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

[Foolmewunz]

<snip>
.... because none of my Mil Eng Pamphlets had instructions for using explosives to throw steel.
<snip>

Oh, sure! And you don't find that suspicious?

You know what else teh military sort of forgets to teach? Anything at all on their plans for hegemony, mass murder, and the takeover of International House of Pancakes, that's what?

I'll ask again,... You don't find this suspicious? Wake up sheeple!

 

[Oystein]

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.
...

Careful.
Let's do the math:

• In my youth, I ran 100m in about 14 seconds (I admittedly wasn't the fastest of runners). I assume that you are now not much faster than that.
• 1 yard = 0.9144, so I ran 100 yards in 12.8 seconds, or at 7.8yards/s (average)
• Free-fall time from the roof of the Twin Towers is a little under 10 seconds.
• In 10 seconds, I could run 78 yards.

So assuming I jump of the tower at my best average dash speed, I'd make it as far as 78 yards before I hit the ground.

Not 100 yards.

If you are within 10% of the world class sprinters, you could barely make 100 yards.

 

[Oystein]

Then they work 3rd shift and were sleeping at the time. Everybody saw that building go down.
...

Nuh, not everybody. I wasn't aware of WTC7 until I ran into my first personal truther in 2008, I think. I definitely didn't see it on or shortly after 9/11. (I didn't have an own TV at the time, though, and Germany's being 6 hours ahead of NYC probably made sure I was already home from my mom where I had gone right after work to watch the news and give her an ear to talk to if she needed to make sense of the disturbing sights. She never quite lost the traumata suffered in WW2).

 

[tsig]

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.


Maybe the NBA should use steel basketballs since steel is so "bouncy".


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.


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

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bcc5f102b3.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bcc6f2e2af.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bd37ab7900.jpg[/qimg]

I have never seen a CD throw 4 tons of steel anywhere so if it was a CD it was the worst one ever.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I have never seen a CD throw 4 tons of steel anywhere so if it was a CD it was the worst one ever.

I think a lot of the conspiradroid crowd tends to forget that the C is for "controlled".

 

[Oystein]

I have never seen a CD throw 4 tons of steel anywhere so if it was a CD it was the worst one ever.

No-one has seen any building in free-fall as a result of a CD - David Chandler measured several and found them to be slower. So if WTC7 was CD, it was the worst ever.

 

[Disbelief]

No-one has seen any building in free-fall as a result of a CD - David Chandler measured several and found them to be slower. So if WTC7 was CD, it was the worst ever.

Dr. Greening actually produced a reference a few years back showing a CD reached about 70% (if I remember correctly) of what freefall would.

 

[Oystein]

Dr. Greening actually produced a reference a few years back showing a CD reached about 70% (if I remember correctly) of what freefall would.

Exactly what I would have expected, as the WTC towers all fell in the vicinity of that value. They are all gravity-dominated collapses. In CDs, explosives provide the initial failure, in natural collapses, fires or other causes do the same.
All gravitational collapses of highrises collapse can be expected to happen at those roughly 70% that the easiest models would predict, regardless of the initial cause.

 

[dafydd]

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.


Maybe the NBA should use steel basketballs since steel is so "bouncy".


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.


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

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bcc5f102b3.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bcc6f2e2af.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d9bd37ab7900.jpg[/qimg]

I've seen R. Mackey's credentials,now let's have a look at yours. What qualifications do you have that entitle you to tell real engineers that they are wrong?

 

[TruthersLie]

You refer to Ryan Mackey's paper, the most recent paper (2008, 3 years ago) of the supposedly "peer-reviewed" (by fellow peer Deniers) online "Journal of 9/11 Debunking."
http://www.jod911.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

The paper was refuted by Jim Hoffman, who also outlined "Mackey's Methods"
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey
and researcher Kevin Ryan
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

You really need a dictonary. Ryan mackey wrote 250+ pages of refutation of DR grifter.... 250+ pages. With citations, math and everything backed up.

Jim Hoffman and waterboy managed to write an 11 page response. That isn't a refuation.

In science, a refuation goes POINT BY POINT and shows how someone is wrong.

Hoffman and waterboy manage to handwave away everything, but they don't REFUTE anything.

How is that reading on put orders and the missing 85 videos coming? If you can't figure those out, you will never understand Mackey's whitepaper. (that is ok, twoofs can't figure out a white paper if it bit them... the have never managed to even write one of those let alone a peer reviewed paper)

Ryan Mackey provided mathematical formulas, but no empirical evidence, or references to any experiments, to show if they hold up in real life. Experiments trump theory.

Civil Engineer Jonathan Cole showed, even in his back yard, that thermite explosives could hurl steel at great speeds.
http://www.youtube.com/physicsandreason#p/u/1/5d5iIoCiI8g

So we have an experiment proving before your eyes that explosives can hurl heavy steel at great speeds.
vs. a theory that steel can fall then ricochet over 600 feet, but has never been replicated in real life.

You are missing something important...
if an explosive can throw steel 600 feet, everyone in a mile radius would hear it.

The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields) in an arching trajectory, to not only reach, but still have enough force to embed themselves in the walls of the American Express and Winter Garden buildings, like darts in a dart board.

YOu do know what F=MA means right? take a look at the part where you say it is 4 tons and it is falling 1000 feet at gravitational acceleration... that is a rather "duh" question.

Mackey's "Ricochet Theory" claims that steel beams fell down, then bounced or did a "ricochet" over 600 feet laterally. Ever drop a steel beam and see how far it "bounces"? Not far. It is steel, not rubber.

OMG.

The theory assumes that there is something solid to bounce off of. But we can see the floors of the WTC are falling downwards, at nearly free fall speed. Next time you are in a descending elevator, drop a ball and see how high it bounces.

weasel words.... "at nearly free fall speed." You might want to look that up... maybe after you figure out put orders and the rest.

It is claimed that as steel and concrete fell down, it caused the floor below to fall in turn. That uses up energy. Mr. Mackey needs to subtract that energy from the energy required to hurl the steel sideways 600 feet. Maybe the NFL should use steel foot balls if they so easily bounce and travel 2 football fields.

The Richochet Theory is about as odd as dropping a fork at dinner, which hits the table leg near the floor, then bounces across the room and sticks itself in the wall. Even when throwing the fork downwards, this is unlikely to happen.

In order to embed themselves in the walls, the beams had to travel mostly laterally. By the time the beams arched and reached the AmEx and Winter Garden buildings, they were falling mostly downwards. Thus, they would hit the buildings with a glancing blow. Try hammering a nail in to a wall with a glancing blow. The nail bounces off the wall. You need to hammer the nail horizontally.

Try throwing a dart, either up in an arch, at a board. Or, try throwing a dart from 40 feet above the dart board, and see if it sticks in. It bounces off then down to the floor. But hurl it horizontally (as an explosive would) and you can get it to stick in the board.

According to Ryan's Richochet Theory, steel would have "bounced" up and out in an arch, or directly horizontally then into an arch. Near the WTC, the beam is travelling mostly horizontally, then progressively vertically. Even after 500 feet, it would have been travelling mostly downward.

Notice in the 3rd photo, the steel beam appears to have traveled upwards. Agreed, it could have hit, and sagged down. But we would expect to see more downward scraping marks on the building above the impact point, if the beam was falling mostly down at that point.

If not for hitting what appears to be the 15th Floor of the American Express Building, the steel beam looks like it would have traveled even farther from WTC 1, perhaps 700 over feet.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d9b6418d92e8.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d9b646bdd73a.jpg[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_193154d9b64ddacd9f.jpg[/qimg]

massive arguments from ignorance and incredulity..

how is the reading on your other areas of ignorance and incredulity coming? Any luck? Do you need a popup dictionary?

Stay on one topic until you understand it before running blindly into another brick wall.

 

[TruthersLie]

So good luck, but the Verification Team is skeptical and tough. They know one bad apple on the list will be what everyone focuses on, not the other 1473. The list of 1474 architects and engineers is verified. There are still things I'm checking out, and JREF is a good way to find alternative explanations for 9/11. But, the AE911Truth list is a major reason I turned from being a 100% Debunker towards being a 98% Truther. These guys know buildings much better than I do.

truther LIE.
There are NOT 1400+ architects and engineers on that list. There are 1400+ architectural and engineering "professionals."

why did they start claiming their list would be degreed and licensed architects and engineers, only to shift to degreed and/OR licensed architects and engineers, only to shift to the current bs of architects and engineering professionals?

Why do you insist on telling this lie?

And to finish the last line.... gee... how many building structural engineers areon that list of "professionals?" Less than 50. Amazing.

How many participated in and helped the NIST reports?

argument from authority rejected. Try again.

 

[TruthersLie]

AE911Truth had a booth, along with other organizations, at the annual convention for the American Institute of Architects in DC. I volunteered to help get signatures as a way of checking them out, and see if they were for real, after seeing them only on the web.

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.

Then Richard suggested we invite them to see the video screens at the AE911Truth booth. The videos showed about a dozen various views of WTC 7 collapsing, from main stream news sources. This is a representative sequence of videos they used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0GW6QXKyp0

Many of the architects saw these videos for the first time, and signed the Petition to Congress for a new 9/11 investigation. Upon verification of credentials by the Verification Team, their name would be posted in the professionals' petition section on www.AE911Truth.org

The best part was being interviewed by (krasiva) Dina Gusovsky of Russia Today TV. She didn't broadcast my interview, but I'm in the background.
http://rt.com/usa/news/11-truth-still-in-a-cloud-of-smoke

I believe that the total number of architects you managed to sign up at that conference was.... oh less than 30. Out of 16000+ in attendance. That should tell you something about the people signing up.

My personal favourite part of the video you twoofs try to pass around is how it is w/out sound... amazing.

 

[CptColumbo]

100 yards, or 300 feet. The "over 500" is because it is better to understate than overstate in debates.

It's better to be accurate.

 

[BasqueArch]

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.
.........

Sure there is.
Have you tried Bentham Open?
It's most popular, though pricey, for the unreviewed articles it e-produces.

$800 peer reviewed
$8,000 reviewed by non-peers.

 

[beachnut]

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. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949

Playing area? Sorry, the playing area for a football field is 360 feet. It would be impossible to make a touchdown with only 100 yards of playing area. So you joined 911 truth, A&E who can't figure out 911. Very interesting. The evidence is slowing coming out.

Maybe the NBA should use steel basketballs since steel is so "bouncy". http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949

No wonder you volunteer for Gage the delusions spreader. You act like an object in motion will stop when it hits the ground, that is why I asked you about a ball bouncing, you don't seem to grasp the real world, don't shoot the ground near you!

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. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949

Hagelin, is he a loon like Jones on 911? Griscom? LOL, Griscom can't identify a compass.


Physics, and A-? ... you are not using it, the physics, you are not using it since you joined Gage and his failed claims on 911.

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 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949

It was not on fire, steel is not strong in fire. You failed to gain some knowledge in structural engineering when you signed up for woo with Gage's fraud.

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. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949

Reality?

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. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949

E=mgh is the available energy, for both towers the energy over over 230 2,000 pound bombs. More than enough energy to eject beams. I you made an A in physics you could see the energy is there, but you have failed to use math and physics to back up your false claims, your lack of understanding. E=mgh, over 200 2,000 pound of energy available! Is that enough? YES

Wow, enough energy to eject hundreds of pieces of steel exactly like we see on 911. If you would do the math you would see. Why do you fail to do the math for yourself and pick Gage's moronic lies?

Why did Gage fail to do the math? He is a fraud. Just asking questions and giving answers!

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 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22948 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=22949

You image idiotic claims of explosives, why do you ask a question when you have not figure out it is possible? Gage keeps the questions to where there is no real answer for his delusions.
Can you imagine the energy available in the WTC collapse. Do the numbers and prove you passed physics. E=mgh, more than enough. Did you really take physics? Why are you not using it?

 

[BasqueArch]

.....
The question is how 4 ton steel beams flew horizontally over 600 feet, (2 football fields) in an arching trajectory, to not only reach, but still have enough force to embed themselves in the walls of the American Express and Winter Garden buildings, like darts in a dart board.
......

If you Zen this picture long enough, the answer to how the perimeter walls landed at that distance will manifest itself.

 

[twinstead]

If I wanted to deal with arguments from ignorant incredulity I'd debate my 6 year old.

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

FWIW, to the Truther nut I have on Ignore: First, I don't have a Ph.D.

OK, no over-estimation of your intelligence intended. Seriously, you have great credentials. Someone said you have a PhD from CalTech. You sound like one, so there was little reason to question it.

Anyone who does research for JPL has to be pretty smart. I wish Congress was smart enough to upsize NASA, and stop wasting all the funds on hundreds of military bases we don't need (Italy and Singapore are friends, if not Iraq and Afthanistan) and get some bases on the Moon. We should have had one by 2001, instead wasting billions on the Viet Nam War.

If 9/11 was a false flag op, exposing it will get America to re-establish our priorities. We need companies like Lockheed focused on building Lunar Modules again, rather than F-35's. The human race needs to expand to other planets, in case something happens to the Earth.

my whitepaper On Debunking 9/11 Debunking was never peer-reviewed

The Journal of Debunking 911 says "Peer-Reviewed Papers:" on www.JOD911.com. Likewise, people question the "peer reviewed" www.Journalof911studies.com. One side's "peer" is the other's "sympathizer."

I understand that factual inaccuracy lies at the very heart of the Truth Movement

Each side of 9/11 is trying to establish a final conclusion of what happened. Conclusions are based on facts. But we only had a time and money pressured, partial discovery of the facts of 9/11. Partial facts can only lead to partially supported conclusions, filled in with assumptions. Such conclusions are only partially satisfying to critical thinkers.

That's why we see hundreds of web sites and forums asking questions about 9/11. JREF has no threads calling for a new Challenger investigation because NASA, Dr. Richard Feynman, and other scientists did it right.

We need the release of all the information that is being suppressed by the Government. It only raises questions when we don't get to see pre-crash Pentagon photos, 911 logs, and data from all FDRs which have always been recovered in other crashes. Why can't we get transcripts of Bush & Cheney, who should have been interviewed separately and under oath to tell the truth. How can a critical thinker be satisfied with such guilty behavior?

We need more repeatable experiments, with real substances, not just computer models, to establish the facts. If NIST wants to use computer models, they should release all the data used in them.

In my whitepaper. It works out to a minimum of about 800 kg TNT.
The math looks good. If there is some way to support the formulas experimentally, as Jonathan Cole did with his back yard thermite tests, that would be good.

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.

There was an article in the MIT Review about nanotechnology that could enable smart bombs to be smaller, yet with more "bank for the buck."
http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/14105/page1/?a=f

 

[dc1971]

JREF has no threads calling for a new Challenger investigation because NASA, Dr. Richard Feynman, and other scientists did it right. All of the major questions were scientifically investigated and answered.

We need the release of all the information that is being suppressed by the Government. It only raises questions when we don't get to see pre-crash Pentagon photos, 911 logs, and data from all FDRs which have always been recovered in other crashes. Why can't we get transcripts of Bush & Cheney, who should have been interviewed separately and under oath. Why not take an oath if one is going to tell the truth? How can a critical thinker be satisfied with that?

We need more repeatable experiments, with real substances, not just computer models, to establish the facts.

Cicorp, if you are a member of a 9/11 Truth organization I will be more than happy to contribute and support a new investigation. I have posted a message about this elsewhere on this forum!

 

[R.Mackey]

Cicorp, if you are a member of a 9/11 Truth organization I will be more than happy to contribute and support a new investigation. I have posted a message about this elsewhere on this forum!

Don't bother, the guy is a ruddy broken record. Even his anecdotes are inaccurate and recycled.

Some people simply do not wish to learn anything.