Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[gumboot]

The logic is that: Without the demonisation of people like Avery and [forename] Jones, hyprocrites like you wouldn't be able to dismiss the questions we are asking so easily.

You've never asked any questions, and I don't "demonise" anyone. And please back up your claim that I'm a hypocrite. You have an atrocious record of personalising things without justification... back up your accusation or I'll report it.

And i mean real questions like what Cheney did that day, what NORAD did (and no, you didn't answer these questions - you simply can't answer them) and all the people not questioned by the commission.

All of these questions have been answered thoroughly. The problem is people like you just don't like the answers. Sorry, but reality doesn't conform to your fantasy, you have to conform to reality. Don't like it? Tough.

 

[beachnut]

No, i didn't. I said that nothing short of a new investigation can cure me from my curiosity about what really happened on 9/11. After all i've seen from 2001-2008.

[beachnut mode]
How can anybody be so wrong?
[/beachnut mode]

The 7th year you have no clue what it took minutes for the passengers of flight 93 to figure out. 9/11.

You can't formulate a single rational question. Therefore, there is no need for a new investigation. An investigation answers who, what, where and how. You have zero questions, because you have no real knowledge or comprehension of what happen on 9/11 even when it is spoon fed to you for 6 years.

Your lack of comprehension does not require a new investigation, it requires you to acquire the requisite skills in understanding what happen on 9/11. It takes action on your part which apparently is not a skill of most in 9/11 truth.

You have no questions, there is no need for a new investigation; that is what you said in the post. You are dismissed.

 

[Childlike Empress]

OK folks, maybe gumboot isn't a hypocrite and beachnut isn't a robot. Prove it to me. I want you to contact Casazza and Edmonds, i want you to demand evidence to their claims that they've compiled a list of people who had experienced stuff relevant to the 9/11 investigations and were dismissed by the 9/11 commission without reaction. If you can annoy Avery and Gage, you can annoy these folks to. Please report.

And R., even the best investigation done today, that of the collapse of the buildings by NIST, isn't finished. We still wait for their report on WTC7.

 

[R.Mackey]

OK folks, maybe gumboot isn't a hypocrite and beachnut isn't a robot. Prove it to me.

I thought I asked everyone to keep this thread respectful?

I want you to contact Cazzaca and Edmonds, i want you to demand evidence to their claims that they've compiled a list of people who had experienced stuff relevant to the 9/11 investigations and were dismissed. If you can annoy Avery and Gage, you can annoy these folks to. Please report.

We do demand evidence from them. It hasn't been provided. I'm afraid the next move is theirs. The whistle has not yet been blown, ergo, there are no whistleblowers. All they have are "potential whistleblowers." This is not in any way compelling.

And R., even the best investigation done today, that of the the collapse of the buildings by NIST, isn't finished. We still wait for theit report on WTC7.

Indeed we do, but you understand that it is an engineering report, and unlikely to have any bearing on the criminal investigation, correct? That seemed to be the focus of your question above, though I repeat my request for you to state it clearly.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

OK folks, maybe gumboot isn't a hypocrite and beachnut isn't a robot. Prove it to me.

You know that's not how it works. You're smarter than that.

 

[Childlike Empress]

We do demand evidence from them. It hasn't been provided. I'm afraid the next move is theirs. The whistle has not yet been blown, ergo, there are no whistleblowers. All they have are "potential whistleblowers." This is not in any way compelling.

No, you don't, You don't flood them with emails, you don't focus on them and question their organisations like you you do with laughable CIT and PFT. You mostly ignore this stuff. You don't harrass Peter Dale Scott, Peter Phillips or even Ray McGovern (i would love to see the video).

edit: YOU are not harrassing anyone, R., but the collective mind of JREF/CT does. /edit

 

[gumboot]

OK folks, maybe gumboot isn't a hypocrite and beachnut isn't a robot.

I have reported this.

 

[beachnut]

edit: YOU are not harrassing anyone, R., but the collective mind of JREF/CT does. /edit

Cool. you called people here "Fachidioten", and then edited out the "Specialist idiots". You are quick. (translation, you edited quick enough to avoid a the yellow stuff -- yep (yes) i saw your reason, sorry, I understand your posts better than you do)

I am not harassing you, I want the "ample evidence" you have to demand an investigation. (show me the evidence you have to demand a new investigation)


Ironic, even the terrorist have to debunk 9/11 "truth" (false) ideas. (UBL's terrorist group are debunking ideas spread by 9/11 truth!)

They must not like lies. (The terrorist must not like to tell lies)


The terrorist turn out to be more into truth, than 9/11 "truth". (The terrorist are more truthful than 9/11 truth!)

What is the smart kid German term for that? I want to learn. (What is the smart-alecky term for the terrorist being more truthful than 9/11 truth; as in ironic or some other term similar, in the same vein as your last smart-alecky word; the one you edited out)

 

[Childlike Empress]

Cool. you called people here "Fachidioten", and then edited out the "Specialist idiots". You are quick.

I am not harassing you, I want the "ample evidence" you have to demand an investigation. Ironic, even the terrorist have to debunk 9/11 "truth" (false) ideas. They must not like lies. The terrorist turn out to be more into truth, than 9/11 "truth". What is the smart kid German term for that? I want to learn.

I'm not able to even understand your posts and that has nothing to do with language skills. If "beachnut" is a role and you think you can afford something by "confronting truthers" with that attitude, i just don't get it. I just don't get the fun of it. For me, your postings are robotlike and i usually read over them (but fenthom an intelligent, for me undecryptanable (is that a word) person behind it)

The reason why i deleted the "Fachidiot"-Statement is contained in the post. R.'s attitude is far above your's or gumboot's.

The smart german kids label for your posts may be "verpeilt".

 

[psikeyhackr]

@GregoryUrich

Would you take a look at core column 707?

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/cc707

Particularly from A33 to A36.

What sense does that make?

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

Err... that's quite a paradox. Presumably, you demand a new investigation to answer your questions about 9/11, but... if no answers to the questions you have could stop you from demanding a new investigation, then why would the potential answers given by said new investigation stop you from demanding yet another investigation?

How did you come up with that supposed quote by me? I haven't been talking about a new investigation. If you click the link back it doesn't say that. What kind of BS is this?

psik

 

[Finnegan]

How did you come up with that supposed quote by me? I haven't been talking about a new investigation. If you click the link back it doesn't say that. What kind of BS is this?

psik

Cl1mh4224rd was quoting Childlike Empress (#447) and must have accidentally added your name.

 

[DGM]

@GregoryUrich

Would you take a look at core column 707?

http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/cc707

Particularly from A33 to A36.

What sense does that make?

psik

They look like column transition splices. (transition from wide flange to box) You need a placement detail to see their actual locations.

 

[psikeyhackr]

You still haven't addressed my question of why you need these specific numbers.

There was an experiment conducted on a comet a few year ago where a projectile impacted the comet and probe monitored the result and the data was sent back to Earth. On the basis of that data it was possible to figure out things about the comet.

With this WTC impact the situation is different. We are talking about the collision of two KNOWN objects. Or at least two objects that should be KNOWN. Since the WTC was man made and had to be documented to be constructed there should not be any problem with finding and telling EVERYONE that information in a comprehensible manner.

Frank Greening's paper talks about E1 which is supposed to be the energy needed to crush one level of the WTC. But how much weight did the 105th level of the tower have to hold? How much weight did the 50th level of the tower have to hold? How much weight did the 10th level of the tower have to hold? Didn't the designers have to figure out how much steel to put on each level? Isn't the energy necessary to crush each of those levels going to be different? So what is Greening doing using a constant to analyze the collapse?

This is also relevant to the fires heating the steel. How much steel had to be heated on 80, 81 and 82 of the south tower to weaken in 56 minutes? So why aren't we told the quantity of steel?

The NIST report admits the south tower oscillated for four minutes after impact. It is the steel that gave the building its springiness but the mass of the concrete would affect the oscillation.

So why are we supposed to accept an analysis without transparent data about what was analyzed when we are dealing with a documented man made object?

psik

 

[psikeyhackr]

They look like column transition splices. (transition from wide flange to box) You need a placement detail to see their actual locations.

The A33 and A36 are supposed to indicate the positions of the columns. In this case saying that the heavier column is on top of the lighter column. I was directing the question at someone who actually knew something.

psik

 

[DGM]

The A33 and A36 are supposed to indicate the positions of the columns. In this case saying that the heavier column is on top of the lighter column. I was directing the question at someone who actually knew something.

psik

I suppose you think those details are complete. The column would be useless if they were.

The steel wide flange I-beams that comprise a portion of the column sections have standard dimensions. The data for most of those column sections is collected in this table. Note that a slight translation is needed to go from the NIST naming convention to the table. For example, the section 14WF665F36 can be located in the first row of the steel wide flange i beams table which is labeled as W14x665. At this time, the table does not cover all of the wide flange beam sections found in the columns.

(shakes head)

Who doesn't know something?

 

[Alt+F4]

The people who are presenting us the "official story" are proven war criminals and mass murderers.

Exactly how many people did the members of the 9/11 Commission murder? You should choose your words more wisely.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How did you come up with that supposed quote by me? I haven't been talking about a new investigation. If you click the link back it doesn't say that. What kind of BS is this?

Whoops. I originally had two quotes I wanted to respond to. The first was yours, the second was CE's. I decided yours wasn't worth a response, but, when deleting it, accidentally left the opening quote tag from yours.

My reply was directed at Childlike Empress.

 

[boloboffin]

I would like to point out that the "how much did each floor weigh" error is a basic one that is continually made in the conspiracy theories. They are thinking about this as Mass vs. Mass. The actual way to understand the fall of the towers is Load vs. Structure.

The mass of the upper sections normally dealt loads to the structure below in a static way. They weren't in motion. As designed, the structure below could redistribute those loads without falling.

When that upper mass gained momentum and began exerting dynamic loads, the structure below failed. It had to fail. The dynamic loads coming from the upper mass in a gravitational acceleration were much, much larger than the structure below could redistribute. The calculations by many scientists have shown that these dynamic loads were quickly an order of magnitude greater than the structure below could redistribute.

My growing favorite illustration of this is the picture to the left of this post. When you tap a nail into wood, it stands. It is a simple structure with a single joint - the connection of the nail to the wood (which is friction, correct?).

You can rest the hammer head onto the nail, and it will not destroy the structure. This is a static load. The nail-wood structure can easily redistribute this static load and support the hammer.

When you then raise the hammer and swing it down onto the nail squarely, the dynamic load delivered to the nail destroys this structure. It does not destroy the nail. It does not destroy the hammer. It does not destroy the wood. The dynamic load overwhelms this simple nail-wood structure, and since each of these elements are designed to work the way they do, the hammer drives the nail deeper into the surface of the wood.

The WTC towers were very complex structures, but the result is the same. When a structure's ability to redistribute a load is overwhelmed, the structure will - must -did fail. The dynamic forces in the WTC towers (all three of them) were so great that you can eliminate all the force leaving the system with mass falling away, you can eliminate all the force necessary to shatter the concrete into every particulate size imaginable, and still the dynamic force left is enough to overwhelm any of the structure below.

It is not Mass vs. Mass. It is Load vs. Structure.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I would like to point out that the "how much did each floor weigh" error is a basic one that is continually made in the conspiracy theories. They are thinking about this as Mass vs. Mass. The actual way to understand the fall of the towers is Load vs. Structure.

The mass of the upper sections normally dealt loads to the structure below in a static way. They weren't in motion. As designed, the structure below could redistribute those loads without falling.

When that upper mass gained momentum and began exerting dynamic loads, the structure below failed. It had to fail.

But you don't get more structure without more mass. They weren't just throwing steel in there arbitrarily. So if you know how much more steel is on the 50th floor than on the 90th floor then you have an idea how much STRONGER it had to be. Greening admits that it takes the energy, E1, to bend the steel on a level. He does not explain how he can assume the same amount of energy will collapse any and every level of the the building. How much weight of steel did the 10th floor have to support compared to the 90th? Wouldn't it take more energy to destroy?

People try to convince us that physics suddenly becomes magic because it goes from static to dynamic. But that E1 has to come from the kinetic of the top falling so every level should make it slow down. So if it takes more energy per level coming down the building.....

Oh, but Greening says it's the same. But how is that possible?

Damn we don't have a table telling us the quantity of steel on each level so we can get an idea of how strong each level was.

psik