I think you mean "simpleton math". Common mistake.
That's because the question is already settled.
9/11 was an inside job
- Thread starter WINSTON
- Start date
- Status
I think you mean "simpleton math". Common mistake.
That's because the question is already settled.
Yeah, I am so impressed by people who can't compute weight from volume and density when they say something is settled. This whole 9/11 business is based on people who can't think for themselves on the basis of obvious information.
psik
Lisa Randall talks about Newtonian and Einsteinian physics here.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2011/oct/03/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Randall
psik
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2011/oct/03/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_Randall
psik
Yeah. And they don't have neat paper-washer models either.
Which just points to the Illuminati. QED.
I am open to discussing just about any 'theory'; I don't think there is anything wrong with critiquing the official report on 9/11.
But you have openend up this discussion with a completely unsubstantiated claim as fact. This is not conducive to producing courteous and insightful discourse. No doubt as to why it has devolved into sarcasm
If you sincerely believe there is some truth that has been obscured then please evaluate your methods for communicating this to other people.
Take a step back, collect robust and significant evidence and present your claims as clear, unbiased assertions based on the evidence you have gathered.
Intuitively, I would expect it to be exceptionally difficult to successfully orchestrate and conceal such an operation. In that regard, I think there is a heavy burden of proof required for these claims to be of serious consideration. Although, if anyone could provide a set of well-demarcated and simple assertions based on verifiable evidence I would gladly consider the individual claims
But you have openend up this discussion with a completely unsubstantiated claim as fact. This is not conducive to producing courteous and insightful discourse. No doubt as to why it has devolved into sarcasm
If you sincerely believe there is some truth that has been obscured then please evaluate your methods for communicating this to other people.
Take a step back, collect robust and significant evidence and present your claims as clear, unbiased assertions based on the evidence you have gathered.
Intuitively, I would expect it to be exceptionally difficult to successfully orchestrate and conceal such an operation. In that regard, I think there is a heavy burden of proof required for these claims to be of serious consideration. Although, if anyone could provide a set of well-demarcated and simple assertions based on verifiable evidence I would gladly consider the individual claims
I am open to discussing just about any 'theory'; I don't think there is anything wrong with critiquing the official report on 9/11.
But you have openend up this discussion with a completely unsubstantiated claim as fact. This is not conducive to producing courteous and insightful discourse. No doubt as to why it has devolved into sarcasm
If you sincerely believe there is some truth that has been obscured then please evaluate your methods for communicating this to other people.
Take a step back, collect robust and significant evidence and present your claims as clear, unbiased assertions based on the evidence you have gathered.
Intuitively, I would expect it to be exceptionally difficult to successfully orchestrate and conceal such an operation. In that regard, I think there is a heavy burden of proof required for these claims to be of serious consideration. Although, if anyone could provide a set of well-demarcated and simple assertions based on verifiable evidence I would gladly consider the individual claims
Here you go
[video=youtube;nBCu_pvhnzQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBCu_pvhnzQ[/video]
That video is not about any inside job per se, but it certainly has some compelling evidence. It is somewhat long-winded and repetitive, but really the gravity of the claims warrants the time investment imo. There is certainly a more in-depth discussion in that video, compared with the mud throwing and self-appreciation in this thread.
I would like to see the above video taken to task by the 'experts' here on SF. I have never seen a direct critique though.
Yes, it is. It's directly commenting, repeatedly, that controlled demolitions were required to 'explain' what they claimed happened.Here you go
That video is not about any inside job per se,
Actually... it really is not. I will explain why it is not at great length to follow. For now- I've stated this opinion.
I am not an expert. I am an engineer, however, and am going to slowly work my way through this 2 hour long video, demonstrating the fallacies, problems with claims, will demonstrate what I observe in the video as "cherry picking" or "Misleading" the viewer to certain conclusions and the physical and engineering aspects as best I am able.
This will undoubtedly take MANY posts to do so who knows if we'll ever finish.
To begin:
Joel Miller commentary
Miller commented that it was "incredulous" that a fire would bring buildings down and went on to talk about what that means to the industry. He makes appeals to emotion; claiming it's an engineers duty to protect the people that use buildings. The trouble here is that this is a given- he's implying a failure on any engineers part if they do not question the Official story.
The problem: "A fire" is not what happened.
Impact from a several hundred thousand pound jetliner (adding its weight to the structure) spewing jet fuel over the point of impact is what happened.
He is presented as trying to appeal to common sense... But we are not talking about common sense, we are talking about physics and engineering.
How many hundred thousand pounds must be added to the top or near top of a high rise to cause structural failure? What if that weight is not added gently, but slammed into the building like a launched missile? What if you add thousands of pounds of Burning Fuel?
The burning of fuel is a pretty hefty problem. As a fluid, it carries the burn in a spread and makes containment extremely difficult.
The trapped heat and structural failure from hundreds of thousands of pounds is not- "a building caught on fire."
Joel Miller, with his experience on two buildings in his life, said that a building came down because it was on fire.
Hogwash.
WTC 7
Video claims that only normal fires were what was blamed by the official story for the collapse.
The problem: Official report shows I will inject points or bold points. Injected points will be in {brackets}
An interviewee claimed that WTC7 was a "classic case of controlled demolition."
Classic case? Hardly. The bulge in the building preceding the collapse by about 3 hours is indicative of structural failure. Something that FDNY Chief recognized and called for an evacuation of the area. Not explosives. Conveniently disregarded in this presentation is not only the lack of any controlled explosive devices and residue, but also the lack of structural support damage that a controlled explosive leaves in its wake. The center supports for WTC7, if blown by controlled demolition explosives, would have showed severe structural failure at specific points required by demolition engineering as well as shearing.
This was not the case. In fact, they were not sheared nor marked by any explosive damage when excavated from the rubble.
They were described as: steel support remnants 64 through 77, 81, 83 were mangled, twisted and crushed upon themselves.
No sign of blasting or scorching from demolition explosives.
Yet, David Topete, stated, after watching a video of the collapse from outside the building and many blocks away, he was convinced that only a controlled demolition of the center structural supports could explain the collapse.
The review of those columns and the bulging of the building, the fire chiefs assessment, the time it took for the building to collapse in a disorderly fashion, lack of explosions from the building preceding any collapse and lopsided collapse leading from the comprised and debris damaged sides all were not mentioned, but ignored, in the presented video.
Note this information is deliberately left out of the video- this is commonly called, "Cherry Picking." Presenting "evidence" to support your conclusion while hiding or not presenting anything that may undermine it. That's a lot of ignoring going on there... Enough ignoring to call it 'deception.'
It refers to the collapse of WTC7 as such a "sudden failure."
Yes- three hours is quite sudden. Commend Daniel Nigro for his quick thinking and actions by managing to evacuate the immediate area so quickly...http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Nigro_Daniel.txt
None of these personal opinions expressed dealt with any physical evidence left from the event on 9-11. None so far in the video, at least. They come across as personal accounts relayed in commercials, where a person is presented showing their favorable opinion of one mop as opposed to a mop made by a leading competitor.
A lot of the commentary continues on the theme of enforcing the idea that the "Official story" is false/misleading and it was "obvious" that pre-engineered precisely timed/placed explosives were used, without showing any physical evidence to support their conclusions.
That none of this commentary is actually supported with any evidence makes it nothing more than opinions. This is what's known as propaganda.
Stopped the video at this point and will continue later.
pdf:
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909256
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WtsQ6ud6Do&feature=gv&hl=en
http://www.firehouse.com/article/10568001/captain-chris-boyle
Last edited:
In the case of the south tower a lot of that jet fuel went out the side and exploded but after the explosion it did not look like it had any effect on the building.
Yeah 200 tons is 400,000 pounds.
One concrete slab outside the core was 600 tons. When the plane hit the south tower it deflected a whole FIFTEEN INCHES.
But it is so impressive to call the weight "several hundred thousand pounds".
The weight of the plane was trivial.
3,000 sq. ft. would handle the weight of the plane and one floor was over 30,000 sq. ft.
psik
Last edited:
Bold Mine:
The weight is several hundred thousand pounds. And you're neglecting a small detail here...
Let's look Below...
Standing weight capacity.
In this, case, however, we're talking about an object that was slammed as a projectile into the tops or near top of the buildings.
How much does an average projectile weigh compared to the damage it does?
Offhand, average Beretta 9mil bullet (Not including jacket- talking about only the projectile) is a little less than 0.3 ounces.
Jeez, is that all? Your body can handle that added weight easily.
We're, again, talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds SLAMMED as projectiles high on the mast. Unevenly distributed after the shockwave of impact, coupled with burning heat.
Small details.
You're doing the same thing I pointed out 'Joel Miller' did. Grossly understating the events. Neglecting the physical magnitude.
Trying to claim the building can handle that from a back of the envelope calculation of (standing) dead or live (group of dancing people)weight load is absurd.
"Doesn't look like" isn't very impressive.
It was also accurate. Fifteen inches is pretty damned impressive, too.
The weight is several hundred thousand pounds. And you're neglecting a small detail here...
Let's look Below...
Standing weight capacity.
In this, case, however, we're talking about an object that was slammed as a projectile into the tops or near top of the buildings.
How much does an average projectile weigh compared to the damage it does?
Offhand, average Beretta 9mil bullet (Not including jacket- talking about only the projectile) is a little less than 0.3 ounces.
Jeez, is that all? Your body can handle that added weight easily.
We're, again, talking about hundreds of thousands of pounds SLAMMED as projectiles high on the mast. Unevenly distributed after the shockwave of impact, coupled with burning heat.
Small details.
You're doing the same thing I pointed out 'Joel Miller' did. Grossly understating the events. Neglecting the physical magnitude.
Trying to claim the building can handle that from a back of the envelope calculation of (standing) dead or live (group of dancing people)weight load is absurd.
I've seen suggestions that the aircraft impact was less than the rating for wind force on the building, but it's really apples and oranges. The sway of the building has little to do with the damage done, as it's not even comparable. The actual motion from impact may have been less, mainly because the force was allowed into the structure through a small profile, rather than continuing to push on a wide surface, as wind would. And, there was a second impact, the explosion from the ignited fuel. Also, if this impact was so trivial, then why did so many survivors tell of jammed doors in their frames from the shifting?
You are doing the same thing with SLAMMED that you accuse Miller of doing. Trying to turn it into an emotional issue.
The buildings were designed to deflect 36 inches at the top in a 150 mph wind. So under those conditions it would deflect 26 inches at the 81st floor where the plane impacted. But as I said the building only deflected 15 inches due to the impact so it was nowhere near its limit.
The tower then oscillated for four minutes. The NIST has a graph recording the motions.
So it then becomes extremely interesting that the entire top of the building rotated/tilted 22 degrees 50 minutes later and supposedly just due to fire. And yet for the last 11 years our experts never even discuss the center of mass of those 30 stories. It is not mentioned in the entire 10,000 pages of the NIST report. They talk about the center of mass of the plane. They talk about the center of gravity of individual elements making up their computer model.
But in all of human history when has such a large man made mass had such a degree of motion that high above ground and physicists can spent 11 years not even talking about its center of mass.
AMAZING! Very scientific.
psik
How so?
It's still an accurate description.
Are you claiming the plane gently wafted into the building?
It slammed into it. That is an accurate description.
"The building fell because it was on fire." That is not an accurate description (NIST 6:14:5 investigates Fire Only with no impact and 6:14:5 Conclusion to 6:14:6) and that was the description Joel Miller used.
Building sway from ongoing and cumulative wind is entirely different from Sudden Impact by massive metal object that physically wiped out structural supports.- Accurate description.
Are you going to claim the plane did not suddenly impact the building? It's still a very accurate description. Stop obfuscating. Continuous air pressure can sway a high rise much further than a sudden impact of a physical object. That does not mean the impact did less damage than wind.
Oh, by the way- I'd love to know where you got the 36 inch figure... Considering that the error margin in the Wind Tunnel model tests was about 40%.
Supposedly just according to a fire according to WHO? Joel Miller? We already covered this.
Ah, I get it. So you never read the report!
http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=909017
Chapt 6
6:14:1-3
6:4:1-3
6:6:1-4
Table 6-2
...it goes on...
Page 100 phase 2
Core Framing...
Last edited:
We need a "conspiracy theory" on how the Titanic sinking was an Inside Job.
It was an unsinkable ship. Obviously, the official report is Lying.
"I saw the video, it even started to come back up to the surface and then a controlled demolition was set off to destroy the ship. It wasn't supposed to blow up until it was under the water (To get rid of the evidence), but when the ship started proving it was unsinkable, they had to act fast to cover their conspiracy. The explosion had to be moved forward on the schedule."
"They never investigated why it is that the metal behaved differently than expected under impact! (WARNING: Ignore divet tests and analysis in order to maintain claim. Ignore, Ignore. Danger Will Robinson- evidence contrary to your claims in close proximity! Evade!)
Ok, that one got a little silly... Moving along...
If we ignore a lot of physics and chemistry, such as high sulfur content in the metal, combined with freezing temperatures causing the impact to 'shatter' the metal instead of tear into it... "I'm incredulous that the unsinkable ship was sunk just because of a little ice."
Forgetting some important details, much?
Doing it deliberately, are you?
Questioning and holding accountable is fine. We do need that. And no one is claiming conspiracies never happen.
But ignoring evidence and misrepresenting physics and events betrays the cause- nothing is being held accountable except for the ego of the accuser.
It was an unsinkable ship. Obviously, the official report is Lying.
"I saw the video, it even started to come back up to the surface and then a controlled demolition was set off to destroy the ship. It wasn't supposed to blow up until it was under the water (To get rid of the evidence), but when the ship started proving it was unsinkable, they had to act fast to cover their conspiracy. The explosion had to be moved forward on the schedule."
"They never investigated why it is that the metal behaved differently than expected under impact! (WARNING: Ignore divet tests and analysis in order to maintain claim. Ignore, Ignore. Danger Will Robinson- evidence contrary to your claims in close proximity! Evade!)
Ok, that one got a little silly... Moving along...
If we ignore a lot of physics and chemistry, such as high sulfur content in the metal, combined with freezing temperatures causing the impact to 'shatter' the metal instead of tear into it... "I'm incredulous that the unsinkable ship was sunk just because of a little ice."
Forgetting some important details, much?
Doing it deliberately, are you?
Questioning and holding accountable is fine. We do need that. And no one is claiming conspiracies never happen.
But ignoring evidence and misrepresenting physics and events betrays the cause- nothing is being held accountable except for the ego of the accuser.
- Status