Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[SDC]

So you mean calling someone a "Terrorist Apologist" isn't abuse and is a "rational" argument.

ROFLMAO

I'm so worried about being reported.

psik

Again I step into parental mode. I don't care who started it, and I don't care who said what. I am talking to you and I want your bad behavior to stop.

That's the way any parent frequently has to speak with a six year old.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I see TWS is still pushing the one elevator building theory still. Goes with the magical sound wave physics.

 

[Confuseling]

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?
...

$2000? Cripes, that's a lot. I imagine there aren't many universities or engineering firms around the world with access to software like that.

Otherwise, presumably, one of them would've written out 232 numbers specifying the tons of steel and tons of concrete [PLEASE will you stop saying that? We get the idea...] in each floor, and exposing the implausibility - nay, the monumental, unconscionable lie, of the proposed collapse dynamic. It's probably inconsequential anyway; even if, say, governments hostile to the US could afford such software, I doubt they'd be able to publish. Who would be interested in that, when it's only you who understands?

 

[psikeyhackr]

Again I step into parental mode. I don't care who started it, and I don't care who said what. I am talking to you and I want your bad behavior to stop.

That's the way any parent frequently has to speak with a six year old.

Yeah, I figure it takes really rigid AUTHORITARIAN personalities to go along with this nonsense for SEVEN YEARS.

Believe a 175 ton airliner can cause the top 15% (by volume) to collapse straight down and totally destroy the mass below without demanding accurate information about the distribution of steel and concrete through the entire structure when there is no way such a structure can be built and stand without that having been figured out before the hole for the foundation was even dug.

ROFLMAO

And then Richard Gage doesn't even bring it up. The Empire State Building was completed in 1931 before there were any electronic computers. I guess some people have to pretend simple things are complicated.

300 year old physics. What a joke!

In classical mechanics, momentum (pl. momenta; SI unit kg·m/s, or, equivalently, N·s) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object (p = mv). For more accurate measures of momentum, see the section "modern definitions of momentum" on this page. It is sometimes referred to as linear momentum to distinguish it from the related subject of angular momentum. Linear momentum is a vector quantity, since it has a direction as well as a magnitude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_momentum#Conservation_of_momentum

Yep, those LAYMEN must be kept confused so some people can believe they have superior intelligence.

psik

 

[RedIbis]

heres my question. are you going to do the rational thing and concede that your explanation is wrong?



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

This is a very well stated explanation for why the jet fuel theory fails. I hope you aren't expecting a response. Several of the prominent jet fuel proponents have taken some sort of pseudo retirement.

 

[Turbofan]

R. Mackey,

I'd like to know how you arrive at 4.0G in your calculation which was used to
prove the aircraft could negotiate the landscape and obstacles around the
Pentagon.

Sorry, I don't have a link to your diagram at the moment.

 

[X]

R. Mackey,

I'd like to know how you arrive at 4.0G in your calculation which was used to
prove the aircraft could negotiate the landscape and obstacles around the
Pentagon.

Sorry, I don't have a link to your diagram at the moment.

IIRC, he used a parabolic curve.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'd like to know how you arrive at 4.0G in your calculation which was used to
prove the aircraft could negotiate the landscape and obstacles around the
Pentagon.

If you get a satisfactory answer to this question, does this mean that you'll be convinced that the 9/11 attacks were not carried out by the US Government? If not, then you're off-topic for this thread. Check the OP.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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.

I've asked you to prove this several times before. All you've done is state your incredulity that jet fuel can fall any faster than 9m/s. Please either prove the bolded statement or withdraw your objection to the hypothesis.

Dave

 

[Turbofan]

IIRC, he used a parabolic curve.

Where in the data do you see trends of a parabolic curve, or figures near 4 Gs?

 

[funk de fino]

This is a very well stated explanation for why the jet fuel theory fails. I hope you aren't expecting a response. Several of the prominent jet fuel proponents have taken some sort of pseudo retirement.

No, its not and if you cared to read the thread about it you will see it has had many responses. Something can be well stated but full of nonsense. This is one such case. The fact you fail to see the nonsense speaks volumes about your knowledge and education.

 

[R.Mackey]

Where'd R.Mackey go?

I've been busy... It's crunch time in the flight project I'm leading, I'm negotiating a construction project with the City, and I just got back from my brother-in-law's wedding. Oh, and in my spare time, I'm trying to put together an analysis of scientific interest for the WTC 7 report. Sorry if I've been hard to get hold of.

Also, to all posters here, regarding Mr. TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE, we've discussed his absurdly simple objection in several pages here already, and I've already has his comments split from this thread once. I will request a second split if there is any further attempt to derail. Please do not continue to encourage him.

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. [...]
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?

As noted above, Ted Olsen did receive phone calls from his wife, though apparently not cell phone calls. This distinction would be pretty minor from his perspective, so he was apparently mistaken or misquoted with respect to the precise type of data link used. I fail to see any relevance to this distinction.

heres my question. are you going to do the rational thing and concede that your explanation is wrong?

Why would I concede something that hasn't been shown to be true?

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?

We've discussed this to death in the other thread. Your counter-argument rests on the unsupported assumption that the maximum falling speed of liquid -- in this case, jet fuel -- is 9 meters per second. This simply isn't true.

R. Mackey,

I'd like to know how you arrive at 4.0G in your calculation which was used to
prove the aircraft could negotiate the landscape and obstacles around the
Pentagon.

Sorry, I don't have a link to your diagram at the moment.

You will find those calculations here. You've posted in that thread in the past.

Where in the data do you see trends of a parabolic curve, or figures near 4 Gs?

There is no reason we should. The pull-up occurs after the end of the FDR record. Since the aircraft was not flown so roughly in the past, and the terrorists only pulled up before impact once, we in fact do not expect to see a similar maneuver in the previous data.

I also must remind you that the 4.0 g case is the most extreme of all reasonable cases. The actual expected pull-up is as low as a mere 1.62 g of loading. If we had the actual FDR data of the event, I would expect to see the pull-up force oscillating with an average of between 1.62 and about 2.0 g. You only need 4.0 if you insist the aircraft was several hundred feet above the VDOT radio mast, rather than passing beside it or just barely clearing it, and there is no evidence that this is what happened.

 

[psikeyhackr]

This distribution of steel and concrete is about more than just the World Trade Center. Gravity, steel, concrete and physics are pretty much the same all over the planet. So all of the construction professionals involved with skyscrapers should regard this as pretty standard stuff. I have been to one of Richard Gage's seminars and he has this little show and tell with cardboard boxes where he shows the relative size of the falling top of the north tower to the rest of the building but he says nothing about the relative mass and its distribution. I got in line to ask him about it at the end and he just claimed the NIST isn't giving out accurate blue prints. But I would think building professionals should be able to come up with pretty good estimates by now anyway. The buildings had to be designed after all and what kind of computers did they have in the early 60's. Architectural firms should regard that stuff as a joke these days.

I have searched skyscraper sites and I haven't found that info on any skyscraper.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/

My pledge father was an architect and there were others in the frat and we could see the Sears Tower being constructed from campus so there was lots of talk about skyscrapers at the time. The engineering students would kid the archys all the time about taking funny physics and funny math.

In fact I would think that today's computers and software should just about make architecture easy.

You would think this steel and concrete distribution is some kind of guild secret.

But how can you possibly do any conservation of moment calculations without the mass distribution. Even the NIST says it's important.

2.4.3 Single Impulse Excitations

Accurate estimation of the tower’s motion during the airplane impact required detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and impact velocity of the aircraft, as well as detailed knowledge of the geometry, weight distribution, and structural strength of the tower. At the time of this test series (fall 2003), much of this information was unknown, and the impact motion could only be roughly estimated. To allow this estimate to be made quickly, many simplifying assumptions were made regarding the nature of the impact.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5D.pdf page 74

How can we argue with the NIST.?

psik

 

[Turbofan]

I've been busy...

Maybe you should take more time researching the NTSB data then.

Need I remind you that the impact time is 09:37:45 according to the NTSB.

Need I remind you that the data (which is not a working copy)
shows nothing to support your calculations whether peak, average, or
'magical'.

Let's not forget DME recorded 1.5 nm with an error of +/- 0.1 nm. No
Beachnut, your guesstimate is WAY outside the tolerance of error. It
doesn't even fly (pun intended).

What else guys? Let's see:

Altitude too high. Pressure and RADAR altitude confirm each other.

4600 fpm decent when data stops.

Nobody here has even touched the surface on a plausible explanation
of why the FDR 'might have stopped' before an impact.

Go ahead, and keep making up excuses. You can fool some of the kids
around here that don't understand...but you're not putting one past the
team at PFT.

I'm surprised that someone with your background can't figure this out,
and would rather hide behind the screen than come forth and push for
an investigation.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Does anyone have a link to the statement by the NTSB saying that the impact time was 9:37:45?

 

[R.Mackey]

Maybe you should take more time researching the NTSB data then.

Need I remind you that the impact time is 09:37:45 according to the NTSB.

Which is how accurate, again?

The events you are so concerned about take the last four seconds of flight. Unless the NTSB impact estimate is +/- 1 second and all other time-tagged data matches, you have no argument to make here.

Need I remind you that the data (which is not a working copy)
shows nothing to support your calculations whether peak, average, or
'magical'.

There are no FDR data for the last moments up to impact, either "working copy" or refined. This is fact.

Let's not forget DME recorded 1.5 nm with an error of +/- 0.1 nm. No
Beachnut, your guesstimate is WAY outside the tolerance of error. It
doesn't even fly (pun intended).

If you want to talk to Beachnut, you're off-topic for this thread.

What else guys? Let's see:

Altitude too high. Pressure and RADAR altitude confirm each other.

4600 fpm decent when data stops.

See my derivation for a plausible scenario that takes altitude and rate of descent into account, including speculative scenarios where both were much higher than the recording showed. Rob Balsamo (we presume) in the guise of hxstamper confirmed that he had no problem with those physics.

Nobody here has even touched the surface on a plausible explanation
of why the FDR 'might have stopped' before an impact.

Go ahead, and keep making up excuses. You can fool some of the kids
around here that don't understand...but you're not putting one past the
team at PFT.

FDR losses of the final several seconds are commonplace. There is a 60+ page thread dedicated to this very topic.

You're off-topic. If you have a question for me, this thread is yours. If you're just going to accuse others of "making up excuses," I'm not interested, and you are guilty of violating Rule 11 of your membership agreement.

I'm surprised that someone with your background can't figure this out,
and would rather hide behind the screen than come forth and push for
an investigation.

Assuming the Consequent logical fallacy. All of this is presumptive on the assumption that your speculation is correct.

I already have an explanation that is quite satisfactory. No investigation is needed. Furthermore, even had the FDR mysteriously stopped too early or been skewed in time, all this would prove is that the FDR was out of spec. Hardly compelling. On the contrary, the best alternate hypothesis offered from your side looks something like this... Until a better alternate is offered, I stand unequivocally by my conclusion.

 

[Miragememories]

I already have an explanation that is quite satisfactory. No investigation is needed. Furthermore, even had the FDR mysteriously stopped too early or been skewed in time, all this would prove is that the FDR was out of spec. Hardly compelling. On the contrary, the best alternate hypothesis offered from your side looks something like this... Until a better alternate is offered, I stand unequivocally by my conclusion.

I really look forward to reading your 'face-saving' rationalization of NIST's pathetic WTC7 Final Report Ryan.

MM

 

[SDC]

Glad to see you have such an open mind, MM. So why bother to read it? Seems to me you regard that as a time-waster.

 

[Turbofan]

Just like the reply in the other thread Mackey, the FDR recorded data with
a time reference up to :45

So it's either the clock / parameter data is off by six seconds rolleyes,
or Bin Laden did some pretty trick data manipulation before the FBI arrived!

Still waiting for you to pick a theory and stick to it. Jumping around doesn't
give you much credibility.

 

[stateofgrace]

I really look forward to reading your 'face-saving' rationalization of NIST's pathetic WTC7 Final Report Ryan.

MM

I look forward to your "face saving" embarrassment for a narrative on the demolition of WTC 7, rather than the embarrassing attempt you tried the last time around.

MM, rather those posting silly insults why don’t you, rather than try to derail this thread, start a new thread in which you can point out all that is wrong with NIST’s WTC 7 final report?