Witnesses Corroborating Rodriguez's Claims?

[SDC]

That's one of the weakest arguments i've ever heard. The CIA has at least a 30 or 40 billion dollar budget. There's a "black budget" in this country that is huge, and classified. I think they're just a little better funded than the DMV, and just a little more excited about their job.

Obviously you've never gone to the DMV in White Plains (Westchester County).

ps Is joke.

pps More seriously. Please provide documentation for your views. There is a lot of information out there, a lot of well-informed people doing good and serious research. Why don't you use it?

 

[quixotecoyote]

"Muslim" is not a race.

 

[Calcas]

maybe you should talk with the pilots for 911 truth about that.

Oh please. Balsamo and his band of idiots at pft have been debunked so thoroughly on this it's not worth rehashing. There are probably a dozen links here that have covered it as well.

The fact that you cite pft for anything reduces your credibility to zero.

 

[Lurker]

maybe you should talk with the pilots for 911 truth about that.

No, I'll rely on the quotes from the flight instructors who taught the terrorists and said they had enough skill to fly the planes into the building. Why go to second-hand sources when you can get quotes directly from those who observed the terrorists?

if you admit someone made a mistake or incompetance then how can you explain no-one getting punished. only promotions handed out??

and condolisa rice lying that they had no knowledge that someone would attack with planes - failure of imagination - yea right.

Now you are getting into areas I actually agree with. Tenet getting a medal after the intel failures? Come on!

 

[thewholesoul]

You are deeply confused.

There is nothing special about "liquid explosives." The most commonly known, I think, is nitroglycerine. Its effects are basically indistinguishable from any typical solid explosive, such as dynamite, which is a derivative of nitroglycerine.

There is nothing about the WTC events that suggests explosives. As before, had explosives, liquid or otherwise, been employed, we would expect to see structural, sonic, or seisomgraphic events consistent with explosives. We do not.

You're grasping at straws in a subject you do not comprehend. Stop it. Learn from us. Your whole approach is predicated on you being right and us being wrong, and all the evidence suggests this assumption is wrong.

i guess there is one way to settle this debate. i believe in the scientific method. that is observation (the witnesses testimony) hypothesis (was it jet fuel or explosives) prediction and most importantly experimentation (we must TEST the hypothesis).

if an 8 story building with the same design parameters as the twin towers was built and 28 kg of jet fuel was engineered to explode on the b2 b3 levels and the results were recorded. if we had the same results i.e. walls turned to rubble, the windows in the lobby blown out, the production of thick white smoke, car park destroyed etc etc then i would concede. such a reconstruction is not impossible.

sound recordings could also be measured and replayed to witnesses such as morelli, david, etc and they could say if the sound was different or louder etc.
a dummy could be positioned in the same position as morelli and we could observe if it is thrown to the ground by the explosion caused by jet fuel.

if 28kg was insufficent then we increase the dose and so on until the results corrolate with the results (not precisely but generally as explained above in black). but if the results are nothing like what was observed and experienced in the basements of the wtc then we should change the hypothesis. perhaps even experiment with some kind of explosives.

by the way whats your opinion on the white smoke rising from the basement because a kerosene fire does not produce white smoke.

your right, i dont know much about explosives, i never claimed i did. but you do know a lot about explosives so would you object to an experiment to prove your hypothesis. we could both learn from the results of the experiments regardless of our background and expertise in explosives.

 

[thewholesoul]

What methods do you believe the terrorists used to get bombs into the World Trade Center buildings?

they held the koran in their hands scremaing death to america, then asked the security guards "pardon me could you direct me to the core strcuture so i may plant these explosives".

i call it the direct method.

 

[Slayhamlet]

i guess there is one way to settle this debate. i believe in the scientific method. that is observation (the witnesses testimony) hypothesis (was it jet fuel or explosives) prediction and most importantly experimentation (we must TEST the hypothesis).

if an 8 story building with the same design parameters as the twin towers was built and 28 kg of jet fuel was engineered to explode on the b2 b3 levels and the results were recorded. if we had the same results i.e. walls turned to rubble, the windows in the lobby blown out, the production of thick white smoke, car park destroyed etc etc then i would concede. such a reconstruction is not impossible.

sound recordings could also be measured and replayed to witnesses such as morelli, david, etc and they could say if the sound was different or louder etc.
a dummy could be positioned in the same position as morelli and we could observe if it is thrown to the ground by the explosion caused by jet fuel.

if 28kg was insufficent then we increase the dose and so on until the results corrolate with the results (not precisely but generally as explained above in black). but if the results are nothing like what was observed and experienced in the basements of the wtc then we should change the hypothesis. perhaps even experiment with some kind of explosives.

by the way whats your opinion on the white smoke rising from the basement because a kerosene fire does not produce white smoke.

your right, i dont know much about explosives, i never claimed i did. but you do know a lot about explosives so would you object to an experiment to prove your hypothesis. we could both learn from the results of the experiments regardless of our background and expertise in explosives.

Your experiment is preposterous, but whatever, I'll let Mackey respond as he can make a much better critique of it than I can.

Anyway, what white smoke ring are you talking about?

 

[thewholesoul]

Tell me about it. What is your evidence that the military was sleeping or God knows what that day?

hahahaha i suppose the fact that three hijacked planes hot there targets!!

8:47 a plane hits WTC1
(15 mins later)
9:03 WTC 2 South Tower struck by airplane
(Half an hour later)
9:30 pentagon hit

45 mins!!! Between first hit and last hit.

The military must have been sleeping.

maybe you should take a flight and see how long you will last until your plane is intercepted.

 

[LashL]

they held the koran in their hands scremaing death to america, then asked the security guards "pardon me could you direct me to the core strcuture so i may plant these explosives".

i call it the direct method.

I asked a serious and polite question. How about a serious and polite answer?

 

[thewholesoul]

Dr. Frank Greening has demonstrated that there is indeed enough energy. His work on the topic can be found here:

http://911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf
http://911myths.com/WTCONC1.pdf

So you cannot say "in nature when 1/5 of a structure falls or collapses onto 4/5 of the same sturcture below it does not - never - continue collapsing and crushing (at the same time) the 4/5 below... ", etc. Your statement is demonstrably false. The "1/5 of the structure" - in other words, the building segments above the impact zones - indeed has the potential energy required to 'collapse' and 'crush' through the segments below. The math shows it's possible. If you disagree with the scenario, you must address the energy argument put forth by Dr. Greening in the links above. That his how you show us you're correct: You demonstrate where Dr. Greening is wrong. At that point, you can claim that the 1/5ths segments were incapable of accomplishing what happened. But not before; Greening's work is in direct contradiction to your statement.

Again, I say this with much respect.

hey almundohummus,

i found a good article by Gordon ross in the journal of 911 studies. its called the Momentum transfer analysis of the upper stories of wtc 1.

look i amgoing to be straight, i havent the knowledge in mathematics to debunk Dr.greenings paper all i can provide is another brainiac with opposing numbers. so where does that get us? these two could argue numbers all day because what we have is an unproven hypothesis.

i highlighted the key phrase above in your post - "demonstratably false". nothing has been demonstrated to be false about my statment. if you are saying that it is demonstratably false because "The math shows it's" and i have just provided another persons maths that back my position - the only thing that is demonstrated is that nothing has been proven.

so how do we prove something? through experimentation. if the blueprint of the twin towers was ever released perhaps a minature 1% of actual size built to scale of the twin tower could be reconstructed. and tested. then we could find out through experimentation whether or not your hypothesis is true or not. then we could demonstrate whether what i said was untrue.

so i am going to JAQ off here and ask whether you would object to such an experimnet (assuming that it was feasible)? perhaps even a computer model could be used - but i would be very sceptical of such an approach.

this is the kind of proof i need to know whether 911 was an inside job or not.

 

[Reheat]

maybe you should take a flight and see how long you will last until your plane is intercepted.

It's a simple joke to you, isn't it? no answer required

You should get a clue and perhaps you might get some credibility.

ETA: This thread is 19 pages long and I've yet to see any credible, even partially substantiated posts by you. You're just another JAQ er offer.

Any further discussion of the NATO response should be taken up in a separate thread.

 

[thewholesoul]

Be wary of these simplifications..

i take your point here. admittedly i know its extremely simplified. but fractions are conceptually applicable to any object.

i could have said 18 floors collapsing on 92 or 18/92.

the weight of any object can also be divided into fractions.

Weight has NOTHING to do with structural strength.

i do agree with you but i think your overstating you case.

potential energy is about weight height of fall and gravity. weight has very much got to do with the calculations in order to determine whether the building below the impact zone was able to resist the initial collapse.

i agree structure has a lot got to do with it also but to claim weight has nothing got to do with the collapse is absurd.

I can balance heavier objects on my head than the weight of my head.

lets say i place an elepahant on your head - can you balance that?

the structural strength is what is resisting the weight, not the weight.

going back to my basic analogy - the spin is designed to support the weight of the head. if the head on a skeleton was lifted off and dropped from a certain height it will perhaps crack the first vertibrea but it will not crush the entire vertibrae and then itself.

i agree that the structural strenght is resisting the weight not the the weight itself. but the weight of what is falling or being placed upon the structure should be a factor. likewise the upper portion that collapsed on the intact structure below was around 10 or 12% the weight of entire structure. the intact core column below possessed structural integrity. now we could both cite professors and experts who provide calculations debating whether the intact structure could reisist the dynamic load of the falling posrtion. but what cannot be argued is that it was able to support the static load. the only way i could rationally accept the offical story is if the PROVED IT. through expermentation.

 

[AZCat]

so how do we prove something? through experimentation. if the blueprint of the twin towers was ever released perhaps a minature 1% of actual size built to scale of the twin tower could be reconstructed. and tested. then we could find out through experimentation whether or not your hypothesis is true or not. then we could demonstrate whether what i said was untrue.

so i am going to JAQ off here and ask whether you would object to such an experimnet (assuming that it was feasible)? perhaps even a computer model could be used - but i would be very sceptical of such an approach.

this is the kind of proof i need to know whether 911 was an inside job or not.

Unfortunately scale models aren't very useful in this situation. The various relevant properties don't all scale the same. Area, for example, scales as the square of the model ratio while volume scales as the cube. The stresses in a 100:1 scale model would be calculated as follows

F_r is the force on the real building
F_m is the force on the model

A_r is the cross-section of a particular part of the real building
A_m is the cross-section of the part of the model that correlates to A_r

A_m = A_r * (1/100) * (1/100) = 0.0001 *A _r

V_r is the cross-section of a particular part of the real building
V_m is the cross-section of the part of the model that correlates to A_r

V_m = V_r * (1/100) * (1/100) * (1/100) = 0.000001 * V_r

Mass = density times volume, so the mass of the real building is

M_r = d * V_r

The mass of the model is

M_m = d * V_m

Force = Mass times acceleration, so the forces are

F_r = M_r * g
F_m = M_m * g

Stress is force per unit area, so the stresses are

S_r = F_r / A_r
S_m = F_m / A_m

Plugging in the other equations, the stresses are now

S_r = M_r * g / A_r
S_r = d * V_r * g / A_r

S_m = M_m * g / A_m
S_m = d * V_m * g / A_m
S_m = d * 0.000001 * V_r * g / (0.0001 * A_r)
S_m = d * g * 0.01 * V_r / A_r

The ratio of S_m to S_r shows that the stresses in the model are 1/100th of the stresses in the actual building. Assuming you build the model from similar materials, it will fail at an entirely different point than the building being modeled, rendering it useless as a scientific tool in this respect. This is why the NIST used computer models in their investigation.

 

[thewholesoul]

Uhh... You need to calm the hell down. Did you happen to noticed the part of my post where I essentially retracted my labeling of you? Or did you simply choose to ignore it so that you could continue to act indignant?




And yet here you are. Obviously you think it's necessary in some way. Also, this is a public forum. You don't exactly get a say in who responds to your poorly-worded statements.




Hey, look... I'm sorry if I offended you, but I think it's time you take a reflective look at your own participation on this thread. You don't know any one of us, either, but you seem to have absolutely no problems slinging baseless insults.




Her name, and you can report any post to the moderators by clicking on the [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/helloworld2/buttons/report.gif[/qimg] that appears at the bottom left of that post.




Actually, I didn't... I was "just asking questions". Heh. Boy, that's annoying, isn't it, when those "questions" insinuate something that isn't true?




Excuse me? You declare with righteous fury that I don't know you, and then go on to presume that you know me? I believe it's now your turn to apologize to me. Please pull yourself together.

hey man, i apologise for blowing up like that, i had a bad day and when i read the posts of people still going on about this racist charge i just saw red when you questioned if i was a racist.

 

[beachnut]

maybe you should talk with the pilots for 911 truth about that.

as for osama being a smart guy, i still find it unbelievable that 4 planes can be hijacked and three of them hit three of there targets without the most financed and modern military the world has ever seen doing absolutely nothing...one big whopsy - i dont buy it.

if you admit someone made a mistake or incompetance then how can you explain no-one getting punished. only promotions handed out??

and condolisa rice lying that they had no knowledge that someone would attack with planes - failure of imagination - yea right.

bush not even going under oath to the 911 commission and had to be accompanied by cheney- the whole thing stinks. and whether or not there were explosives in the towers at the very least someone had foreknowledge - how could a cook like alex jones predict 911??

and aeron russo in a conversation with one of nick rockerfeller was told that a major event (reffering to 911) was under way and from which the war on terror would be born.

You are off topic posting the biggest pile of BS I have seen today.

Find a witness on topic. BTW, p4t are not even as good as the terrorist pilots, they said they could not hit buildings in a Simulator. Gee the terrorist hit buildings in real planes, p4t could not in a simulator; those must be your expert pilots.

Alex Jones, now there is a pile of real BS; do you think the roids ruined his brain?

Do you think you can post on topic?

i found a good article by Gordon ross in the journal of 911 studies. its called the Momentum transfer analysis of the upper stories of wtc 1.

Gordon Ross was wrong, the towers did fail, he made major errors. He was wrong before he started. Plus he has no clue what did bring the WTC down since his work was proven wrong on 9/11. Do you understand this?

 

[thewholesoul]

My dad is a Lieutenant Colonel in the army, so I can't claim any DIRECT experience, but from what I've heard and seen from him, the military is fairly inefficient themselves. Relatively, they are likely better than most of the armies from around the world. However, this doesn't mean they can carry out something as absurdly detailed as what you are suggesting. It's time to exit Middle Earth and return to regular Earth.

hey i do not doubt that your father is in the military, and that the military is sometimes inefficient. but that doesnt explain how 3 hijacked planes could hit their targets without being intercepted.

once you check out how many planes were intercepted the year before 911 it seems unbelievable that no plane was intercepted that day. in fact they were flying around for quite some time and then after the first tower was hit - 45 mins later the pentagon was hit.

to say the military is sometimes inefficient does nt excuse much less explain the failure of reaction by the military

 

[thewholesoul]

And now you're crying to mama. How typical. You made comments that seemed clearly racist. If that wasn't your intent, then fine. Stop whining.

i will respond to your earlier posts when i get a chance amigo.

regarding the comment above i feel offended when i am accused of being a racist so shut your claptrap i wasnt whinning i was trying to defend myself from false accusations - got it

 

[LashL]

they held the koran in their hands scremaing death to america, then asked the security guards "pardon me could you direct me to the core strcuture so i may plant these explosives".

i call it the direct method.

As I said above, I asked a serious and polite question and I think it deserves a serious and polite response. Are you pinch-hitting for brasil officially, or just playing the fool?

 

[AZCat]

Are you pinch-hitting for brasil officially, or just playing the fool?

Aren't they the same thing?

 

[thewholesoul]

Unfortunately scale models aren't very useful in this situation. The various relevant properties don't all scale the same. Area, for example, scales as the square of the model ratio while volume scales as the cube. The stresses in a 100:1 scale model would be calculated as follows

F_r is the force on the real building
F_m is the force on the model

A_r is the cross-section of a particular part of the real building
A_m is the cross-section of the part of the model that correlates to A_r

A_m = A_r * (1/100) * (1/100) = 0.0001 *A _r

V_r is the cross-section of a particular part of the real building
V_m is the cross-section of the part of the model that correlates to A_r

V_m = V_r * (1/100) * (1/100) * (1/100) = 0.000001 * V_r

Mass = density times volume, so the mass of the real building is

M_r = d * V_r

The mass of the model is

M_m = d * V_m

Force = Mass times acceleration, so the forces are

F_r = M_r * g
F_m = M_m * g

Stress is force per unit area, so the stresses are

S_r = F_r / A_r
S_m = F_m / A_m

Plugging in the other equations, the stresses are now

S_r = M_r * g / A_r
S_r = d * V_r * g / A_r

S_m = M_m * g / A_m
S_m = d * V_m * g / A_m
S_m = d * 0.000001 * V_r * g / (0.0001 * A_r)
S_m = d * g * 0.01 * V_r / A_r

The ratio of S_m to S_r shows that the stresses in the model are 1/100th of the stresses in the actual building. Assuming you build the model from similar materials, it will fail at an entirely different point than the building being modeled, rendering it useless as a scientific tool in this respect. This is why the NIST used computer models in their investigation.

maybe you should read gordon ross's paper. he also provides calculations. but hey nice post.

by the way do you reject the scientifc method? is it irrational to require experimentation of a hypothesis in order to be convinced of its truth?