FREE TAPATALK APP

derchin · 5th June 2012, 07:15 PM

Quote:

The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's.

Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions.

http://nesara.insights2.org/WTCsoldier5.htm

There's tons of pictures and comparisons with actual bombs and explosions and the collapse of the towers.

Scott Sommers · 5th June 2012, 07:37 PM

You do now that the collapse of the WTC Buildings was not at all a surprise to material engineers who have examined the situation.
Wierzbicki, T. and Teng, X. (2003). “How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center.” J. of Impact Enrg. 28, pp.601–625

Originally Posted by derchin

I had this discussion over at another forum and I asserted that it isn't necessarily needed for everyone and that everyone's careers require something else, something more specific, other than math. The member replied that higher level math is required if you actually want to achieve something.

This may be true, but if you want to understand what happened when heavy jets moving quickly crashed into the WTC buildings, you will need to know a lot of math. This paper is very hard to read but fortunately our JREF friend Oystein has done a summary of the major points. If you still want to read the whole thing, send me a pm with your e-mail address, I will send you the paper.

Silly ideas about bombs and thermite and space rays don't really matter. There is nothing these ideas are needed to explain.

Originally Posted by Oystein

In a nutshell:

They assume that the mass of the wings+engine is 30 metric tons, distribute that mass evenly throughout the wingspan, assume an average wing height of 0.48 m, and apparently imply a material density of 2.9 g/cm³, which is slightly more than that ot aluminium (2.7), but well below that of steel (7.8).
They model the wing as a box beam, just as the WTC columns are box columns (this is justified by citing literature)
The equivalent thickness of the "skin" of the wings, given their assumed mass and dimensions, is then 112mm, which is more than 10 times that of the perimeter columns
As the wing spans over 50 columns, they assume that 1/50 of the mass of the wing, or 600 kg, interacts with each column
Some more assumptions about plane speed (240 m/s), steel grade (A36) seem to be pretty close to fact, as far as I can check them.

Being actual experts on impact engineering, and citing relevant litarture, they point out that such impacts are largely governed by local inertia, not by material hardness and such things - even though of course certain material properties determine how much energy is disspipated by plastic deformation and fracture.

So, for a layperson, the interesting thing to realize is that the wings, far from being thin, flimsy skins, put a lot more material and mass to each wing-to-column impact that the steel columns do, and that's why they "win" in the sense that they keep moving instead of being stopped. Both however get destoyed, of course. Destruction of the plane occurs locally "inside" the box columns, that's why it can't be seen from the outside

If I were to look critically into this work, I'd poibt out the following things:

Estimating wing mass as 1/4 plane mass seems very crude - I'd have to check how this is justified (they do have a reference to their own earlier work)
The plane mass of 120 tons apparently includes some 30-35 tons of fuel, much of which would be found in the wings. This is ok as mass inertia, not hardness, governs the pressures and forces of the collision, but I am not sure if it ok to lump this mass into the 112m wall thickness of the "box beam" that model the wing
The engines each have a mass of 4-4.5 tons; I think their mass should not be counted towards that of the wings. This would reduce the mass of the wings alone from 30 to 21-22 tons, and the modeled skin thickness of the wings from 112 mm to about 80 mm
From the wing span, they should have deducted the width of the fuselage, and reduce it from 47.57 m to 42.54 m. This would in turn increase wall thickness from 80 mm to about 90 mm
I am not sure to what extent the mass proportion of the wing that bypasses the columns adds to the force on the columns, and if and how this is considered in their calculations

Most of the paper is a lot of engineering, physics and mass where they asses the importance of the the shape of the collsision partners (low), and model the collision in three phases ("shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange").

Their results, in a nutshell:

Columns are easily cut by an average wing segment
less than 7% of the wing's kinetic energy is dissipated in the collision
Wing velocity is thus still 223 m/s after having passed through the columns, down from 240 m/s.
They estimate that a plane flying slower than 155 m/s might have been stopped by steel columns of the assumed plate thickness and grade at impact location. The same might have been true at 240 m/s, had the plane hit very near the foot of the towers, where perimeter column plates were much thicker. These estimates are sensitive to assumptions of course

Scott Sommers · 5th June 2012, 07:44 PM

Silly me...this is a nuclear bomb zombie risen from the dead to talk about stupid ideas. It's a hydrogen bomb...how could everyone have missed it? It's so obvious...a hydrogen bomb...

BCR · 5th June 2012, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

Silly me...this is a nuclear bomb zombie risen from the dead to talk about stupid ideas. It's a hydrogen bomb...how could everyone have missed it? It's so obvious...a hydrogen bomb...

Of course it was. I saw that right away

Sam.I.Am · 5th June 2012, 07:50 PM

And which "Military Expert" might this be? One who thinks that a nuke was used to destroy the towers? I hate to break it to you but... No. Not only no but hell no. And I say this as someone who used to live and sleep next to actual nuclear weapons (and a reactor) for several years and has read the SWOPs (special weapons ordnance publication) related to them. Please just put down the bong.

Trojan · 5th June 2012, 07:56 PM

Nothing like becoming an expert by declaring you are an expert

BStrong · 5th June 2012, 07:57 PM

WTF is a "Military Expert"?

I can claim expertise in certain areas of soldiering, other guys I know have their little niche, but I've never run across a "military expert."

A W Smith · 5th June 2012, 08:03 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=170002

BCR · 5th June 2012, 08:05 PM

We all know that this is exactly what we saw on 9/11.

A W Smith · 5th June 2012, 08:25 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=182336

triforcharity · 5th June 2012, 08:30 PM

Reported for spam.

cjnewson88 · 5th June 2012, 10:06 PM

Military Expert = anyone who has been in the military?

Sword_Of_Truth · 5th June 2012, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

military expert = anyone who has ~~been in~~ heard of the military?

ftfy

nomuse · 5th June 2012, 11:10 PM

He shines boots really well?

Dog Town · 6th June 2012, 01:08 AM

I smell

Sabrina · 6th June 2012, 04:16 AM

*facepalm*

Really? They're trotting out the mini-nuke theory AGAIN? REALLY?!?!?!?

Why do truthers INSIST on dragging up tired, disproven theories again and again like we've never heard of them before and expect us to respond with any amount of civility? I mean, they are really making it almost impossible to do so.

By the way, I have over ten years in the military, but I would never claim to be a military "expert", as there are numerous specialties I have no knowledge of. I'll stick to my niche of intelligence and say I'm an "experienced layperson" instead of trying to claim expertise.

twinstead · 6th June 2012, 05:04 AM

The only thing worse than an irrational poster is an irrational seagull poster

timhau · 6th June 2012, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by cjnewson88

Military Expert = anyone who has been in the military?

No, anyone who has been in the military in a movie. In other words, it's Charlie Sheen again.

ElMondoHummus · 6th June 2012, 07:55 AM

Why all the old hits? It's known that it was more than the jet fuel that was burning - hell, it's common sense that more than the jet fuel burned; that's why the NIST report discussed fuel loading in the context of office contents - and that steel loses much of it's load bearing capacity at even just 500 degrees. The info at the OP's link is just resurrecting the stuff that was old when I came into 9/11 history.

Why's it being resurrected? Debunking 9/11, Mike W's site, and Gravy's pages all covered this, and that's even before you look at all the threads here that are on the topic. Most of them being around the 2006-2007 timeframe. It's old. Why even think about resurrecting such a dead argument? Is it time to go back and reconsider Texas's statehood as well?

Garrette · 6th June 2012, 08:01 AM

I rarely venture into CT, but the title of the thread intrigued me. As a bit of a military expert myself I was curious as to how those credentials translate into expertise on structural/architectural/demolitional engineering. I was not surprised to discover that they don't.

I was only mildly surprised to discover that I can find no military expert at the link.

Are all Truther arguments this stupid?

(And, yes, I really do mean "stupid," and I will point out that I said the "arguments" are stupid. This is stupid beyond stupid.)

NoahFence · 6th June 2012, 08:12 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

I rarely venture into CT, but the title of the thread intrigued me. As a bit of a military expert myself I was curious as to how those credentials translate into expertise on structural/architectural/demolitional engineering. I was not surprised to discover that they don't.

I was only mildly surprised to discover that I can find no military expert at the link.

Are all Truther arguments this stupid?

(And, yes, I really do mean "stupid," and I will point out that I said the "arguments" are stupid. This is stupid beyond stupid.)

Indeed they are. Truthers seem to have separate and distinct methods of producing stupid. It's rather interesting.

Some are just stupid for the sake of being stupid, as is the case here, some go to great lengths to use what appears to be intelligent methods to discuss the specifics of the day, but they wind up being stupid, and others just copy-and-paste stupid from other stupid people.

But the one constant is that yes, all truther arguments are stupid.

ElMondoHummus · 6th June 2012, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

I rarely venture into CT, but the title of the thread intrigued me. As a bit of a military expert myself I was curious as to how those credentials translate into expertise on structural/architectural/demolitional engineering. I was not surprised to discover that they don't.

I was only mildly surprised to discover that I can find no military expert at the link.

Are all Truther arguments this stupid?

(And, yes, I really do mean "stupid," and I will point out that I said the "arguments" are stupid. This is stupid beyond stupid.)

Not to disagree with you or NoahFence here, since it is indeed stupid. But the real sin here is the intentional deceptiveness. This is nothing more than a hollow argument to authority, and it's a weaker one at that since the collapse dynamics lie in the field of structural engineering, not military expertise. The sideways insinuation is that a "military expert" knows bombs and explosions, but that doesn't change the fact that analysis of the towers structural failures are more the purview of engineers than military personnel.

Garrette · 6th June 2012, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Indeed they are. Truthers seem to have separate and distinct methods of producing stupid. It's rather interesting.

Some are just stupid for the sake of being stupid, as is the case here, some go to great lengths to use what appears to be intelligent methods to discuss the specifics of the day, but they wind up being stupid, and others just copy-and-paste stupid from other stupid people.

But the one constant is that yes, all truther arguments are stupid.

Got it.

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

Not to disagree with you or NoahFence here, since it is indeed stupid. But the real sin here is the intentional deceptiveness. This is nothing more than a hollow argument to authority, and it's a weaker one at that since the collapse dynamics lie in the field of structural engineering, not military expertise. The sideways insinuation is that a "military expert" knows bombs and explosions, but that doesn't change the fact that analysis of the towers structural failures are more the purview of engineers than military personnel.

Hence my befuddled curiosity. I gathered that military expertise was meant to imply expertise with explosives, but I sort of hoped I was wrong. Even before pointing out that explosives expertise does not mean expertise with demolitions or engineering, the idea that military experts are explosives experts is stupid in itself. Very very few in the military work with explosives on any regular basis (outside that which is in bullets and grenades and the like) and few of those are actually experts. Of that small subset very very few if any are experts in the application of explosives for a controlled demolition.

Sword_Of_Truth · 6th June 2012, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

(And, yes, I really do mean "stupid," and I will point out that I said the "arguments" are stupid. This is stupid beyond stupid.)

You're allowed to sate that truthers in general are stupid (even the ones who are engineers). You can even go so far as to say that any truther that pushes micro-nuke nonsense is an inbred mental midget and this would be acceptable under the JREF MA. You're just not allowed to direct your insults against a specific individual who is a fellow forum member.

ElMondoHummus · 6th June 2012, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Garrette

Got it.

Hence my befuddled curiosity. I gathered that military expertise was meant to imply expertise with explosives, but I sort of hoped I was wrong. Even before pointing out that explosives expertise does not mean expertise with demolitions or engineering, the idea that military experts are explosives experts is stupid in itself. Very very few in the military work with explosives on any regular basis (outside that which is in bullets and grenades and the like) and few of those are actually experts. Of that small subset very very few if any are experts in the application of explosives for a controlled demolition.

You are of course correct. And I'd even take that a step farther: For the few who would have expertise, how many of them have it in a context outside of combat applications (i.e. blowing up bridges, defensive bulwarks, etc.)?

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Army/Navy/Marine "sapper" training is absolutely not applicable to the question of demolishing tall structures. Rather, what I'm saying is that I would guess from short skimming of information online that in the military it's really specialized expertise. It's geared towards the applications they'll see in the context of military operations. Civillian building demolisionists will have at minimum equal, and arguably greater experience at the sort of demolitions involving structuers like moderate sized office buildings.

To draw an analogy: It would be something on the order of a military trauma surgeon vs. a civillian one: Of course there would be overlap, but it would be denying reality to ignore the fact that the military surgeon's expertise would be more slanted towards the sorts of traumatic injuries that could occur during combat or military operations than anything else. Granted, this is inductive reasoning here; I'm always subject to correction by knowledgeable people. But I think I'm on the right track with this induction. My overall point here is that the military experts would not necessarily be arguing from a superior perspective on the issue of building demolitions, not in the company of civillian ones as Brent Blanchard, Mark Loiseaux, etc., who can comment authoritatively on the subject in the civillian sphere. At best, a supposed "military expert" would be an equal of those two, and could raise a substantive disagreement with them if his arguments on their own were valid. At best. And that's not what we're seeing here.

Well, anyway... even if I'm wrong about all of this - and that's a possibility; again, I'm reasoning inductively here from a limited perspective, so I don't have a robust base of knowledge to draw from - it still stands that regardless of expertise, the arguments must have intrinsic merit, and not merely be given such based on their source. The source can genuinely be a military expert on structure demolitions, yet none of that would change the findings that have been made to date. And those findings argue against any sort of intentional demolition of the towers.

Cl1mh4224rd · 6th June 2012, 10:13 AM

Just an FYI, but derchin responded in one of his/her other threads:

Originally Posted by derchin

I'm not a truther and more than likely, will never be one again. I just thought it would be interesting to debunk truther sites one by one.

*Sigh*. From the looks and rumors around here, that isn't in today's schedule...

Apparently his/her appearance as a truther is down to poor presentation.

derchin · 6th June 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd

Just an FYI, but derchin responded in one of his/her other threads:

Apparently his/her appearance as a truther is down to poor presentation.

*He.

000063 · 6th June 2012, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by derchin

http://nesara.insights2.org/WTCsoldier5.htm

There's tons of pictures and comparisons with actual bombs and explosions and the collapse of the towers.

Do these comparisons include audio? Heck, allow me.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Garrette · 6th June 2012, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth

You're allowed to sate that truthers in general are stupid (even the ones who are engineers). You can even go so far as to say that any truther that pushes micro-nuke nonsense is an inbred mental midget and this would be acceptable under the JREF MA. You're just not allowed to direct your insults against a specific individual who is a fellow forum member.

And frankly I have no problem with that.

beachnut · 6th June 2012, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by derchin

http://nesara.insights2.org/WTCsoldier5.htm

There's tons of pictures and comparisons with actual bombs and explosions and the collapse of the towers.

You found a web site of insanity. Amazing how the insane person who made up those lies is able to create a web page. Are they selling that nonsense on DVD?

derchin · 6th June 2012, 12:16 PM

I really hope not.

Redwood · 6th June 2012, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by 000063

Do these comparisons include audio? Heck, allow me.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The CDI Puerto Rico video is clearly NOT a controlled demolition, as the next-to-last building to come down did not "fall into its own footprint", but toppled instead.http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/wink.gif

Robrob · 6th June 2012, 09:49 PM

Quote:

With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F).

Uh, you do realize you just documented steel softens and loses the majority of its structural integrity at the predictable temperature of an office fire.

Or are you one of those "special" ones who think steel has to melt into a puddle before it gives way?

5th June 2012, 07:15 PM	#1
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 333	"View of a Military Expert: Why the Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed" Quote: The airplanes did not a have true effect on the destruction of towers; they were needed to give an excuse for odd Orwellian wars at the same time when the USA is turned into a police nation, like the German Third Reich, to some extent. The towers took the impacts of crushing Boeing 767's. The towers were originally built to take impacts of Boeing 707's, which are approximately of the same size and was widely used in the 1970's. Fires that kindled from the fuel in the planes were too shortlasting and weak to be able to severely damage the structure of the skyscrapers. Even in the extreme situation, the heat from a kerosene fire cannot threat the durability of a steel trunk. With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). In the skyscrapers of the WTC the surroundings were not at all ideal as there were far too many steel columns and they led heat away from the burning area. WTC 1 burned for 102 minutes and WTC 2 for 56 minutes only. A fire burning much longer, from 10 to 20 hours, could slowly increase the burning temperature down to perhaps 1100 °C (approx. 2010 °F). Provided there is more substance to burn, such a fire will damage concrete and irons, but not severely heavy steel constructions. http://nesara.insights2.org/WTCsoldier5.htm There's tons of pictures and comparisons with actual bombs and explosions and the collapse of the towers.
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

5th June 2012, 07:37 PM	#2
Scott Sommers Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,668	You do now that the collapse of the WTC Buildings was not at all a surprise to material engineers who have examined the situation. Wierzbicki, T. and Teng, X. (2003). “How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center.” J. of Impact Enrg. 28, pp.601–625 Originally Posted by derchin I had this discussion over at another forum and I asserted that it isn't necessarily needed for everyone and that everyone's careers require something else, something more specific, other than math. The member replied that higher level math is required if you actually want to achieve something. This may be true, but if you want to understand what happened when heavy jets moving quickly crashed into the WTC buildings, you will need to know a lot of math. This paper is very hard to read but fortunately our JREF friend Oystein has done a summary of the major points. If you still want to read the whole thing, send me a pm with your e-mail address, I will send you the paper. Silly ideas about bombs and thermite and space rays don't really matter. There is nothing these ideas are needed to explain. Originally Posted by Oystein In a nutshell: They assume that the mass of the wings+engine is 30 metric tons, distribute that mass evenly throughout the wingspan, assume an average wing height of 0.48 m, and apparently imply a material density of 2.9 g/cm³, which is slightly more than that ot aluminium (2.7), but well below that of steel (7.8). They model the wing as a box beam, just as the WTC columns are box columns (this is justified by citing literature) The equivalent thickness of the "skin" of the wings, given their assumed mass and dimensions, is then 112mm, which is more than 10 times that of the perimeter columns As the wing spans over 50 columns, they assume that 1/50 of the mass of the wing, or 600 kg, interacts with each column Some more assumptions about plane speed (240 m/s), steel grade (A36) seem to be pretty close to fact, as far as I can check them. Being actual experts on impact engineering, and citing relevant litarture, they point out that such impacts are largely governed by local inertia, not by material hardness and such things - even though of course certain material properties determine how much energy is disspipated by plastic deformation and fracture. So, for a layperson, the interesting thing to realize is that the wings, far from being thin, flimsy skins, put a lot more material and mass to each wing-to-column impact that the steel columns do, and that's why they "win" in the sense that they keep moving instead of being stopped. Both however get destoyed, of course. Destruction of the plane occurs locally "inside" the box columns, that's why it can't be seen from the outside If I were to look critically into this work, I'd poibt out the following things: Estimating wing mass as 1/4 plane mass seems very crude - I'd have to check how this is justified (they do have a reference to their own earlier work) The plane mass of 120 tons apparently includes some 30-35 tons of fuel, much of which would be found in the wings. This is ok as mass inertia, not hardness, governs the pressures and forces of the collision, but I am not sure if it ok to lump this mass into the 112m wall thickness of the "box beam" that model the wing The engines each have a mass of 4-4.5 tons; I think their mass should not be counted towards that of the wings. This would reduce the mass of the wings alone from 30 to 21-22 tons, and the modeled skin thickness of the wings from 112 mm to about 80 mm From the wing span, they should have deducted the width of the fuselage, and reduce it from 47.57 m to 42.54 m. This would in turn increase wall thickness from 80 mm to about 90 mm I am not sure to what extent the mass proportion of the wing that bypasses the columns adds to the force on the columns, and if and how this is considered in their calculations Most of the paper is a lot of engineering, physics and mass where they asses the importance of the the shape of the collsision partners (low), and model the collision in three phases ("shearing of the impacting flange; tearing of side webs; and tensile fracture of the rear flange"). Their results, in a nutshell: Columns are easily cut by an average wing segment less than 7% of the wing's kinetic energy is dissipated in the collision Wing velocity is thus still 223 m/s after having passed through the columns, down from 240 m/s. They estimate that a plane flying slower than 155 m/s might have been stopped by steel columns of the assumed plate thickness and grade at impact location. The same might have been true at 240 m/s, had the plane hit very near the foot of the towers, where perimeter column plates were much thicker. These estimates are sensitive to assumptions of course
	__________________ for the original publication Who Still Believes in 9/11 Conspiracies? for Google Books Becoming Taiwan: From Colonialism to Democracy Last edited by Scott Sommers; 5th June 2012 at 07:48 PM.

5th June 2012, 07:44 PM	#3
Scott Sommers Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,668	Silly me...this is a nuclear bomb zombie risen from the dead to talk about stupid ideas. It's a hydrogen bomb...how could everyone have missed it? It's so obvious...a hydrogen bomb...
	__________________ for the original publication Who Still Believes in 9/11 Conspiracies? for Google Books Becoming Taiwan: From Colonialism to Democracy

5th June 2012, 07:48 PM	#4
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,238	Originally Posted by Scott Sommers Silly me...this is a nuclear bomb zombie risen from the dead to talk about stupid ideas. It's a hydrogen bomb...how could everyone have missed it? It's so obvious...a hydrogen bomb... Of course it was. I saw that right away
	__________________ "Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

5th June 2012, 07:50 PM	#5
Sam.I.Am Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hunting Moose and Squirrel Posts: 4,164	And which "Military Expert" might this be? One who thinks that a nuke was used to destroy the towers? I hate to break it to you but... No. Not only no but hell no. And I say this as someone who used to live and sleep next to actual nuclear weapons (and a reactor) for several years and has read the SWOPs (special weapons ordnance publication) related to them. Please just put down the bong.
	__________________ "Swift, silent and deadly" was a part of my job description Upon hearing me say that my friend asked me "So you're a fart?"... About my avatar.

5th June 2012, 07:56 PM	#6
Trojan Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 410	Nothing like becoming an expert by declaring you are an expert

5th June 2012, 07:57 PM	#7
BStrong Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: California Posts: 4,047	WTF is a "Military Expert"? I can claim expertise in certain areas of soldiering, other guys I know have their little niche, but I've never run across a "military expert."

5th June 2012, 08:03 PM	#8
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=170002
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude. Last edited by A W Smith; 5th June 2012 at 08:36 PM.

5th June 2012, 08:05 PM	#9
BCR Master Poster Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Memphis Posts: 2,238	We all know that this is exactly what we saw on 9/11.
	__________________ "Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

5th June 2012, 08:25 PM	#10
A W Smith Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Jersey Posts: 7,031	http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=182336
	__________________ 911 resource site by Mark Roberts http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance. Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane? Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude. Last edited by A W Smith; 5th June 2012 at 08:37 PM.

5th June 2012, 08:30 PM	#11
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,614	Reported for spam.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

5th June 2012, 10:06 PM	#12
cjnewson88 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: The van with the big antenna Posts: 1,309	Military Expert = anyone who has been in the military?
	__________________ Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed. Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88

5th June 2012, 10:44 PM	#13
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by cjnewson88 military expert = anyone who has ~~been in~~ *heard of* the military? ftfy

5th June 2012, 11:10 PM	#14
nomuse Muse Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: People's Republic of Berkeley Posts: 746	He shines boots really well?

6th June 2012, 01:08 AM	#15
Dog Town Hit me with music Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,481	I smell
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

6th June 2012, 04:16 AM	#16
Sabrina Wicked Lovely Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spinning through space Posts: 6,874	facepalm Really? They're trotting out the mini-nuke theory AGAIN? REALLY?!?!?!? Why do truthers INSIST on dragging up tired, disproven theories again and again like we've never heard of them before and expect us to respond with any amount of civility? I mean, they are really making it almost impossible to do so. By the way, I have over ten years in the military, but I would never claim to be a military "expert", as there are numerous specialties I have no knowledge of. I'll stick to my niche of intelligence and say I'm an "experienced layperson" instead of trying to claim expertise.
	__________________ "Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is the right thing to do."-Justice Potter Stewart, US Supreme Court Justice 1915-1985 *Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons... for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.* *Sins are very desirable... as long as no one judges you for them.*

6th June 2012, 05:04 AM	#17
twinstead Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Big corner office in NWO Towers Posts: 11,596	The only thing worse than an irrational poster is an irrational seagull poster
	__________________ You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison

6th June 2012, 06:44 AM	#18
timhau NWO Litter Technician Join Date: May 2004 Location: East of Sweeden Posts: 9,755	Originally Posted by cjnewson88 Military Expert = anyone who has been in the military? No, anyone who has been in the military in a movie. In other words, it's Charlie Sheen again.
	__________________ When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips

6th June 2012, 07:55 AM	#19
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	Why all the old hits? It's known that it was more than the jet fuel that was burning - hell, it's common sense that more than the jet fuel burned; that's why the NIST report discussed fuel loading in the context of office contents - and that steel loses much of it's load bearing capacity at even just 500 degrees. The info at the OP's link is just resurrecting the stuff that was old when I came into 9/11 history. Why's it being resurrected? Debunking 9/11, Mike W's site, and Gravy's pages all covered this, and that's even before you look at all the threads here that are on the topic. Most of them being around the 2006-2007 timeframe. It's old. Why even think about resurrecting such a dead argument? Is it time to go back and reconsider Texas's statehood as well?
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

6th June 2012, 08:01 AM	#20
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,637	I rarely venture into CT, but the title of the thread intrigued me. As a bit of a military expert myself I was curious as to how those credentials translate into expertise on structural/architectural/demolitional engineering. I was not surprised to discover that they don't. I was only mildly surprised to discover that I can find no military expert at the link. Are all Truther arguments this stupid? (And, yes, I really do mean "stupid," and I will point out that I said the "arguments" are stupid. This is stupid beyond stupid.)
	__________________ My kids still love me.

6th June 2012, 08:12 AM	#21
NoahFence Psycho Kitty Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Patriot Nation Posts: 9,417	Originally Posted by Garrette I rarely venture into CT, but the title of the thread intrigued me. As a bit of a military expert myself I was curious as to how those credentials translate into expertise on structural/architectural/demolitional engineering. I was not surprised to discover that they don't. I was only mildly surprised to discover that I can find no military expert at the link. Are all Truther arguments this stupid? (And, yes, I really do mean "stupid," and I will point out that I said the "arguments" are stupid. This is stupid beyond stupid.) Indeed they are. Truthers seem to have separate and distinct methods of producing stupid. It's rather interesting. Some are just stupid for the sake of being stupid, as is the case here, some go to great lengths to use what appears to be intelligent methods to discuss the specifics of the day, but they wind up being stupid, and others just copy-and-paste stupid from other stupid people. But the one constant is that yes, all truther arguments are stupid.
	__________________ Our truest life is when we are in our dreams awake. -Henry David Thoreau

6th June 2012, 08:41 AM	#22
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	Originally Posted by Garrette I rarely venture into CT, but the title of the thread intrigued me. As a bit of a military expert myself I was curious as to how those credentials translate into expertise on structural/architectural/demolitional engineering. I was not surprised to discover that they don't. I was only mildly surprised to discover that I can find no military expert at the link. Are all Truther arguments this stupid? (And, yes, I really do mean "stupid," and I will point out that I said the "arguments" are stupid. This is stupid beyond stupid.) Not to disagree with you or NoahFence here, since it is indeed stupid. But the real sin here is the intentional deceptiveness. This is nothing more than a hollow argument to authority, and it's a weaker one at that since the collapse dynamics lie in the field of structural engineering, not military expertise. The sideways insinuation is that a "military expert" knows bombs and explosions, but that doesn't change the fact that analysis of the towers structural failures are more the purview of engineers than military personnel.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

6th June 2012, 08:53 AM	#23
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,637	Originally Posted by NoahFence Indeed they are. Truthers seem to have separate and distinct methods of producing stupid. It's rather interesting. Some are just stupid for the sake of being stupid, as is the case here, some go to great lengths to use what appears to be intelligent methods to discuss the specifics of the day, but they wind up being stupid, and others just copy-and-paste stupid from other stupid people. But the one constant is that yes, all truther arguments are stupid. Got it. Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus Not to disagree with you or NoahFence here, since it is indeed stupid. But the real sin here is the intentional deceptiveness. This is nothing more than a hollow argument to authority, and it's a weaker one at that since the collapse dynamics lie in the field of structural engineering, not military expertise. The sideways insinuation is that a "military expert" knows bombs and explosions, but that doesn't change the fact that analysis of the towers structural failures are more the purview of engineers than military personnel. Hence my befuddled curiosity. I gathered that military expertise was meant to imply expertise with explosives, but I sort of hoped I was wrong. Even before pointing out that explosives expertise does not mean expertise with demolitions or engineering, the idea that military experts are explosives experts is stupid in itself. Very very few in the military work with explosives on any regular basis (outside that which is in bullets and grenades and the like) and few of those are actually experts. Of that small subset very very few if any are experts in the application of explosives for a controlled demolition.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

6th June 2012, 09:14 AM	#24
Sword_Of_Truth Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 11,497	Originally Posted by Garrette (And, yes, I really do mean "stupid," and I will point out that I said the "arguments" are stupid. This is stupid beyond stupid.) You're allowed to sate that truthers in general are stupid (even the ones who are engineers). You can even go so far as to say that any truther that pushes micro-nuke nonsense is an inbred mental midget and this would be acceptable under the JREF MA. You're just not allowed to direct your insults against a specific individual who is a fellow forum member.

6th June 2012, 09:47 AM	#25
ElMondoHummus 0.25 short of being half-witted Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole Posts: 11,967	Originally Posted by Garrette Got it. Hence my befuddled curiosity. I gathered that military expertise was meant to imply expertise with explosives, but I sort of hoped I was wrong. Even before pointing out that explosives expertise does not mean expertise with demolitions or engineering, the idea that military experts are explosives experts is stupid in itself. Very very few in the military work with explosives on any regular basis (outside that which is in bullets and grenades and the like) and few of those are actually experts. Of that small subset very very few if any are experts in the application of explosives for a controlled demolition. You are of course correct. And I'd even take that a step farther: For the few who would have expertise, how many of them have it in a context outside of combat applications (i.e. blowing up bridges, defensive bulwarks, etc.)? Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Army/Navy/Marine "sapper" training is absolutely not applicable to the question of demolishing tall structures. Rather, what I'm saying is that I would guess from short skimming of information online that in the military it's really specialized expertise. It's geared towards the applications they'll see in the context of military operations. Civillian building demolisionists will have at minimum equal, and arguably greater experience at the sort of demolitions involving structuers like moderate sized office buildings. To draw an analogy: It would be something on the order of a military trauma surgeon vs. a civillian one: Of course there would be overlap, but it would be denying reality to ignore the fact that the military surgeon's expertise would be more slanted towards the sorts of traumatic injuries that could occur during combat or military operations than anything else. Granted, this is inductive reasoning here; I'm always subject to correction by knowledgeable people. But I think I'm on the right track with this induction. My overall point here is that the military experts would not necessarily be arguing from a superior perspective on the issue of building demolitions, not in the company of civillian ones as Brent Blanchard, Mark Loiseaux, etc., who can comment authoritatively on the subject in the civillian sphere. At best, a supposed "military expert" would be an equal of those two, and could raise a substantive disagreement with them if his arguments on their own were valid. At best. And that's not what we're seeing here. Well, anyway... even if I'm wrong about all of this - and that's a possibility; again, I'm reasoning inductively here from a limited perspective, so I don't have a robust base of knowledge to draw from - it still stands that regardless of expertise, the arguments must have intrinsic merit, and not merely be given such based on their source. The source can genuinely be a military expert on structure demolitions, yet none of that would change the findings that have been made to date. And those findings argue against any sort of intentional demolition of the towers.
	__________________ must take this very carefully....booze is wise men's drink..... -pillory "... I'm quite willing to have everyone use my rejection of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as a basis for assessing my intelligence, judgment, and trustworthiness" -Prof. Ann Althouse

6th June 2012, 10:13 AM	#26
Cl1mh4224rd Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Pennsylvania, USA Posts: 6,618	Just an FYI, but derchin responded in one of his/her other threads: Originally Posted by derchin I'm not a truther and more than likely, will never be one again. I just thought it would be interesting to debunk truther sites one by one. Sigh. From the looks and rumors around here, that isn't in today's schedule... Apparently his/her appearance as a truther is down to poor presentation.

6th June 2012, 10:18 AM	#27
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 333	Originally Posted by Cl1mh4224rd Just an FYI, but derchin responded in one of his/her other threads: Apparently his/her appearance as a truther is down to poor presentation. *He.
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

6th June 2012, 11:48 AM	#29
Garrette Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,637	Originally Posted by Sword_Of_Truth You're allowed to sate that truthers in general are stupid (even the ones who are engineers). You can even go so far as to say that any truther that pushes micro-nuke nonsense is an inbred mental midget and this would be acceptable under the JREF MA. You're just not allowed to direct your insults against a specific individual who is a fellow forum member. And frankly I have no problem with that.
	__________________ My kids still love me.

6th June 2012, 12:02 PM	#30
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,950	Originally Posted by derchin http://nesara.insights2.org/WTCsoldier5.htm There's tons of pictures and comparisons with actual bombs and explosions and the collapse of the towers. You found a web site of insanity. Amazing how the insane person who made up those lies is able to create a web page. Are they selling that nonsense on DVD?

6th June 2012, 12:16 PM	#31
derchin Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Here Posts: 333	I really hope not.
	__________________ "Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall in an open sewer and die." —Mel Brooks

6th June 2012, 09:49 PM	#33
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660	Quote: With the temperature of carbohydrate fires that reaches only 825 °C (approx. 1517 °F) steel weakens at 800 °C (approx. 1470 °F) and melts at 1585 °C (approx. 2890 °F). Uh, you do realize you just documented steel softens and loses the majority of its structural integrity at the predictable temperature of an office fire. Or are you one of those "special" ones who think steel has to melt into a puddle before it gives way?
Robrob Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 3,660