Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[uk_dave]

Gravy,

I consider at the very least 50% of what you say as unsubstantiated.

It goes into the 90 percentile when you factor in that your foundations, the reports you use, can not be directly substantiated by you.

Russell

some people believe the earth is only 6000 years old

some people believe in ghosts

some people believe in ufo's

some people believe that celine dion can sing

and some people believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the us government

 

[Moving On]

Hilarious!

"9/11 was not a conspiracy" is a positive claim.

Go research it in the philosophy archives.

 

[jessicarabbit]

Gravy I provided calculations showing the KE anticipated in design far exceeded the KE of the actual impact. When can I expect an apology.

 

[R.Mackey]

INTERLUDE:

YOU guys operate in a very shady manner in my opinion.

Your opinion is worth bupkis, pal.

YOU have no evidence.

Go read the NIST report and then get back to us on that.

YOU can't verify the veracity of the few reports you do have.

I've performed many back-of-envelope calculations in this very forum that do verify our conclusions. I have the training. Many others here do as well.

YOU cherry pick.

This from a guy who equates eyewitness, non-expert quotes that contain the words "explosions" and "secondary devices" to evidence? Get real.

YOU resort to false accusations and name calling when your argument breaks down.

I referenced my accusations. They're true. And you were the one who called me a "cover up artist."

YOU are not open to any possibility other than your current belief in my opinion so far.

Again, "in your opinion." Unless you give us a reason to believe something different, you're right. You haven't.

YOU presume to demand responses from us when you have no right to do so.

We demand you explain your ridiculous and unsupported claims. Presumption is yours, sir.

YOU have serious double standard issues.

Lie.

I see it clearly and you will get the respect from me that hypocrisy deserves.

Goodbye, Russell. You were far less a man than I was led to believe.

 

[Gravy]

Gravy,

I consider at the very least 50% of what you say as unsubstantiated.

It goes into the 90 percentile when you factor in that your foundations, the reports you use, can not be directly substantiated by you.

Russell

Show me how you arrived at those figures. For instance, take a few pages of something I've written and show how 50% of what I say is unsubstantiated.

That's how it works, Russell. No one cares about your beliefs. We care about your evidence. Produce it.

 

[WildCat]

INTERLUDE:
(accusations galore removed for brevity)

Russell, this is an example of your methods. You posted this:

Janice Olszewski -- [SIZE=-1]Captain (E.M.S.)[/SIZE] I thought more could be happening down there. I didn't know if it was an explosion. I didn't know it was a collapse at that point. I thought it was an explosion or a secondary device, a bomb, the jet -- plane exploding, whatever.

Your bolding is blatantly dishonest. She is clearly stating that she knows the sounds she heard was the building collapsing, not bombs. Yet you bold that part to try to draw attention away from that fact.

If you don't see why that's a poor way to research or dig for evidence it's because you're doing this w/ blinders on, and only looking for evidence that supports your conclusions and rejecting anything else. You will not find the truth this way about 9/11 or any other event.

 

[WildCat]

LOL, wtf happened to the color of this forum? My eyes!!!!

 

[jessicarabbit]

LOL, wtf happened to the color of this forum? My eyes!!!!

Wildcat are you happy with my source for the anticipated figure of 600 mph?

 

[WildCat]

Here is my source for the 600mph predicted by the port authority in 1964:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC_Part I_Introduction.pdf

"NIST found no documentary evidence of any analysis supporting this conclusion."

 

[Gravy]

Gravy I provided calculations showing the KE anticipated in design far exceeded the KE of the actual impact. When can I expect an apology.

Wow, do you not read carefully. If you knew the history of this issue, you'd know that your figures are based solely on unsubstantiated anecdote and that there is no documentation that would allow you to make your claim.

NIST says so right in the PDF you referenced, in bold print, on page 15:

"NIST found no documentary evidence of any analysis supporting this conclusion."

 

[Moving On]

That's very sad, Russell. If you think the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST report, and all the information we have provided here do not constitute evidence, then you need help. I mean it. You have a serious problem with reality if you dismiss these things.

Despite what you may wish, the rules aren't going to change for you. No one cares about your beliefs. You need to provide evidence for your claims. Period.

Reality?

He was also co-chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

"It was a huge amount of data to sort through," says Hamilton in a phone interview. "We put a tremendous weight on the facts. But doing something this complex in the amount of time we were given was difficult. Oh, there were loose ends. This is only the first draft of history. It's held up well. But I don't believe we have written the final draft. There's bound to be some information that comes out which we didn't have then."

Hamilton remains troubled by the fact that the government lied to the commission repeatedly during the investigation.

"We were misled by the FAA and NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command]," he says. Neither wanted the American people to know how unprepared they'd been. "When we went to NORAD command center in New York, we found tapes that had not been furnished to the commission. By listening to those tapes, we discovered that their official story didn't add up. So we issued subpoenas and started from scratch."

Regarding United 93, Hamilton says that there is a gap in the accounts of the president's and vice president's actions that day; several minutes at the time that shooting down hijacked planes was discussed have not been accounted for.

"When you have that, you obviously leave an opening for the conspiracy questions," Hamilton notes. "But sometimes you cannot answer every question that is raised. We made a lot of judgments. I don't know if we made all the judgments correctly. The American people demanded from us a kind of airtight evidence. What we ask is that the standard be applied both ways."

http://www.freetimes.com/story/681

Do you think "there is a gap in the accounts of the president's and vice president's actions that day" could have anything to do with why they tried to prevent the Commission in the first place and refused to testify individually under oath with a verbatim account?

These are the people you are trusting.

They didn't even give them the sense of having enough time to do the job correctly!!

I'll take whatever oath or lie detector test on my entire life right now.

The veracity of your favorite reports are in question no matter how many names you call me.

Give me a break!

 

[VespaGuy]

"9/11 was not a conspiracy" is a positive claim.

Go research it in the philosophy archives.

So are these positive claims, too?

Unicorns do not exist.
There isn't a dragon in my garage.
9/11 wasn't orchestrated by aliens.

What exactly is a negative claim?

 

[jessicarabbit]

Wow, do you not read carefully. If you knew the history of this issue, you'd know that your figures are based solely on unsubstantiated anecdote and that there is no documentation that would allow you to make your claim.

NIST says so right in the PDF you referenced, in bold print, on page 15:

"NIST found no documentary evidence of any analysis supporting this conclusion."

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. No designer of the towers has refuted those figures.

As an aside, Leslie Robertson was the main advocate of there being molten metal at ground zero, he has now totally reversed that posdition. Strange.

 

[Gravy]

Leslie Robertson:

One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. And of course, in New York there had been two instances of aircraft impacts, the most famous being on the Empire State Building. Now, we were looking at an aircraft that was not unlike the Mitchell that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at an aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happens when an aircraft goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is, what happens to all that fuel? And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But that, for whatever reason, we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel.
–Leslie Robertson, interviewed in New York: A Documentary Film, by Ric Burns

Then:

A three-page document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ or Port Authority) Indicates that the impact of a Boeing 707 flying at 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers in February/March 1964 (Letter with an attachment dated November 13, 2003 from John R. Dragonette(Retired Project Administrator, Physical Facilities Division, World Trade Department) to Saroj Bhol (Design and Engineering Department, PANYNJ).

No documents on the aircraft impact analysis are available to review the criteria and method used in the impact analysis of a Boeing 707 aircraft on the WTC tower and to verify the assertion in the three-page document that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Without the original calculations of the aircraft impact analysis, any comment on the document would be a speculation. In March 1964, a calculation was made by the Port Authority to determine the period of vibration of the tower due to an aircraft impact at the 80th floor. Although no conclusion was stated on the calculation sheet, it clearly indicates that the Port Authority recognized during the design stage the possibility of an aircraft impact on the tower.

WTC Design, Construction and Maintenance of Safety Systems http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05119.pdf Page 70-71

 

[R.Mackey]

Also the kinetic energy of the plane crash the designers envisioned was actually greater than the kinetic energy of the planes that hit the towers.

For Gravy and jessicarabbit, let me try to elucidate --

jessicarabbit is correct in that the WTC designers did, briefly, consider the impact of a 707 at cruising speed. I talked about this and referenced it in this post.

It is important to note, however, that the caclulation was very brief and only considered impact, not any subsequent damage such as fires. It was not a design requirement, and the lack of simulation ability in 1964 would make any more detailed analysis prohibitively expensive or impossible.

Gravy's statement that this finding from 1964 was basically speculation is thus correct.

 

[Kent1]

"NIST found no documentary evidence of any analysis supporting this conclusion."

This link might also help with the confusion.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_707_impact.html

 

[Moving On]

Russell, this is an example of your methods. You posted this:

Your bolding is blatantly dishonest. She is clearly stating that she knows the sounds she heard was the building collapsing, not bombs. Yet you bold that part to try to draw attention away from that fact.

If you don't see why that's a poor way to research or dig for evidence it's because you're doing this w/ blinders on, and only looking for evidence that supports your conclusions and rejecting anything else. You will not find the truth this way about 9/11 or any other event.

Save it.

Apply the standards to yourself.

If I was being deceptive I wouldn't have bolded the "I thought", I would have started with "it was'.

I quoted that in a context of an uninformed person who said there were no reports of secondary devices and focused on the use of that word.

Please change strategies in your frantic attempts to defend the official story. They have already been exposed.

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat are you happy with my source for the anticipated figure of 600 mph?

Perhaps the word of the man (Leslie Robertson) whose engineering firm designed the building would be more accurate?

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

The calculated speed in the article written by Robertson for the 707 was 180 mph.

 

[uk_dave]

Reality?



Do you think "there is a gap in the accounts of the president's and vice president's actions that day" could have anything to do with why they tried to prevent the Commission in the first place and refused to testify individually under oath with a verbatim account?

These are the people you are trusting.

They didn't even give them the sense of having enough time to do the job correctly!!

I'll take whatever oath or lie detector test on my entire life right now.

The veracity of your favorite reports are in question no matter how many names you call me.

Give me a break!

Why do you link the analysis of professionals with the actions of government?

I deal with structural engineers on an almost daily basis and have had several informal discussions with them regarding 9/11 and I have NEVER encountered an engineer who believed that the towers failed for any reason other than the impact and fire damage caused by those planes.

NEVER

These people (UK engineers) carry no water for the Bush admin

So what makes you so much more informed than a person who designs steel framed buildings for a living?

 

[Moving On]

So are these positive claims, too?

Unicorns do not exist.
There isn't a dragon in my garage.
9/11 wasn't orchestrated by aliens.

What exactly is a negative claim?

Stop with the rhetoric.

Talk in the real world.