ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags collapse initiation , controlled demolition , explosives , heat weakening , legge , szamboti

Reply
Old 29th December 2007, 09:24 AM   #1
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Max Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,594
Legge/Szamboti: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible

* * *

Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti have a relatively new paper in - your favorite - the Journal of 911 Studies:

911 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible


This scratching post is for all you intellectual felines.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the paper?
__________________
Total Enlightenment! (Bulb not included.)
www.maxphoton.com
Lighten Up!

Last edited by Max Photon; 29th December 2007 at 09:24 AM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 09:32 AM   #2
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,831
Lame.

Their interpretation of the NIST's conclusion is wrong, they're still thinking of a pancake collapse.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 09:33 AM   #3
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,137
This idiocy has already been discussed. See the Journal of 9/11 Studies "100th paper" thread.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 09:33 AM   #4
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,010
They describe a collapse mechanism that obviously didn't happen, thus whatever they conclude is totally moot.
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate
Mancman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 09:36 AM   #5
16.5
Philosopher
 
16.5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,758
Max, we are still reading that incredibly detailed 1 and 1/2 page long note, and waiting instructions from the folks at MilDec.

In the interim, one may wish to read that whole other thread that was started about this jotting. And given the fact there is already a thread on it, I fully expect you to come in with a hard hitting analysis, right out of the gate! Go Max!
16.5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 09:42 AM   #6
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,831
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Max, we are still reading that incredibly detailed 1 and 1/2 page long note
Not even 1 and 1/2.
Pardalis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 09:43 AM   #7
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Max Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,594
Sorry, I didn't realize the paper was being discussed elsewhere.


This station is signing off.


* * *
Attached Images
File Type: jpg ist2_267869_ntsc_tv_test_pattern.jpg (19.1 KB, 2 views)
__________________
Total Enlightenment! (Bulb not included.)
www.maxphoton.com
Lighten Up!

Last edited by Max Photon; 29th December 2007 at 09:46 AM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 10:51 AM   #8
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,875
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
Legge/Szamboti: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible
So in other words, the opposite is true.

Last edited by CHF; 29th December 2007 at 10:55 AM.
CHF is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 11:27 AM   #9
einsteen
Guest
 
einsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
Originally Posted by CHF View Post
So in other words, the opposite is true.
But I think they mean the opposite didn't happen.
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 01:57 PM   #10
Mince
Master Poster
 
Mince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,021
I thought the circus was seasonal.

Last edited by Mince; 29th December 2007 at 02:29 PM.
Mince is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 02:16 PM   #11
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
dumb paper! Fetzer method proof by saying so

Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
* * *

Frank Legge and Tony Szamboti have a relatively new paper in - your favorite - the Journal of 911 Studies:

911 and the Twin Towers: Sudden Collapse Initiation was Impossible


This scratching post is for all you intellectual felines.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the paper?
The paper says nothing, presents nothing, is nothing. If you have some points that you can support please present them. But Tony has problems with reality, he makes up lies about 9/11 and posts political tripe in his old failed paper; even if you agree with his politics why is political junk in a science paper. The paper is like your stuff, wrong. You posted it and have no idea why it is wrong, and no idea why they are making it up.

Tony's paper has no numbers, no calculation, no science, just talk! The talk it up and prove nothing. Tony and Frank use talk to state a lie. Do you understand they did nothing! Read the paper, they talk about it, and say it can't happen. They say "it appears". They have no proof, they just say it can not happen, the old Fetzer method of stupid, just say it is so, it is so.

Summing up the paper, the sudden collapse initiation was impossible because they say so! Wowzer, and they ignore GRAVITY! Good job for these two with a new dolt idea on 9/11. Doltalicious

They say cause the sag had to go slow, the building would just sag down. They were proven wrong on 9/11, twice! Fools with education. If you have only a high school degree, you now see why there are many millionaires who share your plight of being rational and smart; higher educations does not prevent real dumb ideas from flowing from educated fools!

Last edited by beachnut; 29th December 2007 at 02:21 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 02:46 PM   #12
einsteen
Guest
 
einsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
I agree with you Beachnut, it is of the same level as the Blanchard report, you remember, the BS'er with an axe to grind...

Some calculations would be very needed. I think they should set up a mathematical model, 1d for example and then estimate a function representing the resistive static force as function of time. They should prove that the kinetic impact energy after the collapse of the first story is insufficient to collapse the next one. The paper, although their idea can made plausible, is no real high level science paper.
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 03:58 PM   #13
GT/CS
Illuminator
 
GT/CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,272
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The paper says nothing, presents nothing, is nothing. If you have some points that you can support please present them. But Tony has problems with reality, he makes up lies about 9/11 and posts political tripe in his old failed paper; even if you agree with his politics why is political junk in a science paper. The paper is like your stuff, wrong. You posted it and have no idea why it is wrong, and no idea why they are making it up.

Tony's paper has no numbers, no calculation, no science, just talk! The talk it up and prove nothing. Tony and Frank use talk to state a lie. Do you understand they did nothing! Read the paper, they talk about it, and say it can't happen. They say "it appears". They have no proof, they just say it can not happen, the old Fetzer method of stupid, just say it is so, it is so.

Summing up the paper, the sudden collapse initiation was impossible because they say so! Wowzer, and they ignore GRAVITY! Good job for these two with a new dolt idea on 9/11. Doltalicious

They say cause the sag had to go slow, the building would just sag down. They were proven wrong on 9/11, twice! Fools with education. If you have only a high school degree, you now see why there are many millionaires who share your plight of being rational and smart; higher educations does not prevent real dumb ideas from flowing from educated fools!
Excellent points.

When I was in college one of my classmates was a brilliant 4.0 student who, I swear, couldn't figure out how to put gasoline in his car.

He was the "smartest" guy I've ever known but he was also as dumb as a rock!
__________________
SweatyYeti or Bill Munns would be my vote for looking at this - BFSleuth @ BFF
I've got plenty of common sense! I just choose to ignore it. - Calvin; October 15, 1986

Last edited by GT/CS; 29th December 2007 at 03:59 PM. Reason: Spelling
GT/CS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 04:11 PM   #14
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,438
This paper is nothing but one long face-palm. How inept can two people possibly be?
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

My website.
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 04:16 PM   #15
bje
Graduate Poster
 
bje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
This paper is nothing but one long face-palm. How inept can two people possibly be?
It's the nature of the beast.
__________________
- There is only one way to be right, but an infinite number of ways to be wrong.
bje is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 04:29 PM   #16
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
they did a model, it proved them wrong

Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
I agree with you Beachnut, it is of the same level as the Blanchard report, you remember, the BS'er with an axe to grind...

Some calculations would be very needed. I think they should set up a mathematical model, 1d for example and then estimate a function representing the resistive static force as function of time. They should prove that the kinetic impact energy after the collapse of the first story is insufficient to collapse the next one. The paper, although their idea can made plausible, is no real high level science paper.
Yes you agree Tony, the realcddeal, and Frank have just made up stuff to fool people unable to understand physics and engineering. They lied to fool people in 9/11 truth. Too bad they have no facts or evidence. Gee, the aircraft impacts alone had enough energy to cut all the columns. No wonder these guys ignore gravity and other factors as they spin a talking tale of woo.

The best part is where they seem to say steel gets stronger with heat. They have twisted some stuff to make it seem like there were explosives used to bring down the WTC. Liars with no facts. Yes, since they are trying to deceive people, even you have fallen for their foolish attempt at science. Why do they beat around the bush like you?

I love how you bring up an off topic item to make your false agreement more dumb.

You can do a quick calculation and prove Tony wrong; just like Ross is wrong.

I have no idea where you stand on 9/11, you have done a great job not supporting anything 9/11.

Jim Hoffman fails to make his point on B man. But nice try; JH was killed in Iraq, just like the terrorists are still alive! Aside from that BS, you failed to make a point that Blanchard is wrong, in fact he is correct. Funny, you can be biased and be right, and yoiu can be biased like Tony, Jones and other 9/11 fools and be wrong. Ironic

Last edited by beachnut; 29th December 2007 at 04:38 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 04:40 PM   #17
einsteen
Guest
 
einsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
Originally Posted by GT/CS View Post
Excellent points.

When I was in college one of my classmates was a brilliant 4.0 student who, I swear, couldn't figure out how to put gasoline in his car.

He was the "smartest" guy I've ever known but he was also as dumb as a rock!
I remember a theoretical physics professor, he works on non-abelian gauge theories, quantum fields etc., but when he met the coffee maker he was really confused and had no idea how to make coffee.
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 04:46 PM   #18
einsteen
Guest
 
einsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
I have no idea where you stand on 9/11, you have done a great job not supporting anything 9/11.
I'm the person who pay you guys and disguise as a twoofer in order to check you guys are doing your job well... just kidding. No, I'm a year active in 9/11 world and am very aware that a lot of the theories don't hold, but I'm still not 'cured' because I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI

Last edited by einsteen; 29th December 2007 at 04:49 PM.
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 05:00 PM   #19
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 18,219
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
I'm the person who pay you guys and disguise as a twoofer in order to check you guys are doing your job well... just kidding. No, I'm a year active in 9/11 world and am very aware that a lot of the theories don't hold, but I'm still not 'cured' because I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI
Isn't that first video the one from 9-11 mysteries that Sophia(?) admits to adding the explosions?
__________________
Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join Team 13232!

"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 05:03 PM   #20
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
I'm the person who pay you guys and disguise as a twoofer in order to check you guys are doing your job well... just kidding. No, I'm a year active in 9/11 world and am very aware that a lot of the theories don't hold, but I'm still not 'cured' because I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI
You do know in the first 3 seconds there are fake sounds? Where did you get that clip, the first 3 seconds are dub sounds.

But there are no explosives making noises in the rest of your clip. Sounds more like a KC-135 crashing.

Your video proves there are no explosive sounds, no real sounds of explosives, just building falling.

Your video on 93 shows exactly what a plane looks like that hits at high speed. I have been worked aircraft crash scenes like this. Not one thing is strange with 93, nothing is out of the ordinary. 93 is what you get when you run a plane into the ground. So you have two good videos proving no explosives and nothing strange about 93. You are working too hard.

Last edited by beachnut; 29th December 2007 at 05:12 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 05:05 PM   #21
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Max Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,594
Don't you just hate it.

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post

Tony's paper has no numbers, no calculation, no science, just talk! They talk it up and prove nothing.

Beachnut,

We are what we hate.

Mod WarningDo not modify other posters' names.
Posted By:LibraryLady
__________________
Total Enlightenment! (Bulb not included.)
www.maxphoton.com
Lighten Up!

Last edited by LibraryLady; 29th December 2007 at 07:20 PM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 05:11 PM   #22
Mince
Master Poster
 
Mince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
Beachnut,

We are what we hate.

Another scientific absolute? Do you have the related formulas and equations? Was this Galileo? Newton? Ptolemy?

Since we are what we hate, I am Max Proton and I proclaim myself (since I'm so big on self-proclaimation) an idiot. I'm not attacking you; I'm calling myself and idiot, since, like you said, we are what we hate.

I don't really hate you. I don't hate anyone. But I think you're ridiculous and could use a bit of a scientific education.

Last edited by LibraryLady; 29th December 2007 at 07:21 PM.
Mince is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 05:19 PM   #23
einsteen
Guest
 
einsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You do know in the first 3 seconds there are fake sounds? Where did you get that clip, the first 3 seconds are dub sounds.

But there are no explosives making noises in the rest of your clip. Sounds more like a KC-135 crashing.

Your video proves there are no explosive sounds, no real sounds of explosives, just building falling.

Your video on 93 shows exactly what a plane looks like that hits at high speed. I have been worked aircraft crash scenes like this. Not one thing is strange with 93, nothing is out of the ordinary. 93 is what you get when you run a plane into the ground. So you have two good videos proving no explosives and nothing strange about 93. You are working too hard.
I noticed that also and wrote that down. I don't know where I got them all, but I'm aware that there are different versions, the most famous one is the fireman videos (posted by Rick Siegel at his board) with the booms added, I didn't add that video, but some people say that it was genuine from a tv broadcast. The 2nd last is from Naudet, or to be more precise the name of the vid was *Naudet*.mpg (*=wildcard)

With the latter you mean the Shanksville crash ? I uploaded it for someone and had no twoof purposes with it. But I don't know what to think about it if you compare it with other crashes. It's again a unique one off event, that should be added in the product of improbabilities.

Last edited by einsteen; 29th December 2007 at 05:20 PM.
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 05:23 PM   #24
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Max, their paper says your stuff will not work!

Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
Beachnut,

We are what we hate.
Max, try to support the paper with some facts. Go ahead try. What do you have? Your thermite is failed, now what? Come on, even with your thermite they are saying it can not happen. Did you get that. Their ideas mean it can't happen; see thermite would be too slow for the realcddeal to take place.

So you do you support a paper that says your stuff is a lie? Or do you say the paper is junk? Which is it, is their paper right, your thermite would fail, or their paper wrong 9/11 happen? It is that simple.

Your fantasy is not supported by the paper, you better get smart and think about who you support and why. Right?

Last edited by LibraryLady; 29th December 2007 at 07:21 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 05:41 PM   #25
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Max Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,594
Black & White Up the Yin-Yang

Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Max, try to support the paper with some facts. Go ahead try. What do you have? Your thermite is failed, now what? Come on, even with your thermite they are saying it can not happen. Did you get that. Their ideas mean it can't happen; see thermite would be too slow for the realcddeal to take place.

So you do you support a paper that says your stuff is a lie? Or do you say the paper is junk? Which is it, is their paper right, your thermite would fail, or their paper wrong 9/11 happen? It is that simple.

Your fantasy is not supported by the paper, you better get smart and think about who you support and why. Right?

I guess I am not as black-and-white as you seem to be, Beachnut. I simply asked what were the strengths and weaknesses of their paper. I didn't support it. I didn't shoot it down. I simply called for a discussion.

You see Beachnut, it is not essential that the paper be correct. Even a completely incorrect paper can have tremendous value if it triggers in even one other person some keen insight. The unfolding of understanding, individually and collectively, is a highly unpredictable process. That is what makes the human mind so incredible.

Now, understanding emerges from discussion, even if only with one's self. It is a shame that B&W thinkers such as yourself have such an abhorrence of discussion or debate. With you, its formulas (as if somehow that equals proof), or nothing. Oh well...it takes all types!


By the way, Beachnut, I expect from now on that YOU back YOUR statements with PROOF, and with CALCULATIONS. Enough of this argument-by-anger. (You can alway tell when BNut is P.O.ed...all his punctuation evaporates away.)

Let's see some figgerin's!
__________________
Total Enlightenment! (Bulb not included.)
www.maxphoton.com
Lighten Up!

Last edited by Max Photon; 29th December 2007 at 06:58 PM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 05:50 PM   #26
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
I noticed that also and wrote that down. I don't know where I got them all, but I'm aware that there are different versions, the most famous one is the fireman videos (posted by Rick Siegel at his board) with the booms added, I didn't add that video, but some people say that it was genuine from a tv broadcast. The 2nd last is from Naudet, or to be more precise the name of the vid was *Naudet*.mpg (*=wildcard)

With the latter you mean the Shanksville crash ? I uploaded it for someone and had no twoof purposes with it. But I don't know what to think about it if you compare it with other crashes. It's again a unique one off event, that should be added in the product of improbabilities.
You have to compare it with high speed crashes, it is a perfect match. You do not need to believe me, but I was trained by the air force to be an aircraft crash investigator. We used high speed impacts during training and I have been at scenes where the parts look exactly like what we see at 93 and the Pentagon. If you are an US citizen you paid for my training. The crashes on 9/11 look like they should. 9/11 truth is making up stuff. You have paid me to tell you this.

There is nothing improbable about 93 or 77. I was watching LCFC and Dylan goes on and says "No mayday, no hijack code", he ignores the pilots are dying, and makes up small talk to go with his great disrespect for victims making a false statement again on 9/11. But as I watch LCFC there is even less doubt about what happen on 9/11, and nothing LCFC implies happened. LCFC is all junk, and says nothing. I can't find anything worthwhile in LCFC. But the same goes for Tony's paper, his realcddeal is busted, 6 years ago, your own video proves it.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 05:57 PM   #27
Mince
Master Poster
 
Mince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,021
Yeah, beachnut, why require all that ikky science stuff when you're trying to prove a scientif theory? We're just discussin' and learnin', right?

Last edited by Mince; 29th December 2007 at 06:01 PM. Reason: I see I left off "ic" from "scientific" and wouldn't want any to be icy because of it.
Mince is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 06:05 PM   #28
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,091
After all is said and done, you have to take your hat off to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Those guys wanted to make it look as though planes caused the Twin Towers to fall, so to achieve maximal deception, they went and used real planes.

Brilliant--absolutely brilliant, I tell you.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 06:14 PM   #29
Mince
Master Poster
 
Mince's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
After all is said and done, you have to take your hat off to the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.


And the Unecessarily Complex Conspiracy (thermite, Pentagon flyover) deserves at least a tip of the same hat.
Mince is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 06:38 PM   #30
einsteen
Guest
 
einsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 917
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
You have to compare it with high speed crashes, it is a perfect match. You do not need to believe me, but I was trained by the air force to be an aircraft crash investigator. We used high speed impacts during training and I have been at scenes where the parts look exactly like what we see at 93 and the Pentagon. If you are an US citizen you paid for my training. The crashes on 9/11 look like they should. 9/11 truth is making up stuff. You have paid me to tell you this.

There is nothing improbable about 93 or 77.
I've seen the Sandia F4 test in depth, but as a lay man I use the following lay formula

high speed plane + absorbing wall=dust
high speed plane + field =wreckage

I'm not sure what the difference in conditions is if you compare Shanksville with other crashes, like Lockerbie. I have to admit that I also don't know all the facts because I concentrate on the buildings, what was found then ?(except the .....passport)

ps. I'm a Dutch guy, my tax is only spend here...

Last edited by einsteen; 29th December 2007 at 06:39 PM.
einsteen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 06:50 PM   #31
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,035
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
I've seen the Sandia F4 test in depth, but as a lay man I use the following lay formula

high speed plane + absorbing wall=dust
high speed plane + field =wreckage

I'm not sure what the difference in conditions is if you compare Shanksville with other crashes, like Lockerbie. I have to admit that I also don't know all the facts because I concentrate on the buildings, what was found then ?(except the .....passport)

ps. I'm a Dutch guy, my tax is only spend here...
Lockerbie the plane broke up due the the bomb and crashed to earth. Shanksville the plane raced upside down intact on throttle into the ground like a lawn dart. Both left craters
Attached Images
File Type: jpg story_long_lockerbie_crater.jpg (16.5 KB, 231 views)
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.

Last edited by A W Smith; 29th December 2007 at 06:53 PM.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 07:42 PM   #32
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
I've seen the Sandia F4 test in depth, but as a lay man I use the following lay formula

high speed plane + absorbing wall=dust
high speed plane + field =wreckage

I'm not sure what the difference in conditions is if you compare Shanksville with other crashes, like Lockerbie. I have to admit that I also don't know all the facts because I concentrate on the buildings, what was found then ?(except the .....passport)

ps. I'm a Dutch guy, my tax is only spend here...
My dad was running around that area with the 101 back in 44.

But you know your disaster 747 crash you have was between the energy of 11 and 175 at impact. But the speed was slower, the energy, due to weight was about the same.

The passport is consistent with real world accidents. Not faked. 93 has a few personal effects ejected as the plane crashes into the ground in a 2500 pounds of TNT energy event, the objects were small items, not much KE with a drivers license, you can calculate it! So small items not smashed by people and metal can be in good condition, I have found items at crash scenes hundreds of feet away in perfect condition, ejected from the cockpit, instruments are flung out hundreds of feet.

I have yet to find something out of place, not right for 9/11. Even the terrorist pilots were not a surprise, I have put kids in simulators with no flying experienced and they have hit buildings.

The high speed is enough in soft field to destroy a plane. The impact angle and speed made a hole with metal and people smashed in a very small area feet below the ground. They have to dig out the people and planes parts. Speed below 200 you have some of the things you expect form the slow speed crashes you have seen. The pilots job is not to wreck, and if he fails, the next step is to crash as slow as possible. On 9/11 the planes were all going fast, over 470 mph, all large energy events when they hit massive objects like the WTC, Pentagon, and EARTH. The earth is the most massive, it did not move the earth much! Water destroys high speed bullets in a foot, or two, but slow speed bullets can go further. Energy and speed, work together to give different results. You must remember each object on 9/11 was going over 470 mph, it takes time to stop. The slow speed crashes 9/11 truth shows to dispute the debris fields of 77 and 93 were all slow speeds when you take into account that energy = 1/2 the mass times velocity squared. The velocity is the key to the destruction you see on 9/11. A slower speed accident like the 747 would leave less damage per pound of moving aircraft, only 30 percent of the energy for each pound of aircraft compared to flight 175 and flight 93. I am saying that 747 video you have is only experiencing 30 percent of the impact damage energy per pound of aircraft mass (or kg) than 175 and 93! If there were large sections after the 747 accident this is why. But the overall impact energy of the 747 was in the same class of energy about 1500 pounds of TNT. It is the speed that makes the big difference on what survives and how.

So the passport only had 0.0001 pound of TNT energy or less at impact, could this be why it made it if it was ejected? A person even if ejected in tact would have to dissipate .45 pounds of TNT, it could hurt! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpYu4HLiXFc here is what 5 pounds of TNT is like, now what would you body at 590 mph do? If earth worms and patches can make it back from the space shuttle disaster, then a passport and other small items can make it through an aircraft accident. The USAF has many examples from crashes as fast or faster of objects found as if they were not in the accident.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 08:07 PM   #33
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,830
sure

Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
I guess I am not as black-and-white as you seem to be, Beachnut. I simply asked what were the strengths and weaknesses of their paper. I didn't support it. I didn't shoot it down. I simply called for a discussion.

You see Beachnut, it is not essential that the paper be correct. Even a completely incorrect paper can have tremendous value if it triggers in even one other person some keen insight. The unfolding of understanding, individually and collectively, is a highly unpredictable process. That is what makes the human mind so incredible.

Now, understanding emerges from discussion, even if only with one's self. It is a shame that B&W thinkers such as yourself have such an abhorrence of discussion or debate. With you, its formulas (as if somehow that equals proof), or nothing. Oh well...it takes all types!


By the way, Beachnut, I expect from now on that YOU back YOUR statements with PROOF, and with CALCULATIONS. Enough of this argument-by-anger. (You can alway tell when BNut is P.O.ed...all his punctuation evaporates away.)

Let's see some figgerin's!
No, I expect you to provide proof of your fantasy BS junk using thermite. Just one fact, but since you have none, I will not see them.

Calculations, are not needed for Tony's paper, there is nothing to dispute, he only says because the collapse should go slow, that it can not happen. I beg you to please point out what I can calculate to prove his talk wrong. It is an opinion. It is wrong due to lack of facts to support their idea it should smash down into a neat pile and just stand forever.

This is why you lack of knowledge on their paper is funny. Your fantasy needs it to be possible for global collapse, Tony says no global collapse. You lack thermite devices found to cut the WTC columns. YOU SAID Your process meets the NIST slow thermal weakening (slow as in not a blast of RDX) would bring down the WTC with you fantasy BS thermite. Thus you have missed the point you need to prove this idiotic paper wrong just to have your pathetic fairy tale in tact to share with your grandkids when you win the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in the year 2025. No doubt your English skills can kill mine. Else I would have tons of money debunking idiot ideas on 9/11! Because the stupid dribble I see would make a great book on how idiots lie and disrespect the dead of 9/11 for idiotic reasons.

Since your ideas are tied for stupid with the talk of Tony and his readcddeal I am not sure what you should do. You could stop posting stupid ideas on 9/11 and start honoring those who dies on 9/11 by coming back to reality. No matter what your reasons are, your ideas will stand for much more if they are reality based. On a subject where so many people on 9/11 died to make up lies is not very nice.

So Max, what did they present that can be disputed with facts? They just talked their way out of global collapse; proven wrong with video 6 years ago. Proven wrong by the Chief Structural Engineer on the WTC. Just wrong. So if you want numbers do them yourself, you are the expert thermite man of MIHOP BS fantasy super duper Max Photo. No mass, just max speed posting BS thermite ideas on 9/11. I will try to find something in Tony's paper to bring numbers to, but gee, it has been done by NIST, and many other real papers, and many other papers we have not seen because we use the internet, not a real library. You can find many papers on 9/11 that make Tony's work look like baby crap. Go order up a few. Go over to Berkley and use the library, get help form the librarian and find 9/11 work that only real research can.

BTW, Tony is trying to back in explosives now, thermite will not meet his needs unless he has those devices patented after 9/11 to cut steel up close with thermite. Your MIHOP goes down the drain with Tony's paper, read it and weep, especially after you defined you meet the NIST criteria (funny how you web of fantasy comes back to destroy itself)! Tony, you and NIST; working together to mess up your ideas.

(This is meeting your opening post, I am telling you the paper says your ideas will not work; you missed it. You are welcome Max Photo)

Last edited by beachnut; 29th December 2007 at 08:19 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th December 2007, 09:01 PM   #34
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33,600
Originally Posted by einsteen View Post
I just made a counter Gravy video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LUZcJrkLNI


And you lead off with a clip that has had fake sounds added, in true intellectually dishonest Truther™ fashion.

Congratulations.

Last edited by LashL; 29th December 2007 at 09:02 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2007, 12:35 AM   #35
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,873
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
[color=black]Yes you agree Tony, the realcddeal, and Frank have just made up stuff to fool people unable to understand physics and engineering...
...The best part is where they seem to say steel gets stronger with heat.
Called that right. That bit about yield strength increasing with heat has my mind all stretched to snaping trying to get a grip on it.

Quote:
It is well established that the yield strength of steel increasesas the degree of distortion increases. This tendancy increases with rising temperatures and is pronounced at the temperatures required for collapse.
Uhhh..Yeah...HUH? Is this an established principle that they could have backed up by naming an accepted and proven theory or did one of them just pull it out of some nether oriffice? They cite in footnote #9 a page from the Manchester site that seems not to even mention this phenomenon. On that basis alone, i must give them negative points for credibility.

They also cite Ross saying that the columns were too short for buckling to occur? HUH? Not that I give Ross much credit for his brilliance in his field.

I'm not an engineer, but it looks to me like these guys are flim-flamming non engineers with their supposed credentials.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2007, 04:41 AM   #36
The Doc
Curing Stupidity
 
The Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,160
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
And you lead off with a clip that has had fake sounds added, in true intellectually dishonest Truther™ fashion.

Congratulations.
I can't believe people are still re-posting 9/11 Mysteries... let alone that one specific clip that is the largest piece of proverbial corn in the crap.
__________________
Author - 9/11 Mysteries Viewer's Guide
http://www.911mysteriesguide.com

Creator - "Screw 9/11 Mysteries"
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay...24912447824934

Last edited by The Doc; 30th December 2007 at 04:43 AM.
The Doc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2007, 08:58 AM   #37
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,359
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Called that right. That bit about yield strength increasing with heat has my mind all stretched to snaping trying to get a grip on it.



Uhhh..Yeah...HUH? Is this an established principle that they could have backed up by naming an accepted and proven theory or did one of them just pull it out of some nether oriffice? They cite in footnote #9 a page from the Manchester site that seems not to even mention this phenomenon. On that basis alone, i must give them negative points for credibility.
Try again. It sounds like you didn't drill down to where the specific information exists.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk:80/...Properties.htm
Tony Szamboti is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2007, 09:10 AM   #38
Myriad
Hyperthetical
Moderator
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,742
Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Try again. It sounds like you didn't drill down to where the specific information exists.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk:80/...Properties.htm

It has nothing to do with "drilling down." The paper includes a character (either a space or a hard return, I didn't take note of which) in the link, which you have to remove to get the link to work.

Once you do, and refer to figure 1, you'll see the obvious and largely irrelevant point that the quoted sentence, in context, is actually making: that due to the increasing ductility of steel at higher temperatures, taking 0.5% or 1.0% strain as the yield condition, instead of 2%, will underestimate the yield stress at high temperatures, by up to about 25%. The same figure also nicely illustrates the dramatically decreasing yield stress with increasing temperature.

Respectfully,
Myriad
__________________
Actually, most of my friends are pretty smart. So if they all jumped off a bridge I'd at least try to find out if they had a good reason.

Last edited by Myriad; 30th December 2007 at 09:13 AM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2007, 09:17 AM   #39
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Max Photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,594
Legge and Tsamboti's paper is a welcomed new angle on heat-weakening vs cutting

Originally Posted by realcddeal View Post
Try again. It sounds like you didn't drill down to where the specific information exists.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk:80/...Properties.htm

Thanks for posting that Tony.

I thinks it's awesome that you've put out yet another angle on the matter. That it directly contradicts Bazant's model, and my model, is even more awesome! It is testament to just how wide open the field really is. (Plus, it adds to the excitement!)

As our field of hypotheses expands and matures, eventually the correct answer will be had, if we do not already have it.


* * *

Beachnut, you seemed refreshed. Did you pamper yourself at a spa or something?
__________________
Total Enlightenment! (Bulb not included.)
www.maxphoton.com
Lighten Up!

Last edited by Max Photon; 30th December 2007 at 09:19 AM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th December 2007, 09:19 AM   #40
Good Lt
Graduate Poster
 
Good Lt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,500
Quote:
As our field of hypotheses expands and matures, eventually the correct answer will be had, if we do not have it already.
LOL

Maybe you can then expand your quest for credibility and recognition to a reputable scientific, peer-reviewed journal instead of posting your terminally stupid theories in obscure Internet forums.

Go, go! For the good of the world!
__________________
Sorrowful and great is the artist's destiny.
- Liszt

Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful.
- Ian Faith
Good Lt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.