Who Disrespects NYPD & NYFD

[Dazed]

Interesting.

I certainly don't remeber a horizon programme on this.

So this guy sets light to a ....what I would guess is a reinforced concrete frame struture, but let's assume it was steel frame, sets light to it to cast light upon 9/11.

hmmmmmmmmm it doesn't say when he was planning to fly planes into it or cause an equivalent amount of structural damage and damage to the fireproofing.

Ahhhh but this was in july. It's what we call 'silly season'

Indeed, I thought it was relevent to your point though.
I wonder if that horizon program is out yet.

 

[Moving On]

I saw the dissolves. Of course, not being a CTer, I did not immediately suspect or accuse the creator of the video of hiding important evidence *ahem*.

Whether there were questions being asked during those dissolves is rather irrelevant to my query above, since it is obvious that the right questions were certainly not asked - i.e. to pinpoint such things as his location (not even a street reference, direction, distance, etc.), no information whatsoever on his opportunity to observe, not a single detail about the damage he observed, etc. You know, the important things to "truth" seeking.

I trust that you are sober, since you have indicated that you do not drink. My question to you about that last night was genuine, and you have answered it.

Can you point me to a link citing the actual Act? Statutory interpretation happens to be within my area of expertise, and I will gladly look at it and provide an interpretation from a legal standpoint once I see the actual act. It could go either way, depending on the exact language and punctuation used in the actual statute. Statute writing is precise, and its interpretation depends upon the exact language and punctuation (with any preamble also being a factor in some instances).

I don't think that's a fair characterization, especially if you are applying it with a broad brush to everyone here who does not agree with your theories. That is not to say that it never happens even among skeptics, but it is by orders of magnitude far less frequently employed by critical thinkers than by those who fail or refuse to employ critical thinking skills.

What you see as “linguistic gymnastics” is nearly always precision and reading in context, instead of cherry picking only the words that one likes or that one thinks supports his argument. As I have said before, context is important. So is precision.

LashL,

I do occasionally drink. Not when I am doing this though.

I Googled "NIST" "act" "evidence" "court" and combinations thereof. A lot of stuff came up but it is "German" to me.

I shared my observation based on a generalized opinion. I stick by it.

Russell

 

[beachnut]

No russell and I are on the side of a true investigation. You are on the side of suppressing any questions or dissent.

Jessica/Docker

Your 707 design impact of 5,493,904,362 is wrong.

It should be 380,800,000 Joules, you are off by more than 10.

Your true investigation is wrong by a factor of 10

OFF BY A FACTOR GREATER THAN 10

 

[Gravy]

Last Updated: Wednesday, 26 July 2006, 15:50 GMT 16:50 UK
Tower block fire aids 9/11 debate

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5216788.stm

Second request: please don't dump links, Dazed.

If you would read about the experiment, you'd know that the fire was set in a concrete building. See the difference?

And you would use the forum's search function, you would have found JREFer Shrinker's communication with Professor Torero:

Shrinker

Hi there, I read this article at the BBC and wondered if wouldn't mind answering a query or two.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/5216788.stm

I'm seeing this article quoted by 9/11 conpriacy theorists on the internet,
in an attempt to show that structural engineers are finally coming
around to the 'inside job' theory about the attacks. Is it true that you
find the collapse of the towers suspicious, or at least you believe the official explanation lacking credibility? And do you intend to publish any work showing finding related to this?

Thanks in advance for your time. I ask for purely personal reasons, since
the 9/11 conspiracy theories are a topic of particular interest to me.

Torero:

The tests that you are refering to where conducted to demonstrate how
modern Fire Safety Engineering can help to control fires and understand
the behaviour of buildings during fires. We used an enormous ammount of sensors to match the fire progression to pre-run models and try to forcast the event. The relationship with 9-11 is a weak one, it is just that if we introduced and interrogated sensors to understand the fire and the behaviour of the structure, then we could have provided fire fighters with adequate information on how the structure was moving towards collapse at the WTC. The 9-11 link leaked to the media because it is part of a TV show that the BBC is making on modern Fire Safety Engineering. That is all.

We have worked extensively on the collapses of 9-11 and if you want
to read any of our published papers please go to

www.civ.ed.ac.uk/research/fire

It is a shame that out of a serious set of experiments, the media
has made a "9-11 revival" that has been picked up by so many people
that have not even bother asking what are we "really" doing.

Shrinker:

Thanks very much for your reply! I would love to read more about it but your link isn't working. [I fixed the link above]

I'm not with the conspiracy theorists at all. In fact I try to debate them
wherever they pop up. They have a habit of latching on to articles like this
and failing to follow up with any research. Would you mind if I quoted your
response on an internet forum?

I don't what to put words into your mouth, but in the BBC article you're
quoted as saying the towers shouldn't have collapsed. From your reply here, do you mean, they wouldn't have collapsed if firefighters had been
given proper information to prevent it?

Again, thanks for your (super-speedy) response!

Torero:

I am attaching 2 published papers on what we believe happened.
You will see that these are very serious and detailed studies.

In regards to the quote you are refering to, this was "artistic
license" taken by the BBC, who never interviewed me but took the
liberty to edit a quote that came out in a different newspaper. What I
said is that buildings should not collapse due to fires, that the WTC
buildings had a very unique behaviour in fire, that was not antcipated
when they were designed because nobody followed a proper design
analysis of their behaviour in fire. These proper methods did not exist
in the 1960's, so the methodology used was simply to assign a
prescribed ammount of insulation. For that particular design, this
proved to be the wrong strategy.

Unfortunatelly, even with the correct information, given the particular
design, nobody would have been capable of changing the structural
outcome. Nevertheless, I believe that the intervention strategy might
have been a different one. Although, nobody knows with an event of such
magnitude.

Please feel free to quote me if you want to, I have decided not to
respond to any of the hundreds of e-mails I am getting, but yours seemd
quite sensible. So I replied.

Best regards,

Jose

Bolding mine.

 

[Dazed]

Jessica/Docker

Your 707 design impact of 5,493,904,362 is wrong.

It should be 380,800,000 Joules, you are off by more than 10.

Your true investigation is wrong by a factor of 10

OFF BY A FACTOR GREATER THAN 10

You've said this at least 5 times now. Please stop.
Please provide the calculation proving hers is wrong by a factor of 10.

 

[beachnut]

Omissions and Errors in the Commission's Final Report
Rep. McKinney 9/11 Congressional Briefing

ANOTHER NUT CASE IS PROOF OF???

McKinney seems to be nuts, she had CT nut case come to DC and she chaired a Briefing????

Is this true?

 

[Moving On]

Well my question remains: Do you or do you not wish for people to know the "truth" or are you going to say you do not care about having a person ,who even says is pretty damn impartial to what information he sees, be informed to what you believe to be fact.

I told you I wasn't convinced, and you went off and said you didn't care, this is why I ask.

Yes I have a vested interest in promoting the conspiracy consideration for people too think about side by side with its options since I firmly believe it myself. I also believe if I am right that it has serious implications for the future.

Mostly it is grief not reward.

 

[Dazed]

In regards to the quote you are refering to, this was "artistic
license" taken by the BBC, who never interviewed me but took the
liberty to edit a quote that came out in a different newspaper. What I
said is that buildings should not collapse due to fires, that the WTC
buildings had a very unique behaviour in fire, that was not antcipated
when they were designed because nobody followed a proper design
analysis of their behaviour in fire. These proper methods did not exist
in the 1960's, so the methodology used was simply to assign a
prescribed ammount of insulation. For that particular design, this
proved to be the wrong strategy.

The illuminati got to him.

 

[jessicarabbit]

You've said this at least 5 times now. Please stop.
Please provide the calculation proving hers is wrong by a factor of 10.

I find his harrassment of me quite cute. I know the internet can be a lonely place.

 

[stateofgrace]

No russell and I are on the side of a true investigation. You are on the side of suppressing any questions or dissent.

True investigation ? Don't make me laugh , it's been done by people who are far more qualified than you.

You have been dismissed.

Suppression ? Show me , indulge me in your paranoid fantasices.

Tell me what you think happened, right now, no more excuses, no more side stepping lay it all out for me. I defy you.

 

[LashL]

No russell and I are on the side of a true investigation. You are on the side of suppressing any questions or dissent.

 

[uk_dave]

Gravy,

I must admit, after reading you link regarding the correspondence by shrinkey, I am deeply disappointed with the beeb for this article.

It certainly explains why there was no Horizon (the equivalent of your Nova) programme.

Once again it's one of thos circumstances where some form of subsequent link applied to an archived news item would be beneficial.

 

[Moving On]

A Christopheralike statement if ever I heard one.

Very well. Present your evidence that most of my writings are unfounded or invalid, or withdraw the claim.

Fair enough, Russell? If I said that about you, you'd surely want some proof.

I await your answer.

Can you quote the post you want me to respnd to?

 

[Gravy]

I read your paper now have the courtesy to read the report. Then tell me in light of it how the NIST report is in any way reliable.

Jessica, I read that report when it came out. It's about the Bush administration's science policy.

Now, if you'd like to point out, with specific examples, how the NIST engineers were influenced to alter their findings, please do. I'm all ears.

 

[beachnut]

You've said this at least 5 times now. Please stop.
Please provide the calculation proving hers is wrong by a factor of 10.

707 is 119,294.8 kg, going 80.4672 m/s, that is equal to 386,215,069 Joules

These are the design parameters of the design impact considered by Robertson, the structural designer of the WTC who said it was the impact and fire that destroyed his towers.

You can find his statements made to schools and groups around the country, other have.

This makes Jessicas/Dockers 707 calculations off by more that 10.

Why not ask Jessica to answer her own stuff? She ignore all else but to engage in making this the longest thread.

I am sorry for posting the same darn question, but why is Jessica/Docker wrong?

 

[Moving On]

Attack the man, not the message huh?

TOO funny!

 

[jessicarabbit]

True investigation ? Don't make me laugh , it's been done by people who are far more qualified than you.

You have been dismissed.

Suppression ? Show me , indulge me in your paranoid fantasices.

Tell me what you think happened, right now, no more excuses, no more side stepping lay it all out for me. I defy you.

If it isn't a matter of sides why has R Mackey started a thread declaring victory in the war against CTs?

Read the study by those 60 scientists (including 20 Nobel Laureates) and then tell me the investigation can be trusted.

 

[Dazed]

Gravy,

I must admit, after reading you link regarding the correspondence by shrinkey, I am deeply disappointed with the beeb for this article.

It certainly explains why there was no Horizon (the equivalent of your Nova) programme.

Once again it's one of thos circumstances where some form of subsequent link applied to an archived news item would be beneficial.

Yeah, eh. It's like the BBC latched onto his comment and went "OMg CONSPIRACIEZ." Not the standard I've come to expect from them.

 

[LashL]

LashL,

I do occasionally drink. Not when I am doing this though.

I Googled "NIST" "act" "evidence" "court" and combinations thereof. A lot of stuff came up but it is "German" to me.

I shared my observation based on a generalized opinion. I stick by it.

Russell

Do you know the name of the Act? If so, I can locate it on Lexus Nexus or similar easily enough. (Even the "short name" will do).

EDIT: I found the name of the Act, so please disregard the question. I'll go look up the statute shortly.

I understand that your observation is based on your layman interpretation of it. I'm offering to provide a legal opinion on it based upon my expertise in statutory interpretation.

As I said in my prior post, given the quote provided, your interpretation could be correct, or it could be wrong; it depends on the precise language and punctuation.

 

[Usual Suspect]

Second request: please don't dump links, Dazed.

Tower block fire aids 9/11 debate

The fire captured in a derelict tower block in Dalmarnock

A high-rise block in Glasgow has been set alight in an attempt to understand how blazes affect buildings and ensure future safety in emergencies.
Jose Torero, professor of fire safety engineering at the University of Edinburgh, conducted the experiment on a 24-storey tower block in Dalmarnock.
He also hopes it will shed light on why the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11.
Prof Torero said he believed the World Trade Centre in New York should have "withstood burnout" after it was hit.
The collapse of the towers in September 2001, after they were hit by hijacked aircraft, resulted in the deaths of almost 2,800 workers and 350 firefighters and emergency workers.
Prof Torero said: "It didn't even cross my mind the buildings would collapse.
"From my perspective, those buildings were designed to last structurally for between three to four hours, enough time to get everyone out who had survived.
The experiment took place in a block of flats on Millerfield Place and Allan Street.
In one room, more than nine miles of cable and sensors were installed. He said: "The concept is that if we can get an accurate idea of what's happening inside the building I can lead people to safety and minimise the growth of the fire." A BBC Horizon programme, to be broadcast in the next few months, is looking at Prof Torero's experiment.