is nothing incredible whatsoever about a 767 going 570 MPH on the deck, given that it was dived towards the target.

Honestly, do you think NIST would propose such a thing if it was impossible? You think you're the only genius smart enough to see this, and everybody else is either duped or in on it? Guess again.

Page 165 basically gives a rambling explanation for a table of possible speeds based on the videos it used for reference. Regardless of NIST's uncertainty range, based on those video calculations, NIST has to acknowledge the actual speeds possible for that plane and reference their calculations to a design reality and not a video based error factor range of possibilities.
570 MPH on the deck is a design reality. End of story.

Keep in mind that Dr. Kausel's statement "The velocities listed in this table for the two WTC planes are in excellent agreement with flight data based on radar provided by the NTSC"
Actually Dr. Kausel says the radar results were 10% higher than his calculation (which is close enough to be considered "excellent agreement"). How interesting.

That's it? Your earthbound car's cruising speed? Based on that logic, you are suggesting a 767-200 could attain 1136 mph. We aren't talking about cars which perform better at low altitude. At 35,000 feet, there are no speed limits, no traffic cops, minimal air resistance and few restrictions to place on maximum cruising speed. Time is money.
Except the Mach limit.

Flying at 1,000 feet, maximum cruising speed and aircraft stability are greatly effected.
The aircraft was not cruising. Non sequitur.

The number NIST had success with was significantly higher!.
Another lie. After correcting Dr. Kausel's number for experimental error, it was only one sigma away from the NIST best-guess. One sigma is not "significant" except at artificially low confidence levels. Again, take a statistics class.

I am aware of the challenges Dr. Kausel encountered and I confined my post to the WTC2 impact for that very reason. Now you are conveniently "cherry picking" to distort things in your favor! The statement you quote was specifically introductory to his WTC1 estimates which as we all know had very poor video coverage.

(ahem (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf))

The velocity of the two Boeing 767-200 planes that were crashed onto the Twin Towers is not precisely known, especially the speed of the North Tower plane. The speed calculations are made more complicated by the following facts: (emphasis added)

Nothing about his reservations was restricted to WTC 1. Another lie. I'm losing count.

Regarding WTC2 which is the focus of my posting, Dr. Kausel, as you well know, had this to say [...]

After all his careful effort in calculating the impact speed for UA-175 which struck WTC 2, Dr. Kausel had this to say: "This speed is in excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers, who reported that “Flight 175 had screamed south over the Hudson Valley at about 500 miles per hour, more than double the legal speed."
Yes, "about 500 miles per hour." That also agrees well with the NIST result, and even agrees with the NIST high estimate.

Obviously, based on the fact that only the more severe case model lead to collapse initiation, NIST needed a big number to achieved that desired result. Obviously I have no whistle blower to state that NIST was aware in advance that if they interpreted impact model results for an arrived figure of 570 mph that they would achieve a successful collapse initiation.
Obviously, you're lying. You have no evidence that the lower speed models wouldn't lead to collapse initiation. The higher speed was the best fit to what we saw, even if we leave the collapse out of it entirely. I've explained this to you at least seven times.

That does not change the fact that the unrealistic 570 mph parameter caused a simulated collapse initiation where as the NIST baseline 546 mph parameter was unsuccessful, and that Dr. Kausel was quite confident in his calculations of 503 mph.
570 MPH is not unrealistic. And I note that Dr. Kausel is not complaining long and loud that he is right while NIST is wrong. Why is this, do you suppose?

Regarding NIST's objectivity and lack of bias;

Ronald Hamburger, one of the structural engineers who contributed to the NIST report, was in conversation with Michael Green following a lecture he (Hamburger) had just given. Green asked: "Was your group given the task of explaining how the Towers collapsed, based on the assumption that the collapse was caused solely by the damage from the impact of the planes and the subsequent fire?" Hamburger replied, simply, "yes."
Seeing as even you cannot challenge the assumption, I don't understand why you think it's in any way unreasonable.

And it's just a mere coincidence that this questionable "reasonable" choice of input was the parameter that lead to a successful collapse initiation.
Another lie.

Considering NIST themselves chose the baseline speed of 546 mph to be the most accurate and that this speed failed to achieve collapse initiation, and especially considering Dr. Kausel's confident belief that his calculations of a real speed of 503 mph were accurate, I find it preposterous that you can confidently state that a successful choice of 570 mph was "entirely reasonable."
That's because you don't understand statistics.

That sounds like a "slight of hand" argument. "Forget about speed, it's the penetration angle that's really important." kind of reasoning.
It's "sleight," and how it sounds to you is not my problem. It happens to be the truth. A steeper impact angle dissipates more impact energy against the floor slabs, whereas a flatter one destroys more of the core. It's all in NIST NCSTAR1-2.

Increasing the weight, material strength and particularly the air speed of the 767 for the worst case scenario certainly was a major factor in the total momentum and kinetic energy component delivered in the impact, especially considering the impact angle was only adjusted by 1 degree from the baseline impact angle parameter.
The impact angle was only adjusted by 1 degree because it could be measured with a relatively high degree of certainty. The choices were based on observational accuracy, not a conscious attempt to scale the damage, and that goes for the speed as well.

I don't see the validity of your comparison of impact angles with WTC1.
The comparison is to speeds. WTC 1 was hit with a "significantly" slower aircraft (about 4 sigma lower), yet still collapsed.

Also, Flight AA-11 struck the North Tower 15 stories higher (95th floor) where the columns would be expected to be lighter and weaker than those at the South Tower's 80th floor which were supporting 15 stories of additional load. Yet the North Tower was estimated by NIST to have only 6 core columns severed and they estimated the South Tower with it's corner hit, to have had 10 core columns severed.
Yes. That's primarily because of the shallower dive angle in WTC 2, secondarily because of the oblique yaw angle that sawed off the edge of the core rather than burrowing straight through it, and tertially due to the higher impact speed.

So I guess when pilots at 35,000 feet talk about ETA being effected by head winds or tail winds, they're not referring to the effects of air resistance on the speed of the plane?
Absolutely not. Apparently you don't understand the difference between airspeed and groundspeed.

Since I do believe they are indeed referring to the fact that air movement, and thus it's density both must effect the achievable air speed, and considering the Boeing 767-200's maximum cruising speed is 568 mph @35,000 feet; at 1,000 feet, I would expect the effects of heavier air to be even more dramatic.
Your beliefs, as seen numerous times, are unreliable at best.

I promised you some examples. Here they are:

First, China Airlines 006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006), a Boeing 747, is thought to have exceeded Mach 1 by accident... with one of its four engines flamed out, and the other three at ordinary power. It exceeded 650 MPH, well above its "rated" speed.

Second, Egpyt Air 990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990) nearly reached Mach 1 at sea level as it dived to its destruction. And this was even a fellow Boeing 767, similar to Flight 175. Its final speed was nearly 750 miles per hour. At sea level.

As I have demonstrated, and everyone else here knows, the speeds NIST cites are entirely credible for a 767 in a power dive. Flight 175 was at full power and diving from 28,000 feet at over 10,000 feet per minute when it struck WTC 2.

You are entitled to inflate your self opinion as much you like.

Believe me I'm not in fear of your questions. I may be bored by dogmatic NIST rhetoric, but I'm hardly afraid of responses that rely on mockery and ridicule to bolster weak arguments.

I asked you a question that had nothing to do with NIST, and you still didn't answer. Your excuse is, to put it mildly, absurd.

This is going nowhere. Miragememories, you have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of expertise and your willingness to lie in order to retain your beliefs. My repeated, uninterrupted corrections and explanations have had no effect. Therefore, effective immediately, you warrant no further conversation until you show an ability to learn. Otherwise, there can be no progress.

Until you acknowledge the many errors you made in your last post, and correct them as I have shown above, you will receive no further attention. I cannot help you learn unless we start somewhere. It might as well be here.

beachnut

31st May 2007, 12:44 AM

The numbers NIST decided to use, are what is really important.

These are the numbers that NIST used;

NIST's Table9-10. Input parameters for additional WTC 2 global impact analyses.
Base Case 546 mph plain and simple.
Less Severe 521 mph
More Severe 570 mph

I'm most concerned with the 570 mph used for obvious reasons.
Not only does it well exceed Dr. Kausel's meticulous calculations which arrive at a figure of 503 mph, but he found this calculation to be in "excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers".

Given the importance of a large projectile's mass and speed, NIST heavily relied on their 570 mph Flight Parameter to achieve collapse initiation.

In the bounds of NIST's chosen uncertainty!

"Bounds of uncertainty", is a convenient engineering means of saying "realm of possibility". They are using the "+" side of a +/- error factor to validate the credibility of an upper number. They are using the "-" side of a +/- error factor to validate the credibility of their number of with more accurate estimates, like Dr. Kausel's.

My statement was not hyperbole! NIST used 570 mph as stated in Table 9-10. It WAS extreme because it not only ignores Dr. Kausel's carefully determined results, but the design specifications for UAL 175. A Boeing 767-200 has a maximum rated speed of 568 mph at it's normal cruising altitude of 35,000 feet in thinner atmosphere!

At UAL 175's impact altitude of approximately 1,000 feet, it would have a maximum speed significantly reduced due to far greater air resistance.

Keep in mind that Dr. Kausel's statement "The velocities listed in this table for the two WTC planes are in excellent agreement with flight data based on radar provided by the NTSC"

That's it? Your earthbound car's cruising speed? Based on that logic, you are suggesting a 767-200 could attain 1136 mph. We aren't talking about cars which perform better at low altitude. At 35,000 feet, there are no speed limits, no traffic cops, minimal air resistance and few restrictions to place on maximum cruising speed. Time is money.

Flying at 1,000 feet, maximum cruising speed and aircraft stability are greatly effected.

I am aware of the challenges Dr. Kausel encountered and I confined my post to the WTC2 impact for that very reason. Now you are conveniently "cherry picking" to distort things in your favor! The statement you quote was specifically introductory to his WTC1 estimates which as we all know had very poor video coverage.

Regarding WTC2 which is the focus of my posting, Dr. Kausel, as you well know, had this to say;

"Velocity of South Tower plane

The speed of the plane that crashed onto the South Tower can be determined with greater confidence than that of the North Tower. This is because there are several videos taken from different angles available which show the last few seconds prior to the collision."

After all his careful effort in calculating the impact speed for UA-175 which struck WTC 2, Dr. Kausel had this to say: "This speed is in excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers, who reported that “Flight 175 had screamed south over the Hudson Valley at about 500 miles per hour, more than double the legal speed."

Obviously, based on the fact that only the more severe case model lead to collapse initiation, NIST needed a big number to achieved that desired result. Obviously I have no whistle blower to state that NIST was aware in advance that if they interpreted impact model results for an arrived figure of 570 mph that they would achieve a successful collapse initiation.

That does not change the fact that the unrealistic 570 mph parameter caused a simulated collapse initiation where as the NIST baseline 546 mph parameter was unsuccessful, and that Dr. Kausel was quite confident in his calculations of 503 mph.

Considering NIST themselves chose the baseline speed of 546 mph to be the most accurate and that this speed failed to achieve collapse initiation, and especially considering Dr. Kausel's confident belief that his calculations of a real speed of 503 mph were accurate, I find it preposterous that you can confidently state that a successful choice of 570 mph was "entirely reasonable."

Increasing the weight, material strength and particularly the air speed of the 767 for the worst case scenario certainly was a major factor in the total momentum and kinetic energy component delivered in the impact, especially considering the impact angle was only adjusted by 1 degree from the baseline impact angle parameter.

Since I do believe they are indeed referring to the fact that air movement, and thus it's density both must effect the achievable air speed, and considering the Boeing 767-200's maximum cruising speed is 568 mph @35,000 feet; at 1,000 feet, I would expect the effects of heavier air to be even more dramatic.

You are entitled to inflate your self opinion as much you like.

Believe me I'm not in fear of your questions. I may be bored by dogmatic NIST rhetoric, but I'm hardly afraid of responses that rely on mockery and ridicule to bolster weak arguments.

MM
The reason flight 175 was able to speed up to 590 mph is due to thrust from the engines.

The top speed of the plane is 350 KCAS, period. You have zero knowledge on this topic. You make up stuff as you go. You have no idea on the plane and why the top speed is just one number, 350KCAS. Just one number. But the darn plane does not know it is not to exceed 350 KCAS. It just keeps working until things happen.

The facts are you can get a very good estimate of the speed at impact from the video. It is near 590 mph, you can do it yourself and stop guessing. End of story!

The plane would have no problems speeding at 1000 feet to 590 mph, it would have problems doing anything but going straight and hitting a building. The terrorist would have been in trouble if they had "floored" their jets too early, the damn thing would have problems going fast for any extended period. The engines would not do very well going supersonic. The controls will not do well near supersonic speeds. But we were not that close to supersonic flight at 1000 feet. The time the aircraft were over-speed was only seconds. The engines are very effective at gaining the speeds in the last 20 seconds.

350 KCAS covers the speed, good luck at figuring out what it means. There is also a MACH number that goes with that figure, that you can use around 27,500 feet.

You can not use the ATC figure, it is not accurate, and ATC uses KIAS. What is 503 KIAS in mph? AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH 503 KIAS = 570 mph

OMG! Maybe that is why I slowed to 200 KIAS when ATC told me to slow to 200. Do you think?

Problem with truthers, they believe what ever they hear and read. I usually check the damn numbers myself. Do not trust anyone, trust truthers less; with a name like "truther" you know they are telling big lies.

Remember 503KIAS = 570 mph (really 571.5909) . You should have asked a pilot! The 767/757 could exceed max speed in level flight with just engines, no dive required. But a 3 degree dive gives you a constant speed of 300 KIAS with engines at idle, clean aircraft (about, tlar).

All jets used in the attacks, on 9/11, exceeded max speed of 350 KCAS for short periods prior to impacts. (about 398 mph at 1000 feet) The "thick" air at 1000 feet would not stop the planes from going fast, but the high Q (thick air) could do things to parts on the plane. But who cares, their mission was done and the pilots were not doing much of anything before the impacts except pointing the planes, no significant turns, not massive pull ups, not much of anything except full throttles, which makes the planes go fast.

aggle-rithm

31st May 2007, 11:24 AM

The numbers NIST decided to use, are what is really important.

These are the numbers that NIST used;

NIST's Table9-10. Input parameters for additional WTC 2 global impact analyses.
Base Case 546 mph plain and simple.
Less Severe 521 mph
More Severe 570 mph

I'm most concerned with the 570 mph used for obvious reasons.
Not only does it well exceed Dr. Kausel's meticulous calculations which arrive at a figure of 503 mph, but he found this calculation to be in "excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers".

Given the importance of a large projectile's mass and speed, NIST heavily relied on their 570 mph Flight Parameter to achieve collapse initiation.

In the bounds of NIST's chosen uncertainty!

"Bounds of uncertainty", is a convenient engineering means of saying "realm of possibility". They are using the "+" side of a +/- error factor to validate the credibility of an upper number. They are using the "-" side of a +/- error factor to validate the credibility of their number of with more accurate estimates, like Dr. Kausel's.

My statement was not hyperbole! NIST used 570 mph as stated in Table 9-10. It WAS extreme because it not only ignores Dr. Kausel's carefully determined results, but the design specifications for UAL 175. A Boeing 767-200 has a maximum rated speed of 568 mph at it's normal cruising altitude of 35,000 feet in thinner atmosphere!

At UAL 175's impact altitude of approximately 1,000 feet, it would have a maximum speed significantly reduced due to far greater air resistance.

Page 165 basically gives a rambling explanation for a table of possible speeds based on the videos it used for reference. Regardless of NIST's uncertainty range, based on those video calculations, NIST has to acknowledge the actual speeds possible for that plane and reference their calculations to a design reality and not a video based error factor range of possibilities.

Keep in mind that Dr. Kausel's statement "The velocities listed in this table for the two WTC planes are in excellent agreement with flight data based on radar provided by the NTSC"

Arrogantly saying it is so does not make it so.

That's it? Your earthbound car's cruising speed? Based on that logic, you are suggesting a 767-200 could attain 1136 mph. We aren't talking about cars which perform better at low altitude. At 35,000 feet, there are no speed limits, no traffic cops, minimal air resistance and few restrictions to place on maximum cruising speed. Time is money.

Flying at 1,000 feet, maximum cruising speed and aircraft stability are greatly effected.

The number NIST had success with was significantly higher!.

I am aware of the challenges Dr. Kausel encountered and I confined my post to the WTC2 impact for that very reason. Now you are conveniently "cherry picking" to distort things in your favor! The statement you quote was specifically introductory to his WTC1 estimates which as we all know had very poor video coverage.

Regarding WTC2 which is the focus of my posting, Dr. Kausel, as you well know, had this to say;

"Velocity of South Tower plane

The speed of the plane that crashed onto the South Tower can be determined with greater confidence than that of the North Tower. This is because there are several videos taken from different angles available which show the last few seconds prior to the collision."

After all his careful effort in calculating the impact speed for UA-175 which struck WTC 2, Dr. Kausel had this to say: "This speed is in excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers, who reported that “Flight 175 had screamed south over the Hudson Valley at about 500 miles per hour, more than double the legal speed."

Obviously, based on the fact that only the more severe case model lead to collapse initiation, NIST needed a big number to achieved that desired result. Obviously I have no whistle blower to state that NIST was aware in advance that if they interpreted impact model results for an arrived figure of 570 mph that they would achieve a successful collapse initiation.

That does not change the fact that the unrealistic 570 mph parameter caused a simulated collapse initiation where as the NIST baseline 546 mph parameter was unsuccessful, and that Dr. Kausel was quite confident in his calculations of 503 mph.

Regarding NIST's objectivity and lack of bias;

Ronald Hamburger, one of the structural engineers who contributed to the NIST report, was in conversation with Michael Green following a lecture he (Hamburger) had just given. Green asked: "Was your group given the task of explaining how the Towers collapsed, based on the assumption that the collapse was caused solely by the damage from the impact of the planes and the subsequent fire?" Hamburger replied, simply, "yes."

And it's just a mere coincidence that this questionable "reasonable" choice of input was the parameter that lead to a successful collapse initiation.

Considering NIST themselves chose the baseline speed of 546 mph to be the most accurate and that this speed failed to achieve collapse initiation, and especially considering Dr. Kausel's confident belief that his calculations of a real speed of 503 mph were accurate, I find it preposterous that you can confidently state that a successful choice of 570 mph was "entirely reasonable."

That sounds like a "slight of hand" argument. "Forget about speed, it's the penetration angle that's really important." kind of reasoning.

Increasing the weight, material strength and particularly the air speed of the 767 for the worst case scenario certainly was a major factor in the total momentum and kinetic energy component delivered in the impact, especially considering the impact angle was only adjusted by 1 degree from the baseline impact angle parameter.

I don't see the validity of your comparison of impact angles with WTC1.

WTC1 More Severe Trajectory Pitch of 7.6 degrees was used.
WTC1 Base Case Trajectory Pitch of 10.6 degrees was used.
WTC1 More Severe Orientation Pitch of 5.6 degrees was used.
WTC1 Base Case Orientation Pitch of 8.6 degrees was used.

WTC2 More Severe Trajectory Pitch of 5.0 degrees was used.
WTC2 Base Case Trajectory Pitch of 6.0 degrees was used.
WTC2 More Severe Orientation Pitch of 4.0 degrees was used.
WTC2 Base Case Orientation Pitch of 5.0 degrees was used.

Also, Flight AA-11 struck the North Tower 15 stories higher (95th floor) where the columns would be expected to be lighter and weaker than those at the South Tower's 80th floor which were supporting 15 stories of additional load. Yet the North Tower was estimated by NIST to have only 6 core columns severed and they estimated the South Tower with it's corner hit, to have had 10 core columns severed.

So I guess when pilots at 35,000 feet talk about ETA being effected by head winds or tail winds, they're not referring to the effects of air resistance on the speed of the plane?

Since I do believe they are indeed referring to the fact that air movement, and thus it's density both must effect the achievable air speed, and considering the Boeing 767-200's maximum cruising speed is 568 mph @35,000 feet; at 1,000 feet, I would expect the effects of heavier air to be even more dramatic.

You are entitled to inflate your self opinion as much you like.

Believe me I'm not in fear of your questions. I may be bored by dogmatic NIST rhetoric, but I'm hardly afraid of responses that rely on mockery and ridicule to bolster weak arguments.

MM

Perhaps you should start a new thread to discuss your paranoid fantasies. Or, you could post in one of the many existing threads where this particular dead horse has already been pummeled into submission.

Corsair 115

31st May 2007, 12:23 PM

But the maximum speed actually decreases with altitude for a 767, because as you climb, the sound speed decreases, and it is primarily compressibility effects that limit control. I'm willing to bet you're going to have to explain to Miragememories what compressibility means.

Except the Mach limit. I expect you may have to explain the difference between Indicated Air Speed (IAS) and True Air Speed (TAS) as well.

And lastly, as beachnut excellently observed, there's the conversion from knots to miles per hour. I'm so used to thinking in MPH I completely forgot that knots and nautical miles are the measurement systems traditionally used in the aviation industry.

jhunter1163

31st May 2007, 02:31 PM

aggle-rithm

31st May 2007, 03:37 PM

MM clearly doesn't understand the difference between a manufacturer's recommendation and a physical limit. It is quite likely possible to fly a 767 supersonic in a dive at max thrust. As Beachnut correctly pointed out, though, the control surfaces and airframe aren't designed to withstand those stresses for any length of time, so the best plan was to push the throttle to the firewall in level (or near-level) flight and hope they hit the target. Which they did, to tragic effect.

Possibly one of the factors taken into consideration when devising the maximum recommended cruise speeds at certain altitudes is the comfort of the passengers. These planes WERE designed specifically to carry passengers, after all, and it wouldn't do to make the experience so unpleasant that they would never want to board a plane again.

One of the passengers on 175 related how the plane was moving "jerkily" and many of the passengers were throwing up. Doesn't sound like a very smooth flight.

Miragememories

31st May 2007, 05:00 PM

"Rated maximum speed" does not mean that's the maximum speed the aircraft is actually physically capable of, it's just the speed that the manufacturer advises not be exceeded in normal operation.

Actually, he suggested no such thing. What he was saying was exactly what I've said above - that the maximum rated speed does not necessarily equal the maximum speed the vehicle is physically capable of achieving.

I suggest you think about what that all-important word "cruising" means.

No, they are referring to winds. You know, the thing which makes clouds move across the sky. Flying into the jetstream is quite significant since it is a very fast-moving stream of air.

I suggest you think about what that all-important word "cruising" means.

Oh, okay, I'll tell you: cruising speed means the speed at which the aircraft travels the furthest distance per unit of fuel consumed. In other words, its fuel efficiency. The best cruising speed depends on a variety of factors, such as the aircraft's weight, altitude, weather conditions, and so forth, but this commonly will fall within a certain range of speeds. Thus, a 568 MPH maximum cruising speed means that's the fastest the aircraft can go and still be fuel efficient.

The maximum speed physically possible by the aircraft is something else entirely.

That maximum physically possible speed is not something that's going to be mentioned much by a manufacturer simply because it's not something that the aircraft would ever come close to in normal day-to-day operation. Commerical pilots are not going to be out there flying their aircraft to the edge of its flight envelope.

Trying comprehending what you read before you launch into response mode!

MM

beachnut

31st May 2007, 05:19 PM

Trying comprehending what you read before you launch into response mode!

MM
See you in 6 years, you need a degree and some experience in aviation. Hurry back.

Miragememories

31st May 2007, 08:23 PM

Thank you, Corsair 115. I was reasonably certain that every single person other than Miragememories understood my points.

To Miragememories, as usual, you are completely out to lunch. I will demonstrate this one last time, and then you are on your own.

Sorry I'm not in awe of your self-proclaimed brilliance unlike most of the groupies here.

I explained where the 570 MPH came from. It was the one-sigma upper bound of their measurements, offset by 4 MPH from an early calculation error.

The air traffic controller comment "about 500 MPH" contains only one significant digit. It is therefore reasonable to assume that 550 MPH would be "in excellent agreement," and even 600 MPH is "in agreement." Take some science classes.

Combined with Dr.Kausel's belief in his accuracy of his calculations, something less than 500 mph would be a better interpretation.

This is a lie.

It's only a lie if I knowingly misstate the truth. NIST believed in only one explanation for the collapses and the baseline speed of 546 mph wouldn't achieve collapse..570 mph did..hence 570 mph was "a good fit" in their opinion.

This is a pack of lies. The +/- reflects the standard deviation of their measurements, plus their estimated experimental error which is assumed to be uncorrelated. It is not "convenient" and it was not chosen strictly to create a veneer of credibility. Take some statistics classes.

I have taken statistics. You like calling people liars apparently. Standard deviation combined with experimental error is a convenient way to have a big enough swing in possible parameter choice that inevitably it hits a number (570 mph) that achieves a predetermined result.

Your statement is hyperbolic. The one-sigma upper bound is never "extreme," and the rated speed is in no way the maximum speed possible. I'll illustrate with examples below.

You are clearly not an aeronautical engineer. I am. Listen up: The flat and level top speed increases with altitude for most aircraft, due to engine inlet performance and maximum permitted stress. But the maximum speed actually decreases with altitude for a 767, because as you climb, the sound speed decreases, and it is primarily compressibility effects that limit control. There is nothing incredible whatsoever about a 767 going 570 MPH on the deck, given that it was dived towards the target.

Yes yes NASA I'm so impressed..golly gee. The 767 that struck WTC2 was not diving, another lie! It was flying level for a good distance as was shown in a couple of videos with a moderate descent close to impact.

Honestly, do you think NIST would propose such a thing if it was impossible? You think you're the only genius smart enough to see this, and everybody else is either duped or in on it? Guess again.

I know from your posts that you have too much invested in a single belief to ever consider there might be another valid point of view. NIST would propose anything that suited their purposes if they could present sufficient obfuscating data and calculations to mask the fact.

570 MPH on the deck is a design reality. End of story.

End of story because your whole defence lies with an unwaivering belief that NIST would never do anything to satisfy a political agenda over a scientific one.

Actually Dr. Kausel says the radar results were 10% higher than his calculation (which is close enough to be considered "excellent agreement"). How interesting.

How interesting that you choose again to take his paper out of context. I believe that's called "cherry picking" or "lying".

The complete text from that portion of Dr. Kausel's paper was:

"The radar speeds are basically 10% larger, a difference that could easily be explained by the higher altitude at which the aircraft may have remained visible to radar and the probable speedup caused by the descent. Indeed, during their final approach, the airplanes whose transponders had been disabled were flying as low as some 300m (1000 ft) above the ground (i.e. the height of impact), an altitude that is barely above the rooftops of the skyscrapers in lower Manhattan, so radar is likely to have been blind to them. By contrast, the estimates given herein are based on the last mile of flight prior to collision.

The aircraft was not cruising.

At 35,000 feet, they are cruising at the best atainable speed while facing less air resistance than at 1,000 feet.

Another lie. After correcting Dr. Kausel's number for experimental error, it was only one sigma away from the NIST best-guess. One sigma is not "significant" except at artificially low confidence levels. Again, take a statistics class.

There you go with the cheap acusations of lying again. Dr. Kausel is quite capable of explaining his meticulous calculations. He never felt compelled in his lengthy paper to qualify his determination of 503 mph with a +/- error factor. Since his qualifications exceed yours and are not based on a blind faith in what NIST asks everyone to swallow, I think Dr. Kausel's paper stands without needing your distorting re-interpretations.

Nothing about his reservations was restricted to WTC 1. Another lie. I'm losing count.

The lies are yours my friend!

I never said exclusively WTC1. WTC2 was the subject of my post and WTC2 was the one Dr. Kausel said he could do his calculations with greater confidence. He had no issues with video standards (no PAL or SECAM video) as it was shot with the North American standard, NTSC. Virtually all of his issues were with SECAM or PAL which would have been referring to the Naudet video. His only issue that he referred to about the WTC 2 flight was some of the video shot in slow motion, hardly a major hindrance since most of the available footage was normal speed NTSC.

To quote Dr. Kausel yet again:

"The velocity of the two Boeing 767-200 planes that were crashed onto the Twin Towers is not precisely known, especially the speed of the North Tower plane."

"The speed of the plane that crashed onto the South Tower can be determined with greater confidence than that of the North Tower. This is because there are several videos taken from different angles available which show the last few seconds prior to the collision.

Yes, "about 500 miles per hour." That also agrees well with the NIST result, and even agrees with the NIST high estimate.

500 mph agrees with 570 mph? What are you putting in your coffee?

Obviously, you're lying. You have no evidence that the lower speed models wouldn't lead to collapse initiation. The higher speed was the best fit to what we saw, even if we leave the collapse out of it entirely. I've explained this to you at least seven times.

Lying? Maybe the fact that the NIST baseline and less severe scenarios which were both higher than 503 mph, and failed to create a collapse initiation, explains why the severe case 570 mph parameter, which did lead to a collapse initiation, is so significant!

570 MPH is not unrealistic. And I note that Dr. Kausel is not complaining long and loud that he is right while NIST is wrong. Why is this, do you suppose?

Have you asked him? How do you know what he thinks? Again the NISTian interpretation of apparent silence to mean "agreement".

Seeing as even you cannot challenge the assumption, I don't understand why you think it's in any way unreasonable.

So you aren't bothered that a NIST structural engineer who worked on the report and gave a speech about it admitted that his group was given the task of explaining how the towers collapsed "based on the assumption that it was solely due to aircraft impact and fire damage"?

Another lie.

Constantly calling me a person a liar is just a lame excuse for your inability to defend your dogmatic position.

That's because you don't understand statistics.

You mean because I question statistical deviations that provide a conveniently chosen "high swing" for a model's speed parameter that achieves a predetermined result.

It's "sleight," and how it sounds to you is not my problem. It happens to be the truth. A steeper impact angle dissipates more impact energy against the floor slabs, whereas a flatter one destroys more of the core. It's all in NIST NCSTAR1-2.

Yes I know that. But a 67 mph speed increase combined with increased weight and strength to a 767 makes for a far greater effect on damage than just a 1 degree change in angle.

The impact angle was only adjusted by 1 degree because it could be measured with a relatively high degree of certainty. The choices were based on observational accuracy, not a conscious attempt to scale the damage, and that goes for the speed as well.

They admitted as I said pointed out earlier, why they figured WTC 2 collapse. Once you decide it was airplane impacr and fire damage it's just a matter of selecting airplane and fire parameter large enough to make your belief come true.

The comparison is to speeds. WTC 1 was hit with a "significantly" slower aircraft (about 4 sigma lower), yet still collapsed.

Again, if the WTC 2 parameters were intentionally flawed, there's no reason to accept the WTC 1 parameters as being any better.

Yes. That's primarily because of the shallower dive angle in WTC 2, secondarily because of the oblique yaw angle that sawed off the edge of the core rather than burrowing straight through it, and tertially due to the higher impact speed.

Hardly a dive and not a dramatic angle change from the failed baseline scenario. The main core of WTC2 was not as impacted (NIST says 10 core columns severed) compared to the dead center hit on WTC1 (only 6 columns severed). The higher impact speed I'm in strong disagreement with.

Absolutely not. Apparently you don't understand the difference between airspeed and groundspeed.

I understand that tail winds and head winds at 35,000 feet do effect arrival times which means they have a push or drag effect and since I'm sure airlines try to keep to schedule, if they had reserve speed that could overcome opposing winds, they would utilize this speed instead of stating the delay was unavoidable!

AS an interesting footnote, your friends at NASA had this to say:

"As an aircraft moves through the air, the air molecules near the aircraft are disturbed and move around the aircraft. If the aircraft passes at a low speed, typically less than 250 mph, the density of the air remains constant. But for higher speeds, some of the energy of the aircraft goes into compressing the air and locally changing the density of the air. This compressibility effect alters the amount of resulting force on the aircraft. The effect becomes more important as speed increases."

Your beliefs, as seen numerous times, are unreliable at best.

And your beliefs are are dogmatic and expressed with arrogant disbelief that they should be challenged.

I promised you some examples. Here they are:

First, China Airlines 006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Airlines_Flight_006), a Boeing 747, is thought to have exceeded Mach 1 by accident... with one of its four engines flamed out, and the other three at ordinary power. It exceeded 650 MPH, well above its "rated" speed.

Different jet, 3 of 4 engines. I checked. The 747 has a cruising speed rating of 640 mph. 650 mph hardly qualifies for what you like to call "well above its 'rated' speed", especially considering it was in an uncontrolled descent!

Again you misrepresent the truth:

"The flight from Taipei to about 300 nmi northwest of San Francisco was uneventful and the airplane was flying at about 41,000 feet mean sea level when the No. 4 engine lost power. During the attempt to recover and restore normal power on the No. 4 engine, the airplane rolled to the right, nosed over, and entered an uncontrollable descent. The captain was unable to restore the airplane to stable flight until it had descended to 9,500 feet."

Whose the liar?

Second, Egpyt Air 990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_Flight_990) nearly reached Mach 1 at sea level as it dived to its destruction. And this was even a fellow Boeing 767, similar to Flight 175. Its final speed was nearly 750 miles per hour. At sea level.That speed achieved while diving to it's destruction, nose down in a deliberate gravity-assisted crash initiated by the relief officer, hardly compares the relatively level flight of the 767 that struck WTC 2.

As I have demonstrated, and everyone else here knows, the speeds NIST cites are entirely credible for a 767 in a power dive. Flight 175 was at full power and diving from 28,000 feet at over 10,000 feet per minute when it struck WTC 2.

What a big lie that is! As the long shot video clearly shows, UA-175 was fying relatively level in the last mile as it closed in on WTC2. It was not in a power dive and 10,000 feet per minute is 113 mph.

I asked you a question that had nothing to do with NIST, and you still didn't answer. Your excuse is, to put it mildly, absurd.

Restate your oh so important question since it's evident you'll only continue lying in your feeble defence of NIST while having the uncalled for nerve of acusing me of using mistruths.

This is going nowhere. Miragememories, you have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of expertise and your willingness to lie in order to retain your beliefs. My repeated, uninterrupted corrections and explanations have had no effect. Therefore, effective immediately, you warrant no further conversation until you show an ability to learn. Otherwise, there can be no progress.

Until you acknowledge the many errors you made in your last post, and correct them as I have shown above, you will receive no further attention. I cannot help you learn unless we start somewhere. It might as well be here.

You've seen my responses. I suggest you clean up your act before you tell me what's wrong with mine.

MM

Corsair 115

31st May 2007, 09:22 PM

Trying comprehending what you read before you launch into response mode!I'm afraid your response is not all that helpful if you don't cite what exactly I got wrong in the statement of mine you quoted.

Now, if you were to list your objections point-by-point to what I wrote, this would be of considerably more use in understanding your disagreement.

Corsair 115

31st May 2007, 09:49 PM

At 35,000 feet, they are CRUISING at the best atainable speed while facing less air resistance than at 1,000 feet.Relevant word bolded and capitalized.

Best crusing speed does NOT mean fastest speed possible. Best cruising speed means the fastest speed the aircraft can go while still being efficient in using its fuel. The aircraft can always go faster, but then it would become much less fuel efficient. Since fuel is one of the biggest costs for an airline, using fuel efficiently is of prime importance to both the airline and the aircraft manufacturer (look no further than the fuel-saving measures put into the design of the forthcoming Boeing 787 for evidence of how important fuel efficiency has become).

The B-17G, for example, had a maximum speed of 287 MPH at 25,000 feet, though it could reach a maximum of 302 MPH if war emergency power was used. The cruising speed, however, was 182 MPH at 10,000 feet.

The Lancaster B.Mk.I had a maximum speed of 281 MPH at 11,000 feet. The maximum weak mixture cruising speed was 227 MPH; the most economical cruising speed was 216 MPH at 20,000 feet.

500 mph[/B] agrees with 570 mph? Is that 500 miles per hour or 500 knots? Though some assume the terms are essentially interchangeable, there is in fact a big difference between the two, since a nautical mile 15% longer than a statute mile (and knots and nautical miles are the traditional measurement system for distance and speed in the aviation world).

I understand that tail winds and head winds at 35,000 feet do effect arrival times which means they have a push or drag effect and since I'm sure airlines try to keep to schedule, if they had reserve speed that could overcome opposing winds, they would utilize this speed instead of stating the delay was unavoidable! No, they wouldn't, because: A) delays can happen for a variety reasons, so it's not an unusual occurrence, and B) fuel is expensive. Going faster generally means burning more fuel, and airlines hate it when flights have to use more fuel than is necessary, since that means more fuel is needed to refuel the aircraft for the return trip, and that additional fuel costs money.

"As an aircraft moves through the air, the air molecules near the aircraft are disturbed and move around the aircraft. If the aircraft passes at a low speed, typically less than 250 mph, the density of the air remains constant. But for higher speeds, some of the energy of the aircraft goes into compressing the air and locally changing the density of the air. This compressibility effect alters the amount of resulting force on the aircraft. The effect becomes more important as speed increases."But it doesn't become a major threat to the aircraft, depending on the design, until you're going really fast. Read up on the development of the P-38 fighter to learn how compressibility issues were discovered, and the threat it posed to fighter designs.

It was not in a power dive and 10,000 feet per minute is 113 mph. 10,000 feet per minute is a very substantial descent rate. Consider that a Boeing 757, for example, has a normal descent rate of 1,400-1,800 feet per minute depending on the altitude and speed.

beachnut

31st May 2007, 11:58 PM

Combined with Dr.Kausel's belief in his accuracy of his calculations, something less than 500 mph would be a better interpretation.

It's only a lie if I knowingly misstate the truth. NIST believed in only one explanation for the collapses and the baseline speed of 546 mph wouldn't achieve collapse..570 mph did..hence 570 mph was "a good fit" in their opinion.

I have taken statistics. You like calling people liars apparently. Standard deviation combined with experimental error is a convenient way to have a big enough swing in possible parameter choice that inevitably it hits a number (570 mph) that achieves a predetermined result.

"The speed of the plane that crashed onto the South Tower can be determined with greater confidence than that of the North Tower. This is because there are several videos taken from different angles available which show the last few seconds prior to the collision.

500 mph agrees with 570 mph? What are you putting in your coffee?

Lying? Maybe the fact that the NIST baseline and less severe scenarios which were both higher than 503 mph, and failed to create a collapse initiation, explains why the severe case 570 mph parameter, which did lead to a collapse initiation, is so significant!

I understand that tail winds and head winds at 35,000 feet do effect arrival times which means they have a push or drag effect and since I'm sure airlines try to keep to schedule, if they had reserve speed that could overcome opposing winds, they would utilize this speed instead of stating the delay was unavoidable!

AS an interesting footnote, your friends at NASA had this to say:

Different jet, 3 of 4 engines. I checked. The 747 has a cruising speed rating of 640 mph. 650 mph hardly qualifies for what you like to call "well above its 'rated' speed", especially considering it was in an uncontrolled descent!

Whose the liar?

MM
No, the plane hit at 590, I checked it from the videos, you could do the same but you are stuck on some 500 number. BTW, 500 KIAS is 570 mph. So you guys stated ATC said 500, that would be knots, so 570 is good for mph. Are you not reading?

I assume your statisics class did not go well, since you are unable to figure out KIAS to mph very well or understand ATC works in knots. Who is...

Wrong about extra speed, an airliner crusies at .8 MACH, they could speed up to max speed only, .85 MACH for some jets, .9 MACH for others. That is not a lot of make up time if the wind is real bad. You would still be missing the ability to make up an hour on a cross country flight with real bad winds.

You got the 747 speed wrong, you need better sources. You are off a bunch. Top cruise of 565 mph or .85 MACH, how can you mess up numbers. Who is the liar? 640 and 650 are way over the top speed of a 747. Way over is just about anything over the do not exceed speed. Why are you messing this simple stuff up?

The impact of 175 was 590 mph, if you like I will give you 570. But lower is not right, and if ATC said 500, they mean 570 mph. Simple stuff if you try.

Gravy

1st June 2007, 12:06 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg

beachnut

1st June 2007, 12:26 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg
The bozo terrorist pushed up the throttles. I would like to know who coached them on increasing the impact speed. That person needs to be dropped from great altitude.

I can not believe MM thinks the speed matters after they passed 450 mph. It does not matter. Impact and fires at speeds over 450 were like a 1000 pound bomb, and the jet fuel, like 1000 guys setting fires in just one building.

Thank the fire department for getting all the people they could out. People saved over 5000 people on 9/11. Truthers need to develop the means to use their brain.

MM PMO.

Belz...

1st June 2007, 05:56 AM

Sorry I'm not in awe of your self-proclaimed brilliance unlike most of the groupies here.

Brilliance is certainly more awe-inspiring than ignorance, Mirage.

Yes yes NASA I'm so impressed..golly gee.

Jealous!

I know from your posts that you have too much invested in a single belief to ever consider there might be another valid point of view.

Pot... Kettle...

NIST would propose anything that suited their purposes if they could present sufficient obfuscating data and calculations to mask the fact.

Circular reasoning.

End of story because your whole defence lies with an unwaivering belief that NIST would never do anything to satisfy a political agenda over a scientific one.

Strawman argument.

You've seen my responses. I suggest you clean up your act before you tell me what's wrong with mine.

That's easy: everything's wrong with yours.

Belz...

1st June 2007, 05:57 AM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg

Dammit, Gravy! Damn you and your damned facts and evidence!!

aggle-rithm

1st June 2007, 07:14 AM

Dammit, Gravy! Damn you and your damned facts and evidence!!

Yes, where is the innuendo? The hyperbole? The obscurely fallacious reasoning?

Bah! No style at all. ;)

R.Mackey

1st June 2007, 09:43 AM

Sorry I'm not in awe of your self-proclaimed brilliance unlike most of the groupies here.

It's only a lie if I knowingly misstate the truth.

I have taken statistics. You like calling people liars apparently. Standard deviation combined with experimental error is a convenient way to have a big enough swing in possible parameter choice that inevitably it hits a number (570 mph) that achieves a predetermined result. [etc., etc.]

You've seen my responses. I suggest you clean up your act before you tell me what's wrong with mine.

MM

Just go back and correct your statements, please. Your bickering has become increasingly unstable. Try to learn. Rationalization will not help.

Miragememories

1st June 2007, 04:45 PM

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8790465fb6f7c9482.jpg

Yeah awesome dive Mark! At that plummeting angle I'm surprised the wings didn't rip off...ya right!

Your subtlety is overwhelming!

MM

Miragememories

1st June 2007, 04:48 PM

The bozo terrorist pushed up the throttles. I would like to know who coached them on increasing the impact speed. That person needs to be dropped from great altitude.

I can not believe MM thinks the speed matters after they passed 450 mph. It does not matter. Impact and fires at speeds over 450 were like a 1000 pound bomb, and the jet fuel, like 1000 guys setting fires in just one building.

Thank the fire department for getting all the people they could out. People saved over 5000 people on 9/11. Truthers need to develop the means to use their brain.

MM PMO.

Ahh apparently kinetic energy is only relevant when you refer to it.

Apparently speeds mattered to NIST.

I guess they should have consulted you first beachnut..might have been a cool $million in it for ya!

MM

Corsair 115

1st June 2007, 04:50 PM

Miragememories

1st June 2007, 04:50 PM

Brilliance is certainly more awe-inspiring than ignorance, Mirage.

Jealous!

Pot... Kettle...

Circular reasoning.

Strawman argument.

That's easy: everything's wrong with yours.

Do you use a macro for those 'canned responses' or do you wake up occasionally?

MM

beachnut

1st June 2007, 04:55 PM

Ahh apparently kinetic energy is only relevant when you refer to it.

Apparently speeds mattered to NIST.

I guess they should have consulted you first beachnut..might have been a cool $million in it for ya!

MM
Not sure what spam you are up to this time, but it matches your grasp of the facts.

Miragememories

1st June 2007, 04:56 PM

Just go back and correct your statements, please. Your bickering has become increasingly unstable. Try to learn. Rationalization will not help.

Wow Mr. Armpit of L.A., you certainly dumped the bulk of my response. I guess since you apparently feel a certain amount of ownership of this forum ignoring people calling out your pile of lies is felt to be your prerogative.

I can't do much amount your ownership of the peanut gallery but my respect for NASA lies with the old guard and not the new generation of pretenders such as yourself.

MM

beachnut

1st June 2007, 04:59 PM

deleted

Miragememories

1st June 2007, 04:59 PM

Not sure what spam you are up to this time, but it matches your grasp of the facts.

Just keeping toking on whatever it is you've copped beachnut.

It must be good stuff, the memory lapses are a sure sign.

MM

Corsair 115

1st June 2007, 05:02 PM

I'm still here, Miragememories. I'll wait patiently while you dispense with your replies to the other posters in this thread whom you seem to have a distinct distaste.

beachnut

1st June 2007, 05:02 PM

Just keeping toking on whatever it is you've copped beachnut.

It must be good stuff, the memory lapses are a sure sign.

MMFound out you were wrong on so many topics? Why did you fall for the lies of 9/11 truth? When did you first find out you could not figure out 9/11 for yourself?

Miragememories

1st June 2007, 05:04 PM

Miragememories,

Did my earlier post sufficiently explain what the term "cruising speed" actually means? I note also you haven't responded to a couple of my earlier comments and queries. It would be helpful if you did.

Drop over to the Loose Change Forum, identify yourself and I'll give you all the response you crave.

Here on JREF I'm the equivalent of the "visiting team". All the 'rank 'n file' see is the enemy and nothing else.

You'll get a fair hearing at LC as long as you don't respond like your in JREF.

MM

beachnut

1st June 2007, 05:09 PM

Drop over to the Loose Change Forum, identify yourself and I'll give you all the response you crave.

Here on JREF I'm the equivalent of the "visiting team". All the 'rank 'n file' see is the enemy and nothing else.

You'll get a fair hearing at LC as long as you don't respond like your in JREF.

MM
Did you ever figure out if what ATC said about 175 speed?

You posted -
we
conclude that a best estimate for the speed of approach is 225 m/s (i.e. 810 km/hr, or 503 mph).
This speed is in excellent agreement with information from air traffic controllers, who reported
that “Flight 175 had screamed south over the Hudson Valley at about 500 miles per hour, more
than double the legal speed”6.

6
M. L. Wald and K. Sack, “A Nation Challenged: The Tapes”, The New York Times, October 16, 2001,

Section A, Page 1

from http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf

But you do not understand, twice the legal limit is 500 KIAS, about 570 mph. The legal limit below 10,000 feet is 250 KIAS, not mph, but KIAS. They are in error thinking their speed match ATC due to the fact they did not convert the speed to mph from KIAS. ATC uses KIAS, and the guys did not check what units ATC was using. The proof comes from the slow motion entry of 175, you can get the speed very close to what it was.

Further, the paper talks about approach speed. The speed as it comes to the WTC. Since 175 was going about 300KIAS, and hit about 590 mph which is over 500 KIAS, the 500 mph average is a good approach speed and could be the speed seconds away from impact. Ideas?

But then you are too busy spamming the forum to stop and think. or are you? When did you first figure out LC was full of misinformation?

JimBenArm

1st June 2007, 06:16 PM

Corsair 115

1st June 2007, 08:55 PM

Corsair 115

1st June 2007, 09:00 PM

Here, let me translate that for you Corsair:
"Go over to LC, where I can hurl obscenities, act like a total baboon, and not have to answer for it. You, on the other hand, will be immediately banned as soon as you identify yourself as someone who uses logic and critical thinking skills, and refuses to kowtow to the company line. In any case, I have no evidence to back up anything that I said happened, but will still make outlandish accusations anyway."
That pretty much is why he wants you over there. No accountability.That's entirely possible, judging from the accounts I have read around here.

But I have no interest in venturing elsewhere, since A) there are enough forums around here for me to partake in; B) this place alone is already soaking up too much of my time; C) I've seen Loose Change (2nd edition I believe) and found it's premise to be ridiculous, so going to their turf wouldn't seem appropriate.

And, as I mentioned, since MM has already made his case here, there's no rational reason to go elsewhere. If he didn't really want to discuss it here, then he shouldn't have posted here so much. Such is my analysis at any rate.

R.Mackey

1st June 2007, 09:48 PM

Minadin

1st June 2007, 09:58 PM

Slayhamlet

1st June 2007, 10:02 PM

Hey there, MM. I went over to LC a few months ago and tried to argue my point in the most polite way that I could imagine. I"m not sure where i went wrong, but I was eventually "Gone'd". Perhaps you could let me know why:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2346

Why, because you were being "disingenuous" and had a "hidden agenda", of course! What does that mean in MM speech? It means you were banned for thinking differently than they do.

R.Mackey

1st June 2007, 10:15 PM

Why, because you were being "disingenuous" and had a "hidden agenda", of course! What does that mean in MM speech? It means you were banned for thinking differently than they do.

You could be right.

Of course, I am still waiting for an answer to that question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2629413#post2629413). And I do so hate putting words in the mouths of other posters.

Alas.

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 05:41 AM

Yeah awesome dive Mark! At that plummeting angle I'm surprised the wings didn't rip off...ya right!

Your subtlety is overwhelming!

Actually, I'm sure that manoeuver wasn't particularily safe.

Do you use a macro for those 'canned responses' or do you wake up occasionally?

Do you ever wonder why people point out errors and fallacies in your posts or do you just answer with rhetoric every time ?

Drop over to the Loose Change Forum, identify yourself and I'll give you all the response you crave.

Here on JREF I'm the equivalent of the "visiting team". All the 'rank 'n file' see is the enemy and nothing else.

Honestly, the place you're in shouldn't alter your ability to dish out evidence.

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 01:25 PM

Here, let me translate that for you Corsair:
"Go over to LC, where I can hurl obscenities, act like a total baboon, and not have to answer for it. You, on the other hand, will be immediately banned as soon as you identify yourself as someone who uses logic and critical thinking skills, and refuses to kowtow to the company line. In any case, I have no evidence to back up anything that I said happened, but will still make outlandish accusations anyway."
That pretty much is why he wants you over there. No accountability.

So, you ever going to man up and actually even attempt to prove any of the things you say? Or just continue to run and hide?

"Go over to LC, where I can hurl obscenities, act like a total baboon,"

That is a straight out lie.

I don't behave that way. Ask e^n or Architect.

I suggested another forum to avoid idiot comments like yours JimBenArm.

MM

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 01:30 PM

That's entirely possible, judging from the accounts I have read around here.

But I have no interest in venturing elsewhere, since A) there are enough forums around here for me to partake in; B) this place alone is already soaking up too much of my time; C) I've seen Loose Change (2nd edition I believe) and found it's premise to be ridiculous, so going to their turf wouldn't seem appropriate.

And, as I mentioned, since MM has already made his case here, there's no rational reason to go elsewhere. If he didn't really want to discuss it here, then he shouldn't have posted here so much. Such is my analysis at any rate.

Well then it pretty much sounds like you've made up your mind.

I'm glad I read your last post before I wasted my time giving you a considered response.

MM

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 01:56 PM

I might point out that Miragememories has been consistently roasted about the NIST report. I've been hoping that if we smack him with the facts hard enough, he'll become interested in learning something. Doesn't seem to have worked. There's this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=79311) (particularly after about page nine) and these two golden (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73467) oldies (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72972)...

Perhaps you can help him? He doesn't seem interested in reading what I have to say. Entirely his choice, of course.

I see little point. Your belief in the NIST report is total and you'll just continue to quote everything they say as fact.

You know as well as I do and as Dr. Greening has experienced, that reports are not only created they are 'crafted'. If a foregone conclusion is in place, it's not an insurmountable problem for an agency like NIST to produce believable results that support said conclusion.

If the NIST model had overwhelming succeeded, ie. brought abough collapse initiation with less severe and baseline simulations, I would have been more inclined to accept it's credibility.

Because it only succeeded in the most severe scenario, it only shows how much all numbers barely made it, lowering the probability that their conclusions were true.

Anyway, arguing with you about NIST is fruitless because you insist I accept all the NIST explanations, observations, criteria, laboratory tests, FEA results etc. as facts within the range of acceptability. The NIST report's 10,000 pages are designed to cover every angle with an explanation for everything, too often an explanation only justified because NIST judged it to be the best choice, all the time knowing their results had to satisfy a predetermined conclusion of collapse due to impact and fire damage.

It tainted the whole process.

MM

Architect

2nd June 2007, 02:09 PM

When I started this thread I had no idea I was creating a monster!

Incidentally, MM, any planned comeback on the amendments on the Eurocode to take account of progressive collapse risks?

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 02:12 PM

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 02:15 PM

When I started this thread I had no idea I was creating a monster!

Incidentally, MM, any planned comeback on the amendments on the Eurocode to take account of progressive collapse risks?

Please elaborate.

I hate those kind of questions.

Tell me Architect what is your impression of the viability of the Avid DNxHD 220X codec?

MM

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 02:18 PM

Honestly, the place you're in shouldn't alter your ability to dish out evidence.

Imagine a folk singer trying to perform in at a bar filled with redneck truck drivers from Texas and you'll get my impression of how easy it is to "dish it out here".

MM

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 02:20 PM

Why, because you were being "disingenuous" and had a "hidden agenda", of course! What does that mean in MM speech? It means you were banned for thinking differently than they do.

BS

Thinking differently is what the JREF Conspiracy forum objects to.

In LC we only ask that you be prepared to have an honest discussion.

MM

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 02:38 PM

"Go over to LC, where I can hurl obscenities, act like a total baboon,"

That is a straight out lie.

I don't behave that way. Ask e^n or Architect.

I suggested another forum to avoid idiot comments like yours JimBenArm.

MM
So no facts, just insults today? Shot down your speed problem, and you are back with no facts. Need more help finding correct answers?

Need to know how many mph 500 KIAS is? Spam man is back, what insults do we have today? Failed again, so insults are back? When did you first fall for the misinformation of 9/11 from the LC videos?

About LCF. There are a bunch of really dumb people posting there. Dylan leads the pack. You are one of the best posters to prove there are no facts used at LCF by the loyalist truthers. When I want to see real poor logic and misinformation I go look at some of the regular posters at LCF.

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 03:07 PM

I see little point. Your belief in the NIST report is total and you'll just continue to quote everything they say as fact.

You know as well as I do and as Dr. Greening has experienced, that reports are not only created they are 'crafted'. If a foregone conclusion is in place, it's not an insurmountable problem for an agency like NIST to produce believable results that support said conclusion.

If the NIST model had overwhelming succeeded, ie. brought abough collapse initiation with less severe and baseline simulations, I would have been more inclined to accept it's credibility.

Because it only succeeded in the most severe scenario, it only shows how much all numbers barely made it, lowering the probability that their conclusions were true.

Anyway, arguing with you about NIST is fruitless because you insist I accept all the NIST explanations, observations, criteria, laboratory tests, FEA results etc. as facts within the range of acceptability. The NIST report's 10,000 pages are designed to cover every angle with an explanation for everything, too often an explanation only justified because NIST judged it to be the best choice, all the time knowing their results had to satisfy a predetermined conclusion of collapse due to impact and fire damage.

It tainted the whole process.

MM
What is your goal, no one needs the NIST report to rip LC videos, they are total junk.

No one needs NIST to prove there was no CD, even though you think Dr Greening supports the idiots out there in truth, he can prove there were zero explosives in the WTC on 9/11. If you like the CD theory you are backing a lost idea in the world of reality. But back in fantasyland of LC, it is alive and still the big lie of LC.

You can not even discuss or get the airspeed of flight 175 right. Why? There is no need to debunk and discuss at LCF. Why would anyone try. You can not say what you think, you are banned for just being. There are zero facts to support any ideas of the 9/11 truth movement at LCF.

Even when you discuss you ignore explanation and do not ask questions. You just talk, it is like discussing stuff with Fetzer or DRG. The leaders of the 9/11 truth movement only want dollars from dummies. Not a singe fact to support conclusions they do not even make, and people buy the junk and support it. NUTS. Pure nuts.

Now do not mistake the NUTS, I have paid the bucks and ended up screwed by others. Wish I had taken the time to no pay the bucks. You are buying the lies. Hopefully you are not speeding too much time or money backing the lies of 9/11 "truth".

Go ahead argue about NIST and miss the fact no one needs NIST to explain 9/11. The truth movement fails to ask for real facts and evidence when they spout their junk, why worry about NIST when you have zero facts. You are missing the ammunition to conduct a discussion on 9/11. Why does NIST bother you so much?

Before you jump on thinking Dr Greeening supports you lies, you should read his paper again. Even his new work with others. Do not confuse Dr Greening's attitude toward some for using the "what is wrong with NIST" ploy. May be he does not like people slinging around reports as weapons against liars. He has just co authored a paper stating there were no explosives used in the WTC and why. The same conclusion with simple observation made my millions of engineers around the world on 9/11. http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%205-2007.pdf (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%205-2007.pdf)

Read it and learn what most engineers in the world knew over 5 years ago, there were no explosives used in the WTC towers.

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 03:14 PM

Please elaborate.

I hate those kind of questions.

Tell me Architect what is your impression of the viability of the Avid DNxHD 220X codec?

MM
Avid DNxHD is a revolutionary mastering-quality HD codec engineered for multi-generation compositing with reduced storage and bandwidth requirements. For example:

Avid DNxHD 145 8-bit media delivers HD quality while requiring approximately 20% less storage capacity than 8-bit uncompressed standard definition media.
The reduced bandwidth of Avid DNxHD encoding enable single editing systems to work in HD with a simple 4- or 8-way drive stripe set or even a single drive.
Avid DNxHD encoding enables the first truly collaborative real-time HD environment with Avid Unity MediaNetwork systems.
Avid DNxHD encoding supports Avid's Emmy® award winning Multicamera functionality with up to three real-time streams of Avid DNxHD 145.
New Avid DNxHD 36 resolution (for progressive formats) provides high-quality HD offline pictures for larger projects that are even more sensitive to storage consumption.I hate it when the author of question does not give his view point with his question. Is it viable. 300 bucks for express, 1000 bucks for the big box, are there free versions?

So is your post an attempt to be banned by spam?

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 03:15 PM

Please elaborate.

I hate those kind of questions.

Tell me Architect what is your impression of the viability of the Avid DNxHD 220X codec?

MM
What do you think?

Architect

2nd June 2007, 03:19 PM

Imagine a folk singer trying to perform in at a bar filled with redneck truck drivers from Texas and you'll get my impression of how easy it is to "dish it out here".

MM

In all fairness we don't see the kind of posts that the likes of Roxdog and PDoH post over in LC, but I wouldn't disagree that we have an unfortunate tendancy to jump all over CTers like props at a Rugby game. It would do us no harm to be a little more like BAUT sometimes.

:boxedin:

But to be quite clear, I wouldn't tend to tar the likes of Gravy, Mackey, and so on with that kind of brush. These are guys who generally post detailed, substantive, and polite responses. It's just smart erses like me who need to calm down.

But moving back to an earlire point, my refernce earlier was to the Eurocode requirement for designs to now take additional cognisance of the risk of progressive collapse, and hence the underlying assumption that they too were either "duped" or part of the consipracy. Thoughts and comments, MM?

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 03:26 PM

So no facts, just insults today? Shot down your speed problem, and you are back with no facts. Need more help finding correct answers?

Need to know how many mph 500 KIAS is? Spam man is back, what insults do we have today? Failed again, so insults are back? When did you first fall for the misinformation of 9/11 from the LC videos?

About LCF. There are a bunch of really dumb people posting there. Dylan leads the pack. You are one of the best posters to prove there are no facts used at LCF by the loyalist truthers. When I want to see real poor logic and misinformation I go look at some of the regular posters at LCF.

How many folks have you labeled as liars today beachnut?

I rarely see you do anything but post accusations.

MM

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 03:28 PM

Avid DNxHD is a revolutionary mastering-quality HD codec engineered for multi-generation compositing with reduced storage and bandwidth requirements. For example:
Avid DNxHD 145 8-bit media delivers HD quality while requiring approximately 20% less storage capacity than 8-bit uncompressed standard definition media.
The reduced bandwidth of Avid DNxHD encoding enable single editing systems to work in HD with a simple 4- or 8-way drive stripe set or even a single drive.
Avid DNxHD encoding enables the first truly collaborative real-time HD environment with Avid Unity MediaNetwork systems.
Avid DNxHD encoding supports Avid's Emmy® award winning Multicamera functionality with up to three real-time streams of Avid DNxHD 145.
New Avid DNxHD 36 resolution (for progressive formats) provides high-quality HD offline pictures for larger projects that are even more sensitive to storage consumption.I hate it when the author of question does not give his view point with his question. Is it viable. 300 bucks for express, 1000 bucks for the big box, are there free versions?

So is your post an attempt to be banned by spam?

omg [b]beachnut[/] has figured out how to punch in a word or two into Google!

The problem is..you have no idea what it is your cut and pasting!

I do!

MM

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 03:29 PM

Imagine a folk singer trying to perform in at a bar filled with redneck truck drivers from Texas and you'll get my impression of how easy it is to "dish it out here".

MM
Actually, a folk singer in a bar in Texas, where the "redneck" truck drivers would be a non issue. You watch too many movies. Truckers have a better understanding of the real world and are more diverse than your loyalist low IQ posters at LCF. I would expect such a bigoted post only from a low IQ person who has problems with facts. You must be kidding us.

Corsair 115

2nd June 2007, 03:39 PM

Well then it pretty much sounds like you've made up your mind. In regards to the events of 9/11? Yes, I have. I've weighed the evidence and find claims of conspiracy without merit.

I'm glad I read your last post before I wasted my time giving you a considered response.This is a curious response, given your willingness only a few short days ago to offer your comments quite easily. Now, when rebuttals to your points are made, rather than offer rebuttals to the rebuttals, you instead choose to do the equivalent of fleeing the field.

This says much about your ability to support your points in the face of counterpoints.

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 03:40 PM

In all fairness we don't see the kind of posts that the likes of Roxdog and PDoH post over in LC, but I wouldn't disagree that we have an unfortunate tendancy to jump all over CTers like props at a Rugby game. It would do us no harm to be a little more like BAUT sometimes.

:boxedin:

But to be quite clear, I wouldn't tend to tar the likes of Gravy, Mackey, and so on with that kind of brush. These are guys who generally post detailed, substantive, and polite responses. It's just smart erses like me who need to calm down.

But moving back to an earlire point, my refernce earlier was to the Eurocode requirement for designs to now take additional cognisance of the risk of progressive collapse, and hence the underlying assumption that they too were either "duped" or part of the consipracy. Thoughts and comments, MM?

Well Architect if everyone here could maintain the level of self discipline you exercise I might have more 'real' discussions.

Alas you are in the minority.

Getting to your point, I think it is only prudent that NIST reports be responded to and treated with respect by comparable agencies worldwide.

Unfortunately, NIST didn't follow through with a complete examination of the WTC 1 & 2 collapses. If they had, they might have been able to provide a lot more useful information other than you shouldn't fly Boeing 767-200's into suspension buildings.

As a footnote, I work in a building that is designed along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2. It's the south tower of two. It was also completed in 1973. So far, other tthan a few stairwell cracks on the 22nd floor, it looks like it might remain standing.

I'm sure alot of JREFer's are saying "damn" at that news.

MM

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 03:44 PM

I see little point. Your belief in the NIST report is total and you'll just continue to quote everything they say as fact.

Your alternative seems to be to discount every piece of document we have on the subject and start from scratch simply because the conclusion does not appeal to us.

How long do you intend on continuing this little war of straws ?

You know as well as I do and as Dr. Greening has experienced, that reports are not only created they are 'crafted'. If a foregone conclusion is in place, it's not an insurmountable problem for an agency like NIST to produce believable results that support said conclusion.

Speculation. Do you have any evidence that this is so ? Or are you simply showing your bias against their conclusion ?

Because it only succeeded in the most severe scenario, it only shows how much all numbers barely made it, lowering the probability that their conclusions were true.

That is nonsensical. No matter WHICH scenario was the "best fit", they had to pick one. The mere fact that it's the most severe, in this case, means nothing except that it's the "best fit". So what are you saying, here ?

The NIST report's 10,000 pages are designed to cover every angle with an explanation for everything, too often an explanation only justified because NIST judged it to be the best choice, all the time knowing their results had to satisfy a predetermined conclusion of collapse due to impact and fire damage.

Why do you have a problem with scientists determining which of the trials was the best fit to the situation ? What do you need from them ? Certainty ? Or lack thereof ? What answer could possibly satisfy you ? And no, that wasn't a rhetorical question. Please answer.

You seem to have reasonable intelligence.

I'm sure Mack will be delighted to hear from you that his years earning his PhD were not all for naught.

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 03:47 PM

In regards to the events of 9/11? Yes, I have. I've weighed the evidence and find claims of conspiracy without merit.

This is a curious response, given your willingness only a few short days ago to offer your comments quite easily. Now, when rebuttals to your points are made, rather than offer rebuttals to the rebuttals, you instead choose to do the equivalent of fleeing the field.

This says much about your ability to support your points in the face of counterpoints.

Not at all.

Only a fool would waste time and energy on someone who is convinced of the invincibility of their conclusions.

I hope you are right.

MM

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 03:48 PM

Actually, a folk singer in a bar in Texas, where the "redneck" truck drivers would be a non issue. You watch too many movies. Truckers have a better understanding of the real world and are more diverse than your loyalist low IQ posters at LCF. I would expect such a bigoted post only from a low IQ person who has problems with facts. You must be kidding us.

I'm sorry beachnut. I didn't realize you were a trucker.

MM

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 03:50 PM

Imagine a folk singer trying to perform in at a bar filled with redneck truck drivers from Texas and you'll get my impression of how easy it is to "dish it out here".

MM

That's my point. It's all about the packaging.

Sing them a country song and they should love it.

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 03:51 PM

omg [b]beachnut[/] has figured out how to punch in a word or two into Google!

The problem is..you have no idea what it is your cut and pasting!

I do!

MM
No, an electrical and computer engineer, who cuts his own DVDs for his kids, and worked at AFWAL, does not know of video codec. Not me. Nope. Zip.

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 03:53 PM

But to be quite clear, I wouldn't tend to tar the likes of Gravy, Mackey, and so on with that kind of brush. These are guys who generally post detailed, substantive, and polite responses.

Unlike me, whose posts are generally composed of short, to-the-point sentences made up of more-or-less 100% pure contempt.

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 03:55 PM

As a footnote, I work in a building that is designed along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2. It's the south tower of two. It was also completed in 1973. So far, other tthan a few stairwell cracks on the 22nd floor, it looks like it might remain standing.

I'm sure alot of JREFer's are saying "damn" at that news.

And you accuse people here of having distasteful attitudes ?

I wasn't aware 1 WTC collapsed because of poor design. I always blamed the speeding 767 that rammed into it.

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 03:55 PM

I'm sorry beachnut. I didn't realize you were a trucker.

MM
I did not know you were a bigot. I have to assume you are of low education since you fall for the fraud that is 9/11 truth. I expect you may have much more potential than I ever had. When will you show it?

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 04:00 PM

That is nonsensical. No matter WHICH scenario was the "best fit", they had to pick one. The mere fact that it's the most severe, in this case, means nothing except that it's the "best fit". So what are you saying, here ?

Why do you have a problem with scientists determining which of the trials was the best fit to the situation ? What do you need from them ? Certainty ? Or lack thereof ? What answer could possibly satisfy you ? And no, that wasn't a rhetorical question. Please answer.

I'm sure Mack will be delighted to hear from you that his years earning his PhD were not all for naught.

I really love you Belz. I do wish you would send me what you're smokin'..it must be great stuff.

NIST picked the one that worked. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

They decided that impact and fire collapsed the world's largest buildings and unfortunately for them it took their most severe case simulation to generate what appeared to be a collapse initiation...whoopee...break out the champagne!

When you push the edge of the envelope you should always ask yourself ..why?

Gee I thought Mack said he only had his Masters?

MM

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 04:02 PM

omg [b]beachnut[/] has figured out how to punch in a word or two into Google!

The problem is..you have no idea what it is your cut and pasting!

I do!

MM
I was giving some information on your fact less post question. You asked a poor question. You did not include information on your own ideas or what it was. You still just insult instead of offering discussion on the codec, you failed to answer my question, I actually added some value to yours, go ahead let your insults flow, you can do it.

Show your true abilities to discuss, or will you…

But I was trying to put to DVD the things I can record on my Sony Vaio, but I am having problems finding compression software, you could post some help before you get banned.

twinstead

2nd June 2007, 04:05 PM

They decided that impact and fire collapsed the world's largest buildings and unfortunately for them it took their most severe case simulation to generate what appeared to be a collapse initiation...whoopee...break out the champagne!

And when an alternate theory is presented that has even half of the excruciating detail, spread out for all the world's experts to see, that they provided to explain exactly WHY they came to that conclusion I might pay attention.

Architect

2nd June 2007, 04:06 PM

Unlike me, whose posts are generally composed of short, to-the-point sentences made up of more-or-less 100% pure contempt.

You say it like it's a bad thing.....

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 04:08 PM

I did not know you were a bigot. I have to assume you are of low education since you fall for the fraud that is 9/11 truth. I expect you may have much more potential than I ever had. When will you show it?

Sorry beachnut. I have nothing against truckers. My brother-in-law is a trucker and I know he is an intelligent individual.

You on the other hand just like to toss out words and let them land wherever.

I guess I should grant you some slack since ADD is a congenital problem that's really not your fault.

I suspect the rank 'n file here are so in love with the OCT because they hate to see America "dis'd". I mean I know you grew up with the idea that that America was "lilly white" and could never be involved in something so black as 9/11.

MM

beachnut

2nd June 2007, 04:12 PM

Sorry beachnut. I have nothing against truckers. My brother-in-law is a trucker and I know he is an intelligent individual.

You on the other hand just like to toss out words and let them land wherever.

I guess I should grant you some slack since ADD is a congenital problem that's really not your fault.

I suspect the rank 'n file here are so in love with the OCT because they hate to see America "dis'd". I mean I know you grew up with the idea that that America was "lilly white" and could never be involved in something so black as 9/11.

MM
So you are saying a low IQ is not indicative of the followers of 9/11 truth which is made up of lies and misinformation, and you call your brother a redneck like me? What about those codecs? Does this mean you understand that ATC speed of 500 meant, 570 mph?

When someone says redneck trucker I was thinking you were kind of bigoted for saying it. I guess your bother in-law does not care. I still think it is bigoted to say it. And imply they would not like certain types of music. You said it, and I labeled it as being the bigot you seem to be. And then you throw out the 9/11 lies, but came up short. Have you figured out the aircraft speed yet? CODEC?

Corsair 115

2nd June 2007, 04:14 PM

Only a fool would waste time and energy on someone who is convinced of the invincibility of their conclusions.
Invincible? Hardly. Present strong enough evidence to change my mind.

Which was exactly what you thought you were doing earlier in this thread. But when your strong evidence turned out not to be as strong as you thought it was once the flaws were pointed out to you, you have now abandoned your points rather than A) defending them with other supplementary evidence, or B) admitting you were in error.

My rebuttal to you was a very simple one. You incorrectly assumed "maximum cruising speed" meant maximum speed possible by the aircraft. I pointed out to you what is actually meant by "cruising speed" and, rather than acknowledging your incorrect assumption or attempting to refute my point, you've simply ignored it.

And seem to be rather defensive about it in the process.

R.Mackey

2nd June 2007, 04:23 PM

RM I don't speak for LC.

You seem to have reasonable intelligence.

A person with a "hidden agenda" or "disingenuous behavior" is anyone who enters a discussion but has absolutely no intention of participating in a true discussion. They are convinced they have the best understanding and have closed the door (in their mind) to any further doubt. Their sole purpose in participating in the discussion is to convert others to their side.

I am not on record as saying that Architect was that type of person.

I do think he is a NISTian, though not as extreme as yourself.

I do hope that satisfies your graving for an answer from me?

MM

Yeah, though it would have been nice if it didn't take over a week and five requests to get an answer, since it was your statement and not any official policy of the "Loose Change" Forums I was asking about.

So, if I understand your answer correctly, you're basically describing "thoughtcrime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime)?" Is that it? Wow.

R.Mackey

2nd June 2007, 04:27 PM

I'm sure Mack will be delighted to hear from you that his years earning his PhD were not all for naught.

For the record, I do not have, nor have ever claimed to have, a Ph. D. I have four degrees in total, but none of them is the Piled Higher and Deeper.

Carry on.

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 05:47 PM

So you are saying a low IQ is not indicative of the followers of 9/11 truth which is made up of lies and misinformation, and you call your brother a redneck like me? What about those codecs? Does this mean you understand that ATC speed of 500 meant, 570 mph?

When someone says redneck trucker I was thinking you were kind of bigoted for saying it. I guess your bother in-law does not care. I still think it is bigoted to say it. And imply they would not like certain types of music. You said it, and I labeled it as being the bigot you seem to be. And then you throw out the 9/11 lies, but came up short. Have you figured out the aircraft speed yet? CODEC?

No I don't accept that after numerous pages of in depth calculations, a reputable MIT professor's meticulously calculated speed for UA-175 of 503 mph can be casually dismissed as equivalent to the NIST figure of 570 mph.

Regarding members of 9/11 Truth, do you really enjoy attacking and insulting fellow Americans and world citizens who are merely giving what they feel is thoughtful expression to their beliefs?

You have to be blind if you don't realize that you are a member of a group with a similar representation.

Some of you are brilliant and some of you are a**holes.

I hope you don't mind being 'played' because whether you realize it or not, you are!

Yes there are many who conveniently deserve the mocking labels people like yourself wish to saddle all of us with.

beachnut the followers of 9/11 truth are not a group of mean spirited paranoid neanderthals. They are ordinary human beings who aren't afraid to think outside of the box.

I'm not calling you a redneck..you certainly qualify as a "loose cannon "though.

My brother-in-law knows that I respect him as a person and that I am well aware that he is an intelligent man. We can't all be rocket scientists. I grew up in a small town of 4,000 people and I am not a snob about occupations. I've done farm labour, cleaned furnaces, worked in road construction, house painting, plumber's helper, in short, I've had a good look at both sides of the occupational fence. Some jobs are dirty, but they have to be done, and it doesn't mean that the person doing them should be equated with the job.

Those codecs referred to an area of my expertise that were not expected to be your area of expertise. Architect referred me to a topic that I was unfamiliar with and I just meant to give him a taste of his own medicine.

It's easy to preen in front of the mirror rejoicing at being a NASA engineer, a lawyer, a doctor, or a NYC our guide, but that doesn't make you superior to those who occupy less prestigious occupations. I 've now worked in broadcast TV for 35 years. I've met many Hollywood celebrities and I have met many heads of government. They are all 'real' people just like you and me. I used to be in awe of their celebrity status but over time I've seen to many of their human failings, heard too many farts, seen too much intoxication and listened to too much 'earthy' humour to remain under their celebrity spell.

I respect the NIST engineers and their qualifications. I'm sure they know far more about their areas of expertise than I ever will. I'm equally sure that just like many creators, authors, directors etc., they have limited control over how their work is used. And this is where you and I separate company. The NIST report is a product. It may have been sourced by hundred, thousands of good experts, but it's final output was controlled by a few key people who had final say and held an obedience to a higher ethic than honest science.

Courage doesn't just exist on the battlefield.

Just be your own man beachnut. That's all I'm trying to do.

MM

LashL

2nd June 2007, 05:54 PM

<snip>As a footnote, I work in a building that is designed along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2. It's the south tower of two. It was also completed in 1973. So far, other tthan a few stairwell cracks on the 22nd floor, it looks like it might remain standing.
MM

Which one is the south building, the 30 storey one or the 22 storey one?

And how is its design "along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2"?

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 05:55 PM

Yeah, though it would have been nice if it didn't take over a week and five requests to get an answer, since it was your statement and not any official policy of the "Loose Change" Forums I was asking about.

So, if I understand your answer correctly, you're basically describing "thoughtcrime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime)?" Is that it? Wow.

You are a busy man!

I am a busy man!

Some questions are more worth responding to than others.

You got a thoughtful answer from me yet you reply with your own brand of smearing interpretation. I hope that provided you with a few 'giggles'.

Some people think in a tunnel and others try to think wide like the horizon.

The tunnel is great as long as it's narrow focus is on topic.

MM

twinstead

2nd June 2007, 05:56 PM

I respect the NIST engineers and their qualifications. I'm sure they know far more about their areas of expertise than I ever will. I'm equally sure that just like many creators, authors, directors etc., they have limited control over how their work is used. And this is where you and I separate company. The NIST report is a product. It may have been sourced by hundred, thousands of good experts, but it's final output was controlled by a few key people who had final say and held an obedience to a higher ethic than honest science.

Courage doesn't just exist on the battlefield.

I call BS. You say you have respect for the NIST engineers, yet in your scenario they are too cowardly to come forward and reveal that their work is being used improperly.

You are doing the same thing Pdoherty is doing; you are kissing up to a group of people whom you hold in contempt to appear moral.

It disgusts me.

Miragememories

2nd June 2007, 05:58 PM

Which one is the south building, the 30 storey one or the 22 storey one?

And how is its design "along the same lines as WTC 1 and 2"?

I believe C., they are both 22 story towers.

Are you trying to awe me with your research of that which has been laid bare for you to see?

MM

Civilized Worm

2nd June 2007, 05:58 PM

Regarding members of 9/11 Truth, do you really enjoy attacking and insulting fellow Americans and world citizens who are merely giving what they feel is thoughtful expression to their beliefs?

Yes. A lot.

Belz...

2nd June 2007, 06:04 PM

I really love you Belz. I do wish you would send me what you're smokin'..it must be great stuff.

Not sure you'd like it. It's called reality.

NIST picked the one that worked. Is that so difficult to comprehend?

Of course they picked the one that worked. That's what I've been telling you. You're using the fact that they did as some sort of a dubious indication that they were dishonest in their picking it. This is the same sort of reasoning that other truthers use when they claim that the area of the Pentagon that 77 hit was the precise intended target of the terrorists. No matter which scenario they would've picked, you'd have some issue with it. I call that being dishonest.

They decided that impact and fire collapsed the world's largest buildings and unfortunately for them it took their most severe case simulation to generate what appeared to be a collapse initiation...whoopee...break out the champagne!

I don't see a problem with that. I would see a problem with their simulation if NONE of the scenarios had caused anything near a global collapse. But of course, anyone with a basic grasp of physics could tell the buildings were doomed.

When you push the edge of the envelope you should always ask yourself ..why?

Careful, now. The last thing you want to do right now is accuse me of being a paid shill or a supporter of the statu quo or whatnot. You have NO idea who I am or what's going on in my head. So why don't you just stick to the evidence instead of turning this into a speculation match.

Gee I thought Mack said he only had his Masters?

Gee darn, Mirage. I guess humour's completely lost on you. "Hey the guy said PhD but he only has a Master's. The whole thing falls apart."

I can't remember. Which truther was it that was accusing me of not seeing the forest for the trees ?