Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It
- Thread starter R.Mackey
- Start date
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
What decade are you in?
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
He's working on his defense of the most recent NIST WTC 7 report.
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
I guess you missed the part where I said HUMAN READABLE.
The SAP data requires a computer program that costs $2000. If the NIST is going to supply us with a 10,000 page report what should be so difficult about a table with 232 numbers specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level. How is it they manage not to do a collapse or impact analysis on the basis of that data when by their own admission the distribution of weight information is necessary?
Why do so many people make excuses for the NIST anyway?
Some people say that Gregory Urich's spreadsheet is the best readable data but he admits that his perimeter column data is interpolated. Why should we tolerate interpolated data when $20,000,000 and 3 years were spent on this incident?
Why did they even create a report about suspended ceilings? I only found that because of the search I did for "center of mass". I was expecting them to say something about the center of mass of the tilted top portion of the south tower at the start of the collapse. But NO! They don't mention the center of mass or center of gravity of the top 25% of the building that tilted 20 degrees but somehow did not fall down the side. And these people call themselves "world renowned experts" on building collapses. ROFL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWN7T5ryljU
psik
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
It's called SARCASM.
I think this entire WTC business should have been resolved within a year and no one should believe airliners could do that. I built my first computer in 1978, 2 mhz 8080.
psik
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
So then your gripe is not that the data isn't there, but that NIST didn't place the particular information you are looking for in the report?
I'd say that's pretty much a non-argument.
If they had the information in the data base then they would have the information to do the necessary calculations.
File an FOIA with NIST. Maybe you can get the information in table form.
Ted Olson-Did he lie or was he duped??
Did Ted Olson receive calls from his wife Barbra Olsen? According to Mr Olson he received two phone calls from his wife who was aboard Flight 77 (the plane that hit the Pentagon).
In various interviews, Olson himself has changed his story from she rang on an airphone to from her cell phone. Often these were interviews shown the same day.
According to Mr Olson, his wife wanted to know what she should tell the pilot to do, and she described her hijackers as having box cutters, and knives.
The 9/11 Commission endorsed Olson's story and timed the phone calls as having ocurred at sometime between 9.16 and 9.26. They did not specify which type of phone Mrs Olson had used, they did specify that these calls had been made.
That conclusion however,was starkly contradicted by the evidence about phone calls made from the four hijacked airliners presented by the US Government in 2006 at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. This government document attrbuted none of the phonecalls to her,which had previously been attributed by the 9/11 Report. This report says instead that the four calls attributed to Mrs Olson were from 'unkown callers'. The only call attributed to Barbara Olson was an 'unconnected call' to the Department of Justice, which was said to be attempted at "9.18.58" and to have lasted "0 seconds"
The federal government itself presented evidence in a court of law, accordingly,that contradicted Ted Olson's story, regardless of whether the calls were supposedly made from a cell phone or an onboard phone.
So did Ted Olson lie about receiving phone calls from his wife? And why were such contradictions not investigated, but allowed to be included in The Official 9/11 Report?
Did Ted Olson receive calls from his wife Barbra Olsen? According to Mr Olson he received two phone calls from his wife who was aboard Flight 77 (the plane that hit the Pentagon). In various interviews, Olson himself has changed his story from she rang on an airphone to from her cell phone. Often these were interviews shown the same day.
According to Mr Olson, his wife wanted to know what she should tell the pilot to do, and she described her hijackers as having box cutters, and knives.
The 9/11 Commission endorsed Olson's story and timed the phone calls as having ocurred at sometime between 9.16 and 9.26. They did not specify which type of phone Mrs Olson had used, they did specify that these calls had been made.
That conclusion however,was starkly contradicted by the evidence about phone calls made from the four hijacked airliners presented by the US Government in 2006 at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. This government document attrbuted none of the phonecalls to her,which had previously been attributed by the 9/11 Report. This report says instead that the four calls attributed to Mrs Olson were from 'unkown callers'. The only call attributed to Barbara Olson was an 'unconnected call' to the Department of Justice, which was said to be attempted at "9.18.58" and to have lasted "0 seconds"
The federal government itself presented evidence in a court of law, accordingly,that contradicted Ted Olson's story, regardless of whether the calls were supposedly made from a cell phone or an onboard phone.
So did Ted Olson lie about receiving phone calls from his wife? And why were such contradictions not investigated, but allowed to be included in The Official 9/11 Report?
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
If starchild bothered to do a search, then he or she would see that those 9/11 cult conspiracy arguments have been addressed 100s of times already. But here we go repeating the same old arguments again because a new lemming thinks they are the first ones to bring up these issues...
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
Do you comprehend the difference between DATA and CORRECT DATA that is verifiable? Do you just BELIEVE any obfuscated source of AUTHORITY?
Do you know how much variation there is in the different claims on the quantity of CONCRETE in the towers? The NIST report says "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" in three places, referring to the total of both towers, though they don't say that clearly, but nowhere do they specify the quantity of concrete even that vaguely.
Although there is agreement on about 100,000 tons of steel in the towers even Urich's data looks kind of peculiar in the bottom 12 levels on the distribution. Why should it be difficult for the NIST to tell us the number and weights of each of the 12 types of perimeter wall panels? The only reason we know the heaviest type was 22 tons is because of engineering article from 1970. I haven't even found that in the NIST report. So why are we supposed to trust a 10,000 page report that can't supply something that simple and only uses the term "center of mass" 4 times in one report about ceilings? ROFL Some engineering analysis for "world renowned experts"!
psik
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
This is the wrong thread for this, but okay, let's assume that the NIST got it all wrong and nothing they say can be trusted.
So, let's hear your theory, from start to finish, in which you show your work.
I'm guessing that you don't even have an alternative theory and that you couldn't show your work if you did, but I'm open to re-evaluating my position if and when you provide evidence to the contrary.
As I said above, this is the wrong thread for this, but if you're up for it, I'll start a new thread for your theory and your work. Just indicate that you are ready to post your theory and your work, and I will start a brand spanking new and appropriate thread just for you.
Ready?
CNN mistakenly issued a report where they assumed it was a cellphone, but the reality is that Olson didn't know. The idea that he's "changed his story" is a distortion of the truth.
Interview Examples:
It was "probably" an airphone the first time but he doesn't really know.
Then:
He's talking about the second conversation. And this need not necessarily mean that she did use a cell phone. He's just saying that if she did (something entirely consistent with his previous position that he didn't know) then that might explain why he got cut off.
The only liar here is David Ray Griffin for knowingly spreading this fiction.The federal government itself presented evidence in a court of law, accordingly,that contradicted Ted Olson's story, regardless of whether the calls were supposedly made from a cell phone or an onboard phone.
So did Ted Olson lie about receiving phone calls from his wife? And why were such contradictions not investigated, but allowed to be included in The Official 9/11 Report?
The reality is that the Moussaoui trial included this, based on the American Airlines phone records for the flight:
So they don't know where these calls went, no surprise as this was discussed years ago in the Commission Report:
All we have here is an "unknown". The FBI isn't saying the calls didn't go to Barbara Olson, just that for some unspecified reason they can't provide a destination. The American Airlines records don't support Olson, then, but they don't contradict him, either. You don't get to be a theologian without understanding such language basics, therefore I have to believe David Ray Griffin knows full well that he's misrepresenting this evidence: he's lying.
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
I don't know OR CARE what theory you are talking about.
I showed you where the NIST admitted that the distribution of weight of the tower was necessary for the analysis. But they said it in only one place in their 10,000 pages of rubbish so I presume most people weren't supposed to notice. So why haven't they provided the data in HUMAN READABLE FORM that they admitted was necessary?
Get this straight. I don't give a damn about the United States government. I don't give a damn about Islamic terrorists. I don't give a damn about Christianity either.
This is a physics problem barely above grade school level. We don't even know the tons of steel in the impact zones. It is curious that before 9/11 it was said that the towers contained 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. So why can't we learn where that concrete was in the towers SEVEN YEARS after their destruction.
psik
Actually i'm wondering how many pages the NIST report have to be, to explain everything to the layman?
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
There have been unintended delays in the finger paint version of the report, but once done, it should answer all your questions.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
So you don't have a theory, then.
So this isn't actually a point that could support any alternate version of the case.
Which means you're on the wrong thread, as LashL pointed out.
psikeyhackr
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 470
Pimbe
What is a LAYMAN? A person that is supposed to be kept ignorant and BELIEVE whatever Male Bovine Excrement he is told by pseudo-intellectual morons with delusions of intellectual adequacy? What does it take to understand that skyscrapers must be bottom heavy and the fact that they are 70% air by volume simply proves that they are designed to be useful buildings.
If the plane that hit the south tower was flown by CIA agents with remote controls would that have changed the distribution of steel and concrete in the south tower?
If the plane that hit the south tower was flown by Arab terrorists would that have changed the distribution of steel and concrete in the south tower?
If the plane that hit the south tower was flown by drunken Hell's Angels snorting coke would that have changed the distribution of steel and concrete in the south tower?
Talking about a theory when you don't even have trustworthy data to analyze the supposed gravitational collapse is hilariously absurd. This thread is supposedly about settling something. Trying to settle a physics problem without data that can be trusted to solve the problem is nonsense.
When a moving mass hits a stationary mass of the same size the velocity is cut in half and even though the mass doubles the kinetic energy is cut in half. The top 16 stories of the north tower would be coming down impacting progressively more mass. Bazant is a joke. So talking about this collapse analysis without even insisting on being sure that the data is correct for SEVEN YEARS says some very peculiar things about this nation that put men on the moon. Make a big deal about theories without data. ROFL Pseudo-Intellectual Male Bovine Excrement!
psik
What is a LAYMAN? A person that is supposed to be kept ignorant and BELIEVE whatever Male Bovine Excrement he is told by pseudo-intellectual morons with delusions of intellectual adequacy? What does it take to understand that skyscrapers must be bottom heavy and the fact that they are 70% air by volume simply proves that they are designed to be useful buildings.
If the plane that hit the south tower was flown by CIA agents with remote controls would that have changed the distribution of steel and concrete in the south tower?
If the plane that hit the south tower was flown by Arab terrorists would that have changed the distribution of steel and concrete in the south tower?
If the plane that hit the south tower was flown by drunken Hell's Angels snorting coke would that have changed the distribution of steel and concrete in the south tower?
Talking about a theory when you don't even have trustworthy data to analyze the supposed gravitational collapse is hilariously absurd. This thread is supposedly about settling something. Trying to settle a physics problem without data that can be trusted to solve the problem is nonsense.
When a moving mass hits a stationary mass of the same size the velocity is cut in half and even though the mass doubles the kinetic energy is cut in half. The top 16 stories of the north tower would be coming down impacting progressively more mass. Bazant is a joke. So talking about this collapse analysis without even insisting on being sure that the data is correct for SEVEN YEARS says some very peculiar things about this nation that put men on the moon. Make a big deal about theories without data. ROFL Pseudo-Intellectual Male Bovine Excrement!
psik
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Do you know how much variation there is in the different claims on the quantity of CONCRETE in the towers? The NIST report says "roughly 200,000 tons of steel" in three places, referring to the total of both towers, though they don't say that clearly, but nowhere do they specify the quantity of concrete even that vaguely.
Last edited:
thewholesoul
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,201
heres my question. are you going to do the rational thing and concede that your explanation is wrong?
One interesting scenario would be for jet fuel to "pool" on or around a large elevator, say the main freight elevator, about the time said elevator had its cables cut by the impact. The fuel would then fall with the elevator at "virtually free-fall" speeds
the problem with this explanation is that the freight elevator only climbed approximately 17 floors so the unignited fuel could not have fallen with elevator car 50.
from testimony we can establish that the first basement explosion occured below car 50 and before it reached B1 therefore for your suggestion to be possible the unignited jet fuel must have passed car 50 at some point in time but given that liquid droplets of jet fuel have presumably the same max velocity as a rain drop (9m/s) whatever exploded below car 50 and before it reached B1 could not have been unignited jet fuel because unignited jet fuel falling roughly 340m at 9m/s above could not POSSIBLY have caught up with a free falling evlevator let alone manage to pass it.
are you going to do the rational thing and abandon your unignited jet fuel hypothesis - which by the way - is not the official explanation?
peace
Last edited:
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Seems to me that you found the info on your own pretty easy. Don't you think that the NIST had the same access, if not better access, to the data in question?
So you are just whining that the particualr data you want to be published in the report is not blatantly there. Again ask NIST for the info. Ask them about the method they used to format thier report.
Seems to me that you are trying to make an issue out of nothing.
Piggy
Unlicensed street skeptic
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 15,905
So your answer is no, you don't. Ok then.