Merged Core-led collapse and explosive demolition

[DGM]

No. I will be clarifying and simplifying the overall presentation in the current website.

The purpose is to develop methods so open and transparent that anyone can use the site as an educational resource (including the NIST if they want to see what their key mistakes are).

Then I guess we will see where it goes.


I had this crazy idea that people would want to work with real measurements rather than fake ones. I know that is not everyones cup of tea.

Have you made NIST aware of your work?

 

[The Doc]

I have still yet to see anyone explain how these "initiating explosives" survived the impact of the plane and its ensuing fires.

If you agree that the collapse initiated at the point of impact (which it did, there is no disputing this), it's not possible to conclude that explosives initiated this collapse. They simply would not have survived the impact of the plane.

You couldn't possibly hit the towers with precision high enough to miss these explosives either. There are too many variables at play.

 

[Major_Tom]

With over 50,000 hits combined between my 2 threads just on this forum, perhaps.

I have had days where my own website has received close to 10,000 hits. My guess is they are aware and they know where to find my website.


If you would feel better e-mailing them a link to the site, please feel free.


I think many people are aware that the 9/11 forum exists. Actually we get a lot of good PR from you guys, so thanks.

 

[DGM]

With over 50,000 hits combined between my 2 threads just on this forum, perhaps.

I have had days where my own website has received close to 10,000 hits. My guess is they are aware and they know where to find my website.
If you would feel better e-mailing them a link to the site, please feel free.

So you have not contacted NIST? Why are you guys so reluctant to contact the people you say are so wrong? Are you not interested in their input?

 

[Major_Tom]

So you have not contacted NIST? Why are you guys so reluctant to contact the people you say are so wrong? Are you not interested in their input?

Is that the best you have left? That you are incapable of verifying anything for yourselves so you need some authority figure to do it for you?

You have more than enough information to find the mistakes in the R Mackey descriptions of both collapse initiation and collapse progression, yet you never ask him to clarify or correct his own mistakes.

Yet your issue seems to be with people making real measurements.

Interesting.

 

[ergo]

Why are you guys so reluctant to contact the people you say are so wrong?

Um, you're unaware that NIST was contacted, and numerous questions and critiques were submitted after they released their draft reports?

How is it that you're unaware of this?

 

[000063]

Um, you're unaware that NIST was contacted, and numerous questions and critiques were submitted after they released their draft reports?

How is it that you're unaware of this?

No, you, personally, contacting these people to tell them about their mistakes.

 

[Major_Tom]

I have informed R Mackey and yourselves of your own mistakes concerning WTC1. I don't see any corrections being made here. Why not?

Haven't I contacted all of you personally? Why not just re-evaluate WTC1 with corrected data and admit your mistakes?


Instead, my posts were removed from this thread.

 

[DGM]

Is that the best you have left? That you are incapable of verifying anything for yourselves so you need some authority figure to do it for you?

You have more than enough information to find the mistakes in the R Mackey descriptions of both collapse initiation and collapse progression, yet you never ask him to clarify or correct his own mistakes.

Yet your issue seems to be with people making real measurements.

Interesting.

Wow! settle down. You are not claiming your research is better and more accurate than NIST? Why are you messing with us? Go to the source.

I'm trying to encourage you to go the scientific route with your work. In science if you disagree with someones findings you confront them and show how your work is better.

What do you expect to achieve by presenting your work on obscure web sites? In short "grow a pair" and confront the experts.

 

[DGM]

Um, you're unaware that NIST was contacted, and numerous questions and critiques were submitted after they released their draft reports?

How is it that you're unaware of this?

I am aware of this. Concerns were also addressed in the final reports. What's your point?

 

[ergo]

I am aware of this. Concerns were also addressed in the final reports. What's your point?

If you're aware of it, then you didn't need to ask this:

Why are you guys so reluctant to contact the people you say are so wrong?

 

[DGM]

If you're aware of it, then you didn't need to ask this:

So the problem is you did not like the answers?

So publish and show they're wrong.

What questions did you feel they did not answer sufficiently?


Major Toms questions are all of the technical nature. Asking for clarification in these instances would be the correct path.

Jumping up and down and hoping someone will notice.............not so much.

It's like having someone bully you so you beat-up their sister.

 

[Major_Tom]

Wow! settle down. You are not claiming your research is better and more accurate than NIST? Why are you messing with us? Go to the source.

I'm trying to encourage you to go the scientific route with your work. In science if you disagree with someones findings you confront them and show how your work is better.

What do you expect to achieve by presenting your work on obscure web sites? In short "grow a pair" and confront the experts.

Yes. wrt the early motion of WTC1, much, much better.

You would have to be blind not to see that by now.


I am interested in exposing the way you do research on this forum.

I am also interested in showing more reasonable minds what passes for "professionalism " in the NIST reports.


In that sense, much of my work is already prepared. The mistakes with WTC1 are so big that my work becomes pretty easy. The bigger the mistake, the easier it is for me. WTC1 is becoming a cake walk thanks to all the times people have put both feet in their mouths in this forum and the gaping mistakes within the NIST description of early motion.

I would have to hire a personal secretary just to collect the core examples of more prominent posters pretending to know what they are talking about in this forum. So in that respect I have all I need.

 

[Major_Tom]

It's like having someone bully you so you beat-up their sister.

Are we bullying you to much? Or would you represent the sister in that example?

 

[beachnut]

Yes. wrt the early motion of WTC1, much, much better.

Where can we see this? What Journal, and what is your engineering school in your bio on that paper, in what journal. Where is your work in the real world? Journal?

You would have to be blind not to see that by now.

You have no published work to compare to NIST, so no one is blind, you have nothing to see in the real world, you have no evidence, you have nothing to support your delusion of explosives demolition.

I am interested in exposing the way you do research on this forum.

Not so, you presented no real work to back this up. If you did it would be in single paper. Where is your work?

I am also interested in showing more reasonable minds what passes for "professionalism " in the NIST reports.

NIST published their work, when will you professionally publish your engineering work? What engineering school did you graduate from? Where is your professional background? Attacking NIST based on your fantasy of CD is not professional, it is the sign of desperation.

In that sense, much of my work is already prepared. The mistakes with WTC1 are so big that my work becomes pretty easy. The bigger the mistake, the easier it is for me. WTC1 is becoming a cake walk thanks to all the times people have put both feet in their mouths in this forum and the gaping mistakes within the NIST description of early motion.

Attacking NIST proves you lack professionalism, and the lack of published work is more proof you have no engineering analysis to present in a single integrated form. The gravity collapse of the WTC. The OP is nonsense, and with the core standing over 60 floors, make the thread title more nonsensical the delusional "explosive demolition" ending.

Do you support the explosive demolition fantasy of ergo? Got some evidence or talk attacking NIST. Bet you can't stop attacking NIST, and I bet you will never publish a completed work to back up any of your failed claims in this post.

 

[DGM]

Yes. wrt the early motion of WTC1, much, much better.

You would have to be blind not to see that by now.


I am interested in exposing the way you do research on this forum.

I am also interested in showing more reasonable minds what passes for "professionalism " in the NIST reports..


In that sense, much of my work is already prepared. The mistakes with WTC1 are so big that my work becomes pretty easy. The bigger the mistake, the easier it is for me. WTC1 is becoming a cake walk thanks to all the times people have put both feet in their mouths in this forum and the gaping mistakes within the NIST description of early motion.

I would have to hire a personal secretary just to collect the core examples of more prominent posters pretending to know what they are talking about in this forum. So in that respect I have all I need.

Your whole post seems to suggest that "pwning" us is what your work is all about. Why would you not want to confront NIST? You say your work is better. Wouldn't it be the ultimate slap in our faces when you force them to print retractions. I also suspect this could make you a whole boat load of money. Just think, you would be the one that discredited a multi-million dollar study. You could name your price at nearly every engineering firm in the world.

So, are you sure you're right?

Are we bullying you to much? Or would you represent the sister in that example?

The metaphor (not unsurprisingly) flew over your head. Or did it (and it touched too close to home)?

 

[Clayton Moore]

My proof is basically that nothing can cause such complete destruction by falling/collapsing onto itself. Anyone who argues otherwise with such assertiveness as shown here and other forums does so with an non-American agenda. Those posters are disingenuous in that they want to shut down debate with misdirection.

Interjection of post after post discussing fictitious raging steel weakening fires and other minutiae while these images show total destruction is certainly telling.

http://www.jrbriggs.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Biot652PhotoA1.jpg

http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/12/13/alg_wtc_smoke.jpg

 

[beachnut]

My proof is basically that nothing can cause such complete destruction by falling/collapsing onto itself.http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/12/13/alg_wtc_smoke.jpg

Based on your ignorance of physics. Your proof consists of lack of knowledge, and is wrong.

The energy available for collapse is given by E=mgh.

For each tower the energy to destroy by gravity was greater than 130 2,000 pound bombs.

Your proof becomes a delusion you have due to the lack of knowledge in physics. You failed and don't care to learn how to do physics, so you make up lies.


What numbers do you have for the available energy in each tower; hint E=mgh; good luck, can you do math?

 

[000063]

My proof is basically that nothing can cause such complete destruction by falling/collapsing onto itself.

That's not "proof", that's an unsupported assertion. There are plenty of engineers who would readily disagree with you.

Anyone who argues otherwise with such assertiveness as shown here and other forums does so with an non-American agenda.

No True Scotsman, poisoning the well.

Those posters are disingenuous in that they want to shut down debate with misdirection.

The only other guy on your side in this thread just keeps repeating what is said to him like an unoriginal child.

Interjection of post after post discussing fictitious raging steel weakening fires and other minutiae while these images show total destruction is certainly telling.

1. The plane impacts also helped with the weakening.
2. The weakened steel caused a collapse.
3. The smoke and fires were clearly visible for thousands of people on the ground and many, many videos of the towers.
4. WTC fall down go boom.
5. Your argument basically just said you want to jump straight to the conclusion and ignore the "minutae", also known as evidence.

 

[beachnut]

I am impressed, this is all your evidence to support the Official george bush theory about 9/11 ?

.

I don't know how you can ignore the evidence available showing 19 terrorists did 911, but you do it without hesitation or purpose of evasion; you are the perfect 911 truth movement follower.
RADAR, FDR, physics, fire, 19 terrorists, UBL, witnesses, last statements by crew on aircraft just before death, CVRs, ATC tapes, crashed aircraft, video, and more, which you ignore so you can make up failed claims and post off topic in desperation to keep your fantasy alive with talk of conspiracy push by your love of Bush. How does your failure to figure out 911 dovetail with a delusion of explosives demolition? Where is your evidence for this thread, I don't need evidence because I know explosives were not used, you are the person failing to support the explosives demolition claims, you have to come up with the evidence, and since you can't, you failed to support the claim.