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

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


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 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 26th December 2006, 11:45 PM   #281
Pardalis
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 25,817
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
"[/size][/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=2]"Anything that stands vertically want to fall due to gravity's effect on it," explained Loizeaux, a 25-year implosion veteran, "We really aren't blowing the structure up. We're using explosives as a catalyst.""

This is what the Truthers have been saying all along, but you refuse to accept it and even with a quote here from experts stating similar statements you will argue against it.

Yes he is not talking about the WTC's, but the SAME principal applies. You don't need TONS of explosives to demolish buildings. This proves it, and as I promised I provided the information I stated I would previously.
Then wouldn't airline Boeing jets filled with fuel suffise to demolish them? Isn't the controlled demolition unnecessary?
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 26th December 2006, 11:58 PM   #282
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by RemoveSocks
Tons and Tons???? Where did this "tons" of fuel come from??? There was no fuel in WTC1/2, and if your refering to jet fuel that was burnt off within the first 5 minuts. So what "tons" of fuel are you talking about???
This kind of fuel:
http://www.avalona.net/sun/wtc/index.html
Bell 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 27th December 2006, 04:44 AM   #283
stateofgrace
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,843
Originally Posted by babazaroni View Post
Increasing the resistance of a load on a power supply reduces the current needed to maintain the same voltage.

If you reduce the resistance to zero by shorting the power supply leads, the power supply will try to deliver a huge amount of current and hopefully will blow a fuse before the power supply is damaged.

28K, I mean RemoveBush is correct.
Yes he is and in my haste to post I misrepresented what I was saying.

Increasing the power demand will increase the current to maintain the voltage was what I meant to say but rereading what I posted, it clear I did not say this. What I said was incorrect. (Too much wine when posting is not good).
stateofgrace 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 27th December 2006, 05:06 AM   #284
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,068
Timezones are so unfair.

When I went to bed last night this thread was 4 pages long. When I came back it was 15 pages! So I thought I missed all the fun.

But no, RemoveBush has not given the slightest evidence for his claims, and his claims are little more than standard CT-stuff we have seen so many times.

The only claim I've never heard is this one:
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
Look at 9/11 and you will see that there were several exercised being performed and that one was scheduled to be performed in October, but Cheney moved it to 9/11.
Cheney moved a wargame to 9/11?
Never heard this one before.
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone 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 27th December 2006, 05:31 AM   #285
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by Pardalis View Post
Then wouldn't airline Boeing jets filled with fuel suffise to demolish them? Isn't the controlled demolition unnecessary?
its funny how CTers jump from claim to claim, a while ago you needed a lot more energy than gravity could provide (since gravity was supplying over 120 tons of TNT that means you need a lot of bombs) but now all of a sudden gravity can do the work just fine

BTW remove, if explosives were used to "remove resistance" as you say, and cause a faster collapse that means LESS GPE is availble for mid-air pulverization of concrete (since that energy is now going to acceleration rather than destruction) you do realize this, right?

in short, a faster collapse needs MORE explosives to blow stuff apart before it hits the ground
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 27th December 2006, 05:33 AM   #286
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Good morning, RemoveBush, (28K)!

Still here? I hope so!

Still waiting on what your super Electrometer had to say that was relevant to 9/11.

But then, you can't take me serious, can you? I didn't know what an electrometer was. Oh, the shame I must bear now!

Almost as much as the shame you should bear!

How much do you charge to ride the choo-choo at the mall, anyway, Mr. Engineer?
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm 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 27th December 2006, 05:46 AM   #287
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
The only claim I've never heard is this one:Cheney moved a wargame to 9/11?
Never heard this one before.
Pre-9/11 Bush created the "Office of National Preparedness". This was supposed to take an overview across Government with regard to dealing with the consequences of a WMD attack, so instead of different agencies running their own training exercises, they had some central coordination. Cheney was supposed to oversee the ONP's development.

Doesn't sound relevant to 9/11, does it? But stick with me. In the statement creating the ONP, Bush said:

Quote:
This Office will be responsible for implementing the results of those parts of the national effort overseen by Vice President Cheney that deal with consequence management. Specifically it will coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies. The Office of National Preparedness will work closely with state and local governments to ensure their planning, training, and equipment needs are addressed.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20010508.html
Mike Ruppert noticed this, and in Crossing the Rubicon said of the statement:

Quote:
This press release was issued May 8, 2001, about a month prior to the change in NORAD’s intercept protocols. While a bit vague in some areas, it does establish certain things. Dick Cheney was charged to oversee the creation of an approach that was “seamlessly integrated and harmonious.” He was also placed in a supervisory management role over the activities of the entire effort, which were operational under FEMA’s supreme command. “Planning and training” were specifically addressed so this would automatically include war game exercises like Tripod II and all the NORAD/Joint Chiefs wargames of 9/11: Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Vigilance, etc.
Page 414
Crossing the Rubicon
Mike Ruppert
It's not difficult to see that Ruppert is wrong. The Bush statement is talking about the ONP coordinating activities relating to "consequence management", not somehow taking charge of every planning and training exercise throughout all of Federal Government. Of course few of the CTers actually care about that, and by the time Alex Jones had the story it'd become this:

Quote:
In May of 2001, by presidential order, Cheney was handed direct control of all wargame and drill operations. This meant he was solely in charge of the overlapping NORAD drills and wargames on the morning of 9/11, that prevented Standard Operating Procedure from being implemented, and any of the hijacked planes being intercepted.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...gamescover.htm
In separate developments, one of the exercises running on 9/11 was something called Global Guardian (see http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/e...21846767-1796). There are a couple of references suggesting it was supposed to be scheduled for October, but it actually ran in September 2001.

So, putting that all together, the CT assumption is that Global Guardian was rescheduled (possible but unconfirmed), that the rescheduling was a political, rather than a military decision (something for which there is no evidence whatsoever), and that because Cheney was in charge of war games he must be behind it (even though the assumption behind that is fundamentally flawed & there's not the faintest evidence he did anything of the kind).

Last edited by MikeW; 27th December 2006 at 05:49 AM.
MikeW 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 27th December 2006, 05:54 AM   #288
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,068
Thanks MikeW !

Always interesting to see how the CTers get to their claims.
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone 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 27th December 2006, 05:56 AM   #289
PerryLogan
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 980
The Mastermind


Figure 1: The Mastermind

Last edited by PerryLogan; 27th December 2006 at 05:58 AM.
PerryLogan 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 27th December 2006, 06:01 AM   #290
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Originally Posted by PerryLogan View Post
i hear bush sr was supposed to be the mastermind, but after he threw up on that japanese guy the NWO couldnt sell it anymore so they made him lose the election and postponed 9/11 for 8 years
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe 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 27th December 2006, 06:01 AM   #291
eddyk
Thinker
 
eddyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 209
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...ost&p=10662725


This one is a bit of a loon

Talking about 'towers' second to last post.
eddyk 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 27th December 2006, 06:16 AM   #292
Indolent Wretch
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 100
Hello RemoveBush,

First may I say I agree wholeheartedly with your chosen handle. I'm not a GWB lover, personally I think the man is a corrupt imbecile.

I've read the whole thread, and I find that coming to the end of it I really need to ask you 2 simple questions, I hope you will dignify my request with 2 simple answers.

Question 1

Do you believe that two jet liners collided with the twin towers on 9/11?

Now if the answer to this is 'no' then you don't have to bother with the next question which is a bit more detailed.

Question 2

I'm sure you agree that terrorists flying two jet liners into one of New Yorks most prized landmarks and killing many hundreds of people, would in itself, be a massive attack on the people and institutions of the USA and indeed the free world.

It would have caused massive comdemnation, massive anger, massive financial loss, massive life loss and massive loss of face.

It would have, in itself, provoked a tidal wave of reactionary thinking that would have allowed the Republicans in charge of the US government to basically implement just about any policies they needed.

But as an observer I have to say that all of this could have happened, and obviously could have happened without there being any need for the towers to collapse.

The planes, the deaths, the wreckage, the fire, the mourning screaming crying, the pillars of smoke and dust, the terror, ALL of these would have been enough.

So the question is if one imagines that the government staged the event in order to advance a private agenda why did they go to what I'm sure you'll agree is a enormous undertaking in order to make the towers collapse.

As I see it if the government wanted to do 9/11 without a tower collapse, they maybe needed 1 NSA agent to pretend to be an Al Queda man and recruit some naive/murderous patsies to die for the cause. A few more people to plan and arrange for money and training. A few more people to (possibly) ensure that countermeasures were not available on the day in question to prevent the attacks. Finally a few people at the very top who desired the carnage and kicked the events in motion.

Maybe 10 to 15 expert, trusted people.

If they wanted to ensure the collapse of the towers by means of explosives or some other method. Then they needed more money, more of a dangerous paper trail, the inclusion of engineers, explosives experts, transport operatives and other 'grease monkeys' into their scheme. They massively increased the risk of detection during the installation of a vast number of explosives into two of the worlds largest buildings. Then they have to secure the services of more people to ensure that forensic investigations are hushed up and whitewashed. More people. More money. More risk of detection.

All, as far as I can see, for nothing.

If 9/11 was staged to increase Bush's hold on the US, guarantee an election victory, allow military campaigns in the far east, allow institution of draconian anti free speech and terror laws, then why collapse the towers?

It's just not necessary.


I've tried to sum up my thoughts on this as clearly as possible, please let me know what you think. I really do want to have a discussion in this regard with someone of your views, but as to now my attempts to start a dialogue have amounted to nothing.

Last edited by Indolent Wretch; 27th December 2006 at 06:20 AM. Reason: Clarity
Indolent Wretch 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 27th December 2006, 06:16 AM   #293
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
You absolutely have to be kidding. Here are some of the things that would have comprised that fuel:

– Up to 180,000 gallons of fuel oil, diesel fuel and transformer oil (a high estimate)

– 2,000 automobiles and trucks. Not all were burned, but a large percentage were (I'm not aware of a count) Each one with fuel on board, each with four tires, foam and fabric upholstery and carpeting, engine oil, rubber hoses, belts, weatherstripping, wiring harnesses, loads of plastic, paint.

– Carpeting. Doesn't sound like a big deal. Imagine going into your local carpet dealer and asking for installation for your living room. Dimensions: 20 feet wide, 65 miles long. Add carpet backing or padding to that.

– Tens of thousands of miles of wiring covered with plastic insulation.

– 5 million square feet of painted surfaces.

– Hundreds of tons of wood and particle board.

– Millions of pounds of paper

– 20,000 viscoelastic tower shock absorbers.

– Tens of thousands of computer terminals covered in plastic.

– Hundreds of tons of trading-floor equipment.

– Tens of thousands of telephones covered in plastic.

– Thousands of fax machines covered in plastic.

– Thousands of copiers and toner cartridges covered in plastic.

– Thousands of computer peripherals: printers, scanners, hubs, zip drives (remember them?), millions of CD-ROMs and floppy disks. User manuals for everything. Calculators. Everything covered in plastic.

– All of the electronics above have plastic-insulated wiring and plastic circuit boards.

– About 75,000 chairs, most with foam padding and synthetic coverings.

– Hundreds of upholstered couches.

– Millions of plastic pens and markers.

– Tens of thousands of cardboard boxes

– Tens of thousands of plastic wastebaskets

– Tons and tons of flammable mailroom supplies

– Hundreds of supply closets filled with office consumables, including untold quantities of paper and plastic.

– The contents of the receiving areas: perhaps thousands of boxes of supplies

– Thousands of flammable items used by repair and maintenance crews.

– The contents of over 100 retail stores, with all their merchandise, shelves and display cases, and back rooms filled with stock in boxes. These include 18 clothing stores, several bookstores, newsstands, card shops, two music stores (plastic!), two consumer electronics stores, pharmacies.

– The contents of Windows on the World, the highest-grossing restaurant in the U.S. and one of the largest, with all of its supplies, oils, table linens, wall treatments, upholstered furniture, etc.

– The contents of numerous other restaurants, cafés and snack bars.
No gravy, RB is a engineering genius. He is the smartest troofer out there, he even used some big words! If he says there was no combustible material in WTC 1 and 2 then that settles it. All that office equipment, wiring, carpeting, papers, etc. was removed prior to 9/11. And nobody noticed! It was all replaced by holograms maybe...
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat 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 27th December 2006, 06:37 AM   #294
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,278
Sweet Enola Gay!
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd 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 27th December 2006, 07:04 AM   #295
JonnyFive
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,459
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
If the plane is lighter and slower, then I would say that PHYSICS proves the damage would be less. It's not rocket science for the mathematicly inclined.
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
NO! Actually a 767 is slightly smaller and about a 100 miles per hour slower than the 707. Perhaps you need to do some research on this??????

The 707 is actually a bigger faster plane. It is however, much less economical than the 767.
I don't think you fact checked this before you said it.

The 767 has a max takeoff weight of between 315,000 (767-200) and 450,000 (767-400ER) lbs.

The 707 has a max takeoff weight of between 257,000 (707-120B) and 333,600 (707-320B) lbs.

There is obviously some overlap there, but the heaviest 707 is only a bit heavier than the lightest 767.

However, the model that struck one of the towers was a 767-223ER (the ER stands for "Extended Range"), which has a max takeoff weight of 395,000 lbs., which is 61,400 lbs. heavier than the heaviest 707.

The other plane was not the ER version, and so did indeed have a slightly lighter weight than the heaviest 707. I suppose that's where the very general "707 is heavier than 767" claim comes from, but it's highly deceptive at best. Especially considering there is a 767 model which weight more than 100,000 lbs. more than the heaviest 707 out there.

Yes, the 707 has a higher cruising speed, but that has nothing to do with the actual speed at which they hit the towers, or the speed the towers were designed to withstand.

Finally, the towers did survive the impact of the planes. They were brought down by a combination of massive structural damage and intense fire, but a lot of the occupants of the towers were evacuated because the towers did not immediately collapse.

You claim to be an engineer and understand math, but you have posted no evidence of this as of yet.

Could you please provide your calculations as to what actually happened versus what should have happened if planes had hit the towers (as you, I assume, believe they did not)? Innuendo and suggestion is worthless, we would like to see some direct evidence from you.
JonnyFive 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 27th December 2006, 07:11 AM   #296
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Yes, Perry, Bush has done nothing right. Removing the Taliban was a terrible mistake. I continue to wonder how someone as devoid of critical thinking skills as yourself can resist the incisive, exquisitely reasoned arguments of the fantasists.
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 27th December 2006, 07:54 AM   #297
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
It measures radiation...... Whether it is Voltage, Current, etc. etc. It is not a multimeter. A multimeter needs to be connected to something. This can measure the "radiation" of something. It is so sensitive that if you wave your hand over it, it will pick it up and show a reading.

My god, no wonder you guys can't comprehend basic physics.
I take one evening off, and you guys find a new mouse to play with. And then you completely miss the fact that "Mr. Injuneer" seems to be claiming that voltage and current are forms of "radiation"? You guys are slipping!

Oh, and now we're "small minded" people who can't see the "big picture". So much for being "left-brained", huh?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

Last edited by Horatius; 27th December 2006 at 07:57 AM.
Horatius 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 27th December 2006, 08:00 AM   #298
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I take one evening off, and you guys find a new mouse to play with. And then you completely miss the fact that "Mr. Injuneer" seems to be claiming that voltage and current are forms of "radiation"? You guys are slipping!

Oh, and now we're "small minded" people who can't see the "big picture". So much for being "left-brained", huh?
Oh, you're right. I totally missed him saying that!

Also, the part where he says a meter has to be connected to something: Never seen a clamp-on ampmeter, has he?

Well, at least I can blame old age on it!
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm 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 27th December 2006, 08:02 AM   #299
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Lightbulb Simple Test

I'm not an engineer, nor do I play one on television. One of my friends who is a structural engineer has devised a test, charming in its innocence and simplicity, for unmasking frauds like RB. He suggests asking the impostor to explain why no skyscrapers are constructed of wood.
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 27th December 2006, 08:05 AM   #300
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 85,100
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
Yes he is not talking about the WTC's, but the SAME principal applies. You don't need TONS of explosives to demolish buildings. This proves it, and as I promised I provided the information I stated I would previously.

Also notice that the buildings can be wired in very little time.....

15 STRUCTURES, 4 COUNTRIES, 1 WEEKEND
Even if that were true, scale it up for WTC, and factor in the fact that people were WORKING in a building that wasn't clearled up for demo, and you might understand something.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 27th December 2006, 08:18 AM   #301
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
RemoveBush:

1. Your quote was full of HTML Tags, which I find annoying, hard to read, so I simple cut/paste your post below.

2. I have not read the 2 pages of replies since I posted, so If someone has answered any of the questions etc...I have not seen the answers.

Here, first are a few replies to your replies to me:


Quote:
"T.A.M.", at least you can debate..... Thanks.... Now to answer your questions.

1) Actually, things can and do have "speed" and "velocity", it just matters on the context.
"Just as distance and displacement have distinctly different meanings (despite their similarities), so do speed and velocity. Speed is a scalar quantity which refers to "how fast an object is moving." A fast-moving object has a high speed while a slow-moving object has a low speed. An object with no movement at all has a zero speed.
Velocity is a vector quantity which refers to "the rate at which an object changes its position." Imagine a person moving rapidly - one step forward and one step back - always returning to the original starting position. While this might result in a frenzy of activity, it would result in a zero velocity. Because the person always returns to the original position, the motion would never result in a change in position. Since velocity is defined as the rate at which the position changes, this motion results in zero velocity. If a person in motion wishes to maximize their velocity, then that person must make every effort to maximize the amount that they are displaced from their original position. Every step must go into moving that person further from where he/she started. For certain, the person should never change directions and begin to return to where he/she started from."

2) The discussion can be based in several ways. Speed is correct for one type, velocity might be for another. "time of free fall" is correct when refering to a CD or simliar collapse.
1. ok, that was a bit over the top, but fine. So I guess my point is taken, that really, when discussing the fall of the WTCs, to do so correctly you either refer to speed of fall at time or distance X, or you do not refer to a speed or velocity at all, but rather to "time of free fall" at distance X. We will leave it at that.

Quote:
3) I don't claim to be qualified to have all the answer. I do claim to be qualified to the extent that I perfrom mathematical calculations everyday and I rely anylize the data and use that data to come to conclusions. Unlike many of the people commenting here tonight! Many, as I can tell, have no experience or any high level education to have the ability to take data and analyze it. They rely upon "common sense" to form their judgments. Common sense does not always beat out physics.
I do not know the exact qualification of the people posting here. However, many of them do have appropriate qualifications, like yourself. We have several engineers that post here, as well as architects, steel workers, etc...

Most people here rely on EXPERT OPINION and TESTIMONY when the issue is beyond their level of education. I would think given your expertese is Electronics, and that you have a Bachelors (not to knock it, but a PhD in Structural Engineering would be much more qualified than you...and even more than me), that there are many, many issues where you are qualified only in the area of mathematics to examine.

Try not to judge, but rather, ask someone what their qualifications are. R. Mackey, for example is an engineer with NASA, and he post here frequently.


Quote:
4) NIST and their team was were largely made up of people who rely upon the government to obtain their income. They were directly told by the Bush admin what they should look for. i.e. that it was caused by the plane and the fire. Not to investigate and rule out all possible/plausible situations. NIST violated their own SOP (standard operating procedure) in that they did not investigate all possible senerios. A scientist/engineer will investigate the issue even if they do not feel that it is viable, just to ensure they can 100% rule it out. NIST states they did not pursue this. Against thier SOP.
1. You do realize you are accusing hundreds of your fellow engineers of allowing people to get away with murder simply to save their jobs. Not directly, but indirectly this is what you are saying.

2. If you look at the MANDATE given to NIST, they in no way violated their SOP. Their report is a "BUILDING PERFORMANCE STUDY", not an FBI CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

3. Has one single scientist or engineer stated in anyway that they were prevented from investigating any aspect of the collapse initiation or building performance, and if so, by whom?

4. Your comment on SOP is a little generic. For example as a Doctor, I have participated in drug trials. Now in these trials their are certain things that are looked at, examined, studied, and other aspects that are not. Either they are of no consequence, or not of concern to those performing the study. If NIST was not charged with looking into certain aspects of the collapse, then they had no need to, and in my opinion did not breech any SOP.

Quote:
5) "The WTCs were brought down by a combination of (1) Severing of many of the exterior and interior steel columns from plane impact, (2) removal of the majority of the steel structures fireproofing, and (3) Widespread fires intitiated by the airliner jet fuel, then maintained and superheated by the contents of the office buildings that burned as a result. The degree of impact each of the above had on the building collapse initiation, varies between the two towers."

I cannot prove or disprove this, but neither can anyone else.
Based on 10,000 pages of data collection and analysis, the structural engineers of NIST feel the above statement reflects the MOST LIKELY cause of collapse. DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS INCORRECT, or do you have ANY EVIDENCE OF ANOTHER PLAUSIBLE THEORY, to the extent that it should be considered the MOST LIKELY cause, instead of the one NIST has proposed?

Quote:
How about providing evidence as to how a pool of molten iron can be formed and flowing within the rubble of all 3 WTC's without an external source to generate the temperatures needed?
If there was proof of molten IRON or STEEL, than I would simply say that temperatures of the fires and embers underneath the debris would have to be of sufficient temperature to maintain such a state. Could this have occured in the collapse, I think so, via alternate fuel sources within the building and with the added heat derrived from the friction of the building collapse.

However, there is no proof, direct or indirect, of molten IRON or STEEL. There is a decent amount of WITNESS TESTIMONY of molten METAL of some form. That is all I have seen. Color temperature charts mean little, when the molten metals are highly contaminated (not just a handful of wood chunks) with hydrocarbon products from the building, so bringing up the color of the molten METAL really has little validity here. I have seen the video and photos, and they prove nothing beyond possible molten METAL of unknown consistency.

Quote:
6) Grainy video?? How about the fact that FIREFIGHTERS are making statements that the largest piece found was a 1" piece of a phone. "No chairs, desks" etc... Not my words the words of a fireman. You believe that there was piles of debris left from the WTC???? There was nothing left of the buildings, even though both was hit diferently they both fell IDENTICALLY.
I have seen the interview with the SINGLE firefighter who stated they found nothing bigger that a few inches, no phones, no computers.

Here is what I will say about that:

1. I wouldn' t expect to find a whole lot of debris in big chunks, given the distance things fell, and the weight that came atop most of the debris.

2. I doubt he had gone through ALL the debris, and was likely only speaking of what he himself saw, or did not see.

3. 1" Phone pieces, chunks of concrete, are all much bigger than the micronized (50-60 microns I think some of the truther researchers claim) concrete they say was all was left of the WTC concrete.

4. You have not provided me with any proof that the "dust" was micronized concrete, as opposed to drywall.

Quote:
7) So now you are mind reader?? I don't know what they believe, and they have not stated it in public except to say that 9/11 is not what we were told.

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
I agree, you were the one who brought this weak argument/evidence up. You have confirmed my point, which is that we know very little of what they were thinking on the matter. I would say that to cover my point of them not believing the "inside job" version, that I would expect many of them to say something if they truely believe the govt they work for was guilty of killing 3000 of its own citizens. But that is just opinion, and is a weak argument.


Quote:
So answer me this then...


1) What allowed the other buildings in the area, which received much more damage to remain standing while only WTC1, 2, and 7 fell? WTC 5 was on fire completely for hours and had extreme damage to it, yet it did not collapse. They had to "pull it" latter after the recovery ended.
1. I would make an educated guess that the factors that caused WTC 1/2 to collapse, versus the others, had to do with (1) WTC 1/2 Unique design, (2) Airliner impact with severing of columns, removal of fireproofing. As for WTC 7. I believe part of it was extensive fires covering multiple floors, unchecked for hours, combined with severe structural damage from WTC debris, wich caused a 10-20 storey hole in the south side of the building, and other factors I do not know of.

2. The "pull it" quote you tried to sneak in there, is of little relevence to your initial question, expected, but will not be addressed in this context.

Quote:
2) Why was NIST restricted in how it would perform its investigation? Why did it not test for ALL plausible situations per their SOP?
Show me how they were restricted. I do not want some vague blanket statement that they were "restricted". My comments on why they might have been resticted are totally dependent on what the restrictions were or were not. You bring up the SOP over and over again, so please give me a link to the NIST SOP. I have addressed this issue above.

Quote:
3) Why does the Government still to this day state that only 1 black box was recovered when rescue workers state they helped the FBI recover 3 of the 4 from the WTC? Why deny this when rescue workers state they were found?
This nonsense is based on the testimony of ONE worker, whom I believe was trying to promote a book at the time. It has never been confirmed, and I would ask you to at the very least provide multiple reliable witnesses backing up this claim by a single person before I would take it very seriously.

Quote:
4) Why does NIST refuse to address the discrepencies found in the FDR from flight 77 and flight 93?
What does NIST have to do with the FDRs? What does a "Building Performance Study" have to do with Flight Data Recorders, and their possible discrepencies...I am calling this one irrelivent.

Quote:
5) Why has the government refused and faught so hard from ANY investigation into the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor. Why did it take over a year to get Bush to allow them and then only with limited funding to ensure it would fail?
To the BUSH admin, the causative agent of the attacks, as it was and is to most americans, was known...Al-Qaeda. they did not refuse the FBI to investigate the attacks. They did not refuse FEMA. Beyond that, I would guess politics and cheapness would be factors in why they resisted an investigation into something that to them, had an obvious cause. I, however, am not a spokesperson for the BUSH admin.

Quote:
This should be enough for now, let's see how you answer these and then I'll hit you with some harder questions.
Fine, but let us focus on a couple of topics at a time. I don't want to tackle Griffins 105 points all at once.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 27th December 2006, 08:20 AM   #302
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
I'm not an engineer, nor do I play one on television. One of my friends who is a structural engineer has devised a test, charming in its innocence and simplicity, for unmasking frauds like RB. He suggests asking the impostor to explain why no skyscrapers are constructed of wood.
Oh, that's easy! We don't have 1200' trees to make the central columns out of!

I mean, why else would we not? And don't you go giving me any guff about strength to weight ratios, stiffness, flexibility, or any of that!

__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 27th December 2006, 08:40 AM   #303
JonnyFive
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,459
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
I take one evening off, and you guys find a new mouse to play with. And then you completely miss the fact that "Mr. Injuneer" seems to be claiming that voltage and current are forms of "radiation"? You guys are slipping!
Damn, I must have my insanity filter turned up too high.

Radiation... that's rich.

Perhaps he's an "engineer" in the sense of "cleanliness engineer" (i.e. "janitor"), or perhaps an engineer on the railways.
JonnyFive 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 27th December 2006, 09:15 AM   #304
babazaroni
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 787
If you noticed how 28K/RB attacked the NIST faq regarding the molten flow, then you know that he is quite capable of semantically twisting 'radiation' to be a superset of current.

Let me try:

"Let's see....current is the flow of electrons from something...that means they are radiating from something.... RADIATION. Don't you boys understand english?"

Of course someone will point out that the forward direction of current is the opposite of the flow of the electrons, but we won't get a response as he's moved onto something else.

We know its bs, including his use of 'Electrometer'.

Last edited by babazaroni; 27th December 2006 at 09:27 AM.
babazaroni 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 27th December 2006, 09:22 AM   #305
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
 
ktesibios's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,493
RemoveBush, you claim to be an electronics engineer. Your writing style, however, suggests someone who didn't pay attention in high school English classes and who has spent much more time watching TV than reading. In attempting to defend your claim you have done nothing but bluster and toss word salad.

Here's an easy way to support your claim: a couple of very easy word problems which should be right up your alley:

1. Somewhere above, you mentioned a DAC. Okay, assume that this DAC has a quantization step of 35 uV, that is, 1 LSB = 35 uV. Assume 16-bit linear two's-complement encoding. What are the positive and negative full-scale output voltages of this DAC?

2. You spoke of noise floors. Very good, here's a simple noise calculation:

A preamplifier has an input noise voltage density of 4 nV/sqrt(Hz), an input noise current density of 1 pA/(sqrt)Hz, an input impedance of 1 megohm and a voltage gain of 1000 V/V. Its input is connected to a transducer having a purely resistive source impedance of 1000 ohms. This transducer is at a temperature of 25 degrees C. The noise sources are perfectly white, that is, their noise density is constant with frequency, and the preamplifier frequency response is perfectly flat.

What is the input-referred noise voltage density of the preamp/transducer combination? What is the noise voltage at the preamp output, measured over a 20 kHz bandwidth?

Show your work- explain how you solve each problem.

I'm a technician, not an engineer, and I can solve both of these problems without having to look anything up, although I do need a scientific calculator to crunch the numbers. You should have no difficulty with them at all.

I'll be back in a few hours with the answers.
__________________
Ship me somewheres east of Suez, where the best is like the worst, where there ain't no ten commandments and a man can raise a small, bristly mustache.

Last edited by ktesibios; 27th December 2006 at 09:32 AM. Reason: fixed memory lapse
ktesibios 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 27th December 2006, 09:23 AM   #306
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
...
1) What is the Free fall speed of an object dropped from the top of the WTC's?
The height of the top floor of the towers was 1,348 ft (411.0 m).
The height of the root of the towers was 1,368 ft (417.0 m).
The height of the antenna/spire of the towers was 1,731.9 ft (527.9 m)
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wtc
Given the approximate acceleration at the towers would be 9.8 m/s^2 we can calculate both the time it would take to fall, and the velocity at any given point.
Using the formulas available on this page: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mofall.html we generate the following (bolded lines are of greatest interest):
TimeAccel - m/sec^2Dist - meters
0.09.80.0
1.09.84.9
2.019.619.6
3.029.444.1
4.039.278.4
5.049.0122.5
6.058.8176.4
7.068.6240.1
8.078.4313.6
9.088.2396.9
9.189.2405.8
9.290.2414.7
9.391.1423.8
9.492.1433.0
9.593.1442.2
9.694.1451.6
9.795.1461.0
9.896.0470.6
9.997.0480.2
10.098.0490.0
10.199.0499.8
10.2100.0509.8
10.3100.9519.8
10.4101.9530.0
10.5102.9540.2
10.6103.9550.6
10.7104.9561.0
10.8105.8571.5
10.9106.8582.2
11.0107.8592.9
From this we can see that from the top floor it would take 9.1-9.2 seconds to reach the ground and the final velocity would be 89.2-90.2 m/sec.
From the root it would take 9.2-9.3 seconds to reach the ground and the final velocity would be 90.2-91.1 m/sec.
From the top of the spire/antenna it would take 10.3-10.4 seconds to reach the ground and the final velocity would be 100.9-101.9 m/sec.
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
2) What was the speed at which the buildings fell??
Estimates on this vary do to visibility problems and which points are being used. I will use the values you provided in this post http://www.internationalskeptics.com...11#post2206211 and go with 12-16 seconds.
Reported TimeCalculated Time%
12.09.1131.9
12.09.2130.4
12.09.3129.0
12.010.3116.5
12.010.4115.4
13.09.1142.9
13.09.2141.3
13.09.3139.8
13.010.3126.2
13.010.4125.0
14.09.1153.8
14.09.2152.2
14.09.3150.5
14.010.3135.9
14.010.4134.6
15.09.1164.8
15.09.2163.0
15.09.3161.3
15.010.3145.6
15.010.4144.2
16.09.1175.8
16.09.2173.9
16.09.3172.0
16.010.3155.3
16.010.4153.8
We can see that the towers took somewhere between 115.4% to 175.8% free-fall time to complete collapsing. Personally, I do not consider 15.4%-75.8% margin of difference to qualify as being labeled "near".
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
3) Provide Scientific evidence by experimentation or imperical evidence that the core would have been completly destroyed
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc...rt/WTC_ch2.pdf Section
2.2.1.1
American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north face of WTC 1 approximately between the 94th and
98th floors
2.2.1.5
Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x10^11 joules of potential energy over the
1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x10^9 joules of potential energy were stored in the
upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact.
2.2.2.1
United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 approximately between the 78th and 84th
floors.
For WTC 1, the top 12 floors of the tower translates into 8x10^9 joules of the total 4x10^11 joules. So, the top ~10.9% of WTC 1 contained ~2% of the entire PE of WTC 1. Extrapolating this on to WTC 2 (since the above mentioned report does not specify the amount PE contained above the WTC 2 impact point) we get the following:
WTC 2 => top 26 floors => ~23.6% of WTC 2.
If ~10.9% of WTC 1 translates into 8x10^9 joules PE
Then ~23.6% of WTC 2 translates into N joules PE
Therefore 10.9/8*10^9 = 23.6/N
=> 10.9*N/8*10^9 = 23.6
=> 10.9*N = 23.6*(8*10^9)
=> N = 23.6*(8*10^9)/10.9
=> N = 17321100917.431192660550458715596
=> N = 17.3*10^9 joules PE
=> ~34.7% of the entire PE of WTC 2
What does this mean? It means for WTC 1, that ~2% (8x10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 94-98. It means for WTC 2, that ~34.7% (17.3*10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 78-84.
If you feel this is insufficient to explain the damage seen, please provide your maths showing why.
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
and that the concrete would have vaporized in mid air like it did.
The concrete was not "vaporized".
1) The Paul J. Lioy, et al abstract (http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/20.../abstract.html) states, “The largest mass concentrations were > 53 µm in diameter.”
2) The full paper, http://www.ehponline.org/members/200...lioy-full.html , states that the estimated mass of material involved is “> 10 10^6 tons”
3) The sampling done for the Lioy paper dealt directly with the dust component of the debris, “These two samples were collected from 10-15 cm-thick deposits that were on the top of two automobiles about 0.7 km from the WTC site” and therefore their particle size is dealing specifically with the dust particles and is not a representation of the average particle size of all debris.
4) Lioy used two methods for separating the particles, “a) a gravimetric sieving analysis that separated the mass of lint and nonfibrous material into fractions > 300 µm, 75-300 µm, and < 75 µm in diameter; and b) an aerodynamic separation for the particle size fractions of < 2.5 µm, 2.5-10 µm, and 10-53 µm in diameter, with a gravimetric sieving that separated the particles > 53 µm in diameter before the aerodynamic sizing of the samples. The separations were based on the design or availability of specific size separation techniques in the laboratories.”
5) Lioy’s table here http://www.ehponline.org/members/200...4lioy/tab1.jpg shows that the “> 53 µm in diameter” statement in the abstract dealt specifically with the aerodynamically separated sample and accounted for 61.5%, 52.21% and 63.6% of the mass of the aerodynamically separated sample. However, when looking at the first step of the separation process (sieved sample) we see that particles < 75 µm in diameter account for 38%, 30%, and 37% of the sample masses. Particles between 75 µm and 300 µm in diameter account for 46%, 49%, and 42% of the samples and particles > 300 µm in diameter account for 16%, 23%, and 21% of the samples. The use of 60 µm in diameter for the calculations is erroneous at best, and dishonest at worst. To highlight what this table implies; in the three samples 62%, 72%, and 63% of the mass of the samples was > 75 µm in diameter.
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/me...%20analysis%22
First, I highly suggest reading the short paper, as it describes the EPA's methodology in a very detailed manner.
Component analysis for the six WTC bulk samples is summarized in Table 1 and Figures 2 - 7. All of the samples show three primary components – gypsum, phases compatible with concrete, and MMVF. The additional particle types shown in Table 1 were found in most samples. The data demonstrate that the most consistent particle-type abundance ratios occur within the MMVF, i.e., slag wool, rock wool, and soda-lime glass. In all samples, slag wool is the dominant MMVF component while rock wool and soda-lime glass fibers occur in all samples at similar relative abundances below approximately 10 to less than 1 percent total MMVF (Table 1).
Table 1. Range in area percent of major and minor components for all samples.
Particle TypeCommentPercent Range, OutdoorPercent Range, Indoor
GypsumIncludes all Ca sulfate particles26.3 – 53.363.3 – 63.7
ConcreteAll phases compatible with hydrated cement19.3 – 30.814.0 – 21.0
MMVF*Total20.3 – 40.69.5 – 19.2
<snip>

Wait. You read that too fast. Let me reiterate
Particle Type
Gypsum
Percent Range, Outdoor
26.3 – 53.3
Percent Range, Indoor
63.3 – 63.7

Particle Type
Concrete
Percent Range, Outdoor
19.3 – 30.8
Percent Range, Indoor
14.0 – 21.0

Let me put it another way. In the EPA's sample, drywall dust accounted for more than ~15% more of the outdoor sample than concrete; and account for more than ~46% more of the indoor sample.
The bulk of the cloud seen from the collapse of the towers is drywall dust not concrete dust.
Arkan_Wolfshade 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 27th December 2006, 09:26 AM   #307
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile Well...

"Kiwiwriter - The fact that these guys prattle about treason trials and executions for ordinary folks who accept the various reports on 9/11 is something that bothers me. These nutters actually have no regard for any other form of human life except themselves and their immediate followers and flunkies. Yet that is precisely what they accuse the government of doing. A lot of this 9/11 conspiracy nonsense are projections of the nutters' own view of the world."

This person can clearly not read!!! The reply was not to "ordinary folks" it was to the US GOVERNMENT! I guess this is what's wrong with our country these days, as someone above posted, our schools are not teaching the basics. He/She cannot clearly read!


The US government is made of "ordinary folks," not vampires from Planet Galgamex, and I have read material from these folks that suggests trials and executions not only for their perceived government/NWO/Zionist/Bilderberger/ World Wildlife Fund enemies, but for anyone who opposes them, including all their detractors, large and small. And William Pierce himself, the leading neo-Nazi nutter, admitted in his book "The Turner Diaries" that many innocent people would die in the course of that revolution.

As for my ability to read, that's an interesting ad hominem and irrelevant.

So, as "28thKingdom" departs, "RemoveBush" enters.
Kiwiwriter 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 27th December 2006, 09:31 AM   #308
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Notice how one WooWoo disappears (28th kingdom) another one shows up on its heels and starts posting the same tired theories (that have been debunked over and over again)?

8 pages of ct debunking and still Bush doesn't know how to use the quote feature.
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 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 27th December 2006, 09:37 AM   #309
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,154
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
8 pages of ct debunking and still Bush doesn't know how to use the quote feature.
There are many things RB doesn't know
uk_dave 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 27th December 2006, 09:38 AM   #310
babazaroni
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
Notice how one WooWoo disappears (28th kingdom) another one shows up on its heels and starts posting the same tired theories (that have been debunked over and over again)?

8 pages of ct debunking and still Bush doesn't know how to use the quote feature.
He knows how to use it. He knows it is more difficult to trace and respond to arguements that way, and it makes his posts appear different from 28K.

I suggest we keep asking him to use the quote function and do not respond to his postings until he does.

Last edited by babazaroni; 27th December 2006 at 09:43 AM.
babazaroni 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 27th December 2006, 09:42 AM   #311
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
Notice how one WooWoo disappears (28th kingdom) another one shows up on its heels and starts posting the same tired theories (that have been debunked over and over again)?

8 pages of ct debunking and still Bush doesn't know how to use the quote feature.
Ah, but there's a difference! Now we're being "small-minded", and we can't use "common sense" to understand the collapses, we must use physics!

It's like he thinks we'll have to agree with him now that he's started "speaking our language". Too bad he only learned to speak it phonetically, and has no idea what the grunting noises actually mean.

Voltage == Radiation? How could any engineer, let alone one who claims to work with electronics, make this mistake? Answer is, they can't, so he isn't. An engineer, that is.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 27th December 2006, 09:42 AM   #312
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,108
Smile The Hayes Homes...

Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
For those close minded individuals....

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

"It was a cloudy Saturday morning late in May. That morning at 9 am, the Hayes Homes housing projects in Newark, N.J., would be dealt a fatal blow. Two 12-story buildings separated by a smokestack loomed over an otherwise graded site."

Then it says....

"
In the days leading up to the implosion, crews used pneumatic drills to bore 1,300 holes within the reinforced concrete columns of the two structures and another 40 in the smokestack. It took 180 pounds of nitroglycerin-based dynamite to trigger the collapse."

So then.... It does not take TONS as you people will lead everyone to believe.


Of course, I'm not an engineer, but I am familiar with the Hayes Homes demolition, as it occurred on my watch here in Newark, and I do know that those buildings were structurally very different from the World Trade Center.

More importantly, they were also abandoned for a number of years, so the controlled demolition guys had no trouble wiring the place to blow, without having to worry about being caught. The scenarios about controlled demolition in the World Trade Center have a central weakness in that this army of unseen and perpetually silent demolitions experts somehow placed their explosives in the buildings so that they would blow perfectly, to cause the required damage, without anyone noticing them being there.

And for the past five years, this army of killers has apparently experienced no remorse, no guilt, no concern, or any other moral qualms about their horrific act. By the same token, they haven't celebrated it, bragged to their many like-minded friends in their NWO conspiracy, nor have they mentioned the matter to their families, drinking buddies, golfing partners, or anyone else.

Nor have these individuals been sought out and exposed by the families of the people they killed, which include 343 New York firefighters, whose families and brothers would have a vested interest in trying these murderers. We do better at exposing sex offenders.

Nor has there been a wave of executions or mysterious deaths of demolition experts to keep this operation secret. This accomplished by a federal government that hosed up the case for the war in Iraq and then hosed up the war, being unable to provide their troops with body and vehicle armor.

I guess the NWO is only capable of committing extremely complicated James Bond-style acts of terror, not routine wars.
Kiwiwriter 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 27th December 2006, 09:44 AM   #313
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,447
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
Please do some research on what you are trying to talk about, you just make yourself look stupid.
Must. Resist. Impulse.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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 27th December 2006, 09:45 AM   #314
babazaroni
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by uk_dave View Post
There are many things RB doesn't know
He 'knows' lots of stuff. He puts it together in bizarre ways.
babazaroni 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 27th December 2006, 09:45 AM   #315
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by babazaroni View Post
I suggest we keep asking him to use the quote function or we won't respond to his postings.
Or we could simply demand that he prove that whoever he's quoting actually said that. Force him to go back and find a few links, and maybe he'll start to use it out of laziness. If he doesn't post the links, we'll just claim all the quotes are faked, just like they claim all the physical evidence is faked. Fair's fair, right?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 27th December 2006, 09:46 AM   #316
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Originally Posted by Arkan_Wolfshade View Post
Wait. You read that too fast. Let me reiterate.
You made my day with that, Arkan.

Great post. Facts. I love 'em.
__________________
"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 27th December 2006, 09:47 AM   #317
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,337
Originally Posted by Regnad Kcin View Post

Quote:
Please do some research on what you are trying to talk about, you just make yourself look stupid.
Must. Resist. Impulse.
Oh come on! You know you want to!
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius 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 27th December 2006, 09:48 AM   #318
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
Originally Posted by RemoveBush View Post
...Tons and Tons???? Where did this "tons" of fuel come from??? There was no fuel in WTC1/2, and if your refering to jet fuel that was burnt off within the first 5 minuts. So what "tons" of fuel are you talking about???...
Quote:
2.2.1.2 Fire Development
It is estimated, based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings. A review of photographic and video records show that the aircraft fully entered the buildings prior to any visual evidence of flames at the exteriors of the buildings. This suggests that, as the aircraft crashed into and plowed across the buildings, they distributed
jet fuel throughout the impact area to form a flammable “cloud.” Ignition of this cloud resulted in a rapid pressure rise, expelling a fuel rich mixture from the impact area into shafts and through other openings caused by the crashes, resulting in dramatic fireballs.

Although only limited video footage is available that shows the crash of American Airlines Flight 11 into WTC 1 and the ensuing fireballs, extensive video records of the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 into WTC 2 are available. These videos show that three fireballs emanated from WTC 2 on the south, east, and west faces. The fireballs grew slowly, reaching their full size after about 2 seconds. The diameters of the fireballs were greater than 200 feet, exceeding the width of the building. Such fireballs were formed when the expelled jet fuel dispersed and flames traveled through the resulting fuel/air mixture. Experimentally based correlations for similar fireballs (Zalosh 1995) were used to estimate the amount of fuel consumed.

The precise size of the fireballs and their exact shapes are not well defined; therefore, there is some uncertainty associated with estimates of the amount of fuel consumed by these effects. Calculations indicate that between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed in this manner. Barring additional information, it is reasonable to assume that an approximately similar amount of jet fuel was consumed by fireballs as the aircraft struck WTC 1.

Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.

The first arriving firefighters observed that the windows of WTC 1 were broken out at the Concourse level. This breakage was most likely caused by overpressure in the elevator shafts. Damage to the walls of the elevator shafts was also observed as low as the 23rd floor, presumably as a result of the overpressures developed by the burning of the vapor cloud on the impact floors.

If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then approximately 4,000 gallons remained on the impact floors to be consumed in the fires that followed. The jet fuel in the aerosol would have burned out as fast as the flame could spread through it, igniting almost every combustible on the floors involved. Fuel that fell to the floor and did not flow out of the building would have burned as a pool or spill fire at the point where it came to rest.

The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings, consumed in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away from the fire
floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.



As the jet fuel burned, the resulting heat ignited office contents throughout a major portion of several of the impact floors, as well as combustible material within the aircraft itself.



2.2.1.2 Fire Development

Quote:
Less than 15 percent of the jet fuel burned in the spray cloud inside the building. A roughly comparable amount was consumed in the fireballs outside the building. Thus, well over half the jet fuel remained in the buildilng, unburned in the initial fires. Some splashed onto the office furnishings and combustibles from the aircraft that lodged on the impacted floors, there to ignite (immediately or later) the fires that would continue to burn for the remaining life of the building. Some of the burning fueld shot up and down the elevator shaftes, blwoing out doors and walls on the other floors all the way down to the basement. Flash fires in the lobby blew out many of the plate glass windows. Fortunately, there were not enough combustibles near the elevators for major fires to start on the lower floors.


Arkan_Wolfshade 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 27th December 2006, 09:48 AM   #319
babazaroni
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 787
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Or we could simply demand that he prove that whoever he's quoting actually said that. Force him to go back and find a few links, and maybe he'll start to use it out of laziness. If he doesn't post the links, we'll just claim all the quotes are faked, just like they claim all the physical evidence is faked. Fair's fair, right?
Perfect.
babazaroni 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 27th December 2006, 10:12 AM   #320
RemoveBush
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 186
" You essentially agree with thier position on CD of the WTC then?"

Not all!

Allow me....

"Assertion #1"

They "claim" to have analyzed all video, but yet I have watched 911eyewitness, which appears to have vanished from google, and you can CLEARLY hear explosions and see dust rising from the ground about 10 - 20 seconds before the top begins to collapse.

"Assertion #2"

They "claim" that a 50 story piece was intact, but yet no where is there ANY evidence of this! There has been no photos of this 50 story piece laying around, and I have seen many pictures of the day.

"Assertion #3"

Yes it is.... At the point of collapse, or just below, not 10 - 20 stories below.

"Assertion #4"

Several Police, Fireman, EMS, News personel, and citizens report hearing EXPLOSIONS! News reporter live "we were in WTC? when we heard the second explosion, then a fire chief came in and told us to get out because if there was a THIRD explosion the building might not survive."

http://www.911revisited.com/

"Assertion #5"

There was evidence!

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=87932

Notice how the slag is flowing from this steel beam. Notice where this steel beam is. I doubt that they had a man out there cutting this beam in this area considering the debris around it and the fact that there is no sign of any part of it laying below it.

Slag does not end up like that when being cut, from what I have seen with the time that I was using a torch and watching it being used.

"Assertion #6"

Simply looking at the steel is not an investigation! They are making claims that the steel was analyzed, when it was not! The steel was not taken to a lab, they even imply that themselves! Having people look at steel, and I am sure they could not look at it all before shipping, does not constitute and investigation of the steel.

"Assertion #7"

They are correct on item ONE. However, what they FAIL to identify is why the firemen would even call Larry? So for him to make a statement like that is unprecidented. When the firemen work a scene, they are in complete control of the area. They make the decissions. They determine pulling MEN, not "IT" from the buildings.

For item number 3, well there are other people in the field that says otherwise...

http://www.rense.com/general67/forensic.htm
By Steve Davis
Geologist & Researcher

Item number 5, the eyewitness is a firefighter (as this has been used time and time again by the same people). Yet, others have proclaimed "bombs in the building" in VIDEOS. I believe video because it is less subjective to interpretation of a question or answer.

"Assertion #9"

I really love this comment:

"To draw any specific relationship between how many buildings were destroyed and the reason for thier collapse runs counter to logic and common sense."

What! With all due respect! What a CROCK! Of course it plays a role. If the building would have stopped collapsing patially on the way down and left 2-4-or 10 floors intact with rubble all the way around, we would not be having this discussion. But it did not, and it is COMPLETLY within logic and common sense to ask these questions.

"Assertion #9"

This is the funniest...... They dismiss hours of tapes with people pointing out that there were explosions, its on tape people, and then they want to claim that people are making things fit their conclusion.

With all due respect again! In this statement alone, they have dropped down to about a 5 on the believable scale. Police, firemen, and ems in their statements indicate that they heard, saw, and felt explosions. One guy said (Paraphrasing) "Then it started popping and it started going around the building, we could see the explosion as it went around the building."

There are hundreds of similar stories. The basement being blown only seconds before the plane hits.

Do I believe some of what they state? Sure! However, by their comments it is clear that they failed in many areas and that their ASSUMPTION in many areas are not scientific or provable.


RemoveBush 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 » Conspiracies and 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 01:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.