Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Clayton Moore]

Flowing sand or water in video games is typically animated rather than being a collision model itself (enormous waste of ram). A collision sets off a trigger which runs an animation IE: bullets hitting a body of water.

Blender uses a tad more complicated way to model flowing particles.

So what your saying is that game software is the tip of the iceberg in order to be cost effective.

 

[beachnut]

You debunkers are all saying that as a result of different amounts of energy against the three WTC buildings from different locations each building "collapsed" and completely demolished itself with it's own mass.

Try to keep your story straight and save the double talk for impressing your buddies.

The structural engineer of the WTC towers said aircraft impacts and fires destroyed the WTC towers. You make up lies or adopt the failed lies of 911 truth based on your lack of knowledge of physics and engineering.

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/The...ecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx You should ask the chief structural engineer who calls 911 truth beliefs lies, and he cheated, he designed the structure of the WTC towers. He is the first expert, and gee, he is right.



What will you do next? More talk and avoid the fact you are evidence free and can't do physics to save your delusions on 911.

I was a systems programmer for a few years. The fact that two buildings and then a third building destroyed themselves squashes your butterfly maneuver.

What is your point? You don't understand gravity collapse due to fire?

 

[Justin39640]

So what your saying is that game software is the tip of the iceberg in order to be cost effective.

As far as video games, it's more about being resource effective. What fun is a game that can only hit 5 FPS cause it's calculating 8 billion useless things on and off screen in a 3D environment?

 

[oody]

You debunkers are all saying that as a result of different amounts of energy against the three WTC buildings from different locations each building "collapsed" and completely demolished itself with it's own mass.

You forgot the fires. Don't forget the fires.

Try to keep your story straight and save the double talk for impressing your buddies.

My story's straight. Nineteen hijackers, three plane crashes, and fires exacerbated by damage to the waterlines needed to fight them. Now tell me what you think happened.

 

[GlennB]

Tully, Loizeaux, Riggs and the others would notice if the molten metal they saw was silvery.

Loizeaux has never claimed to have seen molten steel at GZ, so this is is either a very careless statement from you or an outright lie.

What's more, you've been in this very same conversation in several threads, both here and elsewhere, where the Loizeaux email has been repeatedly quoted, so there's really no excuse for repeating a mere mistake. This makes me suspect you're deliberately lying or obfuscating.

eta: In fact in this post you state:

Good point. I interpret the comment:
"Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation."
as referring to:
"I didn't personally see molten steel at the World Trade Center site."
It is reasonable to interpret it as including the statement about the photos and videos.

 

[Christopher7]

Loizeaux has never claimed to have seen molten metal at GZ, so this is is either a very careless statement from you or an outright lie.

The statement is technically incorrect. My bad. As we discussed before, I cannot say for sure that Loizeaux saw the videos and photos although i believe he did.

The statement would be more correct if I said Peter Tully, Richard Riggs, Leslie Robertson¹, Alison Geyh, PhD and firefighters O'Toole and Fuchek among others saw molten steel.

1 At video 1:05:06 - camera 21:05:14:20
"a little river of steel"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzu1ODWrXo0&feature=player_embedded#at=3927

ETA: Yes it is reasonable to interpret it that way but it is also reasonable to interpret "Sorry I cannot provide personal confirmation." as not being able to say he saw it in person.


Bottom line, there are too many people who saw molten steel to second guess them all because of personal incredulity.

The RJ Lee Group study was very clear that iron melted during the event and later they say:
The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.

 

[beachnut]

The statement is technically incorrect. My bad. As we discussed before, I cannot say for sure that Loizeaux saw the videos and photos although i believe he did.

The statement would be more correct if I said Peter Tully, Richard Riggs, Leslie Robertson¹, Alison Geyh, PhD and firefighters O'Toole and Fuchek among others saw molten steel.

1 At video 1:05:06 - camera 21:05:14:20
"a little river of steel"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzu1ODWrXo0&feature=player_embedded#at=3927

Oops, Robertson never saw a river of steel. It is impossible. But if you insist on him seeing steel flowing after 911, then you have to take what he says...
Robertson refutes Gage.
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/The...ecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx

... you cherry pick what you need to support your delusions on 911, and fail to understand 911.

 

[oody]

You forgot the fires. Don't forget the fires.


My story's straight. Nineteen hijackers, three plane crashes, and fires exacerbated by damage to the waterlines needed to fight them. Now tell me what you think happened.

I mean four crashes! Oh, crap. There goes my bonus.

 

[funk de fino]

Yes. I have stated that all metals [including aluminum] glow at about the same colors but because of its high reflectivity, aluminum is silvery in daylight. This would hold true for work lights.

Prove it.

TFC, Those photos were taken in a dark room so they are irrelevant..

Cake and eat it eh?

 

[triforcharity]

Hey Chris7, want to try taking a stab at the first picture I posted?

What is the material Chris7?

There is a hint right in the picture. You must use that to decipher what it is. It's called evidence.

 

[Toke]

I am quite amazed to find signs of live truthers in Denmark.

Somebody have been out* and taped a rather nicely printed pamphlet to my front door, it is about a lecture by Niels Harrit on Wednesday in Østerbrohuset.
Only 30 DKK including a DVD.

The lecture is from 19.30-20.00.
The biggest room there seats 80 people and cost 300 Dkk pr. hour so I guess they are motivated by something else than immediate profit.

*OK, the weather is great now.

 

[Sunstealer]

Hey Chris7, want to try taking a stab at the first picture I posted?

What is the material Chris7?

There is a hint right in the picture. You must use that to decipher what it is. It's called evidence.

I think I know what it is. However, I'll leave the floor for C7 because he will obviously know seeing as he believes you can tell just by colour alone.

 

[triforcharity]

I had all the math done, and then I realized that you were being sarcastic!!

 

[MinnesotaBrant]

I ask again how does a posting that is this stupid go on for as many months as it has. Oh my god I checked the date and this discussion has indeed gone on for a month!

 

[TruthMakesPeace]

Tony Szamboti: NIST's computer model had unrealistic settings

Really? Point me please to the simulation of the collapse. I understand NIST didn't do that, but hey I could be wrong.

Professional Mechanical Engineer Tony Szamboti mentioned in his speech at the University of Hartford that NIST's experiment set the simulation so that WTC 7's steel thermal conductivity was zero. That means it did not dissipate any heat, as normal steel would, thus creating an artificially high temperature of steel.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-...why-nist-report-non-explanatory-tony-szamboti

He also said:

"Each floor of the WTC 7 was the size of a football field." (about 100 yards wide)
"Nobody does a failure analysis by not saving physical evidence. Nobody." (Steel evidence was removed))
"The destruction of evidence warrants an investigation in and of itself." (tampering with a Federal crime scene.)
"There were sheer studs on the girders" (reinforcements that the NIST computer model did not have)
"NIST's model did not allow for heat dissipation through the steel" (NIST said steel thermal conductivity was zero, unrealistic)
"Concrete has the same differential coefficient of expansion as steel" (NIST model did not, which tears concrete from steel)
"The vertical load capacity of a beam when it has a slight local buckling is generally not upset." (it still can support a floor)
"They didn't test this" (NIST did no experiments with physical steel, just computer models)
The beams had 6 times the strength needed to resist buckling.
"NIST is telling us that the entire interior collapsed before the exterior...ludicrous"
"The NIST report is unfortunately, thoroughly bogus."
"Fires could not have caused the collapse of this enormous building."
If we don't expose the criminals of 9/11, they may go on and commit other crimes.

 

[Oystein]

Professional Mechanical Engineer Tony Szamboti ...

Why do you start off your post with a lie? Szamboti is not a Professional Engineer.

 

[triforcharity]

"The destruction of evidence warrants an investigation in and of itself." (tampering with a Federal crime scene.)

Really? What crime was committed in 7WTC?

Please list them.

Thanks.

 

[Sabretooth]

Question from a layman...

They say that NIST set the "thermal conductivity of heat to zero", and that this means "once the beams have the heat, it cannot transfer or lose that heat" (this second quote is paraphrasing a bit from the video timestamp approx 28:35 to 28:50).

I'm confused. I'm under the impression that low thermal conductivity would just mean it's ability to soak in and transfer the heat would be slow, which, to me, makes sense for a steel beam. It's not like we're heating up a paperclip here. Heat does not dissipate quickly from steel (one only needs to hold their hand over a car engine 30 minutes after shutting off the car to see this fact in action).

How does this statement prove that NIST had their data set wrong? IMO, it sounds like someone throwing out a false statement loaded with big words to fool a layman into thinking this is a problem, when in reality it prove the NIST data is accurate and purposeful.

But, I'm not going to pretend my opinion is right...can anyone confirm or deny this?

 

[triforcharity]

I ask again how does a posting that is this stupid go on for as many months as it has. Oh my god I checked the date and this discussion has indeed gone on for a month!

Are you drunk? You haven't posted in this thread before either!!

 

[triforcharity]

Without having the original in unaltered context, it's hard to say.