Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[funk de fino]

Actually, there is no hard evidence that they were at the controls. The tapes of the cockpit conversations have been destroyed. The telephone call has not been confirmed and Hani Honjour was not capable of making a 270 degree turn while dropping 7,000 feet at 480 mph in a 575.

Conspiracy theories are what you have. Delusions made up with hearsay, lies and fantasy.

I have evidence of a conspiracy, you have a nut case conspiracy theory of a man in a cave and other failed ideas.

Learn the difference between your conspiracy theory for which the FBI has no hard evidence and a theory that the FBI says is backed up be through research and analysis.

You have really lost the plot this time C7. Is it because I rained on your 10 storey gash thread?

Seems like an old timer is sliding further down the path.

 

[Christopher7]

UBL is a suspect on 911.

Correct, he is just a suspect because there is NO hard evidence. Therefore, the official story is a Conspiracy Theory.

 

[dtugg]

Hey genius, who was the 9/11 mastermind according the official story AND the person in question?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Prof. Jones says the collapse would have been arrested due to the law of conservation of energy. You are not qualified to say he is wrong.

(a) He says conservation of momentum, not conservation of energy.
(b) I'm qualified to say he's wrong.
(c) He's wrong.

Dave

 

[beachnut]

Correct, he is just a suspect because there is NO hard evidence. Therefore, the official story is a Conspiracy Theory.

19 terrorists did it, they all are dead. There is not doubt except in Gage and Jones apologist terrorist minds and a few fringe people who can't find evidence when it is pushed under their noses. You can care less about UBL who said he would and will kill Americans when he can.

Finally you agree 19 terrorists did 911 and Gage has delusions.

Sounds like you are trying to make UBL your next 10 story hole.

At least you agree UBL is a suspect in respect to 911 and have dropped your Muslims in a cave can't do it due to some bias you have with people. Actually UBL takes credit for 911, you must have missed it. He is already wanted, so when he is caught we can ask him in person.

 

[Architect]

Post your degree or stop claiming to have one.

[cough]

You rang?

 

[Christopher7]

C7
Prof. Jones says the collapse would have been arrested due to the law of conservation of energy. You are not qualified to say he is wrong.

beachnut
I am an engineer Jones is not. I have been an engineer with a master’s degree that beats Jones Physics degree. I am over qualified

C7
Post your degree or stop claiming to have one.

I am an engineer, you ignore engineers who try to make you skeptical of Gage and Jones and you repay us with SPAM and delusions; you should be able to figure out 911.

I am a trained aircraft accident investigator who sees 911Truth has delusions on the aircraft impacts.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/AircraftCourseOrg800.jpg

Clearly, you are overqualified. A certificate of satisfactory completion of the USAF Aircraft Mishap Investigation course trumps a PhD in physics when it comes to discussing the law of conservation of energy.
You say that Professor Jones offered ZERO proof to go with his assertion that the towers could not have collapsed as they did because the law of conservation of energy won't allow that. Have you offered any proof to go with your assertion that the law of conservation of energy allows for the observed collapse?

This is the NIST explanation in a nutshell: [NIST FAQ 4-14-07]

[FONT=&quot]The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]More than 12 [WTC1] 29 [WTC2] floors actually loaded the intact floor suddenly. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated.[/FONT]

The core was self supporting. It carried its own weight plus the weight of the floors and was not dependent on the floors for support.
NIST gave no explanation of how the core collapsed.
Therefore they have NOT explained the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

Can you provide an explanation for the collapse of the core?

 

[dtugg]

Hey genius, how does the law of conservation of energy prove that 9/11 was an inside job? Details please. You do know what the law of conservation of energy states, right?

And if you want to pull qualifications, Dave Rogers is a physicist and says your hero is full of crap.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You say that Professor Jones offered ZERO proof to go with his assertion that the towers could not have collapsed as they did because the law of conservation of energy won't allow that. Have you offered any proof to go with your assertion that the law of conservation of energy allows for the observed collapse?

Could I suggest that you read Frank Greening's analysis of the collapse energy and gravitational potential energy of the collapses over at 911 Myths? It's a simplified discussion for the layman, showing that there was a very large excess of potential energy in the towers over that required for a collapse of the type that was observed.

The core was self supporting. It carried its own weight plus the weight of the floors and was not dependent on the floors for support.

That assertion is completely incorrect. The core was incapable of standing unsupported by the lateral bracing provided by the connection of the floor trusses to the perimeter columns. This has been explained ad nauseam for at least two years, and your lack of awareness of this can only be attributed to wilful ignorance.

Dave

 

[dtugg]

I seriously doubt C7 even knows what gravitational potential energy means.

 

[Architect]

C7
<snip> Clearly, you are overqualified. A certificate of satisfactory completion of the USAF Aircraft Mishap Investigation course trumps a PhD in physics when it comes to discussing the law of conservation of energy.

Hmm. So, like, what qualifications do you have in the tall buildings and structures field, then, and why is you opinion to be preferred to mine? You know, like, what with me actually being trained in and doing this stuff?

 

[funk de fino]

Is he really saying that if you remove the floors and the perimeter columns then the core would remain standing?

It's a shame the videos show this to be incorrect.

 

[Architect]

C7
Prof. Jones says the collapse would have been arrested due to the law of
The core was self supporting. It carried its own weight plus the weight of the floors and was not dependent on the floors for support.
NIST gave no explanation of how the core collapsed.
Therefore they have NOT explained the total collapse of the Trade Towers.

Can you provide an explanation for the collapse of the core?

Bollocks. Rubbish. Show some calcs.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Actually, there is no hard evidence that they were at the controls. The tapes of the cockpit conversations have been destroyed. The telephone call has not been confirmed and Hani Honjour was not capable of making a 270 degree turn while dropping 7,000 feet at 480 mph in a 575.

Incorrect on all counts.

• Flight 11 and 175's cockpit voice recorders were never recovered, that's true, and Flight 77's was too badly damaged to be of use. However, the Flight 93 CVR recording was presented at the Moussaoui trial. It survived, and validated the presence of the hijackers. But beyond that, CVRs were not the only evidence that the hijackers were in the cockpits. The air traffic controllers were accidentally radioed by the Flight 11 hijackers. Mohammad Atta inadvertently keyed for radio broadcast instead of the passenger PA and was heard by ATCs instructing people not to move. The same mistake was committed by Ziad Jarrah on Flight 93.
• The family members have validated the calls as genuine. And testimony from airphone operators supports the fact that the calls were genuine. The FBI has also validated the calls with both GTE for the airphone calls and, for the few cell calls, the cellular carriers.
• Honjour was a licensed pilot, and multiple pilots have gone on record as saying he was well capable of the maneuvers he did. Furthermore, the skill in making a 270 degree turn lies in not losing altitude; dropping it is the sign of an inexperienced pilot. The very manueuver you say he couldn't do in fact indicates his relative inexperience.
  • http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
  • http://salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index_np.html
  • http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3061859&postcount=1
  • http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89122

All of those myths have been long refuted Chris.

 

[twinstead]

I'm saddened that Chris has resorted to resurrecting long-refuted myths to bolster his worldview. Saddened but not surprised.

 

[tsig]

I thought Gage was the only pathetic terrorist apologist who used this bone dolt statement.

Gage has no idea what conclusion to make from this stupidity. But if he is trying to say explosives did it, he can't because he used thermite, and thermite doesn't blow up bones. Bombs, unless they are attached to bodies do not do this. But a body moving at 590 mph does fall apart and spread bone fragments all over. So it was not an explosive, not thermite, just an impact. Gage delusion is not very good at getting close to reality.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc2impact.jpg[/qimg]
Only a dolt like Gage ignores the debris raining down from Flight 175 impact, bones, aircraft parts, and parts of the building. BUSTED, Gage is a dolt, a very nice dolt who spews delusions. Narrow that down, he is dolt on 911 issues; proven many times over.

Look at the left side of the photo, parts are raining down. Get a life Gage. Don't repeat the lie of bone parts again Gage.



sim·i·le (s m -l )
n.
A figure of speech in which two essentially unlike things are compared, often in a phrase introduced by like or as, as in "How like the winter hath my absence been" or "So are you to my thoughts as food to life" (Shakespeare).

often in a phrase introduced by like

SEE THIS POST!

Those in 911Truth use simile as evidence hard evidence as in dense, very extreme dense, like dirt dense.

Why!? Why do they pick the statements with LIKE in them! Wake up 911Truth!

They are actually dumber than rocks. Rocks are compressed dirt.

 

[Christopher7]

Hey genius, how does the law of conservation of energy prove that 9/11 was an inside job? Details please. You do know what the law of conservation of energy states, right?

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant.
The law of conservation of linear momentum states that the total momentum of a closed system of objects (which has no interactions with external agents) is constant. One of the consequences of this is that the center of mass of any system of objects will always continue with the same velocity unless acted on by a force from outside the system

This is the same as Newton 1st law
1) "A particle will stay at rest or continue at constant velocity unless acted on by an external unbalanced force."

The result is, falling debris uses some of its kinetic energy to break all the truss seat connections. This will slow its rate of fall.
The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly. I other words, it would take nearly all the kinetic energy of 7 floors hitting an intact floor at the same time to break the floor supports.

In the case of the north tower, all 12 floors did not impact the floor below the collapse at the same time.
The weight of most of those floors was carried by the core and exterior columns above the collapse and that weight was pushing down on the core and perimeter columns below, not on the floor around the core.
At no time did 7 or more floors suddenly [simultaneously] come in contact with the floor below the collapse.

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually.

 

[buka001]

C7 answer this question please. How, using equations, does the law of conservation of momentum prove that the building did not collapse.

My physics may be a bit rusty, but I cannot see how this rule proves the collapse is impossible. I am not asserting that if I cannot see it, it must be impossible, I am asking you to show me that it is the case. Until then I will trust my knowledge of physics. Momentum before equals momentum after. Show how one floor can transfer the momentum of the collasping other floors, without collapsing itself. Show how this is possible, through use of equations please. Show that the connections between the structural memebers could sustain such a load. Show it, prove it. Until then all what Gage says is a LIE.

I am certain if Gage said that all buildings are actually suspended by magic invisible flying pigs and WTC could not have collapsed because the pigs would have kept it from collapsing, that statement would undoubtably be repeated by his followers. I find such a statement equally impossible and ridiculous as the statement that the law of conservation of momentum proves that the collapse is impossible.

 

[funk de fino]

So C7, when the top section tilted none of the column connections broke?

The Top section would gently have floated down on top of the bottom section colmuns?

Again, the video evidence proves you wrong. I suggest you go and watch it again in hi def.

Especially the core spires still standing after collapse.

why are you not back in the WTC7 thread?

 

[Heiwa]

The law of conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant.
The law of conservation of linear momentum states that the total momentum of a closed system of objects (which has no interactions with external agents) is constant. One of the consequences of this is that the center of mass of any system of objects will always continue with the same velocity unless acted on by a force from outside the system

This is the same as Newton 1st law
1) "A particle will stay at rest or continue at constant velocity unless acted on by an external unbalanced force."

The result is, falling debris uses some of its kinetic energy to break all the truss seat connections. This will slow its rate of fall.
The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly. I other words, it would take nearly all the kinetic energy of 7 floors hitting an intact floor at the same time to break the floor supports.

In the case of the north tower, all 12 floors did not impact the floor below the collapse at the same time.
The weight of most of those floors was carried by the core and exterior columns above the collapse and that weight was pushing down on the core and perimeter columns below, not on the floor around the core.
At no time did 7 or more floors suddenly [simultaneously] come in contact with the floor below the collapse.

The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually.

Bravo Christopher7! Simpler speaking, you cannot destroy anything by dropping a piece of anything on it.

Take a house of cards! Drop a card on it and all the cards of the house may drop on the table but they - the cards - are still there, intact, on the table. Just build up the house of cards again.

I am explaining the same basics on another thread using other analogies where the same JREF members play stupid and cannot understand.