Discussion: Was 9/11 an inside job?

He wasn't who I was referring to. I was referring to someone else who I can no longer remember the name of.

Understand what?

Apparently they don't seem to need it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sheol

I didn't, but I just googled it and came up with the wiki entry.

Wikipedia seems to know it and there apparently there are very few modern bibles that use the term Hell, instead opting for the grave. Shoel apparently meant the place you go after death; it was translated as Hades in the Green translation. The issue, I think, may have to do with the fact that christians tended to view the greek Hades as Hell, but Greeks themselves had a different idea of it.

That link seems to show that the use of 'Hell' is on the decline.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You just said yourself that you had never heard of it. What appears in books is a very poor indicator of what most people know. Survey some Christians and see how many have heard of sheol. If I hadn't mentioned it how would you have ever encountered it in the wiki?

psik

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.
On the subject of OBVIOUS POINTS.

If you had a long piece of steel whose thickness varied wouldn't the vibration be affected by the change in thickness? Wouldn't the weight of a given length of steel also change because of that change in thickness?

So to do this SOLITONIC analysis of a structure wouldn't you have to know the distribution of weight of steel in the structure? So don't you end up coming back to what I have been saying all along anyway? I have just been talking about the gross motion of the steel and you are talking about micro-motion, but moving mass is still moving mass.

The vibration of guitar strings changes with the weight of the strings so how do you analyze your SOLITONIC VIBRATIONS without that information?

Curious how things in physics inter-relate ain't it?

psik

 

Ok, sounds good. Now if you could find a wiki entry stating that it was a terrible anomaly that the weight of the concrete in the WTC towers wasn't specified in the NIST reports, I think we'd be going places.

 

Shock requires deceleration of the impacting mass. There isn't any in the fall of the upper block of WTC 1, which is measurable. I was involved in researching this and writing the below linked paper about it. There was no impulsive load.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

If you don't agree then you need to explain the mechanism for the shock you envision.

While you are at it you should also try to explain the 2.25 second freefall of WTC 7 at the beginning of it's collapse.

 

"January 11, 2009
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower of the World Trade Center) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disapp...
The roofline of WTC1 (The North Tower of the World Trade Center) begins dropping with sudden onset and accelerates uniformly downward at about 64% of the acceleration of gravity (g) until it disappears into the dust. This means it is meeting resistance equal to about 36% of its weight. The implication of this, however, is that the force it is exerting on the lower section of the building is also only 36% of the weight of the falling section. This is much less than the force it would exert if it were at rest. The acceleration data thus prove that the falling top section of the building cannot be responsible for the destruction of the lower section of the building. [I want to acknowledge the work of Graeme MacQueen and Tony Szamboti who have been engaged in similar measurements by other means and have reached similar conclusions."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

.
Searching with Adobe yields this:

37 documents with 2477 instances of concrete

50 documents with 6198 instances of steel

There are 3 places that mention "200,000 tons of steel".

One says, "Roughly 200,000 tons of steel were used in the construction of the two WTC towers." That is on page 67 of the Final Report of NCSTAR1.

In two years I have never found a total for the concrete specified.

Now what kind of source you need to tell you that is peculiar for a 10,000 page report that took 3 years I do not know. But the fact of the matter is that I have not noticed anyone else pointing out that the NIST doesn't specify a total for the concrete. How do we KNOW whose total is correct? Obviously some people are just quoting others but what is the correct quote?

How can these calculations for the dust cloud be correct without a accurate info on the quantity of concrete? Have you downloaded the NCSTAR1 report for yourself? What do you need with Wiki? LOL

psik

PS - Are you suggesting that I should add that information to the Wiki. LOL

 

so this is the NEW scientific method is it?

 

Hadn't thought of it; however, they would probably want some recognizable figure stating that it's strange that the amount of concrete in the buildings wasn't mentioned in NIST's reports. Personally, I think it would be even better if you'd just talk to Tony Szamboti and calculate the weight of the concrete with him and then you could figure things out without yourself. Society has many mistakes; frequently the best thing to do is not to rail against society for its mistakes but to attempt to correct the problem oneself. If information is missing, but you can find the information yourself, why not do just that?

 

.
Compute it from what?

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=3528

What am I supposed to use for source data? The fact that we don't have trustworthy source data is THE issue about the WTC.

Why is it that 425,000 cubic yards of concrete is consistently associated with 200,000 tons of steel which the NIST agrees with? That many cubic yards comes to 300,000 tons per tower which is considerably different from the 90,000 tons that is often seen in other sources.

That is the first level of discrepancy that has to be resolved.

It makes no sense to me to talk about things like NORAD when we can't accurately specify the major items that were destroyed on 9/11 even though they were designed in the 1960s.

It is just so laughable to compare the computers of the 60's to what we have today. I remember talking to a senior engineer in my frat who had to write a program to compute the effect of an atomic blast on a man's body. He was telling me there was something wrong with the program because the body was rising above the ground too fast. Of course this was a FORTRAN program being punched on cards to run on an IBM mainframe in 1970.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But we can't, with certainty, put the correct amount of concrete into our computers in 2009 about buildings that weren't even completed then. Even though the computer I am using now would totally blow away that mainframe that awed me in 1970.

psik

 

I've finally found the post I was referring to ages ago; the author who I believe has done the most detailed calculations regarding the weight of the concrete in the WTC buildings is Jerry Russell. I brought up the important issues in this WTC collapses post:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2126251&postcount=593

 

In short...no. it was not an inside job. it was an outside job. everything took place outside.

 

Brilliance!!


Although the fires did happen inside.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

what fires?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There were no fires on 9/11. Just holograms of fires projected by a satillite in space run by the Lizardman Kabal.

 

have you been sparring with matt marr again? :bugeye:

 

No..just smoking weed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I'm sure many people inside the twin towers and the pentagon at the time would beg to differ...

 

Should of, would of, could of....

Reality is often much different than what we want to happen or data we manipulate to give the outcome we want to happen. Once reality sets in though it is not worth the paper it's printed on.

The Titanic:

Even ordinary things like car tires that blow out but if someone gets seriously injured in an accident then there is an investigation and someone seems to always claim 'this should not have happened' or 'the tire was being used beyond its limitations' bla blah blah.......

Coulda, woulda, shoulda does not mean much in real events. Judging from your post you should know this.:bugeye:

I can understand how and why the towers collapsed from the actual data and information given in the official story. If someone were paying me or i had a financial interest (like selling DVD's or other paraphernalia) to counter it i could do that as well but then i would be lying or even just convincing myself that i am right. This subject can be very technical and there are many things that can be confusing, BUT at the end of the day it happened. Like i said earlier if the internet was around at the time of the Hindenburg disaster there would be all kinds of conspiracies but the truth is that the internet should make people smarter not dumber.