DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
MikeMcc said:
I got one tiny slide on a badly laid out page
9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
I got one tiny slide on a badly laid out page
Don't know why. Mine goes directly to the presentation. If it goes to the level above then click on the Panel Video and Presentations link to go to the realplayer coverage of the presentation
Another point raised was that some of the excavated metalwork was coming out white hot.
All I did to get to it was Google "WTC7 collapse presentation", it was the 7th link down labelled "Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: Theory, Expectation and ..."
Another point raised was that some of the excavated metalwork was coming out white hot.
All I did to get to it was Google "WTC7 collapse presentation", it was the 7th link down labelled "Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers: Theory, Expectation and ..."
editor said:
Who? Only those groping around in the dark i'd guess. Many a thousand american soldiers have died down the years while simultaneously killing millions of others in the same time period. Those in power in the US just sit back in their chairs and watch the whole human charade play out. The outcome of course is a hegemony and empire that can be smashed by no-one except themselves.
What's a few thousand american deaths of soldiers got to do with anything in pursuit of the power that these insane excuses of humans beings devote their miserable existences to?
liampreston
Spend time, not money
I'm sorry if my post causes rumptions and confusions but, following what...5 years of this stuff, is it not possible for someone to say "Following what was clearly a terorrist attack, the WTC collapsed because two planes being flown directly into them caused immense structural damage the likes of which no-one has hitherto experienced, and to the best knowledge of experts in the field beyond Internet based theorists, there simply was no conspiracy"
Sorry if this view offends people, but I thought it was required for at least one person to put forward an opnion of this kind for a change.....
Sorry if this view offends people, but I thought it was required for at least one person to put forward an opnion of this kind for a change.....
MikeMcc said:
Your analogy is not quite correct. Imagine planting a cricket stump firmly in the ground. point upwards. And the cricket stump is made of steel. Now hit it with a piece of wood. It's no contest!
Imagine if the central steels were nails and you had a hammer of the corresponding size. Now because you can hammer nails, and they don't shatter - just think of the almighty swing this giant hammer would make and still not shatter the central steels. No comparison with the WTC which would easily crumble around the central steel columns as it fell from above.
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Hmmm. Shall I accept the reasoning of hammers, cricket stumps and nails? Or actual calculations from qualified engineers?
Besides, your analogy is woefully incorrect, Jazz. Dynamic and Static loads. Orders of magnitude difference, even at relatively slow speeds.
Besides, your analogy is woefully incorrect, Jazz. Dynamic and Static loads. Orders of magnitude difference, even at relatively slow speeds.
editor
hiraethified
Whose calculations, Jazzz?Jazzz said:
Why do you think the scientists and hugely qualified contributors to the NIST report failed to 'calculate' their figures correctly and arrive at your CD fantasy, and why do you think three independent academic institutions out of America also agreed with their findings?
Why do no credible, suitably qualified scientists and engineers on the entire planet agree with your invisible explosives theory?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The cricket stump analogy is limited in it's usefulness - unless that same stump were hollow with lots of platforms in it, all supported by the external skin of the stumps...and the materials would need to be fairly high density as well...and you'd need to fill it with flammable materials that burn for a long time...and people...and place it in a position that it would be absorbing shocks from another cricket stump next to it that's also been hit...
TBH I think you're all being a wee bit harsh on EddyBlack - at least he's using the NIST report, and TBH given that WTC 1&2 were both unique designs (and one that hasn't been used again due to revised building safety regs in the US IIRC, and that was back just after they were built) so is it any surprise that their collapse is a unique event? As for WTC7...on balance I still don't think there's any real evidence for CD, given the preparation that's required for a CD...nah, given Woodward's allegations of the CIA/Bush meeting, Occam's Razor says that it was either deliberate and wilful ignorance or incompetence on the part of Bush etc.
Actully, thinking further on that point...before 9/11, Rice was an old-skool Cold Warrior wasn't she? IIRC when she took over as head of the NSA she actually disregarded much of the intel the Clinton administration left concerning the threat of Islamic terrorism in favour of focussing on Russia as a re-emergent threat...which, again IIRC, is what drove Bush to engage with Putin...
Anyroad...from Wiki, which summarises Woodwards points:
The 2006 comments were in response to Woodward's book.
So what you've got is an NSA chief who, at the time had her eye off the ball thanks to her own geopolitical dogma, being told by the CIA that it's almost certain that there will be an attack by Islamic terrorists on US soil. Her advice to the President was to ignore it.
So the key question is was this LIHOP (which would presume that the CIA/Bush has absolute proof that was going to happen), failure of duty under the Oath to protect the country effectively by not taking the warning seriously enough, or just simple incompetence based on Rice's reccomendation not to act?
Against this, the CT-ers are arguing that an administration that has shown itself to be incompetent in almost every area of government, from Katrina to the management of the Iraq war, managed to do the following:
1. Prepare 3 occupied office blocks with demolition charges sufficient to bring them down in a CD style 'implosion'.
2. Arrange for the hijack of 4 commercial jets and their use as missiles
3. AFTER the planes had struck two of the buildings being able to detonate those explosives in the correct sequence, as well as demolising a tower with NO symbolic value whatsoever, and one that clearly WAS NOT A TARGET for a plane, since only two went to New York.
So the choice is between a project that would have required hundreds of personnel, from a variety of disciplines, that was years in planning and required members of the US armed forces to act directly against US citizens in a planned fake attack.
Or the staff member who would likely have been the final word on recommending how the Pres should respond to the threat warning from the CIA (was George Tenet a Clinton appointee?) philosophically dismissive of the threat of Islamic terrorism, and went ahead and recommended no action be taken?
Hmmm...
TBH I think you're all being a wee bit harsh on EddyBlack - at least he's using the NIST report, and TBH given that WTC 1&2 were both unique designs (and one that hasn't been used again due to revised building safety regs in the US IIRC, and that was back just after they were built) so is it any surprise that their collapse is a unique event? As for WTC7...on balance I still don't think there's any real evidence for CD, given the preparation that's required for a CD...nah, given Woodward's allegations of the CIA/Bush meeting, Occam's Razor says that it was either deliberate and wilful ignorance or incompetence on the part of Bush etc.
Actully, thinking further on that point...before 9/11, Rice was an old-skool Cold Warrior wasn't she? IIRC when she took over as head of the NSA she actually disregarded much of the intel the Clinton administration left concerning the threat of Islamic terrorism in favour of focussing on Russia as a re-emergent threat...which, again IIRC, is what drove Bush to engage with Putin...
Anyroad...from Wiki, which summarises Woodwards points:
The 2006 comments were in response to Woodward's book.
So what you've got is an NSA chief who, at the time had her eye off the ball thanks to her own geopolitical dogma, being told by the CIA that it's almost certain that there will be an attack by Islamic terrorists on US soil. Her advice to the President was to ignore it.
So the key question is was this LIHOP (which would presume that the CIA/Bush has absolute proof that was going to happen), failure of duty under the Oath to protect the country effectively by not taking the warning seriously enough, or just simple incompetence based on Rice's reccomendation not to act?
Against this, the CT-ers are arguing that an administration that has shown itself to be incompetent in almost every area of government, from Katrina to the management of the Iraq war, managed to do the following:
1. Prepare 3 occupied office blocks with demolition charges sufficient to bring them down in a CD style 'implosion'.
2. Arrange for the hijack of 4 commercial jets and their use as missiles
3. AFTER the planes had struck two of the buildings being able to detonate those explosives in the correct sequence, as well as demolising a tower with NO symbolic value whatsoever, and one that clearly WAS NOT A TARGET for a plane, since only two went to New York.
So the choice is between a project that would have required hundreds of personnel, from a variety of disciplines, that was years in planning and required members of the US armed forces to act directly against US citizens in a planned fake attack.
Or the staff member who would likely have been the final word on recommending how the Pres should respond to the threat warning from the CIA (was George Tenet a Clinton appointee?) philosophically dismissive of the threat of Islamic terrorism, and went ahead and recommended no action be taken?
Hmmm...
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Jazzz said:
Well to start with the nail is a solid object dense enough, indeed MADE to withstand the impact of a hammer. Not a hollow object with platforms.
I'd also suggest that you hit a 3" nail with a sledgehammer and see what happens to it.
For the same reason our intelligence agencies came up with all kinds of nonsense about Saddam Hussein and WMD - they knew what they had to come up with, and then came up with it. Besides many probably won't consider CD as any kind of possibility in the first place, and if you don't, theories will arrive to fill the vacuum.editor said:
For you latter question - I believe others do agree, like Steve Jones and Kevin Ryan. But they won't want to lose their jobs, like Steve Jones and Kevin Ryan. So few will go public.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Do you not see the irony implicit in a CT-er saying this?
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
We are not dealing with hammers and nails, we are dealing with the structure of buildings. Engineers build large margins into their structures - factors of 10 or more. They are designed to hld 10 times the static load that could ever be expected - eg. floors full of elephants. Live loads are completely different and are orders of magnitude greater - 100 or 1000 times. All you need to know is in F-ma. when a=9.8, then we have an object at rest in gravity, exreting a static load. However, when you have an impact, an object must go from stationary to moving in a very short time - almost instantaneous, so a is very large indeed. Thus, F is also very large. Anybody with even an intuitive knowledge of building design will tell you - once the top of those towers started moving, nothing is going to stop them moving.Jazzz said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Crispy, this is probably covered in the NIST report, but would the impacts have been enough to stretch the supports beyond their usual tolerances for wind distortion and movement?
editor
hiraethified
So they're all lying?Jazzz said:
And even the Chinese are in on it too?
That's utterly ridiculous.
I said suitably qualified. Got that?Jazzz said:
Why can't you find a single credible scientist - qualified in the relevant fields - in the entire world to back up your theory?
You're clutching at straws.
And how would a scientist in China, or indeed Sheffield lose their job by pointing out the supposed flaws in a widely publicised paper?
I'd say it would be more detrimental to their career if they failed to pick up miscalculations supposedly so obvious that completely unqualified amateurs like you can claim to see it.
In fact, if they were to successfully pull it apart and prove thousands of scientists and engineers to be wrong, I'd imagine it would enhance their worldwide career prospects considerably.
But as the top section is colliding with the bottom, equally the bottom is colliding with the top. And you're missing the point which is that the top section of the towers is going to be far flimsier than the bottom section and is going to come off far worse in the collision with the grounded steel structure. The top section is not going to fall on a central steel like a sledgehammer - it's going to crumble around it.Crispy said:
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
And with some simple testing of that evidence, it was proven to be false. We all know that now. But the thing with calculations is that they're pretty hard to fake. Unless I've missed something absolutely revolutionary in the field of structural analysis....Jazzz said:
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Think about what you're describing. The top of a building falling down, then mashing itself against the floor below, a waterfall of debris falling down all sides as the top section is systematically destroyed when it hits the intact section.Jazzz said:
You're talking about a massive, huge, incredible, increase in strength going from one floor to another. That's just not realistic. You're talking about dropping glass onto concrete, not concrete onto concrete. Both fail at the point of impact but both fall downwards, that's what gravity does. Once they fall downwards their combined mass impacts on the next floor, breaking it and adding it's mass to the collapse. It doesn't have to be intact, it just has to be there.
You're confused. Just as the top is falling on the bottom, so is the bottom moving relative to the top. If you think the bottom can possibly fail, equally so must the top. Except the bottom has the big advantage, because the steel infrastructure is buried into the ground. Imagine a horse falling out of an aircraft onto a planted spear pointing upwards. Doesn't matter how much heavier the horse is, you know who is going to win.Crispy said:
My argument is not that the concrete floors must hold - just the central steels. The top section could only shatter and fall around them.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Why don't you all try and convince the Pope that there is no God. You'd probably stand a better chance. Here's his email TheHolyFather@vatican.co.va.
Good luck!
Good luck!
editor said:
Indeed. To have a published paper, not a manuscript (like Jones) that finds errors in the NIST report – a proper peer reviewed rebuttal, would be quite enough to see successful future grant applications. It would appear that Jones lost his job for being a bit of a tit.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
But again, you aren't comparing like with like. A horse is a soft, squishy organic thing hitting a hard, solid metal thing with a small surface area - if I got a woman in a 6" high heel to stamp on your hand it would go through it, even if that same women were to stand on you hand using just her feet which would cause some discomfort and possibly bruising.
This is pre-GSCE physics you're mangling here Jazz. The falling floor, and the floor beneath it are made of the same stuff, only the floor falling has inertia so when it hits something below it that something has to have sufficient strength to support both the mass of what's hitting it PLUS the force of the falling objects inertia. And remember, as each floor causes the next floor to collpase you have an increase in mass + increased inertia meaning that each time you hit a new floor you are hitting it with MORE force than the previous one.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
You're probably right. However it is possible to show those that haven't given up the power of independant thought not to do so.goldenecitrone said:Why don't you all try and convince the Pope that there is no God. You'd probably stand a better chance. Here's his email TheHolyFather@vatican.co.va.
Good luck!
kyser_soze said:
Exactly kyser_soze - I'm not considering floors vs. floors, rather the central steel columns vs everything else. Those columns are your proverbial stillettos, with the exception that they point upwards. They are the toughest material in the mix by far. What is going to give them any grief? I can think of nothing except explosives.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
