Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job? [Archive] - Page 3

RonWieck

04-02-09, 07:51 PM

I know you were on Richard Green's Clout last May, discussing the Pentagon issue. So okay. I'll go along with you being the moderator. I will trust that you will be a man of your word and not get in the way to benefit one side vs. the other. There is no reason to believe it should be anything but a civil discussion about an issue which we happen to disagree on at the moment.

I would still like there to be some form of agreed upon discussion topics.

Is there a white board that can be used on the set? If Ryan is on via webcam then he can have a white board at his disposal. Some things may need to be illustrated on the spot especially in an introductory way to an argument.

Tony, do you have my e-mail address? We can discuss the format privately. You have my word that I will never attempt to insult or humiliate anyone who appears on 'Hardfire.' I save my nasty stuff for anonymous net-denizens. Real people with the courage of their convictions deserve civility.

shaman_

04-02-09, 09:00 PM

.
To me a lot of the people like Richard Gage seem to be more interested in dragging this on forever rather than solving the problem Perhaps we agree there. Gage has a religious like belief in the conspiracy and no amount of evidence or debate will ever change his mind. To him it is a noble cause.

so the average person can understand it. I emailed Gage about Frank Greening in 2007. He sent back that I was correct but never used the information on his site.

Do you think you need a PhD in physics and a masters in structural engineering to understand what holds a skyscraper up and has to fail for it to collapse? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the buildings were brought down with explosives/incendiaries? Any at all?

You seem more interested in psychological bu** than solving a grade school physics problem. In this forum alone I have contributed several hundred posts to the “evidence” presented by scott and others. After all this time the evidence still is not even close to compelling. The best you guys seem to come up with is where there is a lack of evidence. That is a little sad.

When you look at the enormous amount of claims regarding 911, some of which are absolutely moronic but still wont go away, some of which are more difficult to clear up, it is clear that there is a desire to believe here which is no different from the desire to believe in the alien conspiracy or that Elvis was alive. You may complain about that being psychological nonsense but you are refusing to step back and see that this is the case.

As to your 'grade school physics problem', surely you are able to make an accurate estimate of these masses? But then you would have nothing to post about ....

So it doesn't bother you that Americans could be killing and dying in Iraq because most Americans aren't smart enough to ask the obvious questions about a couple of skyscrapers. Utter nonsense. Actually I am Australian but I don’t want US troops to die either. I don’t think they should ever have gone over there. However that does not change the fact that you don’t have compelling evidence for the conspiracy. We all saw what happened to the buildings, you have no evidence for explosives/incendiaries yet you ramble on that there might be a conspiracy because you can't find data which could fairly accurately estimated anyway.. :shrug:

Who needs to watch a Ryan MacKey video. There were only two people. It is easy to distinguish their voices. You start it playing while doing something else on the computer. There was nothing to watch in the first two but I stopped it and went back when Ron made that "ten thousand tons" comment. I only watched the part of the second where he showed the diagrams of his models. He stuck his foot in his mouth there. Lol I don’t care what Ron said. (No offence Ron) . This is the pathetic position you are in that you take someone making a slip like that to be a victory which you repeat over and over. You are so desperate for any win over Ron, Mackey or anyone. You are completely ridiculed by the more qualified at the JREF so you retreat here where you feel safer to talk about your laughable ‘victory’ over Mackey.

But then you don't say anything about the models I designed and built and shot and edited video and made sound tracks, and must have done testing that wasn't taped. I haven’t watched them.

You can't figure out that those had to take up a lot more time then all of the stuff you are making a big deal about? What was I “making a big deal about” ?

So you did something that took some time.. and ?

psikeyhackr

04-02-09, 10:02 PM

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the buildings were brought down with explosives/incendiaries? Any at all?

In this forum alone I have contributed several hundred posts to the “evidence” presented by scott and others. After all this time the evidence still is not even close to compelling. The best you guys seem to come up with is where there is a lack of evidence. That is a little sadLol I don’t care what Ron said. (No offence Ron) . This is the pathetic position you are in that you take someone making a slip like that to be a victory which you repeat over and over. You are so desperate for any win over Ron, Mackey or anyone. You are completely ridiculed by the more qualified at the JREF so you retreat here where you feel safer to talk about your laughable ‘victory’ over Mackey.

.
In case you haven't noticed I don't deal in conspiracy crap evidence.

You asked me about my model and I responded and now you say nothing, AGAIN.

The plane was less than 200 TONS the building was more than 400,000 TONS. I thought about this for two weeks after 9/11 and concluded the plane could not produce the effects we see. I could give less than a shit about snide remarks from you or Wieck "Brain" Ron. His "ten thousand tons" was just funny to me. You people that BELIEVE the plane caused it can't even tell us the tons of steel on each of the five levels where the planes struck. So how can you explain the buildings coming down in less than 18 seconds?

You people BELIEVE IN MAGIC as far as I am concerned.

I have built two models demonstrating the relevance of the inertia of the mass distributed through the building in its responses to forces in horizontal and vertical directions. I didn't need to do it because I can do it in my head. But since this idiotic shit has dragged on for SEVEN AND A HALF YEARS now I felt there was a need to demonstrate the obvious. So if you can believe that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid when you don't even ask about the distribution of mass that had to come down in less than 18 seconds you go right ahead. I don't have access to any sources of information about explosive that you do not and I DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO WHATEVER IS OUT THERE. I know damn well that if someone gave me a piece of steel from the WTC with sulfur content because of thermate and took me to a fully equipped chemistry lab, I would not have the vaguest idea of how to analyze it for sulfur. I would have to take somebody's word JUST LIKE YOU. I AM NOT GOOD AT TAKING PEOPLE'S WORD. But I understand mass and inertia and force and momentum and kinetic energy and I don't need to take anybody's word about that.

As far as I am concerned it is GRADE SCHOOL PHYSICS. If some people don't get it, tough shit.

If you don't give a damn about the models I built that is perfectly fine with me, but then don't waste my time asking questions about them. It just shows you are worthy of Ron's boring insults.

psik

leopold99

04-02-09, 10:21 PM

.
You people that BELIEVE the plane caused it can't even tell us the tons of steel on each of the five levels where the planes struck. So how can you explain the buildings coming down in less than 18 seconds?

You people BELIEVE IN MAGIC as far as I am concerned.
well it's simple.
the plane hits, fires erupt, the buildings fall.

i have question for you psiky.
what if your model says it couldn't happen?
what conclusion are you going to draw?

Giambattista

04-03-09, 03:10 AM

well it's simple.
the plane hits, fires erupt, the buildings fall.

That simple, huh? Fires erupt, the buildings fall, on the outside.
That doesn't necessarily tell us what was really going on inside.

Giambattista

04-03-09, 03:47 AM

.

You people BELIEVE IN MAGIC as far as I am concerned.

It does seem like magic to think that the building(s) withstood the impact, stood there burning and managed to be strong enough to stay up for around an hour, and then in less than 20 seconds crumbled into dust.

What also seems very magical? The stunning convenience of the too perfect storm that killed several birds with one stone, as far as political agendas go (PNAC et al.). Of course, that would be a conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? :runaway:

You were speaking of psychology earlier. What is to be said of the psychology of someone who says scenario A is correct because scenario B is a conspiracy theory?
What is up with the phenomenon of invalidating someone's argument merely by flinging the "conspiracy theorist" label?

shaman_

04-03-09, 04:05 AM

.
In case you haven't noticed I don't deal in conspiracy crap evidence. Looking at the remainder of this post, yes you do.

You asked me about my model and I responded and now you say nothing, AGAIN. You don’t seem to be sane so I will explain. You appeared to be contradicting yourself and I asked for clarification. You seemed to be saying that certain information was needed, you don’t have the information but your model is still correct. Do you understand this?

I have missed a post of your over the page as I can only post so much while I am at work. You will no doubt take that as a victory or something…

I will get to your model eventually. I can't watch videos at work.

The plane was less than 200 TONS the building was more than 400,000 TONS What does that matter? The weight of the plane did not cause the collapse! Were you not aware of this? You understand that the fire softening unprotected steel actually initiated the collapse right?

When you say sentences like that it appears that you have very simplistically just weighed up "200 Tons plane Vs 400, 000 Ton building… hrm the building would win", as if we are talking about a boxing match.

A bullet of a hundred grams or so can bring down animals over 100 kg. Can you comprehend that? Must be magic.

I thought about this for two weeks after 9/11 and concluded the plane could not produce the effects we see. Well that’s compelling evidence. You thought about it and decided it couldn’t happen…. That’s it?

I could give less than a shit about snide remarks from you or Wieck "Brain" Ron. His "ten thousand tons" was just funny to me. You people that BELIEVE the plane caused it We all saw what happened. Give me evidence that something other than the plane did it. You don’t have any. You just know (believe) that it couldn’t because you thought about it and you would have nothing to say.

can't even tell us the tons of steel on each of the five levels where the planes struck. No I can’t, but that doesn’t compensate for the lack of evidence for a conspiracy.

Once again, you could fairly accurately calculate the tons of steel and concrete. If you actually did that then you wouldn’t have any missing information to complain about. You would have even less to say then.

So how can you explain the buildings coming down in less than 18 seconds? Gravity can be problematic at times….

You people BELIEVE IN MAGIC as far as I am concerned. You are the one claiming that it can’t happen based on ‘thinking about it for two weeks’. Your only evidence appears to be a little model which has been ridiculed at the jref......

The rest of your post was a rant and not worth responding to.

leopold99

04-03-09, 07:59 AM

That simple, huh? Fires erupt, the buildings fall, on the outside.
That doesn't necessarily tell us what was really going on inside.
according to the videos i've seen of the collapse the buildings fell on the inside too.

in case you missed it tony himself has confirmed the core columns were broken instead of cut.

shaman_

04-03-09, 08:43 AM

.
Didn't I mention his diagrams, 2-6 and 2-7, for scaling a collapse model?
Perhaps you didn't realise I was being sarcastic. Clearly you are somewhat focused on Ryan Mackey.

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 09:52 AM

A bullet of a hundred grams or so can bring down animals over 100 kg. Can you comprehend that? Must be magic.
.
JEEZ! I wish I had a dollar for every idiot I have communicated with on the internet that resorted to that analogy.

In talking about an airliner hitting a building we are discussing and INANIMATE OBJECT hitting another INANIMATE OBJECT. But you come up with an inanimate object hitting an ANIMATE ONE and want to pretend that the comparison is valid.

Buildings do not have knees. Buildings do not have hearts. Buildings do not breath, at least not for themselves. The have ventilation systems for the people. You can make a horse collapse by putting a plastic bag over its head causing it to sufficate. If you could have put a giant plastic bag over one of the WTC towers do you think it would collapse?

Suppose you got an 8 foot piece of telephone pole and dug a 2 foot hole in the ground and buried one end so it stood straight up. If you then shot it with a rifle from a few feet away do you think it would fall down? That would be an INANIMATE OBJECT hitting another INANIMATE OBJECT and more like what happened on 9/11.

That is the DEBATING GAME CRAP that people play. DEBATING GRADE SCHOOL NEWTONIAN PHYSICS is idiotic. People either understand it or they don't. If people that understand it disagree then somebody is probably lying.

Now I could deal with more of your points but since that analogy you provided adequately demonstrates the quality of your thought I won't waste any more time responding.

We can just agree to regard each other as incompetents that are not worth the time.

psik

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 09:55 AM

Perhaps you didn't realise I was being sarcastic. Clearly you are somewhat focused on Ryan Mackey.
.
So you can't tell the difference between the diagrams and the man?

Maybe you didn't understand the diagrams?

Maybe you didn't even watch the video but want to play psychological bullshit games because that is all you know how to do?

psik

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 10:07 AM

This is one of the most interesting and amazing videos I have seen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0

That is the start of the south tower collapse 56 minutes after impact.

The vertical lines you see on the side of the building are the perimeter columns. Those columns are 3'4" center to center. So it looks like the part of the building just above the sheer moved to the right 7 column spreads in a matter of seconds before everything came down and it does not look like what was below offered significant resistance.

So how could fire make so much mass move like that? Entire floor slabs had to move. Columns had to be completely sheered off. But then we aren't told the tons of steel on each of those levels. Just BELIEVE! :D

psik

John99

04-03-09, 10:14 AM

Ron, your amazing ability to just make comments, while providing no basis for them whatsoever, hasn't diminished since I was involved in discussion with you and some of the other hecklers on the JREF forum.

The reason I don't post there much anymore is that the company was rather poor and in many cases quite impolite. I actually did post a couple of small points there in the last two weeks, so there was no fleeing that you speak of. It just isn't an everyday thing.

While we are on the subject I have wondered why you stopped posting there.

people do get impolite if someone insists that the sky is green, but i think your ego is too big and is hampering your judgment.

read your first paragraph and try to figure out why that should not apply to you.

i knew from the minute Scott started posting here that you guys had already made the rounds and were looking for a new soapbox.

its all about ego, ego is one of the downsides of being human...the root of so many problems too.

leopold99

04-03-09, 10:29 AM

read your first paragraph and try to figure out why that should not apply to you.

what really kills me is tony accuses ron of being biased.

at least i'm willing to concede that those buildings were indeed taken down with explosives.
the problem is that no supporting evidence can be found for such a scenario.
there were construction engineers on that pile along with demolition experts, cops, and firemen. for all of them to miss evidence of explosives is unimaginable.
for tony to state these people wouldn't know what to look for and wasn't looking for it is laughable.
forensic testing is not required to tell whether a girder was cut or broken.

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 10:44 AM

its all about ego, ego is one of the downsides of being human...the root of so many problems too.
.
And what is the distribution of steel and concrete in a skyscraper about? EGO?

Skyscrapers are held up by EGO?

I agree athey are built because of EGO but I don't think gravity gives a shit. :D

Do you ever think that most people do not like people that are obviously smarter than they are? Whose ego really has the problem? Are the smart people supposed to PLAY DUMB? To a certain extent that is the SMART thing to do, but it is SO BORING, day after day after day.

psik

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 10:52 AM

what really kills me is tony accuses ron of being biased.

.
You don't think it is obvious?

He called me a conspiracy liar!

When have I ever talked about conspiracies? He has not specified what I supposedly lied about or provided evidence.

He think in terms of groups. He has put me in a group and accuses everyone in that group of the same stuff. He just needs what he regards as scientific support for what he has decided to believe. Ryan Mackey is his scientific AUTHORITY.

Talking about a skyscraper collapsing without having the distribution of steel and concrete data is scientific nonsense.

Doing it SEVEN YEARS after the fact is insanely hilarious. LOL

psik

leopold99

04-03-09, 10:57 AM

i have question for you psiky.
what if your model says it couldn't happen?
what conclusion are you going to draw?
well psiky?

John99

04-03-09, 11:01 AM

John99

04-03-09, 11:03 AM

.

Do you ever think that most people do not like people that are obviously smarter than they are?
psik

freudian slip there sikey.

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 11:52 AM

freudian slip there sikey.
.
NO!

I said what I meant and I meant what I said.

Did you notice it was a question?

In college the psychology courses were referred to by a rather sexist term implying they were so easy they were a joke. EVERYBODY got at least a B, it was just a question of whether you wanted to do the extra work to get an A. If you weren't in the top 5% on the SAT you didn't get into the school.

The funny thing about that psychology book THOUGH, was something I made a point of remembering exactly because it was so STUPID.

"Intelligence is what intelligence tests measure."

So the psychologists validate themselves. I think the idea of boiling intelligence down to a single number is inherently STUPID. I was taught in grade school that you don't use a word to define itself. I guess psychologists don't agree with that. LOL

psik

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 12:09 PM

he made a model out of toothpicks and washers, a model that has no relevance to this discussion because it is not even close to being an accurate representation. you can make that say anything you want. he should have taken a torch out and incorporated it into his model.
.
So explain why Ryan Mackey's model diagrams were not an accurate representation. He had masses 'm' supported by columns 'h'. I used washers for masses. Mackey did not say what to use for mass. I used toothpicks in horizontal positions instead of columns but my falling masses still had to break the supports. I built a model that was easy to repeat in different configurations. Mackey never suggested such a possibility.

But in a scaled model the columns would have get stronger going down and my toothpicks are the same all of the way. So my model should be LESS LIKELY to stop the falling mass than a true scaled model. But the falling mass was stopped. And much faster with those washers you want to make fun of.

So you and Mackey have the problem of explaining why the physics does not cause the result you claim. Your only recourse is to say the model isn't valid. But you need to explain what is wrong with the physics. That is why I am so happy about Mackey doing that scaled model business on TV. It will at least be fun to see him attempt to pull his foot out of his mouth.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2209954&postcount=386

How can anyone build a scaled model without accurate data? Where is the steel and concrete distribution information? Why hasn't Mackey been screaming for that info for years?

psik

John99

04-03-09, 12:14 PM

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by leopold99
i have question for you psiky.
what if your model says it couldn't happen?
what conclusion are you going to draw?

well psiky?
.
Says what could not happen? Would you be more specific in your questions?

psik

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 12:28 PM

it is like me building a scaled version of psikeyhackr from things i find in a tool shed. i dont know what to tell you though. sure i can pacify you and tell you 'that was an excellent model you built there' but do you want me to be honest or dishonest?
.
You keep trying to resort to psychological bullshit. I don't give a damn what you tell me.

If you can't figure out the obvious that says all that is necessary about you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3C5sc8b3xM

Your talking about building a scaled model of a human being shows how ridiculous you are being. How much money did Sony spend making that Asimov robot? Do you think it can climb a chain link fence? You are just trying to make an analogy which only makes you look ridiculous. I don't know how many fences I climbed as a kid that were taller than I was. Do you think it could walk 200 feet balanced on top of a fence? When you make a scaled humanoid robot that can do that you will undoubtedly be famous. And have a really great tool shed of course.

psik

John99

04-03-09, 12:49 PM

.
You keep trying to resort to psychological bullshit. I don't give a damn what you tell me.

psik

when all avenues of logic have been exhausted then it is what comes next. this is only natural.

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 01:45 PM

when all avenues of logic have been exhausted then it is what comes next. this is only natural.
.
Like you explained something LOGICAL about what was wrong with the model.

ROFL

You said this:
sure i can pacify you and tell you 'that was an excellent model you built there'
.
Pacify is psychological bullshit. Excellent is subjective.

You said NOTHING logical.

psik

leopold99

04-03-09, 03:00 PM

.
Says what could not happen? Would you be more specific in your questions?

psik
sorry.
okay, you construct your model from the released data from NIST.
you run a test or two and conclude that the collapse could not happen without some kind of explosive.
are you going to take the results at face value?

i have a very strong suspicion that those towers did indeed collapse under their own weight without any explosives.
the reason NIST isn't releasing the data is not because of bombs or explosives but because it will expose the shoddy workmanship that has been prevalent.
i still can't believe butt joints were used in the load bearing perimeter columns.
this fact alone is enough to prove the margin of safety of those towers wasn't as great as some people would have you believe.

Headspin

04-03-09, 05:08 PM

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 06:04 PM

sorry.
okay, you construct your model from the released data from NIST.
you run a test or two and conclude that the collapse could not happen without some kind of explosive.
are you going to take the results at face value?
.
I am content that my current model demonstrates that mass slows the collapse down to a considerable degree.

The two problems with the current model are the way the washers tilt on the toothpicks and no noticeable reduction in fall occurred as mass was increased. They might be related.

I think using wire instead could solve the problem. I could drill two perpendicular holes and use two wires at right angles to hold the washers level. This would mean considerable testing with wire gauges to determine the energy requirements to bend the various thicknesses of wire.

I was expecting the mass to stop in significantly shorter distance with two washer than with one and even shorter with four. There was not a significant change. Considering how inconsistent the toothpicks were I would not trust them to give reliable results of that fine a distinction over such a small number of tests. Wire would be better because it should have much greater precision than chopped down toothpicks.

I am not upset about the butt joints. The perimeter columns were an extremely tight grid and it would take catastrophic force to sheer those bolts and get a significant number of columns out of alignment simultaneously. The staggered installation meant that only 1/3rd of the columns had were butt joints on any given level.

I don't talk about explosives since I don't know the subject but I am certain some other destructive force besides simply fire and gravity brought those buildings down. That tilt of the top of the south tower and the material hurled into the Winter Garden just cannot be explained by any gravitational collapse.

This 9/11 Psychosis should be a source for mass psychology papers for the next 1000 years.

psik

leopold99

04-03-09, 06:49 PM

New paper published -
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=5a36cb858df441ec60bd5a45e6679e62
uh, what paper?

next we'll be hearing about all the firemen, cops, and others that all of a sudden remember finding bomb debris in the pile.

leopold99

04-03-09, 07:05 PM

.
I am not upset about the butt joints. The perimeter columns were an extremely tight grid and it would take catastrophic force to sheer those bolts and get a significant number of columns out of alignment simultaneously. The staggered installation meant that only 1/3rd of the columns had were butt joints on any given level.
but doesn't this imply that the margin of safety as far as the perimeter columns are concerned is also reduced by 1/3?
doesn't it also raise questions in your mind as to what other "cost cutting" measures were used?

I don't talk about explosives since I don't know the subject but I am certain some other destructive force besides simply fire and gravity brought those buildings down. That tilt of the top of the south tower and the material hurled into the Winter Garden just cannot be explained by any gravitational collapse.
haven't you ever heard a physicist say "it should not be, but there it is none the less"?

This 9/11 Psychosis should be a source for mass psychology papers for the next 1000 years.

psik
as ive said before, i'm perfectly willing to concede that explosives was used but until i see some evidence, real evidence, then i'm going to support the so called official story.

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 07:46 PM

haven't you ever heard a physicist say "it should not be, but there it is none the less"?
.
Maybe, but how often do the physicists say the non-physicists don't know what the hell they are talking about?

This business of Mackey being a NASA SCIENTIST is kind of funny. Doesn't Ryan have lots of NASA SCIENTIST buddies? Why don't we have videos of LOTS OF NASA SCIENTISTS agreeing with him? Do you really hear any consensus about 9/11 like you hear about a consensus on global warming? You don't find the amount of silence on this subject from the number of experts that should be out there peculiar?

psik

John99

04-03-09, 08:05 PM

as ive said before, i'm perfectly willing to concede that explosives was used but until i see some evidence, real evidence, then i'm going to support the so called official story.

Judging by the way the buildings came down (one and two), explosives cannot even be logically considered. On a scale of 0-10 it would be at zero. the reason is because of the way every floor came down evenly. In some ways we can look at this as a natural failure on every floor, precipitated by an unnatural event.

Now if there were a major undertaking and coordination and days of preparation THEN it could have been done because every single floor, at their supports, would have needed to be rigged. I dont know of any witnesses who say that workers were busting through sheetrock and planting explosives.

leopold99

04-03-09, 08:08 PM

.
Do you really hear any consensus about 9/11 like you hear about a consensus on global warming? You don't find the amount of silence on this subject from the number of experts that should be out there peculiar?

psik
i don't watch TV.
i do know i don't hear anything about it on the radio or read anything about it in the newspapers.
no, i don't find it peculiar. why haggle over something that's obvious?
frankly i find this bomb business laughable.
that pile was open to anyone and everyone that had a desire to help.
none of them, zero, nada, zip, ever reported any evidence of explosives.

Headspin

04-03-09, 08:25 PM

New paper published -
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=5a36cb858df441ec60bd5a45e6679e62

uh, what paper?

I gave you a clue in the above link.

This paper here:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=5a36cb858df441ec60bd5a45e6679e62

The paper is called -
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

It appears you also missed that 'clue' where I said "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

or here:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

RonWieck

04-03-09, 08:28 PM

.
You don't think it is obvious?

He called me a conspiracy liar!

When have I ever talked about conspiracies? He has not specified what I supposedly lied about or provided evidence.

He think in terms of groups. He has put me in a group and accuses everyone in that group of the same stuff. He just needs what he regards as scientific support for what he has decided to believe. Ryan Mackey is his scientific AUTHORITY.

Talking about a skyscraper collapsing without having the distribution of steel and concrete data is scientific nonsense.

Doing it SEVEN YEARS after the fact is insanely hilarious. LOL

psik

You don't the slightest idea of what you're talking about. I asked you a pertinent question, and you ducked it. I'll try again: Countries unfriendly to the U.S. and eager to derail any perceived American efforts at empire-building have their share of engineers, physicists, architects, and demolition experts. NOBODY from any of these countries--Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea--has pointed out any errors in the NIST Report. Are you suggesting that the tentacles of your imaginary conspiracy reach into parts of the world where neocons dare not tread? Are the scientists and engineers of those countries too dumb to notice things an internet denizen with no background in any technical field can see at a glance? Explain the silence.

Your current hobbyhorse is the distribution of steel and concrete. The real engineers regard your new passion as so much empty blather. Why do they dismiss your obsession so disdainfully? As always, we want to know what you know that working scientists and engineers don't. How did you learn it?

RonWieck

04-03-09, 08:33 PM

.
Maybe, but how often do the physicists say the non-physicists don't know what the hell they are talking about?

This business of Mackey being a NASA SCIENTIST is kind of funny. Doesn't Ryan have lots of NASA SCIENTIST buddies? Why don't we have videos of LOTS OF NASA SCIENTISTS agreeing with him? Do you really hear any consensus about 9/11 like you hear about a consensus on global warming? You don't find the amount of silence on this subject from the number of experts that should be out there peculiar?

psik

Strawman alert! There is no conceivable reason why scientists at the NASA Jet Propulsion labs should be making videos about the collapse of the twin towers. Naturally, it would be a big deal if a real live scientist suddenly announced that he bought the insane drivel fabricated by dunces such as Gage and Griffin. If someone at NASA lost his mind and became a twoofer, we'd hear about it.

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 08:33 PM

but doesn't this imply that the margin of safety as far as the perimeter columns are concerned is also reduced by 1/3?

That isn't correct. Tony already said the butt joints had 70% the strength of solid metal so it is a 10% reduction not a 33% reduction compared to solid metal all of the way up which is impossible to build. FEMA said the perimeter columns were at 20% load capacity, so they were 5 times as strong as they needed to be. That 10% is irrelevant.

why haggle over something that's obvious?
.
Surprisingly I agree with that. But to me it is obvious that we should have had info on the distribution of steel LONG AGO.

psik

leopold99

04-03-09, 08:46 PM

I gave you a clue in the above link.

This paper here:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=5a36cb858df441ec60bd5a45e6679e62

The paper is called -
"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

It appears you also missed that 'clue' where I said "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

or here:
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
ah yes, the infamous red/grey chips that was found everywhere except on the pile.

the difference between these chips and paint is?

Headspin

04-03-09, 08:58 PM

ah yes, the infamous red/grey chips that was found everywhere except on the pile.

the difference between these chips and paint is?

that question is clearly addressed in the paper.
Have you read the paper ?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 09:02 PM

Strawman alert! There is no conceivable reason why scientists at the NASA Jet Propulsion labs should be making videos about the collapse of the twin towers. Naturally, it would be a big deal if a real live scientist suddenly announced that he bought the insane drivel fabricated by dunces such as Gage and Griffin. If someone at NASA lost his mind and became a twoofer, we'd hear about it.
.
ROFLMAO

Talk about strawmen! Can't you read Ron? I didn't say anything about their making videos of the collapse. I just mentioned them being on camera with Ryan and agreeing with him.

psik

scott3x

04-03-09, 09:06 PM

ah yes, the infamous red/grey chips that was found everywhere except on the pile.

the difference between these chips and paint is?

From the linked article, starting from the end of the 1st page:
Initially, it was suspected that these might be dried paint chips, but after close inspection, it was shown that this was not the case. Further testing was then performed on the red/grey chips in an attempt to ascertain their composition and properties. The authors also obtained and examined additional samplesof WTC dust which had been collected by independent observers on, or very soon after, 9/11. All of the samples examined contained these very small, peculiar red/gray chips. Previous studies discussing observations of the WTC dust include reports by RJ Lee Company [14], the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) [15], McGee et al. [13] and Lioy et al. [16] Some of these studies confirmed the finding of iron-rich microspheres, which are also peculiar [5, 8, 11, 13-15] but the red/gray chips analyzed in this study have apparently not been discussed in previously published reports. It is worth emphasizing that one sample was collected about ten minutes after the collapse of the second Tower, so it cannot possibly have been contaminated by clean-up operations [17].

scott3x

04-03-09, 09:07 PM

that question is clearly addressed in the paper.
Have you read the paper ?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

He might think that the site you're putting up is a 'conspiracy' site and therefore he wouldn't want to give them any hits. In this particular case, I believe that the journal publishes things of various natures, not only issues concerning 9/11. Anyway, I decided I'd just quote the relevant section to his query.

John99

04-03-09, 09:15 PM

peculiar chips?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

leopold99

04-03-09, 09:26 PM

google the term "composition of structural coatings" and see what you'll find.

RonWieck

04-03-09, 11:00 PM

.
ROFLMAO

Talk about strawmen! Can't you read Ron? I didn't say anything about their making videos of the collapse. I just mentioned them being on camera with Ryan and agreeing with him.

psik

So, you think that a real scientist could be found who would publicly disagree with Mackey? What would he say? C'mon, don't be shy. Point out those "errors" for us.

Mackey explained how scientists work. You didn't get much out of his lecture, did you?

psikeyhackr

04-03-09, 11:59 PM

So, you think that a real scientist could be found who would publicly disagree with Mackey? What would he say? C'mon, don't be shy. Point out those "errors" for us.

Mackey explained how scientists work. You didn't get much out of his lecture, did you?
.
1. There are these buildings called skyscrapers.

2. These building are very tall. That might be why they are called skyscrapers.

3. Like all buildings they must hold themselves up.

4. Therefore every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the levels above.

5. Since these skyscrapers are man-made objects the designers must determine how much steel to put on every level.

6. So to analyze the results of a 150 ton airliner impacting a skyscraper at 540 miles per hour it only makes sense to want to know the distribution of steel. I mean, we would need to know how much steel was in the impact zone to estimate impact damage. How much kinetic energy was absorbed by the structure in displacement and consequently did not do damage. How much steel was available to absorb and redistribute the heat of the resulting fire.

7. WHAT!?!? We don't have the distribution of steel after SEVEN YEARS? What kind of stupid bullshit is that? What kind of NITWIT masquerading as a scientist would discuss the subject without that information or be demanding it?

8. ROFLMAO

You are into AUTHORITARIAN where people are supposed to think what some authority tells them Ron. REAL SCIENCE is about understanding things for yourself no letting some pseudo-intellectual clown convince you that certain things are true. Even if you want to believe them.

That is why this scaling business is so important. You can't make a properly scaled collapse model without accurate information on the building. So let's see Mackey come up with it. I didn't force him to start talking about scaling a model.

psik

leopold99

04-04-09, 12:42 AM

.
8. ROFLMAO
psik
this gets old after awhile psiky.
do you really get down on the floor and roll around on it when discussing matters of this magnitude?

psikeyhackr

04-04-09, 01:09 AM

this gets old after awhile psiky.
do you really get down on the floor and roll around on it when discussing matters of this magnitude?
.
I already told you that I concluded in TWO WEEKS that an airliner could not bring down a skyscraper that size in that time. What kind of reaction do you expect after SEVEN YEARS? Are those models I built too complex and expensive for our engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for 4 years?

Have you seen what MIT built and put on television in 2002?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6633534908581013879

What kind of reaction do you expect about this LONE NASA SCIENTIST that can't get fellow scientists on screen with him and can't give us or request from the NIST a simple table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the Moon landing.

Why do you think I have MIT in the titles of my videos? I won a National Merit Scholarship. So I decided to apply to MIT since it was mentioned so often in the sci-fi books I read so many of. I got an interview. It lasted 20 minutes. 3 minutes into the interview I knew I didn't have a chance of getting accepted. This man just went on and on about the kinds of kids that went there, sons of doctors and lawyers etc. etc. And they produce that video telling us that is how the buildings collapsed. ROFLMAO

Would crying be more productive?

Is this better?

:roflmao:

psik

PS - Is there something stopping you from ignoring my posts?

Headspin

04-04-09, 07:02 AM

google the term "composition of structural coatings" and see what you'll find.I could not find any industrial coating that was:

1. Composed of intimately mixed thermitic materials- iron oxide and elemental aluminium.
2. Only resolves at the nanometer scale with an electron microscope.
3. Ignites at 420 Celcius.
4. Generates a reaction temperature of 1,500 Celcius capable of melting steel.

I'm sure you'll agree that such an invention to be used as a steel "protective" coating would be a very stupid idea.

have you read the paper?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

psikeyhackr

04-04-09, 10:00 AM

leopold99

04-04-09, 11:22 AM

RonWieck

04-04-09, 11:24 AM

.
1. There are these buildings called skyscrapers.

2. These building are very tall. That might be why they are called skyscrapers.

3. Like all buildings they must hold themselves up.

4. Therefore every level of a skyscraper must be strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the levels above.

5. Since these skyscrapers are man-made objects the designers must determine how much steel to put on every level.

6. So to analyze the results of a 150 ton airliner impacting a skyscraper at 540 miles per hour it only makes sense to want to know the distribution of steel. I mean, we would need to know how much steel was in the impact zone to estimate impact damage. How much kinetic energy was absorbed by the structure in displacement and consequently did not do damage. How much steel was available to absorb and redistribute the heat of the resulting fire.

7. WHAT!?!? We don't have the distribution of steel after SEVEN YEARS? What kind of stupid bullshit is that? What kind of NITWIT masquerading as a scientist would discuss the subject without that information or be demanding it?

8. ROFLMAO

You are into AUTHORITARIAN where people are supposed to think what some authority tells them Ron. REAL SCIENCE is about understanding things for yourself no letting some pseudo-intellectual clown convince you that certain things are true. Even if you want to believe them.

That is why this scaling business is so important. You can't make a properly scaled collapse model without accurate information on the building. So let's see Mackey come up with it. I didn't force him to start talking about scaling a model.

psik

A guy who pretends that we don't have some imaginary "distribution" of the steel, after NIST published 10,000 pages NONE of which he bothered to glance at, wants to be ridiculed. It's not clear why anyone should indulge your masochism. Most of us really do get the idea that, as Mackey pointed out on the JREF, it's quite easy to obtain the information you claim to seek.

RonWieck

04-04-09, 11:32 AM

.
I already told you that I concluded in TWO WEEKS that an airliner could not bring down a skyscraper that size in that time. What kind of reaction do you expect after SEVEN YEARS? Are those models I built too complex and expensive for our engineering schools that charge $100,000+ for 4 years?

Have you seen what MIT built and put on television in 2002?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6633534908581013879

What kind of reaction do you expect about this LONE NASA SCIENTIST that can't get fellow scientists on screen with him and can't give us or request from the NIST a simple table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the Moon landing.

Why do you think I have MIT in the titles of my videos? I won a National Merit Scholarship. So I decided to apply to MIT since it was mentioned so often in the sci-fi books I read so many of. I got an interview. It lasted 20 minutes. 3 minutes into the interview I knew I didn't have a chance of getting accepted. This man just went on and on about the kinds of kids that went there, sons of doctors and lawyers etc. etc. And they produce that video telling us that is how the buildings collapsed. ROFLMAO

Would crying be more productive?

Is this better?

:roflmao:

psik

PS - Is there something stopping you from ignoring my posts?

You've been caught lying again. Nobody believes that Mackey can't get his fellow scientists to appear on screen with him. There is no reason for him to make such a request of them. You want the math departments of major universities to issue a statement repudiating the belief that 2+2=17. Sorry, the belief is too stupid to pay attention to.

I strongly doubt that you won a National Merit Scholarship. You are, after all, unintelligent, as evidenced by your conspicuous inability to process information. You don't read and you can't understand the spoken words of a real scientist.

leopold99

04-04-09, 11:57 AM

RonWieck

04-04-09, 12:06 PM

.
The 911 Psychosis is truly amazing.

If you can't get people to think about something as obvious as the distribution of steel in a skyscraper when every skyscraper MUST hold itself up then how do you expect them to take microscopic particles seriously when they have to take other people's word for all of that stuff?

Oh that's right! They have to take someone's word that steel is used to hold skyscrapers up. I keep forgetting.

psik

I assume that the people here fall into the usual two categories: rationalists and twoofers. Twoofers are ineducable know-nothings, for most part indistinguishable from one another. Rationalists come in different sizes and shapes, ranging from bright people who lack technical backgrounds to working scientists and engineers.

Psikeyhackr is making an astounding claim--that he can't find information on the "distribution" of the steel in the twin towers. The twoofers can't comment because, as always, they don't know anything and couldn't begin to evaluate the validity of his claim. Rationalists split sharply. There are some whose critical thinking skills permit them to conclude that his claim is nonsense. Almost eight years have passed since jihadists crashed planes into the towers. Someone might have noticed if we didn't know how the steel in the buildings was"distributed." But these rationalists equipped with accurate BS-detectors haven't done much reading themselves. Mackey and others KNOW precisely where PsiKeyhackr can get his answers.

The reason Mackey and the other engineers on the JREF regard Psikeyhackr as a joke is that they understand that he is either the third most outrageous fraud in the fantasy movement (David Ray Grifter and Richard Gage have the top two spots locked up) or he just might be dumb enough not to be aware of the existence of the NIST reports that contain the information he professes to want. He isn't being disingenuous if he really is totally clueless. Which is it?

For the record, both of the following reports are available, and have been for years, from nist.gov:

NIST NCSTAR 1-6

Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the World Trade Center Towers to Impact Damage and Fire

NIST NCSTAR 1-3

Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel

An extremely uninformed young guy brays continually about what he thinks about the collapses of the towers, BUT HE WOULD NOT DREAM OF LOOKING AT ANALYSIS PRODUCED BY 1,000 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, METALLURGISTS, FIRE SAFETY EXPERTS, ARCHITECTS, AND PHYSICISTS.

No, he argues that all the professionals overlooked things that he perceives instantly. And people wonder why rationalists regard twoofers as idiots.

Headspin

04-04-09, 01:39 PM

headspin,
these red/ grey chips must be some type of protective coating.
there are 2 primary reasons i say this.
first is why did no one one the pile report any type of cut edges on the girders and second tony himself confirmed that the girders were broken not cut.This is what Popular Mechanics says "for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength"

So, why are you assumming these nanothermite chips would have cut the beams and columns? Do you think a film of nanothermite coating on the beams and columns, generating temperatures of some thousands of degrees celcius, would have weakened/softened the steel structure?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

psikeyhackr

04-04-09, 02:01 PM

A guy who pretends that we don't have some imaginary "distribution" of the steel, after NIST published 10,000 pages NONE of which he bothered to glance at, wants to be ridiculed. It's not clear why anyone should indulge your masochism. Most of us really do get the idea that, as Mackey pointed out on the JREF, it's quite easy to obtain the information you claim to seek.
.
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

The astounding Wieck, "Brain" Ron swings and misses again.

He comes in here calling me a "conspiracy liar" knowing nothing about me but falls all over himself making stupid accusations. I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report two years ago.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=412992#p412992

I am sure I have not read much more than 200 pages of it but it is mostly not worth reading. I just search on what I regard as important to understanding and solving the REAL PROBLEM. I don't rely on the NIST or the Great Ryan Mackey to tell me what to think about a grade school physics problem.

I have searched the report for lots of things that I know should be important on the basis of my understanding of physics. I have searched it for "center of mass" and "center of gravity" in order to learn about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower. To my amazement it was not there, "center of mass" appears four times in a report about the effect of the impact on suspended ceilings. I don't understand why they did it but I am glad the report is there. They only refer to the "center of mass" of the aircraft. But that report does say:

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5D%20Ceilings.pdf page 74

They only use center of gravity when talking about the creation of the simulated structural components for the SAP2000 program for their computer simulation.

Now that report also says that the original WTC design called for 14 types of perimeter wall panels but the manufacturer had two of them upgraded so only 12 types were actually used on the building. But the NIST does not tell us the number and weights of each of those 12 types. So Gregory Urich does a linear interpolation on the distribution of mass of the perimeter panels and his data is the most detailed that I know of but he is basically admitting it is wrong. However the NIST does say that one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.

Now Adobe will search all of the NCSTAR1 files for whatever you want but it will not copy information from it. I have found that the Evince program in Linux will do that but it will only search one file at a time.

So now you can explain to everyone here how I knew all of that without having glanced at the NCSTAR1 report. ROFL

psik

leopold99

04-04-09, 02:05 PM

again, why wasn't any of this noticed by the cops and firemen on the scene?
i believe we have been over this at least 5 times already.

really amazing isn't it?
first explosives, then thermite, and now we come to weakened steel.
i believe this last is virtually indistinguishable from the official story.
nice move headspin, but speculation on your part.

Headspin

04-04-09, 02:05 PM

FYI elemental aluminum can not exist in nature, it immediately combines with oxygen when exposed to air.This is a oxymoronic statement. In order to react with oxygen in the air, it has to exist in nature, right? It seems you are not grasping the nature of basic matter as much as you are not grapsing the basic matters of nature.

If you believe elemental aluminium cannot exist in nature, then you must believe that thermite cannot exist in nature since it contains elemental aluminium.

Similarly iron will react with the moisture in air to produce surface rust, to then make the claim that iron does not exist in nature would be equally absurd.

psikeyhackr

04-04-09, 02:15 PM

I assume that the people here fall into the usual two categories: rationalists and twoofers. Twoofers are ineducable know-nothings, for most part indistinguishable from one another. Rationalists come in different sizes and shapes, ranging from bright people who lack technical backgrounds to working scientists and engineers.

Psikeyhackr is making an astounding claim--that he can't find information on the "distribution" of the steel in the twin towers. The twoofers can't comment because, as always, they don't know anything and couldn't begin to evaluate the validity of his claim. Rationalists split sharply. There are some whose critical thinking skills permit them to conclude that his claim is nonsense. Almost eight years have passed since jihadists crashed planes into the towers. Someone might have noticed if we didn't know how the steel in the buildings was"distributed."
.
@Wieck, "Brain" Ron,

The NCSTAR1 report says there were 12 types of perimeter wall panels. So tell us the weights of the panels and the number of each type used on one of the towers or simply tell us the page number of which NCSTAR1 report has that information. Maybe I missed it in the TWO YEARS that I have had it burned to DVD. All 1.03 Gigabytes of it.

:roflmao:

You talk like a typical JREFer. Everybody is dumb but you. LOL

You don't actually supply any data you just say, "It's there, it's there".

Maybe you should cut down on that ASSuming. You make an ASS of yourself.

psik

Headspin

04-04-09, 02:22 PM

again, why wasn't any of this noticed by the cops and firemen on the scene?
i believe we have been over this at least 5 times already.
you want to know why the cops and the firemen did not notice small chips of unreacted nanothermite one milimeter in diameter amongst hundreds of thousands of tons of debris spread across many acres?
is that what you are asking?
you cannot be asking that, surely?

if you had read the paper you would not be asking such questions.
have you read it yet?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

leopold99

04-04-09, 02:23 PM

This is a oxymoronic statement. In order to react with oxygen in the air, it has to exist in nature, right? It seems you are not grasping the nature of basic matter as much as you are not grapsing the basic matters of nature.

If you believe elemental aluminium cannot exist in nature, then you must believe that thermite cannot exist in nature since it contains elemental aluminium.

Similarly iron will react with the moisture in air to produce surface rust, to then make the claim that iron does not exist in nature would be equally absurd.
really?
Aluminum occurs naturally only in compounds, never as a pure metal.
http://www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/A-C/Aluminum.html

comparing aliminum oxide to iron oxide is the oxymoron headspin.
aluminum oxide forms almost immediately on exposure to air where as iron oxide takes quite awhile.

leopold99

04-04-09, 02:32 PM

you want to know why the cops and the firemen did not notice small chips of unreacted nanothermite one milimeter in diameter amongst hundreds of thousands of tons of debris spread across many acres?
is that what you are asking?
you cannot be asking that, surely?

if you had read the paper you would not be asking such questions.
have you read it yet?
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
then why have you called them chips?

Headspin

04-04-09, 02:33 PM

Aluminum occurs naturally only in compounds, never as a pure metal.
...which means that the elemental aluminium discovered in the nanothermite chips was MANufactured and not naturally occuring.
so, how does this contradict anything in the below paper ?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Headspin

04-04-09, 02:36 PM

then why have you called them chips?

you are now trolling because you have no valid comment regarding the discovery of unreacted high tech nanothermite in the world trade centre dust.

leopold99

04-04-09, 02:45 PM

...which means that the elemental aluminium discovered in the nanothermite chips was MANufactured and not naturally occuring.
so, how does this contradict anything in the below paper ?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
like i've stated before and provided links to sources this stuff is some kind of structural coating.

as to your trolling claim, you have indeed referred to this stuff as chips and even provided a video where the speaker referred to them as chips.

edit:
furthermore your original claim was this stuff was found in two apartments.
now it appears it was found in four.
on top of that the website you posted seems to be an open source type where anyone can edit it.

RonWieck

04-04-09, 03:34 PM

.
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

The astounding Wieck, "Brain" Ron swings and misses again.

He comes in here calling me a "conspiracy liar" knowing nothing about me but falls all over himself making stupid accusations. I downloaded the NCSTAR1 report two years ago.

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=412992#p412992

I am sure I have not read much more than 200 pages of it but it is mostly not worth reading. I just search on what I regard as important to understanding and solving the REAL PROBLEM. I don't rely on the NIST or the Great Ryan Mackey to tell me what to think about a grade school physics problem.

I have searched the report for lots of things that I know should be important on the basis of my understanding of physics. I have searched it for "center of mass" and "center of gravity" in order to learn about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower. To my amazement it was not there, "center of mass" appears four times in a report about the effect of the impact on suspended ceilings. I don't understand why they did it but I am glad the report is there. They only refer to the "center of mass" of the aircraft. But that report does say:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-5D%20Ceilings.pdf page 74

They only use center of gravity when talking about the creation of the simulated structural components for the SAP2000 program for their computer simulation.

Now that report also says that the original WTC design called for 14 types of perimeter wall panels but the manufacturer had two of them upgraded so only 12 types were actually used on the building. But the NIST does not tell us the number and weights of each of those 12 types. So Gregory Urich does a linear interpolation on the distribution of mass of the perimeter panels and his data is the most detailed that I know of but he is basically admitting it is wrong. However the NIST does say that one airliner had 5 tons of cargo and the other had 9.

Now Adobe will search all of the NCSTAR1 files for whatever you want but it will not copy information from it. I have found that the Evince program in Linux will do that but it will only search one file at a time.

So now you can explain to everyone here how I knew all of that without having glanced at the NCSTAR1 report. ROFL

psik

Somehow, your assuring us that you have not so much as glanced at either of the reports I mentioned should lead us to conclude that you are familiar with NIST's methods and conclusions. Why don't you stop babbling nonsense and try looking at those two reports? You have created a ridiculous red herring to disguise the glaringly obvious fact that you are clueless.

RonWieck

04-04-09, 03:35 PM

like i've stated before and provided links to sources this stuff is some kind of structural coating.

as to your trolling claim, you have indeed referred to this stuff as chips and even provided a video where the speaker referred to them as chips.

edit:
furthermore your original claim was this stuff was found in two apartments.
now it appears it was found in four.
on top of that the website you posted seems to be an open source type where anyone can edit it.

Why are people going on and on about a worthless paper that Jones and other frauds paid to have printed in a vanity journal?

RonWieck

04-04-09, 03:37 PM

.
@Wieck, "Brain" Ron,

The NCSTAR1 report says there were 12 types of perimeter wall panels. So tell us the weights of the panels and the number of each type used on one of the towers or simply tell us the page number of which NCSTAR1 report has that information. Maybe I missed it in the TWO YEARS that I have had it burned to DVD. All 1.03 Gigabytes of it.

:roflmao:

You talk like a typical JREFer. Everybody is dumb but you. LOL

You don't actually supply any data you just say, "It's there, it's there".

Maybe you should cut down on that ASSuming. You make an ASS of yourself.

psik

Funny, I don't think everybody is dumb. Some people are smarter than I am. You, on the other hand, are quite dumb.

Can we ASSume that it never occurred to you to look here?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf

scott3x

04-04-09, 03:41 PM

on top of that the website you posted seems to be an open source type where anyone can edit it.

>.<. Your ignorance astounds me leopold. Did you even go to the site or does it seem this way to you based on the quotes of the site you've read here? Anyway, here's an excerpt from what appears to be the bentham's home page for its articles, http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/ (bold emphasis mine):
The benefits of Bentham Science OPEN are:

All articles are made freely and permanently accessible online immediately upon publication.

All articles are, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, deposit in digital repositories and use (with attribution) any way you wish. No permission is required for distribution, copying or commercial use of published articles.

Fast publication. All submitted articles undergo a fast but rigorous peer-review procedure and submission of an article to publication is done rapidly.

Authors publishing with Bentham Science Open retain the copyright to their work.

Authors can publish research, reviews and short communication articles.

Affordable article processing fees. Article processing fees rank amongst the lowest compared to those of other open access journal publishers.

Open Access to the broadest audience. Publishing in an open access journal allows anyone with an interest in your work to read it and that translates into increased usage and impact.

All articles are deposited in at least one major international open digital repository ( such as PubMed Central).

For complete information on Bentham publications, please visit www.bentham.org

Headspin

04-04-09, 03:53 PM

I could not find any industrial coating that was:

1. Composed of intimately mixed thermitic materials- iron oxide and elemental aluminium.
2. Only resolves at the nanometer scale with an electron microscope.
3. Ignites at 420 Celcius.
4. Generates a reaction temperature of 1,500 Celcius capable of melting steel.

I'm sure you'll agree that such an invention to be used as a steel "protective" coating would be a very stupid idea.

like i've stated before and provided links to sources this stuff is some kind of structural coating.I agree it appears to be some type of coating. Whether it is a "protective" or "destructive" coating is the issue.

As for your links you posted in post#552 -

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6764969.html
your first link above is a textile coating of iron oxide and aluminium oxide - these compounds will not react, the aluminium is already bound to oxygen, it is not elemental, so it fails points#1,3,4

http://www.springerlink.com/content/pk126771832j1j24/ (published in 1973)
your second link above describes an aluminium coating which consists of aluminium oxide (not elemental aluminium), this coating is NOT intimately mixed with iron oxide, so it fails points#1,3,4 (It also fails point 2 since nanotechnolgy was not around in 1974)

http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=2244&DID=81659&action=detail
your third link above seems to refer to a reactive nanothermite coating, so would seem to invalidate your position. That it would be used to coat structural steel for "protective" purposes is NOT a reason for its purpose given in your link.

furthermore your original claim was this stuff was found in two apartments. now it appears it was found in four.5 actually - again you would have known this if you had read the paper. The chips have been found by 2 other researchers independent of 911 research who have no contact with Doctor Jones et al, one is based France. The unreacted nanothermite chips are intrinsic to the world trade centre dust, so they will likely be found in all samples. You can listen here for more details:
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_drjones0309.mp3

on top of that the website you posted seems to be an open source type where anyone can edit it.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
The website is open access which means it is free to view (unlike the links you provided which are pay per view). open access does not mean "anyone can edit it". the paper has been peer reviewed and published and is available free of charge.

psikeyhackr

04-04-09, 04:05 PM

Somehow, your assuring us that you have not so much as glanced at either of the reports I mentioned should lead us to conclude that you are familiar with NIST's methods and conclusions. Why don't you stop babbling nonsense and try looking at those two reports? You have created a ridiculous red herring to disguise the glaringly obvious fact that you are clueless.
.
So who is the obvious LIAR now?

psik

psikeyhackr

04-04-09, 04:17 PM

Funny, I don't think everybody is dumb. Some people are smarter than I am. You, on the other hand, are quite dumb.

Can we ASSume that it never occurred to you to look here?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-1A.pdf
.
:roflmao:
I already told you that I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report long ago and how to search it with Adobe and Evince.

The usual JREF type bullshit. I ask for 24 numbers that should be on one page if they exist and you throw up a 166 page report that I would bet you haven't looked through.

So tell us what page has the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels.

Gregory Urich claims to have read the whole 10,000 pages and he has told me about stuff that I didn't know was there but he admits that what I am talking about ain't there.

By all means continue to advertise your ignorance and incompetence.

It is moderately entertaining but on the wane.

psik

PS - I searched that report on my DVD just for the hell of it. It mentions wall panels quite often. No information on weights. It does not even point out that there were 12 types of wall panels. I won't be holding my breath until you show that the information is there.

leopold99

04-04-09, 04:29 PM

headspin,
i know this much, no evidence of explosives, or whatever it is you people insist on calling it, was found on the pile.
cops, firemen, structural engineers, demolition experts, magically missed it i guess.
call it whatever you will headspin.
great name you go by dude, describes your tactics quite well.

edit:
what is the evidence trail of these "samples"
who submitted them, and who witnessed them being collected?

Headspin

04-04-09, 04:41 PM

no evidence of explosives, or whatever it is you people insist on calling it, was found on the pile.
cops, firemen, structural engineers, demolition experts, magically missed it i guess.

How would the cops, structural engineers, firemen, demolition experts have spotted milimeter nanothermite fragments without doing chemical lab analysis, and when most of the loose material was being "scooped and dumped" by huge diggers?

Are you suggesting they would have immediately recognised the use of this new technology at ground zero? obviously you must be referring to lab testing, not the ridiculous notion that these tiny fragments would have been spotted visually at ground zero.

NIST stated they did not chemically test for thermitic materials:
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

your responses are getting farcical.

leopold99

04-04-09, 04:46 PM

your responses are getting farcical.
especially when you AND the video you submitted reffered to them as chips.

the evidence trail please.

Headspin

04-04-09, 04:47 PM

Tony Szamboti on the radio talking about the nanothermite, on now :
http://www.freedomundergroundradio.com/listen_live.html

leopold99

04-04-09, 06:15 PM

headspin,
so, no evidence trail right?
i'll be honest, frankly i do not believe you.
first you refer to this stuff as chips, even posting a video that refers to them as such.
now you are calling it dust.

Headspin

04-04-09, 06:28 PM

the evidence trail please.
So do you accept the conclusions of the paper, provided that Dr Steven Jones is not a lying fraud, Professor Niels Harrit is not a liar, Dr Jeffrey Farrer is not a liar, Kevin Ryan is not a liar, Dr Frank Legge is not a liar, Daniel Farnsworth is not a liar, Gregg Roberts is not a liar, James Gourley is not a liar, Bradley Larsen is not a liar, and the five people who have provided samples and depositions are not liars and frauds, and the two other independent scientists who studied the dust and confirmed Doctor Jones findings from samples independent of Doctor Jones samples are also not liars.

...so as long as all these people are not all complete unadulterated liars, you accept the papers conclusions?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

edit - the chain of custody is documented, we've been over it on another thread. it is obvious you are now looking for strawmen to avoid addressing the paper and its conclusions.

Headspin

04-04-09, 06:39 PM

frankly i do not believe you.
What in the paper do you not "believe"?

perhaps this is the problem, that you allow your "beliefs" to dictate your reality, rather than evidence based research. This is a science forum, is it not? your "beliefs" have no weight in this discussion.

RonWieck

04-04-09, 07:02 PM

.
:roflmao:
I already told you that I downloaded the entire NCSTAR1 report long ago and how to search it with Adobe and Evince.

The usual JREF type bullshit. I ask for 24 numbers that should be on one page if they exist and you throw up a 166 page report that I would bet you haven't looked through.

So tell us what page has the number and weights of the perimeter wall panels.

Gregory Urich claims to have read the whole 10,000 pages and he has told me about stuff that I didn't know was there but he admits that what I am talking about ain't there.

By all means continue to advertise your ignorance and incompetence.

It is moderately entertaining but on the wane.

psik

PS - I searched that report on my DVD just for the hell of it. It mentions wall panels quite often. No information on weights. It does not even point out that there were 12 types of wall panels. I won't be holding my breath until you show that the information is there.

Have you ever figured out what you intend to do with the "information" you pretend to seek? The real engineers, from whom you are incapable of learning anything, think you're blowing smoke.

AGAIN--What do you know that they don't know, and how did you learn it?

RonWieck

04-04-09, 07:04 PM

you are now trolling because you have no valid comment regarding the discovery of unreacted high tech nanothermite in the world trade centre dust.

No "high tech nanothermite" was discovered in WTC dust. You are either lying, deluded, or both.

leopold99

04-04-09, 07:09 PM

edit - the chain of custody is documented, we've been over it on another thread. it is obvious you are now looking for strawmen to avoid addressing the paper and its conclusions.
where? the only thing you posted about this is a video describing this as chips and these chips were found in two separate apartments.
to my knowledge you have posted no names of the people that found the chips.

leopold99

04-04-09, 07:12 PM

frankly this discussion is moot.
why weren't these chips discovered in the pile?
don't hand me the dust crap headspin.

John99

04-04-09, 07:13 PM

What in the paper do you not "believe"?

perhaps this is the problem, that you allow your "beliefs" to dictate your reality, rather than evidence based research. This is a science forum, is it not? your "beliefs" have no weight in this discussion.

He must think you are not credible because all you have to go by are your beliefs and a few people who played no part in the actual investigation. Credibility plays a role in everything.

I already posted a few times that both building collapses contradict the remotest possibility of a deliberate demolition, no one can or has disputed that. One person here made a feeble attempt but i think he now sees how ridiculous his beliefs were. And i am not reposting it for a third time so dont ask me to

The collapses could not be done with explosives and any possibility of using them would have made them collapse in an entirely different way. The buildings would have come down in larger parts, realistically it would have been dozens of floors at a time.

You know that the steel was weakened to minimum 50% strength so basicall what you have left are building standing with half the capabilities they were designed with. The result is the pancaking collapse we see on the video (evidence).

This is why people call in your and the others credibility or your just capacity to understand what happened.

Headspin

04-04-09, 07:13 PM

No "high tech nanothermite" was discovered in WTC dust. You are either lying, deluded, or both.can you show where the paper is incorrect?
Acting like a cheap lawyer by simply attacking me doesn't push this forward any.
do you have anything that contradicts the paper and its conclusions?

leopold99

04-04-09, 07:20 PM

John99

04-04-09, 07:25 PM

can you show where the paper is incorrect?
Acting like a cheap lawyer by simply attacking me doesn't push this forward any.
do you have anything that contradicts the paper and its conclusions?

isnt that what he is doing? this is a discussion forum, i dont see you being attacked but lets not avoid the subject.

yes, THE EVIDENCE TRAIL HEAD SPIN ! ! ! ! ! ! !
why wasn't these chips found at the pile?

he has not even gotten to that point. afa dust or chips, the people who did the actual investigation would know about that and what to look for. at this point it may be a saving face attempt...:shrug:

leopold99

04-04-09, 07:30 PM

he has not even gotten to that point. afa dust or chips, the people who did the actual investigation would know about that and what to look for. at this point it may be a saving face attempt...:shrug:
not to mention the cops, firemen, structural engineers, demolition experts, and investigators that was on the pile.
especially after hearing the phrase" it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions" uttered by dan rather.

Headspin

04-04-09, 07:31 PM

yes, THE EVIDENCE TRAIL HEAD SPIN ! ! ! ! ! ! !
why don't you read the paper, it is documented there.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

it is clear you are not searching for information, if you were, you would have at least read the paper by now. what are you scared of?

why wasn't these chips found at the pile?these chips were found in dust samples next to the pile and near the pile. if you had looked at the paper you would have immediately seen a map showing the locations. given they are intrinsic to the dust and the dust was on and in the pile, then the chips were on and in the pile.

leopold99

04-04-09, 07:33 PM

why don't you read the paper, it is documented there.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

it is clear you are not searching for information, if you were, you would have at least read the paper by now. what are you scared of?

these chips were found in dust samples next to the pile and near the pile. if you had looked at the paper you would have immediately seen a map showing the locations. given they are intrinsic to the dust and the dust was on and in the pile, then the chips were on and in the pile.
okay headspin don't ask me to read that link again.
it IS NOT STATED ANYWHERE IN THE ABOVE LINK WHO FOUND THESE CHIPS.

furthermore it isn't stated they were found at the pile.
anyone could have submitted any old thing and said anything they wanted.

leopold99

04-04-09, 07:36 PM

if you had looked at the paper you would have immediately seen a map showing the locations. given they are intrinsic to the dust and the dust was on and in the pile, then the chips were on and in the pile.
there is no map at the link you have provided.

names headspin. until then your posts will be ignored by me.

John99

04-04-09, 07:37 PM

not to mention the cops, firemen, structural engineers, demolition experts, and investigators that was on the pile.
especially after hearing the phrase" it almost looks like one of those controlled demolitions" uttered by dan rather.

yeah. and all collapses 'almost' look like controlled demos.

Headspin

04-04-09, 07:39 PM

okay headspin don't ask me to read that link again.
it IS NOT STATED ANYWHERE IN THE ABOVE LINK WHO FOUND THESE CHIPS.

furthermore it isn't stated they were found at the pile.
anyone could have submitted any old thing and said anything they wanted.

have you read the actual paper?
do you see the green button that says "Download"?
click it and read the document that pops up.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

John99

04-04-09, 07:40 PM

no one seems to know what the big green download button means.

leopold99

04-04-09, 07:41 PM

apparently nobody knows what "evidence trail" means either.

Headspin

04-04-09, 07:44 PM

apparantly you two are just trolls.
you are both on ignore until christmas.

Tony Szamboti

04-04-09, 07:47 PM

have you read the actual paper?
do you see the green button that says "Download"?
click it and read the document that pops up.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Headspin, it is obvious now that Leopold is playing a stonewall with questions game with you. He refuses to accept any evidence of the authenticity of the dust unless it was found ON THE PILE!

Apparently he thinks it is okay to simply dismiss that the paper gives the bonifides of when, where, and by whom the dust was found and collected and why it is certain that it was from the towers and/or WTC 7, and that affidavits were signed about the circumstances when it was handed over to researchers.

In one case it was collected 10 minutes after the fall of the second twin tower on the Brooklyn bridge, so that one is strictly tower dust.

He drove me to the point of putting him on Ignore with this type of inanity. I also think John99 and Leopold99 are trolls of some sort, with the objective of wasting the time of serious people and keeping the waters muddied.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/wda1026l.jpg

I wonder if they are assigned specific information bridges to cover. It would seem a massive crime like 911 would have had contingencies for protecting the cover-up, with trolls of this sort being one of several methods employed to keep the masses at bay.

John99

04-04-09, 07:49 PM

apparantly you two are just trolls.
you are both on ignore until christmas.

trolls disputing weak claims? that is a new one.

John99

04-04-09, 07:50 PM

if you want a blog or you own t.v show then start one.

RonWieck

04-04-09, 08:31 PM

.
So who is the obvious LIAR now?

psik

You are--obviously. We've established that beyond dispute.

RonWieck

04-04-09, 08:33 PM

So do you accept the conclusions of the paper, provided that Dr Steven Jones is not a lying fraud, Professor Niels Harrit is not a liar, Dr Jeffrey Farrer is not a liar, Kevin Ryan is not a liar, Dr Frank Legge is not a liar, Daniel Farnsworth is not a liar, Gregg Roberts is not a liar, James Gourley is not a liar, Bradley Larsen is not a liar, and the five people who have provided samples and depositions are not liars and frauds, and the two other independent scientists who studied the dust and confirmed Doctor Jones findings from samples independent of Doctor Jones samples are also not liars.

...so as long as all these people are not all complete unadulterated liars, you accept the papers conclusions?

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

edit - the chain of custody is documented, we've been over it on another thread. it is obvious you are now looking for strawmen to avoid addressing the paper and its conclusions.

Well, we know with certainty that Kevin Ryan is a lying fraud. Jones keeps insinuating that this paper was peer-reviewed. He is lying.

Hope that helps.

leopold99

04-04-09, 09:12 PM

headspin,
you could have told me the information i seek was in a PDF at the download link in the abstract you posted.
anyway i looked at the PDF and i noticed that ALL of the samples was submitted to jones.
you don't find that odd? biased even? this can not be seen as "peer reviewed".

second, it is stated that this stuff was some kind of coating.
why wasn't any of this coating found on the girders at the pile?

third, i see no difference, or nearly no difference, between these samples and some of the structural coatings in the links i provided.

frankly i'm highly sceptical of the paper you posted for the following reasons:
first because all of the samples were submit to a single source.
second these samples were not controlled in any manner, one was stored god knows where in a plastic bag.
third, none of the workers reported finding this stuff in the pile or on the girders.
fourth, the samples were submitted well after 9/11, one was in 2007 i believe.
fifth, the composition of these chips relate well with the links i provided for structural coatings.

psikeyhackr

04-04-09, 10:49 PM

You are--obviously. We've established that beyond dispute.
.
You accused me of not glancing at the NCSTAR1 report but I have already provided more information about it than you have. Functioning outside of reality seems to be your standard operating procedure.

So have you found the numbers and weights of the perimeter wall panels yet?

How can the engineers you worship have explained what happened without that data?

You don't need to understand things for yourself. You just need an AUTHORITY to worship and tell you what to think. You presume everyone else does.

So how do we get the distribution of steel without the perimeter column info?

psik

RonWieck

04-04-09, 11:35 PM

.
You accused me of not glancing at the NCSTAR1 report but I have already provided more information about it than you have. Functioning outside of reality seems to be your standard operating procedure.

So have you found the numbers and weights of the perimeter wall panels yet?

How can the engineers you worship have explained what happened without that data?

You don't need to understand things for yourself. You just need an AUTHORITY to worship and tell you what to think. You presume everyone else does.

So how do we get the distribution of steel without the perimeter column info?

psik

Most of us have figured out that you don't know what you're talking about. Explain what you mean by the "distribution" of the steel. Obviously, everyone understands that the NIST reports show the location of EVERY steel column, perimeter and core, in the towers. Tell us why the weights of the perimeter wall panels mean something to you, although no real engineers find any significance.

psikeyhackr

04-04-09, 11:53 PM

Most of us have figured out that you don't know what you're talking about. Explain what you mean by the "distribution" of the steel. Obviously, everyone understands that the NIST reports show the location of EVERY steel column, perimeter and core, in the towers. Tell us why the weights of the perimeter wall panels mean something to you, although no real engineers find any significance.
.
Who is this "most of us" that you presume to speak for?

The NCSTAR1 report says the south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor, which was 130 feet below the impact point, when the plane hit the building. There is a graph of the building's oscillation for four minutes after impact. Shaking a 400,000 ton building takes a lot of energy, it could only come from the kinetic energy of the plane. So some of the kinetic energy shook the building and some did structural damage.

So an accurate estimate of the structural damage cannot be made without knowing what went into building motion. That cannot be computed without distribution of mass and steel behaves differently from concrete. It is the steel that provides the springiness of the building but steel and concrete provide inertia. That is what this video is about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

But the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE are also relevant to the collapse. The steel provides the strength to resist the collapse and both steel and concrete have a lot of inertia to affect the conservation of momentum. That is what this video is about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXAerZUw4Wc

Any engineers or scientists claiming to analyze and explain what happened to the buildings must have that information. So why isn't it in a 10,000 page report that took 3 years and $20,000,000?

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/post2585.html#p2585

psik

MacGyver1968

04-05-09, 06:33 AM

.
Who is this "most of us" that you presume to speak for?

The NCSTAR1 report says the south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor, which was 130 feet below the impact point, when the plane hit the building. There is a graph of the building's oscillation for four minutes after impact. Shaking a 400,000 ton building takes a lot of energy, it could only come from the kinetic energy of the plane. So some of the kinetic energy shook the building and some did structural damage.

So an accurate estimate of the structural damage cannot be made without knowing what went into building motion. That cannot be computed without distribution of mass and steel behaves differently from concrete. It is the steel that provides the springiness of the building but steel and concrete provide inertia. That is what this video is about:

psik

So let's say I wave a magic wand and produce these figures. Now, how do you accurately determine how much of the kinetic energy of the plane was received by the structural components of the building and how much just blew on through the backside? There's no way to know accurately. So having accurate steel and concrete measurements are moot. You could only guess with rough numbers about how much energy was absorbed by the building, so the numbers you been crying about in every post for all these months aren't really useful.

I think I understand what you saying. The plane hit the building and some of it's kinetic energy went in to damaging it, and some of it was absorbed by the elasticity of the building, causing it to sway. You want to know exactly how much the building weighed so you can determine how much of the energy didn't go to damaging the building but was absorbed ..right? Correct me if I'm wrong. The only problem, there's no way to accurately determine the amount of energy the structural components of the building actually experienced. Some of the energy was absorbed by non-structural components..some of it blew completely through the building and out the back. How do you determine the total amount of energy to use with your accurate mass figures?

Tony Szamboti

04-05-09, 07:10 AM

So let's say I wave a magic wand and produce these figures. Now, how do you accurately determine how much of the kinetic energy of the plane was received by the structural components of the building and how much just blew on through the backside? There's no way to know accurately. So having accurate steel and concrete measurements are moot. You could only guess with rough numbers about how much energy was absorbed by the building, so the numbers you been crying about in every post for all these months aren't really useful.

I think I understand what you saying. The plane hit the building and some of it's kinetic energy went in to damaging it, and some of it was absorbed by the elasticity of the building, causing it to sway. You want to know exactly how much the building weighed so you can determine how much of the energy didn't go to damaging the building but was absorbed ..right? Correct me if I'm wrong. The only problem, there's no way to accurately determine the amount of energy the structural components of the building actually experienced. Some of the energy was absorbed by non-structural components..some of it blew completely through the building and out the back. How do you determine the total amount of energy to use with your accurate mass figures?

You probably don't realize it but the non-structural components would not absorb energy that was then unfelt by the structure. There is something called a load path that you are failing to consider. The only part of the aircraft energy that would not be in the load path of the building, after the impact, was whatever was left when some parts exited the building. Since we know how far and from what height these remaining parts fell we can determine their remaining energies. Since we know the weight and velocity of the aircraft the total amount of energy brought into the building by the aircraft can be determined.

Not all of the energy would be involved in generating motion of the building as some would have been dissipated as heat and sound at impact. However, these can be estimated and are small fractions of the amount that would actually influence the motion of the building.

MacGyver1968

04-05-09, 07:38 AM

You probably don't realize it but the non-structural components would not absorb energy that was then unfelt by the structure. There is something called a load path that you are failing to consider. The only part of the aircraft energy that would not be in the load path of the building, after the impact, was whatever was left when some parts exited the building. Since we know how far and from what height these remaining parts fell we can determine their remaining energies. Since we know the weight and velocity of the aircraft the total amount of energy brought into the building by the aircraft can be determined.

Not all of the energy would be involved in generating motion of the building as some would have been dissipated as heat and sound at impact. However, these can be estimated and are small fractions of the amount that would actually influence the motion of the building.

OK...I'm not a physicist nor a structural engineer, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no way to tell how much of the total energy of the plane was transfered to the building, and how much went to other things....like what you mentioned, heat dissapation, and bits and pieces hitting desks and bookcases...and other bits just blasting all the way through. You can roughly estimate the amount of energy, but a specific number would be impossible to find, as we don't really know what went on in the inside of the structure.

Without a really accurate calculation of the energy applied to the building, the accurate numbers for steel and concrete distibution that Psi has been repeatedly asking for isn't really relevant. If only one half of the formula has accurate numbers, and the other half is just an estimate, then the product of the equation will not be accurate.

Tony Szamboti

04-05-09, 08:15 AM

OK...I'm not a physicist nor a structural engineer, the point I'm trying to make is that there is no way to tell how much of the total energy of the plane was transfered to the building, and how much went to other things....like what you mentioned, heat dissapation, and bits and pieces hitting desks and bookcases...and other bits just blasting all the way through. You can roughly estimate the amount of energy, but a specific number would be impossible to find, as we don't really know what went on in the inside of the structure.

Without a really accurate calculation of the energy applied to the building, the accurate numbers for steel and concrete distibution that Psi has been repeatedly asking for isn't really relevant. If only one half of the formula has accurate numbers, and the other half is just an estimate, then the product of the equation will not be accurate.

MacGyver, you should read what I said about the non-structural items (book cases, desks, etc) again. They will transfer their energy to the structural components which stop their movement. The heat and sound dissipations will not be large percentages of the actual energy and they can be estimated. So we can get a very good estimate of the actual energy which caused damage and influenced the building motion. You are wrong here.

What Psikeyhackr is saying is that if we know the mass distribution and the effect on building motion by the impact we can calculate that energy dissipation and deduct it from that of the aircraft to find the amount of energy which went into actual damage.

Tony Szamboti

04-05-09, 08:26 AM

psikeyhackr

04-05-09, 08:45 AM

Now, how do you accurately determine how much of the kinetic energy of the plane was received by the structural components of the building and how much just blew on through the backside? There's no way to know accurately.
.
How relevant do you think that is?

The plane was 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% the mass of the building.

What percentage of the plane do you think went all of the way through the building? Since the plane is such a small percentage in relation to the building mass, what went all of the way through can be totally ignored.

What do you think the word ACCURATE means?

In mathematics the number 1 is equal to 1.000000.

In engineering it is not.

1 means more than 0.5 and less than 1.5

1.000000 means more than 0.999995 and less than 1.000005

The limitations on the accuracy of the distribution of mass in the building are going to be so bad that thinking about what went all of the way through makes no sense.

But whether it was 10% or 50% of the kinetic energy of the plane that shook the building can make a considerable difference in the amount of structural damage that was done to the building by the impact. But to date I have not seen any official source discussing this issue. I have only seen one paragraph in the NCSTAR1 report that says the distribution of weight has something to do with analyzing the effect of the impact.

Without a really accurate calculation of the energy applied to the building, the accurate numbers for steel and concrete distibution that Psi has been repeatedly asking for isn't really relevant. If only one half of the formula has accurate numbers, and the other half is just an estimate, then the product of the equation will not be accurate.
.
I say you are totally wrong about that. It is like the difference between having a basketball bounce off the rim and not go in and missing by ten feet. As far as getting a basketball score is concerned it makes no difference. But in figuring out whether or not a 200 ton plane can make a 400,000 ton building collapse that much variation matters. If the building moved 12 inches 130 feet below the point of impact then how much did it move at the point of impact? It must have been at least 14 inches. But that means it moved 12 inches 130 feet above the impact at the 92nd floor also. So at least 22 stories of the building moved a foot in less than 3 seconds and we don't know the tons of steel and concrete in that volume. So that is 22 floor slabs and their trusses and those were about 1100 tons each. And I don't know what the core columns and perimeter columns were. Not to mention all of the beams in the core.

But more important to me is that the EXPERTS haven't been pointing out stuff this obvious for SEVEN YEARS. Just hand the plebs any old BS. They will believe ANYTHING! So the people that don't understand the physics don't know when they have been handed a load of crap and act like there is something wrong with anyone that thinks it is crap.

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

Molten thermite? :roflmao:

psik

John99

04-05-09, 11:03 AM

mac,

have you ever seen psikey post in the physics forum, have you ever been dazzled by his brilliant posts in math or physics?

No? i have not either.

At this point i honestly believe that my posts, which were not addressed btw...oh i was called some interesting names and insults by szamboti and head, but if you cannot get around that post then it is just a fairy tale being perused here by a few simple posters.

It is like if someone puts a roadblock up and they went around it instead of moving it.

John99

04-05-09, 11:07 AM

What Psikeyhackr is saying is that if we know the mass distribution and the effect on building motion by the impact we can calculate that energy dissipation and deduct it from that of the aircraft to find the amount of energy which went into actual damage.

manipulating data to fit a scenario is not part of an investigation, unless you a re a railroader. to be honest afaiac szamboti has zero credibility. now he strikes me as a fascist tyrant.

Tony Szamboti

04-05-09, 11:20 AM

manipulating data to fit a scenario is not part of an investigation, unless you a re a railroader. to be honest afaiac szamboti has zero credibility. now he strikes me as a fascist tyrant.

This comment isn't even worthy of a reply other than to say it is a joke with no basis in reality.

John99

04-05-09, 11:22 AM

John99

04-05-09, 11:22 AM

This comment isn't even worthy of a reply other than to say it is a joke with no basis in reality.

well that is my opinion.

John99

04-05-09, 11:26 AM

to be fair i am not saying you are a fascist tyrant but i see the potential is there.

Tony Szamboti

04-05-09, 11:27 AM

you see the problem is that we are looking at this from a physical evidence standpoint. we look at the evidence and draw a conclusion based of of the actual (real) evidence. then we have a few here who are more abstract in their thought processes and much more forgiving of where the real evidence is pointing.

I haven't seen evidence that you have tried to understand enough to grasp what the physical evidence actually says. You don't seem to understand the conservation of momentum or the dynamics of impact or should I say the lack of it in the measured fall of the upper block of the North Tower.

John99

04-05-09, 11:33 AM

See post #586.

John99

04-05-09, 12:16 PM

awfully quite there psikey.

RonWieck

04-05-09, 01:07 PM

.
How relevant do you think that is?

The plane was 1/2 of 1/10th of 1% the mass of the building.

What percentage of the plane do you think went all of the way through the building? Since the plane is such a small percentage in relation to the building mass, what went all of the way through can be totally ignored.

What do you think the word ACCURATE means?

In mathematics the number 1 is equal to 1.000000.

In engineering it is not.

1 means more than 0.5 and less than 1.5

1.000000 means more than 0.999995 and less than 1.000005

The limitations on the accuracy of the distribution of mass in the building are going to be so bad that thinking about what went all of the way through makes no sense.

But whether it was 10% or 50% of the kinetic energy of the plane that shook the building can make a considerable difference in the amount of structural damage that was done to the building by the impact. But to date I have not seen any official source discussing this issue. I have only seen one paragraph in the NCSTAR1 report that says the distribution of weight has something to do with analyzing the effect of the impact.

.
I say you are totally wrong about that. It is like the difference between having a basketball bounce off the rim and not go in and missing by ten feet. As far as getting a basketball score is concerned it makes no difference. But in figuring out whether or not a 200 ton plane can make a 400,000 ton building collapse that much variation matters. If the building moved 12 inches 130 feet below the point of impact then how much did it move at the point of impact? It must have been at least 14 inches. But that means it moved 12 inches 130 feet above the impact at the 92nd floor also. So at least 22 stories of the building moved a foot in less than 3 seconds and we don't know the tons of steel and concrete in that volume. So that is 22 floor slabs and their trusses and those were about 1100 tons each. And I don't know what the core columns and perimeter columns were. Not to mention all of the beams in the core.

But more important to me is that the EXPERTS haven't been pointing out stuff this obvious for SEVEN YEARS. Just hand the plebs any old BS. They will believe ANYTHING! So the people that don't understand the physics don't know when they have been handed a load of crap and act like there is something wrong with anyone that thinks it is crap.

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

Molten thermite? :roflmao:

psik

Ah, you bring us back to the question I keep asking and you keep running away from. Try to do better this time.

There are countries in the world that are unfriendly to the U.S., eager to undermine American credibility and derail American policy initiatives. These countries all have their share of structural engineers, physicists, and demolition experts.
WHY HAVEN'T ANY OF THESE EXPERTS STEPPED FORWARD TO PROTEST THE "BAD SCIENCE" IN THE NIST REPORTS?

Your previous dodge was extremely feeble. You waved your hands and professed not to care about this extraordinary anomaly. We get the idea that the question is terribly inconvenient for you.

Now, try it again: Engineers and scientists in countries unfriendly to the U.S.--people who know vastly more than you do--have not pointed out errors in the NIST Report. They seem not to care about matters you profess to find significant, although real engineers have told you that those matters are not significant at all. Again, these people understand physics far better than you do.

Explain for us the WORLDWIDE failure of the scientific and engineering community to "expose" NIST's shoddy methodolgy. What do you know that real scientists and engineers don't, and how did you learn it?

leopold99

04-05-09, 01:25 PM

I haven't seen evidence that you have tried to understand enough to grasp what the physical evidence actually says.
i understand the chips that was discussed were not found on the girders at the pile and they were submitted to a single source well after 9/11.
this is not peer reviewed evidence.

scott3x

04-05-09, 02:20 PM

Ah, you bring us back to the question I keep asking and you keep running away from. Try to do better this time.

There are countries in the world that are unfriendly to the U.S., eager to undermine American credibility and derail American policy initiatives. These countries all have their share of structural engineers, physicists, and demolition experts.
WHY HAVEN'T ANY OF THESE EXPERTS STEPPED FORWARD TO PROTEST THE "BAD SCIENCE" IN THE NIST REPORTS?

Your previous dodge was extremely feeble. You waved your hands and professed not to care about this extraordinary anomaly. We get the idea that the question is terribly inconvenient for you.

I've personally found that big letters isn't necessary to get a point addressed, only repetition. Anyway, psikey may not care, but I do. I also happen to know that the notion that other countries haven't disagreed with the U.S.'s official story is false. In the 'unfriendly' category, perhaps the most obvious example is Venezuela:
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation.htm)

Venezuela is not alone, however. Japan has also recently questioned the official story concerning 9/11:
Main Japanese Opposition Party Questions 9/11 in Parliament (Broadcast on Japanese public TV) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7803)

But you don't have to go to the international level to find academic disbelievers in the official story, although you may have to go to an international mainstream paper to hear about it. Here's a story from 2006:
Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-403757/Fury-academics-claim-9-11-inside-job.html)

And ofcourse, there's always the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/): 628 architectural and engineering professionals as of this writing and growing. There's also the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (http://stj911.org/about.html) and 9/11 notable Jim Hoffman's well researched 9/11 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/) site.

leopold99

04-05-09, 03:29 PM

still doesn't address the fact that these chips wasn't found on the girders at the pile.
any court in the country would question the validity of these chips, especially since they were submitted long after the fact and submitted to a single source.

TruthSeeker

04-05-09, 03:39 PM

Almost 10 years gone by - GET OVER IT!

psikeyhackr

04-05-09, 05:44 PM

Almost 10 years gone by - GET OVER IT!
.
What do some people have to get over?

Having to admit to themselves that they don't understand grade school physics?

psik

John99

04-05-09, 05:47 PM

Almost 10 years gone by - GET OVER IT!

why dont you call your uncle?;)

John99

04-05-09, 05:50 PM

uncle hugo

John99

04-05-09, 05:51 PM

'hello uncle hugo, can you do exorcism?'

psikeyhackr

04-05-09, 05:59 PM

mac,

have you ever seen psikey post in the physics forum, have you ever been dazzled by his brilliant posts in math or physics?

No? i have not either. He is an empty suit. That is my professional psychological opinion.
.
mac copied my Fall of Physics here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146840&postcount=1306

I don't recall seeing your brilliant mathematical criticism. Would you mind providing a link to it?

Do you need to move the issue from the physics you can't handle to the psychology that you can pretend to handle?

You can have professional psychological opinions? My my, I'm impressed. But can you do that on a subject involving PHYSICS if you don't know the physics? I have been thinking about what this 9/11 psychosis says about all of the psychologists and psychiatrists in the United States. If it is truly impossible for an airliner to bring down 400,000 tons of skyscraper in less than two hours then doesn't that mean that all of the psychiatrists that think it is possible are out of touch with reality? Are they INSANE? :D

Am I supposed to post in the physics forum to prove I am smart or should I concentrate on a problem that I consider interesting and of some consequence. The WTC towers were skyscrapers. The Empire State Building, a famous skyscraper, was completed 70 years before the World Trade Center was destroyed. The ESB was completed before the atomic bomb, before the electronic computer, before the transistor. The discovery of the neutron that made the atomic bomb possible happened the year after the ESB was completed. Skyscrapers cannot be very complicated physics. So this says interesting things about the people in the physics zone that don't bring up the conservation of momentum in relation to the WTC.

I have never even gone into the physics forum. (until today after I started writing this, LOL) I think in terms of the problem first and physics in relation to the problem. That does bring up an interesting thought though. Maybe I should post my last video there just to see what happens. What do you bet some moderator throws it out? :roflmao:

The real psychological question is, "Why aren't all of the physics people climbing all over the WTC problem?" Don't they have any curiosity? Wouldn't they have to notice that the information needed to solve it was missing? That is the difference between reality and a problem in a physics book. The book has to give you all of the information to solve it. The worst it can do is throw in irrelevant but distracting information. But in the real world you must understand the problem and then go after the relevant information.

Another interesting aspect of 9/11 Psychosis.

Could it be that schools psychologically condition even most of the smart kids to be subservient to AUTHORITY? It becomes a habit after 16+ years in school. They know what they are not supposed to stick their noses into.

psik

PS - Of course that does raise the question, "If this is such stupid bullshit, why are YOU here?" Oh yeah, psychological research.

RonWieck

04-05-09, 06:13 PM

I've personally found that big letters isn't necessary to get a point addressed, only repetition. Anyway, psikey may not care, but I do. I also happen to know that the notion that other countries haven't disagreed with the U.S.'s official story is false. In the 'unfriendly' category, perhaps the most obvious example is Venezuela:
Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation.htm)

Venezuela is not alone, however. Japan has also recently questioned the official story concerning 9/11:
Main Japanese Opposition Party Questions 9/11 in Parliament (Broadcast on Japanese public TV) (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7803)

But you don't have to go to the international level to find academic disbelievers in the official story, although you may have to go to an international mainstream paper to hear about it. Here's a story from 2006:
Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job' (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-403757/Fury-academics-claim-9-11-inside-job.html)

And ofcourse, there's always the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/): 628 architectural and engineering professionals as of this writing and growing. There's also the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (http://stj911.org/about.html) and 9/11 notable Jim Hoffman's well researched 9/11 Research (http://911research.wtc7.net/) site.

You're not addressing my point. Anyone can round up a slew of "academics" to oppose, well, anything that portrays America in a favorable light. In the seventies, during Brezhnev's unprecedented peacetime arms build-up, thousands of lefties on American campuses would dutifully affix their names to all sorts of drivel condemning AMERICAN militarism.

I am asking why no members of the international scientific and engineering community produce well reasoned, scientifically valid critiques of the NIST reports. The loudest of the conspiracy liars, Hoffman, Gage and his stooges, and other frauds, bray constantly, but nothing they say can stand the slightest bit of scrutiny. I'm asking who has found real errors in the NIST reports. What are those errors?

RonWieck

04-05-09, 06:16 PM

.
mac copied my Fall of Physics here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146840&postcount=1306

I don't recall seeing your brilliant mathematical criticism. Would you mind providing a link to it?

Do you need to move the issue from the physics you can't handle to the psychology that you can pretend to handle?

You can have professional psychological opinions? My my, I'm impressed. But can you do that on a subject involving PHYSICS if you don't know the physics? I have been thinking about what this 9/11 psychosis says about all of the psychologists and psychiatrists in the United States. If it is truly impossible for an airliner to bring down 400,000 tons of skyscraper in less than two hours then doesn't that mean that all of the psychiatrists that think it is possible are out of touch with reality? Are they INSANE? :D

Am I supposed to post in the physics forum to prove I am smart or should I concentrate on a problem that I consider interesting and of some consequence. The WTC towers were skyscrapers. The Empire State Building, a famous skyscraper, was completed 70 years before the World Trade Center was destroyed. The ESB was completed before the atomic bomb, before the electronic computer, before the transistor. The discovery of the neutron that made the atomic bomb possible happened the year after the ESB was completed. Skyscrapers cannot be very complicated physics. So this says interesting things about the people in the physics zone that don't bring up the conservation of momentum in relation to the WTC.

I have never even gone into the physics forum. (until today after I started writing this, LOL) I think in terms of the problem first and physics in relation to the problem. That does bring up an interesting thought though. Maybe I should post my last video there just to see what happens. What do you bet some moderator throws it out? :roflmao:

The real psychological question is, "Why aren't all of the physics people climbing all over the WTC problem?" Don't they have any curiosity? Wouldn't they have to notice that the information needed to solve it was missing? That is the difference between reality and a problem in a physics book. The book has to give you all of the information to solve it. The worst it can do is throw in irrelevant but distracting information. But in the real world you must understand the problem and then go after the relevant information.

Another interesting aspect of 9/11 Psychosis.

Could it be that schools psychologically condition even most of the smart kids to be subservient to AUTHORITY? It becomes a habit after 16+ years in school. They know what they are not supposed to stick their noses into.

psik

PS - Of course that does raise the question, "If this is such stupid bullshit, why are YOU here?" Oh yeah, psychological research.

You are aware that real engineers and physicists don't consider the collapse of the towers a mystery. It is a problem for you because you are flogging a political agenda and you are incapable of understanding the physics involved. You can't learn from people who understand the subject. Is that their fault?

RonWieck

04-05-09, 06:20 PM

.
mac copied my Fall of Physics here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146840&postcount=1306

I don't recall seeing your brilliant mathematical criticism. Would you mind providing a link to it?

Do you need to move the issue from the physics you can't handle to the psychology that you can pretend to handle?

You can have professional psychological opinions? My my, I'm impressed. But can you do that on a subject involving PHYSICS if you don't know the physics? I have been thinking about what this 9/11 psychosis says about all of the psychologists and psychiatrists in the United States. If it is truly impossible for an airliner to bring down 400,000 tons of skyscraper in less than two hours then doesn't that mean that all of the psychiatrists that think it is possible are out of touch with reality? Are they INSANE? :D

Am I supposed to post in the physics forum to prove I am smart or should I concentrate on a problem that I consider interesting and of some consequence. The WTC towers were skyscrapers. The Empire State Building, a famous skyscraper, was completed 70 years before the World Trade Center was destroyed. The ESB was completed before the atomic bomb, before the electronic computer, before the transistor. The discovery of the neutron that made the atomic bomb possible happened the year after the ESB was completed. Skyscrapers cannot be very complicated physics. So this says interesting things about the people in the physics zone that don't bring up the conservation of momentum in relation to the WTC.

I have never even gone into the physics forum. (until today after I started writing this, LOL) I think in terms of the problem first and physics in relation to the problem. That does bring up an interesting thought though. Maybe I should post my last video there just to see what happens. What do you bet some moderator throws it out? :roflmao:

The real psychological question is, "Why aren't all of the physics people climbing all over the WTC problem?" Don't they have any curiosity? Wouldn't they have to notice that the information needed to solve it was missing? That is the difference between reality and a problem in a physics book. The book has to give you all of the information to solve it. The worst it can do is throw in irrelevant but distracting information. But in the real world you must understand the problem and then go after the relevant information.

Another interesting aspect of 9/11 Psychosis.

Could it be that schools psychologically condition even most of the smart kids to be subservient to AUTHORITY? It becomes a habit after 16+ years in school. They know what they are not supposed to stick their noses into.

psik

PS - Of course that does raise the question, "If this is such stupid bullshit, why are YOU here?" Oh yeah, psychological research.

Mackey invited people to comment on his lecture. We provided his address. To date, he's received compliments from rationalists, and nothing but mindless
name-calling from fantasists. If you can frame an intelligent question, why don't you send it to him? If you think you've spotted a mistake he's made, send it along. You have a habit, typical of fantasists, of sticking your fingers in your ears.

psikeyhackr

04-05-09, 07:30 PM

You are aware that real engineers and physicists don't consider the collapse of the towers a mystery. It is a problem for you because you are flogging a political agenda and you are incapable of understanding the physics involved. You can't learn from people who understand the subject. Is that their fault?
.
Here we are back to obvious lying again.

Provide a link to where I said something about politics.

And you are constantly demonstrating your lack of knowledge about physics with your constant talk about "real engineers and physicists". You need someone to tell you what to think.

psik

psikeyhackr

04-05-09, 07:45 PM

Ah, you bring us back to the question I keep asking and you keep running away from. Try to do better this time.

Your previous dodge was extremely feeble.

Now, try it again: Engineers and scientists in countries unfriendly to the U.S.--people who know vastly more than you do--have not pointed out errors in the NIST Report.

Explain for us the WORLDWIDE failure of the scientific and engineering community to "expose" NIST's shoddy methodolgy. What do you know that real scientists and engineers don't, and how did you learn it?
.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Ron,

You provided a link to a portion of the NIST report that was 166 pages long. I already had it burned to DVD so I didn't need the link but just the name of the report. I searched it for "wall panel". It turned up DOZENS of times. The number and weights of each of the 12 types of wall panels were not there.

I know Gregory Urich can't find the info and he's A LOT smarter then you.

Now you can search the NCSTAR1 report all you want. If you can't find that data then you worry about why the scientists and engineers in unfriendly countries don't say anything about it. I don't give a damn!

But if you can't comprehend the importance of that information that is your problem but I certainly won't be surprised. Physics ain't about international politics. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan did not give a damn and that is exactly my attitude about the politics relative to the physics of 9/11.

psik

shaman_

04-05-09, 09:05 PM

.
JEEZ! I wish I had a dollar for every idiot I have communicated with on the internet that resorted to that analogy. People use analogies when they feel the need to draw a parallel to get a point across, particularly when they feel the need to dumb it down to assist with comprehension.

I’m trying to demonstrate to you that saying “a plane weighs this much and the building weighed this much therefore a plane cannot cause a building to collapse” is mind-numbingly simplistic.

.
In talking about an airliner hitting a building we are discussing and INANIMATE OBJECT hitting another INANIMATE OBJECT. But you come up with an inanimate object hitting an ANIMATE ONE and want to pretend that the comparison is valid.

Buildings do not have knees. Buildings do not have hearts. Buildings do not breath, at least not for themselves. The have ventilation systems for the people. You can make a horse collapse by putting a plastic bag over its head causing it to sufficate. If you could have put a giant plastic bag over one of the WTC towers do you think it would collapse?

Suppose you got an 8 foot piece of telephone pole and dug a 2 foot hole in the ground and buried one end so it stood straight up. If you then shot it with a rifle from a few feet away do you think it would fall down? That would be an INANIMATE OBJECT hitting another INANIMATE OBJECT and more like what happened on 9/11.
Your analogy is no better!! Do you really need me to explain why?

The impact and weight of the plane did not cause the collapse. You don’t appear to understand this. You are not taking into account the jet fuel, the design of the WTC, the gradual bowing observed minutes before collapse. You are not taking into account the susceptibility of unprotected steel to fire. You seem to have little grounding in reality at all.

That is the DEBATING GAME CRAP that people play. DEBATING GRADE SCHOOL NEWTONIAN PHYSICS is idiotic. People either understand it or they don't. If people that understand it disagree then somebody is probably lying. All the engineers who worked on the investigation are lying? Really?

Now I could deal with more of your points but since that analogy you provided adequately demonstrates the quality of your thought I won't waste any more time responding.

We can just agree to regard each other as incompetents that are not worth the time.
psik

So you can't tell the difference between the diagrams and the man? What?

Maybe you didn't understand the diagrams? Haven’t watched his video or yours yet. I was making the point that you claim not to be focused on Mackey, yet you keep talking about him.. in fact instead of understanding this point you just continue to rant about him. If you have a chip on your shoulder because he has embarrassed you a few times, take it to the jref where he may actually read your comments…

This place is like a clubhouse for troothers to safely talk about their supposed ‘victories’ over the more devoted skeptics at the jref.

Maybe you didn't even watch the video but want to play psychological bullshit games because that is all you know how to do? As you popped into the other 911 threads every now and then you are well aware that I have discussed much more than the psychology of conspiracy theories. All you’ve brought to the discussion is fanatical rants about the tons of steel and concrete (and poor analogies).

psikeyhackr

04-05-09, 10:49 PM

Your analogy is no better!! Do you really need me to explain why?
.
YEAH!

The impact and weight of the plane did not cause the collapse. You don’t appear to understand this. You are not taking into account the jet fuel, the design of the WTC, the gradual bowing observed minutes before collapse. You are not taking into account the susceptibility of unprotected steel to fire. You seem to have little grounding in reality at all.
.
I NEVER said the weight of the plane caused the collapse. It is partly because the building is so much bigger that the collapse never should have happened.

It is because of the QUANTITY OF STEEL that there is no way the fire could have weakened enough steel for the collapse to occur in such a short time.
So why don't we know how much steel there was in the impact and fire zone?

All the engineers who worked on the investigation are lying? Really?
.
When did I say anybody was lying? Besides Wieck "Brain" Ron? I just say information is left out. I do not concern myself with the psychological bullshit of why some people did or did not do whatever. I leave that to geniuses like yourself. It is beyond my intellectual capacity.

{there is something for you to use in your word games.}

That is the funny thing about that report on the effect of the impact on suspended ceilings. It is the only one that talks about the weight distribution being important to the analysis. It is the only one that uses the phrase "center of mass". But I could not understand why they bothered to make such a report on ceilings. But on the videos I have seen, the only place anyone talked about ceilings falling was in the basement. But the word basement does not appear in that report. So to me it looks like the competent people with integrity got shoved into irrelevant tasks. But they left a few gems in their particular work areas anyway.

Why don't you stop concentrating on people and concentrate on the physics for yourself. It is just plane old grade school stuff. Some people on another site said so. Of course they probably intended it as an insult. I must have messed them up by agreeing with them :roflmao:

http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,8361.210.html

psik

scott3x

04-05-09, 11:00 PM

You're not addressing my point.

Alright, to some degree you're right. You asked for foreign experts, but instead I gave you foreign nations and local experts. I think it stands to reason that if the government of a country, such as Venezuela, believes that 9/11 was an inside job, it stands to reason that experts in said country are investigating the case, but in issues such as this, perhaps it's best not to assume even this. However, I know of one foreign expert who did disbelieve part of the official 9/11 story. The expert I'm referring to is Dutch demolition expert Danny Jawenko. Some reporters got him to see the video of the collapse of WTC 7 without telling him that it also happened on 9/11. When asked what had occurred to the building, he was sure that it was a controlled demolition and was quite surprised to find out that it had also collapsed on 9/11. You can see for yourself here; it includes english subtitles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA

Anyone can round up a slew of "academics" to oppose, well, anything that portrays America in a favorable light.

Perhaps "academics". Not academics, however.

In the seventies, during Brezhnev's unprecedented peacetime arms build-up, thousands of lefties on American campuses would dutifully affix their names to all sorts of drivel condemning AMERICAN militarism.

Just because you disagree with their motives doesn't mean their motives were mistaken; certainly you don't have to insult them. Many now believe that the Vietnam War, for instance, was a mistake. Not only that, but that War was also greatly aided by a false flag operation, The Gulf of Tonkin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin) incident, which is arguably what 9/11 was as well.

Another example is Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Most people know that Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction was more a government/mainstream media Weapons of Mass Delusion blitz. You're part of the mainstream media establishment, aren't you? I don't know what role you played during that time, but I'm certainly interested in finding out.

I am asking why no members of the international scientific and engineering community produce well reasoned, scientifically valid critiques of the NIST reports.

I think they have. Why don't you think so?

The loudest of the conspiracy liars, Hoffman, Gage and his stooges, and other frauds, bray constantly, but nothing they say can stand the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Have you read much of what they've said? I have and find their points to be quite well thought out.

I'm asking who has found real errors in the NIST reports. What are those errors?

I would contend that Hoffman, Gage, Steven Jones and others, such as Tony Szamboti, have found such errors.

leopold99

04-06-09, 12:05 AM

Another example is Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Most people know that Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction was more a government/mainstream media Weapons of Mass Delusion blitz.
you couldn't be more wrong scott.
everyone and his brother knows saddam had, and used, WMD, even against his own people.
the real question is "what did iraq have to do with 9/11", not if saddam had WMD.

scott3x

04-06-09, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Another example is Iraq's "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Most people know that Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction was more a government/mainstream media Weapons of Mass Delusion blitz.

you couldn't be more wrong scott.
everyone and his brother knows saddam had, and used, WMD, even against his own people.

He -did not- even have chemical weapons leading up to the second Gulf War. He -had- some chemical weapons. Notice that it's past tense. He didn't even have that after the 1991 war with the U.S. and their following efforts to get rid of them all; they were quite effective.

the real question is "what did iraq have to do with 9/11", not if saddam had WMD.

Both questions are relevant. The WMD issue is quite relevant, as we are currently dealing with someone of the mass media and it's well known that the mass media bought the WMD issue hook, line and sinker, just as they essentially bought the official 9/11 story. They were wrong about the WMD and they're wrong about 9/11; the problem is that some things just take a little longer to realize then others.

There's more connections between Iraq and 9/11 then you may realize. Take a look at this excerpt from The Christian Science Monitor's The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html):
Buildup in the Gulf from the March 14, 2003 edition

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Here's an excerpt from The Washington Post's Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html) article:

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A09

President Bush yesterday defended his assertions that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, putting him at odds with this week's finding of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.

The finding of the commission's staff led Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), to escalate his accusations that Bush deceived both the Senate and the American public about the rationale for war in Iraq. "The president owes the American people a fundamental explanation about why he rushed to war for a purpose that it now turns out is not supported by the facts," Kerry told reporters at the Detroit airport. "That is the finding of this commission."

The panel's staff reported on Wednesday that there were contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

The article goes on and is quite educational as to how deceptive the Bush administration was concerning both Iraq and its wish to connect it to 9/11.

John99

04-06-09, 07:33 AM

John99

04-06-09, 07:39 AM

Hell it is probably much safer walking the streets in Iraq than in Scotts old country.

John99

04-06-09, 07:47 AM

.
mac copied my Fall of Physics here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2146840&postcount=1306

I don't recall seeing your brilliant mathematical criticism. Would you mind providing a link to it?

Do you need to move the issue from the physics you can't handle to the psychology that you can pretend to handle?

You can have professional psychological opinions? My my, I'm impressed. But can you do that on a subject involving PHYSICS if you don't know the physics? I have been thinking about what this 9/11 psychosis says about all of the psychologists and psychiatrists in the United States. If it is truly impossible for an airliner to bring down 400,000 tons of skyscraper in less than two hours then doesn't that mean that all of the psychiatrists that think it is possible are out of touch with reality? Are they INSANE? :D

Am I supposed to post in the physics forum to prove I am smart or should I concentrate on a problem that I consider interesting and of some consequence. The WTC towers were skyscrapers. The Empire State Building, a famous skyscraper, was completed 70 years before the World Trade Center was destroyed. The ESB was completed before the atomic bomb, before the electronic computer, before the transistor. The discovery of the neutron that made the atomic bomb possible happened the year after the ESB was completed. Skyscrapers cannot be very complicated physics. So this says interesting things about the people in the physics zone that don't bring up the conservation of momentum in relation to the WTC.

I have never even gone into the physics forum. (until today after I started writing this, LOL) I think in terms of the problem first and physics in relation to the problem. That does bring up an interesting thought though. Maybe I should post my last video there just to see what happens. What do you bet some moderator throws it out? :roflmao:

The real psychological question is, "Why aren't all of the physics people climbing all over the WTC problem?" Don't they have any curiosity? Wouldn't they have to notice that the information needed to solve it was missing? That is the difference between reality and a problem in a physics book. The book has to give you all of the information to solve it. The worst it can do is throw in irrelevant but distracting information. But in the real world you must understand the problem and then go after the relevant information.

Another interesting aspect of 9/11 Psychosis.

Could it be that schools psychologically condition even most of the smart kids to be subservient to AUTHORITY? It becomes a habit after 16+ years in school. They know what they are not supposed to stick their noses into.

psik

PS - Of course that does raise the question, "If this is such stupid bullshit, why are YOU here?" Oh yeah, psychological research.

I dont know but when an investigation is conducted at crime scenes they dont ask 'where are the physicists'. You should have went to school and became an investigator or something similar.

scott3x

04-06-09, 08:16 AM

you couldn't be more wrong scott.
everyone and his brother knows saddam had, and used, WMD, even against his own people.
the real question is "what did iraq have to do with 9/11", not if saddam had WMD.

Scott should worry about his own country where a drug war is killing more people than die in Iraq.

I was born and raised in Canada, not in Mexico. Yes, I recently lived there for 4 years, but that's behind me now. It was my father who was born and raised in Mexico and he once again resides there. -He- has certainly put in time in trying to make things better in Mexico. Ever heard of the Tlatelolco Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre)? In case you haven't:
The Tlatelolco Massacre, also known as The Night of Tlatelolco (from a book title by the Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska), took place during the afternoon and night of October 2, 1968, in the Plaza de las Tres Culturas in the Tlatelolco section of Mexico City. It happened ten days before the 1968 Summer Olympics celebrations in Mexico City, when the military and armed men shot student demonstrators. The death toll remains controversial: official government estimates place the deathtoll at 30, while some estimates place it in the thousands. Most sources, however, report between 200 and 300 deaths.

My father was a young student when it occurred and (fortunately) managed to get out of there before the shooting started. He played a large role in creating a cultural center to commemorate this tragic event. Here's a link speaking of his role, but you'd have to be able to read spanish (He's Oscar Guzmán):
http://www.la-verdad.com.mx/principal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4366&Itemid=168

There is a lot of evidence of official deception that day, as witnessed by the official death toll vs. the reality, for starters. But there's more to it then that; cops posing as students with certain elements to differentiate them from the real students, for instance.. in essence, a mini 9/11. That day, although the students were the ones killed, they were also the ones blamed for it all. Quite a feat, but people were more trusting in their government back then. Same thing concerning the JFK assasination, although now even the government admits that there's no way Oswald could have acted alone; they still haven't gotten to the point of realizing or admitting that Oswald didn't do it at all, but in time perhaps.

John99

04-06-09, 08:35 AM

i dont know what The Night of Tlatelolco or JFK assassination have to do with anything i brought up. You are aware that these events took place over 40 years ago?

scott3x

04-06-09, 09:23 AM

i dont know what The Night of Tlatelolco or JFK assassination have to do with anything i brought up. You are aware that these events took place over 40 years ago?

You brought up Mexico, so I brought in a mexican conspiracy and its coverup. The JFK assassination was also a conspiracy, that even the government now admits (it admits that Oswald couldn't have acted alone), but it's still wrong on the details and the extent of it. 9/11 is obviously a conspiracy, although the government and mainstream media would generally like us to believe that only foreigners were involved. I think it's instructional to realize that conspiracies and their coverups have gone on for quite some time.

John99

04-06-09, 09:30 AM

scott3x

04-06-09, 09:56 AM

You brought up Mexico, so I brought in a mexican conspiracy and its coverup. The JFK assassination was also a conspiracy, that even the government now admits (it admits that Oswald couldn't have acted alone), but it's still wrong on the details and the extent of it. 9/11 is obviously a conspiracy, although the government would like to believe that only foreigners were involved. I think it's instructional to realize that conspiracies and their coverups have gone on for quite some time.

yes i brought up the murders and kidnappings happening every day in your country and that it is safer or at least as safe in Iraq.

1- While I am a duel citizen, I repeat that I was born and raised in Canada, not Mexico and thus essentially consider my country to be Canada.

2- I know it's gotten fairly bad in Mexico, and I have some theories as to why. , but I disagree with your assertion that it is as bad or or worse then Iraq. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.

The only reason is because you support dictators.

No, I don't. Where on earth did you get that idea?

As far as JFK and 911, these are conspiracy theories and they are conspiracy theories because there is no proof to make the conspiracies factual.

In actual fact, both are acknowledged conspiracies, even by the government. Here's wiki's intro to the definition of the term:
A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by a usually powerful cabal.

While there may be more debate as to how powerful the cabal was in the case of JFK assasination, there is no question that the people behind 9/11 had to be quite powerful indeed to pull off such an act. The real issue, then, simply becomes one of who did it? Was it -truly- a bunch of arabs with poor flying skills and buildings that collapsed like a house of cards, or was it something else? This is where the disagreements begin.

Of course Oswald acted alone, or he may have had an accomplice but even that is doubtful.

John, even the -government- now admits that one person alone couldn't have done it. Get with the times ;)

John99

04-06-09, 10:01 AM

Why couldnt LHO have act alone?

John99

04-06-09, 10:12 AM

A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by a usually powerful cabal.

This is how you obfuscate facts. A conspiracy can be defined as it is above but not a conspiracy theory. BIG difference.

John99

04-06-09, 10:14 AM

It is a fact that most conspiracy theories are produced by fiction writers.

scott3x

04-06-09, 10:27 AM

Why couldnt LHO have act alone?

I suggest you watch Oliver Stone's JFK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JFK_(film)) movie for a couple good reasons. In any case, the fact that the government now believes that one man couldn't have done it is not in dispute. From Jim Marrs' book Crossfire (http://www.amazon.ca/Crossfire-Plot-That-Killed-Kennedy/dp/0881846481), one of the 2 books that Oliver Stone's movie was based on, page 91:
The House Select Committee on Assasinations in 1979 concluded that President Kennedy was "probably assassinated as the result of a conspiracy." However, they maintained that Lee Harvey Oswald was the actual killer and that another gunman- whose presence was established by two separate scientific tests based on a Dallas police recording of the gunfire in Dealey Plaza- escaped and remains unidentified.

This finding was a milestone to the many Americans who had come to disbelieve the lone-assassin theory of the Warren Commission.

Typically, however, this reversal of official American history was still not enough for the mother of the accused assassin, Marguerite Oswald. She told newsmen:
The committee members have made a first step in the right direction. It's up to us to do the rest... I hope and know the future will vindicate my son entirely. It took us 15 years to come this far. It may take another 15 years or longer. I probably won't be around, but the world will know that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of the charges against him.

John99

04-06-09, 10:30 AM

Of course i have seen the movie, read books, watched many documentaries on the subject.

Dont get wrapped up in the word conspiracy, all it mean is to conspire. Two homeless people can conspire.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspire

scott3x

04-06-09, 10:30 AM

scott3x

04-06-09, 10:32 AM

Of course i have seen the movie, read books, watched many documentaries on the subject.

Well apparently you hadn't learned that the government had changed its mind on the lone assassin theory, so I guess you didn't read Crossfire. Still, I'm glad that you've taken an interest in it.

Dont get wrapped up in the word conspiracy, all it mean is to conspire. Two homeless people can conspire.

I agree. It's just that some people want to believe that certain events that clearly -were- conspiracies aren't just because they believe the government wasn't involved.

John99

04-06-09, 10:32 AM

well i take words and their meanings at face value.

John99

04-06-09, 10:33 AM

leopold99

04-06-09, 10:37 AM

Well apparently you hadn't learned that the government had changed its mind on the lone assassin theory, so I guess you didn't read Crossfire. Still, I'm glad that you've taken an interest in it.
the supreme court isn't "the government" scott.

scott3x

04-06-09, 10:45 AM

I agree. It's just that some people want to believe that certain events that clearly -were- conspiracies aren't just because they believe the government wasn't involved.

i dont know what you mean by that.

For one, I mean that 9/11 is a conspiracy regardless of whether you go for the official story's arab hijackers or the idea that it was an inside job; people had to conspire together to make it happen.

scott3x

04-06-09, 10:45 AM

psikeyhackr

04-06-09, 10:57 AM

I dont know but when an investigation is conducted at crime scenes they dont ask 'where are the physicists'. You should have went to school and became an investigator or something similar.
.
The physicists are way too busy.

There are just SO MANY crime scenes where 1300 foot buildings have collapsed the physicists just can't keep up.

You will have to schedule an appointment with them.

psik

leopold99

04-06-09, 10:59 AM

I never said it was, although it is a branch of government.
well don't say "the government" when you mean the supreme court.
actually the supreme court is the highest department of one branch, the judicial.

scott3x

04-06-09, 11:04 AM

I dont know but when an investigation is conducted at crime scenes they dont ask 'where are the physicists'. You should have went to school and became an investigator or something similar.

The physicists are way too busy.

There are just SO MANY crime scenes where 1300 foot buildings have collapsed the physicists just can't keep up.

You will have to schedule an appointment with them.

psik

Laugh :-). Fortunately, atleast one physicist has made the time to look into the matter thoroughly; Steven Jones.

scott3x

04-06-09, 11:08 AM

I never said it was, although it is a branch of government.

well don't say "the government" when you mean the supreme court.

I didn't mean the supreme court. I was speaking of the The House Select Committee on Assasinations conclusions in 1979. No idea where John got this Supreme Court idea. I suppose you'll next say that said committee isn't the government either; fine, it's also just a part of government, but it's the part that was charged to find out the truth concerning the JFK assassination. I assume there was this new investigation because enough people found the Warren Commission to be woefully lacking. Its conclusions still leave much to be desired, but it was a step in the right direction, atleast.

actually the supreme court is the highest department of one branch, the judicial.

Good point.

John99

04-06-09, 11:39 AM

.
The physicists are way too busy.

There are just SO MANY crime scenes where 1300 foot buildings have collapsed the physicists just can't keep up.

You will have to schedule an appointment with them.

psik

you really dont know anything about criminal investigations. As it stands now your coming across as very immature.

psikeyhackr

04-06-09, 11:57 AM

you really dont know anything about criminal investigations. As it stands now your coming across as very immature.
.
You are of course free to provide a list of all criminal investigations that involve the destruction of buildings over 100,000 tons in mass. You can pretend that this is like any other criminal investigation all you want.

Talking about the psychology without being sure about the physics simply demonstrates how idiotic psychologists are. Psychology is the study of not thinking. Education is the encouragement of not thinking.

How are we going to cure the psychologists and psychiatrists of 911 psychosis?

The new global issue confronting mankind. :roflmao:

psik

John99

04-06-09, 12:02 PM

i have no idea what you are talking about toofer.

RonWieck

04-06-09, 12:47 PM

.
Here we are back to obvious lying again.

Provide a link to where I said something about politics.

And you are constantly demonstrating your lack of knowledge about physics with your constant talk about "real engineers and physicists". You need someone to tell you what to think.

psik

Yawn. You will prance around your obvious agenda until pinned down. Let's see: you pretend that you discovered through magic that the cause of the collapse of the towers settled on by serious researchers isn't true. You couldn't have made your discovery in any other manner, as your discovery relies on nothing recognized by science. You are someone who has no background in physics or engineering and who displays a very poor grasp of those subjects. You boast about your ineducability. Are we supposed to conclude that your total inability to comprehend anything real engineers write is the result of your lack of intelligence, or should we make the more likely assumption that you, like all twoofers, simply can't abide the fact that America was attacked without provocation by jihadists, people who had been attacking American interests for a decade?

YOU desperately need someone to tell you, if not what to think, at least how to think. Thinking is not an activity for which you display any talent.

RonWieck

04-06-09, 01:03 PM

Laugh :-). Fortunately, atleast one physicist has made the time to look into the matter thoroughly; Steven Jones.

Gee, it kind of makes you wonder why his associates are all frauds and his department rebuked him for failure to maintain professional standards. Do you regard his refusal to share his work with other scientists as an example of his thoroughness? How about his refusal to submit any of his "work" for peer-review (no, the shabby pay-for-play vanity journal that published his worthless paper does not qualify)?

RonWieck

04-06-09, 01:06 PM

For one, I mean that 9/11 is a conspiracy regardless of whether you go for the official story's arab hijackers or the idea that it was an inside job; people had to conspire together to make it happen.

The jihadist attacks were a conspiracy in the same sense that the invasion at Normandy was a conspiracy. The jihadists declared war on the U.S. in the 90s. The attacks of 9/11/01 were the most spectacular in a series of strikes at American interests.

RonWieck

04-06-09, 01:10 PM

I was born and raised in Canada, not in Mexico. Yes, I recently lived there for 4 years, but that's behind me now. It was my father who was born and raised in Mexico and he once again resides there. -He- has certainly put in time in trying to make things better in Mexico. Ever heard of the Tlatelolco Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre)? In case you haven't:
The Tlatelolco Massacre, also known as The Night of Tlatelolco (from a book title by the Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska), took place during the afternoon and night of October 2, 1968, in the Plaza de las Tres Culturas in the Tlatelolco section of Mexico City. It happened ten days before the 1968 Summer Olympics celebrations in Mexico City, when the military and armed men shot student demonstrators. The death toll remains controversial: official government estimates place the deathtoll at 30, while some estimates place it in the thousands. Most sources, however, report between 200 and 300 deaths.

My father was a young student when it occurred and (fortunately) managed to get out of there before the shooting started. He played a large role in creating a cultural center to commemorate this tragic event. Here's a link speaking of his role, but you'd have to be able to read spanish (He's Oscar Guzmán):
http://www.la-verdad.com.mx/principal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4366&Itemid=168

There is a lot of evidence of official deception that day, as witnessed by the official death toll vs. the reality, for starters. But there's more to it then that; cops posing as students with certain elements to differentiate them from the real students, for instance.. in essence, a mini 9/11. That day, although the students were the ones killed, they were also the ones blamed for it all. Quite a feat, but people were more trusting in their government back then. Same thing concerning the JFK assasination, although now even the government admits that there's no way Oswald could have acted alone; they still haven't gotten to the point of realizing or admitting that Oswald didn't do it at all, but in time perhaps.

You've been caught lying. The "government" does not "admit" that Oswald could not have acted alone. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he did, in fact, act alone. It's funny that people cling to their fantasies about the JFK assassination, although the evidence for Oswald's guilt is simply overwhelming, while evidence for a conspiracy is nonexistent.

psikeyhackr

04-06-09, 02:21 PM

i have no idea what you are talking about toofer.
.
And all you can come up with name calling psychological bullshit.

You can't come up with the distribution of mass on a skyscraper you BELIEVE could collapse from the top down.

I demonstrated with REAL PHYSICS, that anyone can duplicate for themselves, that MASS combined with STRUCTURAL SUPPORT stops a falling mass driven by gravity faster than those same supports alone. But you don't have sense enough to ask about the distribution of mass in a skyscraper and then you have the nerve to talk about an INVESTIGATION.

You can't recognize an incompetent investigation in the NIST report.

Ask Wieck "Brain" Ron to show you the data on the perimeter wall panels.

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

psik

Headspin

04-06-09, 04:11 PM

It's funny that people cling to their fantasies about the JFK assassination, although the evidence for Oswald's guilt is simply overwhelming, while evidence for a conspiracy is nonexistent.

"I saw a man fire from behind the wooden fence"
- Jean Hill.

Will you retract your statement that the "evidence for a JFK conspiracy is nonexistent"?

I suspect that you will just mantra your "no evidence" bullshit, as you consistently do with 911 matters.

John99

04-06-09, 04:29 PM

"I saw a man fire from behind the wooden fence"
- Jean Hill.

no wonder you believe in conspiracy theories.

dMx9

04-06-09, 05:33 PM

Hell it is probably much safer walking the streets in Iraq than in Scotts old country.

Personalize less, stay on-topic more. Derail much, John99?:rolleyes:

John99

04-06-09, 05:35 PM

Scott knows what i am referring to so dont try and cause trouble.

scott3x

04-06-09, 06:26 PM

Personalize less, stay on-topic more. Derail much, John99?:rolleyes:

Scott knows what i am referring to so dont try and cause trouble.

Yes, I do, but dMx has a point; it wasn't on topic. Neither is the JFK stuff, ofcourse. I'm thinking perhaps we could move that part over to the history forum, as Pearl Harbor was over there in the past...

Fraggle Rocker

04-06-09, 06:53 PM

Personalize less, stay on-topic more. Derail much, John99?D, like all the Moderators I received your complaint about the quality of the discourse on this thread. I know that I promised--twice--that if I received one more complaint about a debate that I'm not even reading, I would shut it down. However, I find your complaint to be a gross overreaction and I would like YOU to settle down. Yes there have been some personal insults but they were based on reasonable inferences from the things people said. We have to tolerate that on SciForums or we'd all be banned. There has been a little off-topic meandering, but the debate is still moving along. I can't say if it's moving forward because I don't follow it. I have a hard time imagining that this group of amateurs is covering any new ground after so many pages, but I'll be damned if I'm going to read the whole bloody thing in order to make that determination.

I work in the Washington metropolitan area among several million people whose lives were touched by the events of 9/11. I don't think anyone I've met is more than four degrees of separation from a victim, survivor or witness. Neighbor's-daughter's-teacher's-husband, for example. A huge portion of these people work for or with the federal government and know very well from experience that the things it says must not be automatically believed. And every one of them is satisfied with the chain of evidence supporting the conclusion that the Pentagon was indeed hit by an airliner.

So forgive me if I don't feel like spending my time following a debate over what I consider a typical crackpot conspiracy theory by people who don't think the Bush Dynasty already has enough blemishes on its record to be remembered as the most evil family in American history.

That said, as long as I'm here, I will point out some of the things you brought up.Scott should worry about his own country where a drug war is killing more people than die in Iraq.John, this is a formal debate. The discourse is held to a higher standard than the rest of this website. If you have evidence to support that assertion, you are hereby challenged to present it immediately, or else you must never make this point again, on this thread or any other.Hell it is probably much safer walking the streets in Iraq than in Scotts old country.The same challenge applies to this assertion. You can get away with crap like this on the other boards, but not here. This is not the place for quasi-racist propaganda against a nation.It is a fact that most conspiracy theories are produced by fiction writers.If this is indeed a fact, please point us to the reference material for it.
i have no idea what you are talking about toofer.DMX complained about this, and then admitted that he doesn't know what "toofer" means. Apparently they don't have Google in the country he lives in.

Toofer is a slang word for a Canadian, named after the way their beer is packaged. As far as I can tell it's not considered an insult.

So:

JOHN. Dial it back please, and stop making extraordinary assertions without providing extraordinary evidence. That's a violation of the Rule of Laplace, a cornerstone of the scientific method.

DMX. Settle down, Beavis. This is not a university.

Tony Szamboti

04-06-09, 07:02 PM

Why couldnt LHO have act alone?

Watch this 18 second film and ask yourself if Oswald could have made Kennedy's head go back and to the left. Oswald was supposedly firing from the Texas Book Depository which was to Kennedy's right rear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozx4_4DZp38

This film, known as the Zapruder Film, was suppressed for 12 years and the only reason we saw it was because Jim Garrison, the D.A. of New Orleans subpoenaed it for the 1969 trial of Clay Shaw and left it out to be copied. Life magazine, who owned the film but never allowed it to be shown other than to a few, fought the subpoena all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court but they had no grounds to deny it. Finally, Geraldo Rivera played a copy of it on network TV in March of 1975 and the furor over it is what caused the House Select Committee on Assassinations to be started up.