israelside
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 160
I responded....kids don't do that, they don't listen to people. Wait, you never responded to my question, how do you know the CIA doesn't have technology 10 years in advanced?
All 9/11 ideas welcomed here
- Thread starter israelside
- Start date
-
- Tags
- conspiracy theories
I responded....kids don't do that, they don't listen to people. Wait, you never responded to my question, how do you know the CIA doesn't have technology 10 years in advanced?
Shouldn't the onus be on you to prove that they do?
Not even in secret military projects is the technology really "10 years in advance."
It's a nice out though.. If you can't explain something, just claim that it's some top secret futuristic technology.
Not even in secret military projects is the technology really "10 years in advance."
It's a nice out though.. If you can't explain something, just claim that it's some top secret futuristic technology.
For your "reasoning" alone...you should be ashamed! You said it all, about your ideas, and movement! Sad really. Is this the result, of poor public-school education, or video games? Both perhaps!
No village?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
You don't even know 1%. You're just making stuff up.
You have not supplied a single scrap of evidence to support any of your claims. Not one. I was good enough to offer to address some of the concerns you had about 9/11. Rather than accept my explanations - which are based on substantial knowledge and were supported by extensive evidence - you simply ignore them and make additional accusations.
You clearly have no interested whatsoever in learning anything. Good day to you, sir.
-Gumboot
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,423
Well, for one thing the heat of a small fire burning in a replica will not reach the temperatures of the inferno present in the real WTC on 9/11. Yet the melting point of steel remains the same no matter what size the steel beams are made to be. A reduction in scale does not produce an equivalent reduction in many of the natural forces at work.
There's all sorts of complications like that, and even my example is simplistic. There's much more to it than that even.
Oh, and quit being a troll.
Does Mr Israelside really not understand the difficulty of building scale model towers that behave the same way the real ones did?
Try taking two scale model cars and crashing them into each other. Does it look like a real car crash? What would you make the scale model cars out of to make it look real? Tinfoil and Jello?
Try taking two scale model cars and crashing them into each other. Does it look like a real car crash? What would you make the scale model cars out of to make it look real? Tinfoil and Jello?
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,423
I call that an Ace Bakerism argument.
israelside
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 160
hold up gumby, dont bend away from this one...I have been posting in here tonight on wtc 7. I will address more issues in the days to come I hope. I am not saying I have the answers, really I am just questioning the official story still...it just doesn't seem like wtc 7 came down natually...period. You people assume quite a bit!
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Until you begin to provide some actual evidence for your claims, and demonstrate you have actually read what people here have provided to you, I will not respond any further in this thread. You're wasting my time.
-Gumboot
israelside
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 160
Well, they don't make real cars the same way they make toy cars lol. If they did they would be broke in minutes...plastic compared to glass, but if you take one of those modle cars (paintable and such) that you put together, and ram them together at high speeds it might be close, but still they arn't made the same. Scale models should work for the most part, if everything else is scaled...mythbusters do it, it works for them....true some things can't be scalable, but the towers might be.....why not atleast do something where you think it would collapse the same way? Then you could understand more about it....
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
You cannot use scale models. Dimension and strength do not scale equally. Even if you could find some magic material that scaled the strength of steel perfectly, the forces involved at fixed, and cannot be scaled at all.
-Gumboot
OK so make two six foot towers out of quarter inch lengths of thin, brittle wire joined together by microscopic bolts of similar wire. make each of the 110 storeys out of plaster and even thinner, more brittle wire. On each floor place hundreds of desks, teeny tiny computers and miles of itsy bitsy electrical wiring and plumbing.
Then punch a hole in one side of each, spraying in fuel and damaging the outer collumns and the core collumns. Set it alight and wait to see what happens.
It won't look like the WTC on 9/11 for reasons stated by others above.
Mythbusters do not do 'scientific testing' in the classic sense, there is an element of science to what they do but they would be the first to admit that scale testing is seriously flawed.
Making an accurate scale model of the WTC is impossible, especially so insofar things like welds can't be scaled.
Liar. What a load of bovine excrement. No-one who wanted to attend Baylor would have been admitted if they had such poor grammar and expression skills as you have exhibited here. Even less so given the dogged avoidance of basic research skills. Not to mention (and I mean: NOT to mention) your cognitive skills, and your abilities to construct and defend arguments.
If you are at Baylor, show us a scan of your student ID.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Although other people have answered this, I thought I'd have a go at doing so clearly and simply with a brief example. A good example would be making a scale model, say, of WTC2, and making it 16 feet 2 inches tall - in other words, 1/100th scale. Quite a big model, but feasible.
Let's look at the weight first. If we scale everything perfectly - every beam, truss, girder, bolt, concrete slab, right down to 1/100 scale desks -the model weighs 1/(100^3) or 1/1,000,000th of the weight of the real WTC2, because weight scales with volume. Next, though, there's the gravitational potential energy in the structure, which scales as weight multiplied by height above the ground, so that's 1/100,000,000th of the GPE of WTC2. If we want the structure to collapse, we need to input the required fracture energy into the structure, which varies as the cross-sectional area of the columns, so that's 1/10,000th of the fracture energy required in the real WTC2. Straight away we have a problem; the GPE is 10,000 times too small compared to the fracture energy. Now let's look at the stiffness of the beams, which varies as area divided by length; that comes to 1/100th of the value for the real WTC2. So our beams are 1,000,000 times too stiff. If we weaken the beams by making their area smaller, then the weight of the structure scales similarly (because the smaller beams are lighter), as does the GPE. Aside from that, we're now modelling, not the actual WTC2 structure, but one that we think will react the same way; in truther speak this translates to "You tweaked the model to ensure collapse". The same is true of using different materials to get the proportions right.
I don't really need to go any further. The problem of reproducing the collapse using scale models is so intractable it's hardly worth even discussing, let alone attempting.
Dave
I think you should consider taking a upper-level course in terrorism/counter-terrorism or something similar at Baylor, if they offer such a course. It might give you some insight into how difficult it really is to figure out what is going to happen, before it happens.
Although it is tempting to say, post hoc, that everyone should have predicted and prevent 9/11 (and, correspondingly, their failure to do so indicates something odd), it doesn't match up with reality. In real life, the act of preventing terrorism is extremely difficult and time-consuming. Terrorists tend to operate on the fringes in small groups, lacking the kind of infrastructure that can be readily observed by intelligence agencies in order to get a clear picture of what's going on.
As a result, there is a very high noise-to-signal ratio in the world of counter-terrorist intel. That includes 9/11. There were a few leads that ended up being significant, but a study of the environment at the time from an intelligence perspective shows that there was a lot of cruft flying around at the same time, and there always is. It's difficult to pick out the significant stuff unless you get lucky and have good intel.
I haven't studied the Al-Qaeda group as much as some others, but I did do a lot of research into the IRA a couple years back. They were incredibly hard to pin down by British intelligence and law enforcement, even when some of the major players were known (as with Al-Qaeda). These guys are very adept at splitting their operations into little cells, running, and hiding.
Your statements about the technology and the "they could have stopped it" confidence indicate a kind of naive confidence in what our intelligence community can actually do. Yes, the US has very accomplished, highly skilled intelligence professionals. But no, they aren't magic. They can't predict something without reliable information, and terrorists often operate under the radar.
9/11 may have been big, but it really wasn't that complex. It exploited several major weaknesses in the US system, which is something many terrorists are painfully good at. After the fact, it's easy to say "yeah, we probably should've detained this guy" and all, but at the time it wasn't so obvious.
As far as your statement about the technology goes, that's a fantasy that exists only in the world of the movies. Even if it were true, it still doesn't solve the problems inherently present in intelligence gathering and analysis.
Unless you're going to claim the CIA has mind reading technology or working remote viewing.
Disbelief
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 3,607
Who can say since no building that tall was ever CDd. How long would it take to wire this building for CD?