9/11 Poll

You are mistaken. I've never done an intentional sock puppet (in a non sciforums forum, I have 2 accounts, probably because I wanted to change my name; anyway, I don't think I ever used both accounts at once and I haven't posted there in ages). But I must admit I'm curious; who do you think I'm a sock pupet -of-?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
Just Google

+skyscraper +strength +compression

I only got 18,000 hits.

Look at the videos of the supposed collapses of the towers. Do you see any twisting?

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
I have never read where Tony said that the core columns were connected horizontally every 3rd floor.

It sounds like you are trying to provoke conflict in the ranks ot the enemy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The column sections were mostly 36' long as far as I know. That would be every 3 floors. I have assumed they were connected horizontally by beams every 12 feet but I have not seen that specified. That is one of the things wrong with the NCSTAR1 report.

Important information is left out.

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
53% would be a majority.

psik

 

Go from there? We've been there a million times...

You are still completely missing my point so I will explain a third time. Going from the comments many of these people are making, they have done little or no genuine research on 9/11. Many have decided to sign the petition based on lies and incorrect information. So it is their comments that don't carry much weight.

 

.
I have never taken a course in architecture or structural engineering.

This is grade school physics. It ain't no BIG DEAL.

Where are the physics demonstration models from Richard Gage and his buddies?

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

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

I have been to one of Gage's seminars. I would call it propaganda rather than a physics and engineering explanation of why an airliner could not possibly destroy one of those buildings.

psik

 

Yeah, but you still haven't learned, so one more time if you wish...

Look shaman_, I could say that going from your comments, you don't know what you're talking about. Neither you or I are architects or engineers, but sure we can state that. Now if you'd like to state something substantive, you'd go to their site and say you disagree with x or y statements from said site. Now I'm sure if you go to the individuals architects and engineers, you'll probably be able to find something that's a tad off, but how about we stick to the sites info? Architects and Engineers' founder has been taken seriously even by some T.V. channels, which is something considering the way most are controlled by elites that are quite likely are complicity in the whole thing.

Again, you can go on about your views, but unless you come up with some facts, they won't get you far.

I think most people would trust a site run by architects and engineers over someone who is neither, but if you want to believe otherwise, go ahead.

 

I took a high school physics course; I didn't get an A but I passed. I also read some books from Steven Hawkins that I found interesting. This doesn't mean that I can always follow the points that you and others have made here. But there's another issue here; shaman_ speaks as if his views should be taken seriously even though he currently isn't even getting into what precisely he agrees with or disagrees with. He's currently not even giving me anything to debate about.

I believe that Tony would side with me here in saying that they're not necessary. There is a lot of other evidence that they have on their site. By the way, Tony himself is one of the engineers listed on their site:
http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999907

I believe a presentation would probably not go as in depth as their site does. What do you think Tony?

 

.
In a way there are THREE Different kinds of physics. Most books may not say it that way and they probably have even more subdivisions.

There is the atomic level and below physics, e=mc^2 stuff where nuclear bombs come up and stuff like that. I think when you say physics this is the first thing most people think of and get intimidated and their brains go into grid lock.

Then there is the real life level stuff that people see and deal with every day but I don't think they even call it physics.

And last the is the astrophysics level stuff dealing with comet and planets and galaxies and Big Bangs.

The destruction of the WTC is in that second level area. It is just that things change somewhat with size even in the normal range. An ant the size of a human being could not lift 10 times its weight. In fact it could not even breath. Ants don't have lungs. A human sized ant would suffocate.

The only problem with understanding the WTC collapse is that small objects get stronger in relation to their size and weight and behave differently from very large objects like 1300 foot building. But the conservation of momentum is still the same. A huge mass can't make an even huger mass move faster than itself from a standing start even with the help of gravity.

Sometimes you come across like the JREFers. You just expect people to trust different experts.

psik

 

this from someone who calls himself psikeyhackr.

 

.
What of it?

The JREFers have said what about understanding how the distribution of steel and concrete is relevant to the problem?

Care to provide links to some experts that have brought it up.

psik

 

.
The core columns were connected to each other by beams. This is best shown in the Purdue video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

psik

 

Your attempts to draw any significance from this just highlights your dishonesty.

Then stop asking me for a list of scientists if I can not provide a list for any subject concerning science. It would be easier for me to gather a list of scientists who are creationists than it would be to find a list of scientists who are evolutionists. What does that tell you?

Well I notice you didn't bother posting on an engineering forum to find out for yourself. I would also think it's more your job to prove that there isn't a scientific consensus on the demolition theory, but you keep mentioning the same few names. But I'll bite, and do my best:

http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...toricFires/BuildingFires/worldTradeCenter.htm

http://www.civil.columbia.edu/ce4210/FEMA_403CD/html/open.htm

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

If that doesn't satisfy you, I can acquire the help of JREF to provide me with more.

What exactly are you saying you'd never claim? Because you just went ahead and claimed it in the following sentance.

LOL really… I think you give yourself and your fantasy a little too much credit. "fear that they might not like what they find"… LOL

It’s easy to find such lists on conspiracy websites, because by its very nature, people sharing the same paranoid delusion find comfort in numbers, and they have a website dedicated to one goal. Science doesn’t work that way however.

The ASCE has 141,000 members, and the ASCE stands firm that there is no 9/11 conspiracy. So you have to ask yourself the question, if it’s true what you say that there are lots of civil engineers who are kooks, why do they remain members of the ASCE? And you can't say they're afraid of losing their job, because don't forget there are many thousands who are retired, and millions more who will be retired in the future.

There is no internal debate with regards to a conspiracy, therefore scientific consensus is achieved. So stop trying to Ben Stein me.

That doesn’t cut it Scott. They need to publish their results outside of conspiracy theory circles. The journal for 9/11 studies is nothing but a conspiracy website.

Stephen Jones is famous for not publishing his work in respectable publications.

Remember this?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...-IrwLN44C1Cg&q=steven jones peer review&hl=en

 

No Scott. Do you want to know why your list of 681 architects and engineers is meaningless?

They think this is evidence of a controlled demolition:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I'm sure even you know we have ample media showing cleanup wokers cuttin beams like this in exactly the same manner.