Belz...
Fiend God
Loose Change - Part II
- Thread starter Kiwiwriter
- Start date
- Status
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Chucksheen and other LC newcomers: you can get the gist of what goes on here by reading the posts linked in the index I made. Download it here: http://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=108756
I did this for you all. No more excuses about the length of this thread.
I did this for you all. No more excuses about the length of this thread.
XXX
Thinker
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 151
I'm sure Jimmy has no intention of ever giving out that 1,000,000. Just take a look at the end of his rules section...
"The proof will be subject to verification by a scientific panel of PHD engineers, physicists, and lawyers."
Just wait until those scientific lawyers get through with you. I'm sure none of them will be willing to verify the proof.
What the hell does that mean?
Can't you think for yourself? Can't you debate without always refering to this trash? Damn, this site is like a drug to you isn't it?
If you have any specific question you'd like to adress about 9/11 please tell us.
As Admin:
Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!
Can I suggest that if the major participants are happy with the idea that I close this thread and you start a new one? No one in their right mind is going to wade through 120+ pages!
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
this thread is a catch-all for 911 discussion. In my signature there's a link to my critique of the NY 911truth.org's literature.
What would you like to discuss, Sylvia?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1661566#post1661566
I never read the NIST report. Probably won't. The NOVA link was an article written on the building construction and not a show. I'll try to look it up before I leave for weekend. It's WAY back in this thread. This thread also had links that dicussed how the supports of the floors worked and how the top section coming apart probably affected the support on the floors below causing less resistance. This was not a concrete fortress. It was a new design more like a steel and glass shell with heavy floors and supports covering areas of the building. LC forum concentrates so much time on how the buildings fell and not enough on how the building was designed in the first place. Plus, most buildings that have collapsed due to non-demo were found later to have either problems with the design, materials used, and factors with things added to the building later that were not figured in. ie: mall that collapsed from air units that were not figured in to support beams killing hundreds. Just because it was designed to withstand something, doesn't mean it will. Too many variables for it to be fullproof. These are things we OR the government will never know. I'm guessing there are things they still can't figure out. Yes, good math would help on the fall, but people will still argue over seconds unless it's groundbreaking. If that amount of material is falling into itself, it has no where to go but OUT in EVERY direction. I still don't understand what you think it SHOULD do, or what you are getting at with the footprint. Maybe a bad analogy or missing the point, but look at a meteor crater. They are usually almost perfect circles with huge rocks scattered in every direction even though they didn't fall straight down. A physics major can jump on all that.
I see stew already jumping on the math part.
I never read the NIST report. Probably won't. The NOVA link was an article written on the building construction and not a show. I'll try to look it up before I leave for weekend. It's WAY back in this thread. This thread also had links that dicussed how the supports of the floors worked and how the top section coming apart probably affected the support on the floors below causing less resistance. This was not a concrete fortress. It was a new design more like a steel and glass shell with heavy floors and supports covering areas of the building. LC forum concentrates so much time on how the buildings fell and not enough on how the building was designed in the first place. Plus, most buildings that have collapsed due to non-demo were found later to have either problems with the design, materials used, and factors with things added to the building later that were not figured in. ie: mall that collapsed from air units that were not figured in to support beams killing hundreds. Just because it was designed to withstand something, doesn't mean it will. Too many variables for it to be fullproof. These are things we OR the government will never know. I'm guessing there are things they still can't figure out. Yes, good math would help on the fall, but people will still argue over seconds unless it's groundbreaking. If that amount of material is falling into itself, it has no where to go but OUT in EVERY direction. I still don't understand what you think it SHOULD do, or what you are getting at with the footprint. Maybe a bad analogy or missing the point, but look at a meteor crater. They are usually almost perfect circles with huge rocks scattered in every direction even though they didn't fall straight down. A physics major can jump on all that.
I see stew already jumping on the math part.
Last edited:
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
This is where I got the links for Mutton-Head. Found 'em within ten minutes. Thanks, Gravy.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
W00t! We earned a v2.0! errr... I mean, yes, works for me.
Shrinker
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2004
- Messages
- 1,618
Seems like a reasonable idea but a bit mean on the newcomers, especially Mutton-Head, who's just getting going. Can his posts and the responses be split into a new thread? Likewise with chucksheen's keyboard thumpings.
Well, gee. Why doesn't he just send it to Peter Rinaldi, who "recalls seeing five stories of the North Tower, with layers of floor, rug, cement, and steel compressed into 2 feet, looking like soil stratum."
Others also personally witnessed floors compressed into each other. This isn't just stuff people made up -- it's based on evidence recovered from the site. NIST and other actual scientists and engineers didn't limit themselves to what they could Google. They did real live investigations, talked to actual people, inspected actual steel, extensively modeled on computers designed for that purpose. You pathetic terrorist supporters with your compression artifacts and '9.8 m/s/s give or take an order of magnitude' grade-school physics aren't dog crap on the shoes of real investigators.
I think this is a good idea. Pick a place back a couple of pages where we're all making Illuminati jokes to each other and split it there, please.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 16,532
I protest!
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
[whine]But we haven't even reached 5000 posts, yet![/whine]
I like Shrinker's idea of a split at a point that incorporates newcomers' contributions, and perhaps an OP that links back to this thread as a sort of archive.
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 270
Last remarks.... For now
First I want to clarify a few things about me. I’m not a Holocaust denier, I don’t believe or care if Oswald had co-conspirators, don’t buy Pearl Harbor conspiracy, faked lunar landing, etc. So please don’t lump all of us into “CTers” (It took me a while to figure out what that stood for.) Right now, I’m just talking science/physics. As I said, a step at a time. On CSI, the first thing they would do, is examine the crime scene. I think you all would agree, the WTC was a crime scene. I’m not talking conspiracy now. I want to know what occurred from the time the first plane hit, to the time the last tower fell. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in who was involved. Arabs or not. UFOs or not.
Some of your comments that jump out at me.
“NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?
If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:”
In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.
the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.
Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."
I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide. It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.” Yes, I know of Dr. Greening. I don’t think much of his report. There is a big consensus that he over exaggerated the mass of the towers. If you search, I think you’ll find that even he admits this.
Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?
Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.
“the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.”I’m sorry, but this statement really seems to show a large amount of blind faith. Very non-skeptical.
To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.
Ignore anybody talking about missiles shooting out of planes, swapping planes, etc. They are no my brethren.
Oh and thanks to Shrinker. Quite often in online debates, I use the name “Mutton-Head.” Because at some point somebody will say, “Listen here Mutton-Head..” And no matter how polite they are, they sound abusive and insulting. So you win the prize Shrinker.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
First I want to clarify a few things about me. I’m not a Holocaust denier, I don’t believe or care if Oswald had co-conspirators, don’t buy Pearl Harbor conspiracy, faked lunar landing, etc. So please don’t lump all of us into “CTers” (It took me a while to figure out what that stood for.) Right now, I’m just talking science/physics. As I said, a step at a time. On CSI, the first thing they would do, is examine the crime scene. I think you all would agree, the WTC was a crime scene. I’m not talking conspiracy now. I want to know what occurred from the time the first plane hit, to the time the last tower fell. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in who was involved. Arabs or not. UFOs or not.
Some of your comments that jump out at me.
“NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?
If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:”
In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.
the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.
Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."
I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide. It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.” Yes, I know of Dr. Greening. I don’t think much of his report. There is a big consensus that he over exaggerated the mass of the towers. If you search, I think you’ll find that even he admits this.
Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?
Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.
“the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.”I’m sorry, but this statement really seems to show a large amount of blind faith. Very non-skeptical.
To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.
Ignore anybody talking about missiles shooting out of planes, swapping planes, etc. They are no my brethren.
Oh and thanks to Shrinker. Quite often in online debates, I use the name “Mutton-Head.” Because at some point somebody will say, “Listen here Mutton-Head..” And no matter how polite they are, they sound abusive and insulting. So you win the prize Shrinker.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
On what are you basing your belief?
If it's science, then provide the numbers, as other have stated.
If it's intuition, then your intuition has to be backed by experience. How many ruins of structures the size of the WTC have you studied? Are you a structural engineer?
If the answer is just "your gut feeling", then I'm afraid this isn't much.
Mutton-Head
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 270
Sorry, ignore my last reply. Error.
First I want to clarify a few things about me. I’m not a Holocaust denier, I don’t believe or care if Oswald had co-conspirators, don’t buy Pearl Harbor conspiracy, faked lunar landing, etc. So please don’t lump all of us into “CTers” (It took me a while to figure out what that stood for.) Right now, I’m just talking science/physics. As I said, a step at a time. On CSI, the first thing they would do, is examine the crime scene. I think you all would agree, the WTC was a crime scene. I’m not talking conspiracy now. I want to know what occurred from the time the first plane hit, to the time the last tower fell. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in who was involved. Arabs or not. UFOs or not.
Some of your comments that jump out at me.
“NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?
If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:”
In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.
the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."
I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide. It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.” Yes, I know of Dr. Greening. I don’t think much of his report. There is a big consensus that he over exaggerated the mass of the towers. If you search, I think you’ll find that even he admits this.
Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?
Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.
“the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.”I’m sorry, but this statement really seems to show a large amount of blind faith. Very non-skeptical.
To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.
Ignore anybody talking about missiles shooting out of planes, swapping planes, etc. They are no my brethren.
As for the firemen, do a search for interviews with them. (If you’re interested.) I was shocked at the number of on camera interviews where the firemen say they heard explosions, “boom boom boom boom boom.” (Gestures with his hand from top to bottom with each “Boom.”) Describing it like controlled demolition. Written interviews where firemen say they were told by superiors not to discuss explosions they say they saw. A fireman who stormed out of NIST testimony because they would not listen to his claims of explosions. Here is my prediction. In a year or two or so, these firemen are going to start coming out openly in the main-stream news with these stories. That’s my prediction. If I’m wrong, you can all go “Na na na na na,” to me. (Just like the Beatles, “Hey Jude.)
Oh and thanks to Shrinker. Quite often in online debates, I use the name “Mutton-Head.” Because at some point somebody will say, “Listen here Mutton-Head..” And no matter how polite they are, they sound abusive and insulting. So you win the prize Shrinker.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
First I want to clarify a few things about me. I’m not a Holocaust denier, I don’t believe or care if Oswald had co-conspirators, don’t buy Pearl Harbor conspiracy, faked lunar landing, etc. So please don’t lump all of us into “CTers” (It took me a while to figure out what that stood for.) Right now, I’m just talking science/physics. As I said, a step at a time. On CSI, the first thing they would do, is examine the crime scene. I think you all would agree, the WTC was a crime scene. I’m not talking conspiracy now. I want to know what occurred from the time the first plane hit, to the time the last tower fell. Right now, I have absolutely no interest in who was involved. Arabs or not. UFOs or not.
Some of your comments that jump out at me.
“NIST used finite element analysis to arrive at their conclusions. Do you know what that is?
If you'd like to look at some math that's a little more accessible, I suggest you look at Dr. Frank Greening's work. Links to his papers can be found here:”
In order to determine the cause of collapse, the investigators got off their asses, and looked at real evidence on-site. With the help of people who know what to look for, they found physical clues to the cause of the collapse. They failed to find clues for the alternative theories.
the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.Prove it. Otherwise it is no different than saying, "There is an invisible, heatless fire-breathing, flying dragon in my garage."
I find it interesting, once again, that you are expecting exact numbers from me, that the NIST did not provide. It’s like a case of “My expert is smarter than your expert.” Yes, I know of Dr. Greening. I don’t think much of his report. There is a big consensus that he over exaggerated the mass of the towers. If you search, I think you’ll find that even he admits this.
Here is my question to the people convinced by Dr. Greening’s paper: Have you read and compared Dr. Stephen Jones’ paper also? Why do you favor Greening over Jones?
Why do you think your experts are better than my experts? You appear to not be exercising the same level of skepticism to your own beliefs.
“the people doing the work are professionals, whose knowledge in the field is recognized by other professionals in the field, etc.”I’m sorry, but this statement really seems to show a large amount of blind faith. Very non-skeptical.
To everyone who has read studied the NIST, or the Dr. Greening report, or the Nova special….. Take a few hours, (or how ever much time you spent looking at the preceding) and read Dr. Steven Jones’ paper. Unless you only want to look at things that reinforce your already formed opinion.
Ignore anybody talking about missiles shooting out of planes, swapping planes, etc. They are no my brethren.
As for the firemen, do a search for interviews with them. (If you’re interested.) I was shocked at the number of on camera interviews where the firemen say they heard explosions, “boom boom boom boom boom.” (Gestures with his hand from top to bottom with each “Boom.”) Describing it like controlled demolition. Written interviews where firemen say they were told by superiors not to discuss explosions they say they saw. A fireman who stormed out of NIST testimony because they would not listen to his claims of explosions. Here is my prediction. In a year or two or so, these firemen are going to start coming out openly in the main-stream news with these stories. That’s my prediction. If I’m wrong, you can all go “Na na na na na,” to me. (Just like the Beatles, “Hey Jude.)
Oh and thanks to Shrinker. Quite often in online debates, I use the name “Mutton-Head.” Because at some point somebody will say, “Listen here Mutton-Head..” And no matter how polite they are, they sound abusive and insulting. So you win the prize Shrinker.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Give me a sensible break point and I'll split from that point into a "part 2".
- Status