TheArchitect
New Member
Well, everyone just needs to calm down and stop flinging insults at each other.
9/11 media happenings
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
"Explosions" not "bombs". Why are you so unable to differentiate the two?Jazzz said:
How much of the debris at Buncefield was checked for traces of explosives? None, I suspect. Because whilst there were credible reports of an "explosion", investigations provided explanations for those reports and there were no credible reports of any "bombs".
(ETA: As I now see WouldBe has pointed out ...)
And what "conclusive evidence" that there was no controlled demolition would you expect to find, exactly?pocketscience said:
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
8den said:
You seem to be an expert on the subject of defamation.
Still no apology............
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
None, since all the steel has been smelted.detective-boy said:
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
8den said:
You're becoming obsessive and frankly I find that disturbing.
Just go on believing (or disblieving) what you like just like all us woo-woos.
pocketscience said:The Architect: No I'm not working in the UK and I've never had any dealings with Ove Arup. I have no experience of tall building structures either!
However, I do have alot of experience in stuctural engineering with other structures that were very relevant to that day!
Also I've mentioned that CATIA and Nastran are my daily bread. You may have heard of these tools. We do complete structural FEAs of very complex models/products. The FEA adds up to approx. 30 percent of the overall initial design process because we also run alot of post manufacture stress analysis (ultrasound stress gauges etc) and the data recovered from this always show the FEA models to have significant error margins, in specific areas.
IMO It's completely fair to say that FEAs are only approximations.
Therefore my personal view of the NIST/FEMA is, their models may look great on a screen but without re-simulating the events of 911 in a controlled environment (which is highly unlikely) we will just never know if the buildings fell purely from the Aircraft impact.
I'll leave it there.
I'd be glad to PM with you on the technical side of things, as I would with anyone.
If I get entwined in a technical debate, I'll have to give examples of my work and it'll become very obvious who I work for and I don't want that broadcast on U75 for various reasons. I hope you appreciate that.
You accused me of being a liar when I denied that I had recieved a PM from the Architect. I turned out you'd misread his PM. Now, I could have called you a liar at this point - but that's not me.
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
What exactly do you do for a living 8den?
Please provide proof
Please provide proof
TheArchitect
New Member
Lads - ALL of you - I'm quite happy to have a sensible technical discussion regarding (say) the merits or otherwise of CD and evidence that is/should be/isn't available but only if you all agree to stop flaming each other. All you're doing is winding each other up.
Likewise Architect, but previous experience tells this is an entirely futile hope
Here is a classic example. Any investigation into 9/11 has to start with the intelligence and air defense failures, but whenever these issues come up and people try to discuss them seriously the threads are always derailed by flaming and bullshit
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=179556&highlight=intelligence
Here is a classic example. Any investigation into 9/11 has to start with the intelligence and air defense failures, but whenever these issues come up and people try to discuss them seriously the threads are always derailed by flaming and bullshit
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=179556&highlight=intelligence
Even a simple controlled demolition can go seriously wrong. At Harwell we all went out to see the demolition of the Tandem Generator Buiding. The explosives detonated but the building just sagged and tilted slightly! They found the structure was held up by just a couple of reinforcing rods. Some poor sod volunteered to use a JCB with a jack hammer to wellie the hell out of the column till it fell over! In that position it certainly would not have been me that volunteered to do it!
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
pocketscience said:What exactly do you do for a living 8den?
Please provide proof
I work in film editing, I can link to my imdb.com profile if you like.
The point is that I've never come across anyone with a pratical degree or knowledge of engineering who entertains the conspiracy theories.
Now I've been under alot of stress these last few days (if you check out a thread in suburban you can read about it) so if I was curt I apologise, but you've not even attempted to approach this from a technical point of view, so I'm sorry if I see more than a little skeptical.
You claim you have issue's with WTC 7 I've linked to this article already
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc
Please list off what about the offical "story" you don't buy, and what about the explaination of the fall you find suspicious enough to doubt the physics as a structural engineer.
pocketscience
Well-Known Member
8den said:
Fine, why shouldn't I believe you?
Well, You've come across two in this thread alone. I refere you to spartacus' reply earlier. He summed up my sentiments excellently.
Fair enough, accepted. Just for now you'll just have to believe me I'm afraid.
I've just been in London for the xmas/NY period but am now abroad again due to work. I start back on Monday and will be extremely busy. Maybe I'll get back to London for a few days at Easter and would be glad to mull over the relevant documents (I'll bring my certificates with
) over a pint or two of Guinness, in a pub of your choice!I'll refere you now back to page 4 of this thread (where you started showing your scepticism towards my profession and peticularly post 87 where I first replied to you. Here Is the first time I stated that I don't believe there was a CD that day. We're now on page 8 and since then I've reiterated (I think 5 times now) my stance.
Obviously I haven't made a good job getting through to you why I'm keeping an open mind. So here goes for one last time:
On the day of the attacks I had absolutly no doubt (from my technical point of veiw) that the buildings collaspsed through the obvious reaasons of structural damage and fire. Why should I believe otherwise. The big question was who flew those fucking planes into the buildings. As information started to filter through in the subsequent months of the security shortcomings, parallel to the blatent lies that have led us into war (we're now outside the "technical box" I keep refering to BTW) another motive has appeared. Thats why I maintain an open mind and made my origional statement:
Like I said all the links to information are very interesting and have been bookmarked but you trying to convince me out of my mindset have been in vain. I'm sorry. I'll make my own mind up!
I don't usually go around trying to convince people of any of the events of that day. In fact I usually keep myself to myself on the subject. The only reason I entered this discussion (admittedly often playing devils advocate) was to say that I found Rodriguezes storey quite interesting in the face of all the half-witted insults. It was earlier mentioned (by the editor I think) that the CTs (I don't like the phrase myself) are only serving the goverment. Maybe so, but I don't see that insulting people who put any links up on here on the subject as any service at all. If anything, it's like crying wolf IYSWIM.
Just ignore the thread if it's already been done to death and it will pass like all the other flotsum here about kittens or "which way you wipe your arse" etc.
Having said that, if this thread is anything to go by, I can half respect the fact that the Mods are pissed off with the subject in general and are quite twitchy about it.
Hope that finally clears some stuff up.
detective-boy said:
You are changing your tune DB! Earlier, you said
All I've done, and done quite successfully, is to show that we had many eyewitness reports of explosions and indeed specific, credible references to what seemed very much like bombs (not intended metaphorically), from firemen too. And indeed William Rodriguez. These were not investigated. Here's what happened to Lou Cacchioli (it was similar to William Rodriguez, another 9/11 hero)
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/19-Jul-2005.html
Comparisons with Buncefield are hardly appropriate because with 9/11 it was surely obvious that foul play was involved. Who was to say that the same terrorists that had hijacked aircraft had not also planted explosives in the WTC? No-one.
* Awaits rash of eye witness sightings of some bloke in a JCB heading towards the Towers just before they came down ... *MikeMcc said:
And here's a quote from that interview with him:Jazzz said:
You state categorically that the reports of explosions "were not investigated". If that is true (and I very much doubt it) then it would be an error in the investigation. The reason I say that I very much doubt it is that the reports were clearly known of by the Commission and, hence, the investigation would have provided some explanation or it would have been a glaring omission which someone other than you would have noticed.
I have not read the entire report. I have no intention of doing so. I doubt whether you have either. So the truth is that neither of us knows for sure whether or not the reports of explosions were explained. You state that they were not and you use as proof of that the claim that there were no tests for explosives carried out. I have explained that that (even if it is true and I doubt very much whether you know whether it is or not) is not proof as it would not be a necessary part of such an investigation.
Yes, Cacchioli gave a credible witness statement and stuck to the fact that the explosions he heard were 'like bombs' which is all someone who had witnessed a bomb would be able to say for sure. Reading his account there can be no doubt that he thought it very possible that bombs were present.detective-boy said:
This is what I mean when I keep saying you are in thrall to authority - you now concede that if these reports were ignored that that would be an error - but your brain doesn't allow you to think that, so instead you are now saying they were investigated because they should have been! And the explanation is somehow well explained in some portion of the report! Never mind that Lou Cacchioli and William Rodriguez, to name just two, have been screaming blue murder that their testimonies were ignored. Why not pay some attention to them? If you are always going to assume that the system has done the right thing, well then how can anyone blow the whistle on it?
Presumably it depends on the nature of the explosions - when seasoned firefighters are suggesting that bombs may have been present this has got to be taken seriously. Also, given that there is terrorism present, simultaneous strikes, how is one to simply assume that explosions have an honest cause?editor said:
eh? Read his account. All you can say, unless you are hit by shrapnel is that an explosion was 'like a bomb'. Besides, the point is that these explosions were not investigated and testimonies like Cacchioli's were ignored, not that these explosions are PROVED to have been bombs. You are the one twisting words, although you don't know you are doing it, because you aren't following a thread but just pouncing on anything you can see. grrrr
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Any explosion is capable of producing shrapnel wether it is caused by a bomb or not. Some bombs don't produce shrapnel at all.
Why use a double method to attack the WTC? If your going to blow it up then just blow it up. You don't need to go to the trouble of hyjacking aircraft, learning to fly them and then crash them into the towers as well.
Why use a double method to attack the WTC? If your going to blow it up then just blow it up. You don't need to go to the trouble of hyjacking aircraft, learning to fly them and then crash them into the towers as well.
Well, there you go, quite.WouldBe said:
You do need a double method if you are the USG looking to have the collapse live on TV watched by the whole world and blame it on muslims. But you can't assume that Al-Qaeda wouldn't plant bombs in the WTC, not as if they haven't done it before.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
No you don't, you merely change the timing of the explosions. The north tower goes, camera crews turn up, south tower goes.Jazzz said:
TheArchitect
New Member
Guys,
You're all jumping from topic to topic like a demented jumping thing.
Let's start with the basic proposition that the towers were the subject of CD. Before ascribing any particular weight to such a theory, we need to consider whether there is any evidencial basis.
Now I don't pretend to be an expert of explosives, and as far as I can see no-one else here does either. My doubts arise purely from an engineering and architectural perspective.
So let's be quite clear before we continue with this mud slinging and shouting at each other. What are our fellow posters' specific reasons for considering CD as a possible cause?
You're all jumping from topic to topic like a demented jumping thing.
Let's start with the basic proposition that the towers were the subject of CD. Before ascribing any particular weight to such a theory, we need to consider whether there is any evidencial basis.
Now I don't pretend to be an expert of explosives, and as far as I can see no-one else here does either. My doubts arise purely from an engineering and architectural perspective.
So let's be quite clear before we continue with this mud slinging and shouting at each other. What are our fellow posters' specific reasons for considering CD as a possible cause?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
