• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

An email from a Conspiracy theorist, and I have no idea how

I'd say don't let your tail get caught in the door on the way out, but it is far between your legs, so there is no chance...bye bye.

TAM:)
 
kookbreaker said:
Its a perfectly viable, if simplified theory. There's really nothing wrong with it, and all the evidence points to that.

Wheras all you have done is try to claim TAM was agreeing with something he was not, a cheap debating trick if I have ever seen one.

Anyone else starting to smell :socks:?
Click to expand...

This guy comes here claiming to be an engineer, yet even after repeated requests to explain how a falling 20 storey building section could be remotely detonated via CD, while FALLING TO EARTH, he gets on with his "US advisor" bullcrap, and say that "remote control" is all he can provide as an explanation.

Sock...ya, or fake, either works for me.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
This guy comes here claiming to be an engineer, yet even after repeated requests to explain how a falling 20 storey building section could be remotely detonated via CD, while FALLING TO EARTH, he gets on with his "US advisor" bullcrap, and say that "remote control" is all he can provide as an explanation.

Sock...ya, or fake, either works for me.

TAM:)
Click to expand...


I don't want to make any false implications or anything. But I am starting to think that maybe he isn't an engineer after all. Just putting it out there in case it hasn't been considered....
 
I agree. He has shown no proof he is an engineer, either in the complexity/relavence of his answers, or any documentation.

Any engineer, who when asked "how would they cause a remote CD in the top portion of the tower, once it had begun falling", simply says "Remote Control" displays none of the intellect or logic that one would hope would come from someone smart enough to complete an engineering degree.

TAM:)
 
I would imagine he has retreated to go read some more of the details that some CTer created on this "Remotely CDed WTC top section" theory. He will be back in a while, all refreshed, ready to give us some more garbage.

TAM:)
 
Heiwa said:
Strange developments of this discussion about the WTC2 collapse that could not take place according to NIST descriptions (the subject). Suggest you start a new thread how they did it. My US sources seems to have disappeared as per some emergency instructions. Do you care about that?
Click to expand...

I see a large dose of Lithium in your future.
 
Wow. Our government is bad enough without folks like Heiwa getting all paranoid and pathological about it.
 
So this guy is full-blown. Towers rigged with many tons of explosives, with nobody noticing, planes switched, every news outlet in on it, thousands of witnesses fooled...

Wow. The cream of the CT crop here.
 
even better, he claims...lol...get this, he claims that once the WTC started to collapse, that the NWO had the top part, the 20 storey section of the building above the impact zone, colapse via seperate CD for that section alone, WHILE IT WAS FALLING TO EARTH.

TAM:)
 
Heiwa said:
What was wrong with the previous answer? Remote control.
Click to expand...
You do understand the technical definition of remote control, don't you? It means an object which is controlled remotely by a human operator, like how an RC model aircraft is controlled by human standing on the ground watching the model while it flies. That's remote controlled.

Something like a Tomahawk cruise missile is NOT remote controlled. It is programmed with a pre-set course before it is launched, then follows that course autonomously - no more human input needed. Which means if something goes wrong with the missile's guidance system it misses the target.

At least get the terminology correct. So were the 9/11 jets remote controlled or following pre-programmed courses autonomously?
 
Corsair 115 said:
You do understand the technical definition of remote control, don't you? It means an object which is controlled remotely by a human operator, like how an RC model aircraft is controlled by human standing on the ground watching the model while it flies. That's remote controlled.

Something like a Tomahawk cruise missile is NOT remote controlled. It is programmed with a pre-set course before it is launched, then follows that course autonomously - no more human input needed. Which means if something goes wrong with the missile's guidance system it misses the target.

At least get the terminology correct. So were the 9/11 jets remote controlled or following pre-programmed courses autonomously?
Click to expand...

This could be a mistake, Corsair, I don't think he understands anything, just thought I would say.
 
Heiwa said:
The 9/11 Commission report suggests that AA175 collided with WTC2. But I do not think anybody has been able to identify AA175 as that plane shown on various videos of the collision
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's kinda hard to read numbers of a plane going that fast from that distance.

the original 'live' footages by several news media of the collision have later been edited to remove the 'Fade to Black' sign that pops up and various beeps in the live versions, etc. that some researchers suggest indicate live editing (!!)
Click to expand...

Evidence ?

, i.e. that the live show was delayed 17 seconds in order to 'paste in' a plane in the sky while the voice continues reporting no plane but an explosion, etc.
Click to expand...

That's Ace Baker's theory. And he's nuts.

it has nothing to do with justice and science that require real evidence.
Click to expand...

If by "real evidence" you mean "absolute proof" you're bound to be dissapointed.
 
So...yet ANOTHER troofer who lies about his qualifications and turns out to not be what claims, or even close.

Y'know, if any of us so much as exagerrated their job desccription we would never hear the end of it from the troofer side, yet their end of the pole lies and lies and lies and lies and lies abot their qualifications and nary a word is said.

Hypocrisy, thy name is the Truth Movement.
 
Heiwa said:
I assume that the perimeter columns are not affected by heat as they are outside the fire. I also assume the core columns are not affected by the heat (because it it unclear how hot it was at the various columns). NIST suggests that the floors sags due to heat and this I can model in different ways as long as the boundary conditions remain unchanged, i.e. the floors are connected to the columns. I can manually change the truss material properties. The vertical load on the trusses is small so sagging is small. The model is still stable. I can also model what happens if some trusses cool down again. The situation improves.
Click to expand...

I am not sure either of your assumptions here (preimeter columns and core unaffected by heat) are valid. In the heat transfer analysis the temp of the perimeter columns does not equal the outside air temp. Convection is just not that efficient. As to the core, I think it is fairly safe to assume that those columns are also not at room temperature.

But if the floors starts to detach from the columns due heat + sagging I cannot model that because I have no idea if, where and how it takes place. Everything becomes guesswork. But why would the trusses be ripped of the columns due fire long after the impact?
Click to expand...
One might have to model the welds or bolted connections on the beams. Add in expansion due to heat. As to the time parameter, it could be heat transfer effects (which have a time component) or stress relaxation which also has a time component and is greatly effected by temperature. Also, all beams are not loaded equally after the impact so some may heva higher loads than others and fail at different times, thus the time factor again shows up.

I can remove the perimeter columns of the east wall (assumed buckled and not connected to the Trusses/floors) and observe the load re-distribution. The weight of the intact section above is shifted to the remaining walls and the core and the model still stands. No global collapse ensues. There was plenty of redundancy, it appears.
Click to expand...

And you have performed the FEA showing this or are you just making educated guesses?

Lurker
 
Last edited:
Corsair 115 said:
You do understand the technical definition of remote control, don't you? It means an object which is controlled remotely by a human operator, like how an RC model aircraft is controlled by human standing on the ground watching the model while it flies. That's remote controlled.

Something like a Tomahawk cruise missile is NOT remote controlled. It is programmed with a pre-set course before it is launched, then follows that course autonomously - no more human input needed. Which means if something goes wrong with the missile's guidance system it misses the target.

At least get the terminology correct. So were the 9/11 jets remote controlled or following pre-programmed courses autonomously?
Click to expand...

Not to put too fine a point on this, Corsair, but some RC aircraft can be flown by either human or autonomous control. They can be flown by human control and then switched to follow pre-planned waypoints sent from the ground control station. If it loses contact with the ground station, it can have an on-board program to cause it to fly to a waypoint within range of the station, or even auto-land itself.

These aircraft are still considered to be Remote Control aircraft, even when there is no human-in-the-loop. So your correction of Heiwa is not 100% accurate. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom