AE911Truth and the actual # of engineers in America...

cicorp said:
... Richard Gage suggested to the volunteers that we ask architects who were looking at the booths "Did you know that 3 towers collapsed on 9/11?" Most of those that I asked said No.
...
Click to expand...
Ambush people and sell them delusions. Good job, spreading lies. You guys are snake-oil salesman, no evidence pure moronic nonsense (on 911 issues). The thermite claims, pure insanity. After making up thermite, due to political bias and hate, Jones says the United State caused the earthquake in Haiti. Gage is making money because there are gullible people who can't think for themselves. Gage and Jones, fraud and insanity on 911 issues. Fringe of the fringe - 10 years of failure are assured.



DGM said:
When does Gage plan to submit this petition?
Click to expand...
The petition is a tool/list to weed out those who can't do critical thinking, have limited research skills, and are gullible.
 
Last edited:
Material from WTC1 followed an arc to hit AmEx building 500+ feet away

A W Smith said:
show me how this trajectory can be interpreted as horizontal
Click to expand...
Precisely my point. See how the material ejected from WTC 1 is going mostly vertically downwards by the time it hits the American Express building over 500 feet away? You draw a straight red line. See how the trajectory is more of a curve, in the video you referenced?

How can a dart stick in a dart board with this trajectory? The way the steel beams are stuck in the AmEx building suggests they entered in a mostly horizontal rather than vertical trajectory. A significant portion of the weight would need to be inside the building, to support the part that is sticking out. If steel beams are so bouncy, like Flubber, why did they ricochet off the WTC floors, but not the AmEx wall? The steel beam looks like it could have continued travelling horizontally, if not stopped by the building around the 15th floor.

So we need Dr. Mackey PhD2 to explain this in his Ricochet Theory. If anyone can, he can.

Here is the JPG you sent, edited to make the red line more of an arc.


Note: I did search for previous posts first, and found a discussion of squibs, but not this AmEx/Winter Garden topic.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
Precisely my point. See how the material ejected from WTC 1 is going mostly vertically downwards by the time it hits the American Express building over 500 feet away? You draw a straight red line. See how the trajectory is more of a curve, in the video you referenced? How can a dart stick in a dart board with this trajectory? So we need Dr. Mackey PhD2 to explain this in his Ricochet Theory. If anyone can, he can.
Click to expand...

Gee... if only we'd talked about this before... :rolleyes:
Some notable, easy to understand posts that apparently some people have trouble finding...
  • This one was from 2007
    Arkan_Wolfshade said:
    Exactly, and that is what my previously posted concrete pressure tests shows. A strictly controlled vertical force can, and will, result in horizontal dispersal of debris from a concrete column. Add to that forces that were striking from any angle other than 90 degrees from horizontal and you have ample explanation for why there were ballistic arcs visible in the debris.
    Click to expand...
  • And these were from 2008
    rwguinn said:
    Traveling sidways is not an option without some means of transfer-of-direction (An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by an outside force). That means is generally a result to bouncing off of an inclined surface, or, in many cases, release of energy from a bent (but not yielded) steel beam (column) breaking loose from its moorings, or by buckling of members, or some of the other chaos involved in the collapse.
    Again, there is "no waiting during collapse!"
    Click to expand...
    Dave Rogers said:
    leftysergeant said:
    So say that there was resistance. This would, in the meantime, allow some force to travel sideways. This force shoves perimeter columns outward. This stresses the clips that hold the floor slabs to the walls, making them even mopre vulnerable to falling mass, perhaps separating them ahead of the arrival of the mass. But this, it seems to me, would leave segments of the perimeter structure leaning outward, accelerating , more slowly, perhaps, than the floor slabs. Because they are connected in a stepped arrangement, spanning three floors on one end and three on the other, they have to wait for all the floors to which both they and adjoining segments are attached to fall away before they go. Thus, their weight is adding kinetic energy laterally to the outside, even before they fall.

    Have I accounted for something here that others have called "missing energy?"
    Click to expand...
    That sounds fairly close to what happened as a layman's account. Now add to that the fact that the perimeter columns on the top part pulled inwards initially, so you've got the top part falling inside the bottom part like a wedge. You'll get collisions between the top part and the columns of the bottom part, which are already leaning outwards, that will throw those falling columns out a lot further. It's a lot like making a fine cut on a pool table; the cue ball travels along the centre of the table, but sends the object ball diagonally into the corner pocket.

    And that's why, when David Ray Griffin says that gravity is vertical and so it can't throw things sideways, he's being an idiot.
    Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
Precisely my point. See how the material ejected from WTC 1 is going mostly vertically downwards by the time it hits the American Express building over 500 feet away? You draw a straight red line. See how the trajectory is more of a curve, in the video you referenced? How can a dart stick in a dart board with this trajectory? The way the steel beams are stuck in the AmEx building suggests they entered in a mostly horizontal rather than vertical trajectory. The steel beam looks like it could have continued travelling horizontally, if not stopped by the building around the 15th floor. So we need Dr. Mackey PhD2 to explain this in his Ricochet Theory. If anyone can, he can. (No disrespect intended with the earlier type-o of "Mr." rather than "Dr.")
Here is the JPG you sent, edited to make the red line more of an arc.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d9ba717bb9d9.jpg
Click to expand...

The ends of the exterior column trees were like forks. Why is it so difficult to grasp how they can collide with the curtain wall of another building and get snagged in it? You realize of course all you have here is incredulity . correct? What do you think damaged the two floors above where the column tree is embedded? looks to me nothing like the "dart" analogy you are desperately trying to represent.
chunk.jpg


It also occurred to the south when the south tower collapsed
55_scooped_4019.jpg
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
Precisely my point. See how the material ejected from WTC 1 is going mostly vertically downwards by the time it hits the American Express building over 500 feet away? You draw a straight red line. See how the trajectory is more of a curve, in the video you referenced?

Click to expand...
Please, the address for this building. Do you have any facts, or just delusions? Address for this damage. Got it?

The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields)
Click to expand...
You said 600 feet, now 500 feet; what is up, why the change? Did they move the buildings, or shorten football fields. How long is a football field?
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
You can see it in the 3rd photo, east of the circular Winter Garden.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7052404&postcount=186


100 yards, or 300 feet. The "over 500" is because it is better to understate than overstate in debates.
Click to expand...
Over 600, now over 500? Which is it?
Football field is 360 feet.

In a debate you should be correct, or explain why you can't be. Gage is always wrong.

Have you ever bounced a ball? Played pool, taken a physics course?

Nope, I don't think you have the right building.
thum_193154d9bac0a32b8a.jpg

Where is this building now? On 911? How far did you say, two football fields or what? You might want to make your football fields 217, or 210 feet long, or so. Did you make this up? Did you measure this on location? How?

Over 500? Over 600? Or was it something else? Did you do the physics to see what is possible?
 
Last edited:
switchpoint said:
Really? Have you never tossed a rock or watched something fall? You really have to get out a little bit.
Click to expand...

Wait, wait... if he's holding true to truther form, that's exactly the point he's trying to make: That the debris was "tossed" - or "thrown" - outward by explosives.

It betrays an abyssmal ignorance of the collapse dynamics - the exterior columns and facade falling outwards either from hitting something below, or being "levered" outwards due to some connections failing later than others is entirely expected - but talking about something having been "tossed" is exactly the point the standard truther would make. The next question would be "so what 'threw' it?", and that lets him open the door to an explosives argument. Much better to point out that exterior structural elements falling away for the reasons I gave here and above is not surprising.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Wait, wait... if he's holding true to truther form, that's exactly the point he's trying to make: That the debris was "tossed" - or "thrown" - outward by explosives.

It betrays an abyssmal ignorance of the collapse dynamics - the exterior columns and facade falling outwards either from hitting something below, or being "levered" outwards due to some connections failing later than others is entirely expected - but talking about something having been "tossed" is exactly the point the standard truther would make. The next question would be "so what 'threw' it?", and that lets him open the door to an explosives argument. Much better to point out that exterior structural elements falling away for the reasons I gave here and above is not surprising.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are correct. I was trying to avoid talking about the arc of descent.
 
switchpoint said:
Sorry, you are correct. I was trying to avoid talking about the arc of descent.
Click to expand...

Oh, don't apologize. I'm just pointing out the tactic, that's all. Truthers always intend to head into explosives arguments when they talk about horizontal (or lateral) "ejections". It's been in their dumb playbook for years now; I'm just stating what they're doing and what should be done about it.
 
beachnut said:
Football field is 360 feet.
Click to expand...
OK. Most people know that I mean the playing area, from goal post to goal post, not counting the End Zone. That's 100 yards, or 300 feet.

Have you ever bounced a ball?
Click to expand...
Maybe the NBA should use steel basketballs since steel is so "bouncy". :rolleyes:

taken a physics course?
Click to expand...
I'm no John Hagelin (PhD Physics, Harvard; BA Summa Cum Laude from Dartmouth - after only 3 years instead of the usual 4.)
or David Griscom (PhD Physics, Brown, 193 publications), Steven Jones (PhD Physics Vanderbilt and Stanford LAC) or Ryan Mackey PhD (CalTech), or Einstein, but at least got an A- in Physics at Colgate University.

Where is this building now? On 911?
Click to expand...
The AmEx building is still standing, and going strong, on 220 Vesey Street in NYC. It is also called the World Financial Center Building 1. "Strange" it did not collapse like WTC 7.
www.worldfinancialcenter.com

I found another photo of the steel beams stuck in the AmEx building, and agree that it shows downward motion of the steel beam, and concede on that.

But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved.

Can you seriously imagine steel the weight of this 4 ton military truck bouncing and ricocheting 2 football fields?
http://www.motortopia.com/cars/1956-daf-daf-ya126-12398

 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
I'm no John Hagelin (PhD Physics, Harvard; BA Summa Cum Laude from Dartmouth - after only 3 years instead of the usual 4.)
or David Griscom (PhD Physics, Brown, 193 publications), Steven Jones (PhD Physics Vanderbilt and Stanford LAC) or Ryan Mackey PhD (CalTech), or Einstein, but at least got an A- in Physics at Colgate University.
Click to expand...

That A- isn't doing you much good though.....

cicorp said:
The AmEx building is still standing, and going strong, on 220 Vesey Street in NYC. It is also called the World Financial Center Building 1. "Strange" it did not collapse like WTC 7.
www.worldfinancialcenter.com
Click to expand...

The only building I would expect to collapse like WTC7 is............WTC7.

cicorp said:
I found another photo of the steel beams stuck in the AmEx building, and agree that it shows downward motion of the steel beam, and concede on that.
Click to expand...

When something falls....it tends to do so in a downward direction.....

cicorp said:
But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved.
Click to expand...

Incorrect and simply not true.

cicorp said:
Can you seriously imagine steel the weight of this 4 ton military truck bouncing and ricocheting 2 football fields?
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
cicorp said:
...But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved....
Click to expand...
Do you have any idea how you could get explosives to blow a 4 tonne steel beam that far??? I've seen the claim made so many times as if you could throw steel by use of explosives. How?
cicorp said:
...Can you seriously imagine steel the weight of this 4 ton military truck bouncing and ricocheting 2 football fields?..
Click to expand...
Structural steel beams or columns of that weight - not a problem. BUT the truck would be a different thing - high crumple and wouldn't bounce anywhere like the beam. A poor example even if you only used it for weight comparison.
 
FWIW, to the Truther nut I have on Ignore: First, I don't have a Ph.D. (my C.V. is on-line; my degrees are B.A. Math, B.A. Physics, M.S. Aeronautics, and Eng. Aeronautics). Second, my whitepaper On Debunking 9/11 Debunking was never peer-reviewed -- there is no venue to peer-review a survey of a fraudulent pseudoscientific book in the popular (and unreviewed) press.

I understand that factual inaccuracy lies at the very heart of the Truth Movement, but please don't make up BS claims.

ozeco41 said:
Do you have any idea how you could get explosives to blow a 4 tonne steel beam that far??? I've seen the claim made so many times as if you could throw steel by use of explosives. How?
Click to expand...

I do. In my whitepaper. It works out to a minimum of about 800 kg TNT. In other words, explosives so enormous (about 1.5 x a Mk.84 JDAM in this case) that their use would be utterly unmistakable, and quite lethal.

This particular myth was retired over four years ago. Call it quits, Truthers.
 
Last edited:
cicorp said:
Richard Gage suggested to the volunteers that we ask architects who were looking at the booths "Did you know that 3 towers collapsed on 9/11?" Most of those that I asked said No.
Click to expand...

Then they work 3rd shift and were sleeping at the time. Everybody saw that building go down.
This is a representative sequence of videos they used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0
Click to expand...

Hardly any of them show the entire collapse. As a matter of fact I only saw one. I imagine that was put there in error.
 
cicorp said:
But still, two football fields (between goal posts) is a long way for 4 ton beam segments to bounce and ricochet, without some explosive lateral force involved.
Click to expand...

From 1,000 feet in the air? It's not far at all!

I'm fairly certain that if I ran and jumped off the top of one of those buildings, I could easily get 100 yards away from it. If I did it from the ground, not so much.

The beam was forced out and simply continued it's trajectory until it was impeded by the other building. This isn't tough to imagine.
 
R.Mackey said:
ozeco41 said:
Do you have any idea how you could get explosives to blow a 4 tonne steel beam that far??? I've seen the claim made so many times as if you could throw steel by use of explosives. How?...
Click to expand...
I do. In my whitepaper. It works out to a minimum of about 800 kg TNT. In other words, explosives so enormous (about 1.5 x a Mk.84 JDAM in this case) that their use would be utterly unmistakable, and quite lethal...
Click to expand...
Thanks Ryan - Military Engineer here so I knew it was a very inefficient process therefore requires overkill quantities and would cause a ruddy big bang. Glad you could work out the quantities because none of my Mil Eng Pamphlets had instructions for using explosives to throw steel. ;)

It is not the way you would choose to throw steel. And my real point being that it is a ridiculous claim that the ancillary effect of cutting steel would be to blow big heavy steel sections a large distance.

It is some time since I read your paper and I had not remembered the reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom