3292 replies to this topic

[Jackofalltrades]

skyeagle409, on 04 October 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

In the case of William Rodriquez, who later changed his story to explosions from the sound of  rumblings, yes, because he got caught changing his story in midstream. In the case of others, they were simply mistaken.



Police officers were reporting that the building was buckling and in danger of collapse and shortly afterward, the building buckled even more just as it began to collapse. That is a clear indication of imminent heat-induced structural failure.



What do you think initiated the fires in the WTC buildings? What caused this fire after a small airplane impacted this building?

The plane's hitting the building initated the fire's at the point of impact, primarily due to the jetfuel.... but what about the fire's in the part's of the building away from the point of impact ???

The picture You posted prove's my point,  thank's

While there was a fire at the point of impact and in the immediate vicinity of the impact, the building was not on fire in other part's of the building and the building did not collapse due to the fire initiated by the impact


Now Why dont You actually answer my question's that I have asked,  as I have done for the question's You have raised  ???

[skyeagle409]

Jackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

The plane's hitting the building initated the fire's at the point of impact, primarily due to the jetfuel.... but what about the fire's in the part's of the building away from the point of impact ???

The picture You posted prove's my point,  thank's

You have to understand at a small aircraft does not carry the same amount of fuel as a B-767.

Quote

While there was a fire at the point of impact and in the immediate vicinity of the impact, the building was not on fire in other part's of the building and the building did not collapse due to the fire initiated by the impact

The collapse of the WTC Towers originated at the impact areas, and nowhere else.

[Jackofalltrades]

skyeagle409, on 04 October 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

You have to understand at a small aircraft does not carry the same amount of fuel as a B-767.

I am fully aware of that fact....

skyeagle409, on 04 October 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

The collapse of the WTC Towers originated at the impact areas, and nowhere else.

Can You really be so sure, without seeing every shred of evidence and without investigating fully ???

To me it seem's that there is more to 9/11 than what we are being told.....

And I hate BS and being BS'ed to......... (it is one of my pet hate's)

Especially when they expect You to believe a story without seeing all the evidence, and letting me make up my own mind....

[skyeagle409]

Jackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

I am fully aware of that fact....




Can You really be so sure, without seeing every shred of evidence and without investigating fully ???

Of course I am very sure! After all, I was one of those who posted the video of the WTC building buckling at the impact area just before it collapsed.

Edited by skyeagle409, 04 October 2012 - 11:16 PM.

[Jackofalltrades]

skyeagle409, on 04 October 2012 - 10:31 PM, said:

Of course I am very sure! After all, I was one of those who posted the video of the WTC building buckling at the impact area just before it collapsed.

Posting a video online and seeing every shred of evidence and investigating fully,  are very different thing's entirely....

While You may THINK You know what transpired that day or believe what the government suggest's transpired, it is still a possibility that the government have told You and everyone else a load of BS...

The ONLY way to get to the truth of 9/11 and what happened that day is for the evidence to be made fully available and to have the incident/s of that day fully investigated by someone impartial (not just a little bit of evidence or a few second's of video clip's like what has happened), something that the American government do not seem to want to do

And even if they wanted to do such a thing, due to steelwork that was in the WTC building/s being scrapped and recycled it is virtually impossible for such an investigation....

[MID]

Jackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

I am fully aware of that fact....




Can You really be so sure, without seeing every shred of evidence and without investigating fully ???

You have seen, read, and understood it, huh?
Nah...of course not!
It's all available, in what would no doubt be considered boring journals of engineering data, analysis, calculation, and other such fun stuff.
But you'll never investigate any of that.  It was done by professional engineers, and as such, is pretty boringly unique and complicated to the HB attempting to read it.I've read piles of it.  The summary reports are well written, and concisely show the facts.

That's how you can know about this stuff.  Reading, and studying that which you don't know.
You're onbiously neither an engineer--or anyone with a reasonable semblance of an education enriched by the elegance of science and the beauty of mathematics.

That's not a tough call.  You wouldn't be an HB or  CT if you were.  But if by some miracle you want to learn about it, you've got a year or two ahead of you before you come to a rudimentary understanding of the principals involved in analysis and engineering studies.

We know what happened on 9-11, in excruciatingly graphic detail

Quote

To me it seem's that there is more to 9/11 than what we are being told.....

And I hate BS and being BS'ed to......... (it is one of my pet hate's)

Listening to technical specialists who know things is being BSed only to the true CT. That's because that is the calling cry of the true CT when being presented with incontrovertible evidence...evidence he has no hope of understanding because it required a college degree in special fields to grasp.

Quote

Especially when they expect You to believe a story without seeing all the evidence, and letting me make up my own mind....

And as has been explained, it's all available to you.  It doesn't require someone to explain it to you., it's required that you read, and study.  Understanding it will show you everything you need to know.  No coloration, no attitude.

It's long been over, and long been understood.

[Jackofalltrades]

MID, on 04 October 2012 - 11:59 PM, said:

You have seen, read, and understood it, huh?
Nah...of course not!
It's all available, in what would no doubt be considered boring journals of engineering data, analysis, calculation, and other such fun stuff.
But you'll never investigate any of that.  It was done by professional engineers, and as such, is pretty boringly unique and complicated to the HB attempting to read it.I've read piles of it.  The summary reports are well written, and concisely show the facts.

That's how you can know about this stuff.  Reading, and studying that which you don't know.
You're onbiously neither an engineer--or anyone with a reasonable semblance of an education enriched by the elegance of science and the beauty of mathematics.

That's not a tough call.  You wouldn't be an HB or  CT if you were.  But if by some miracle you want to learn about it, you've got a year or two ahead of you before you come to a rudimentary understanding of the principals involved in analysis and engineering studies.

We know what happened on 9-11, in excruciatingly graphic detail







Listening to technical specialists who know things is being BSed only to the true CT. That's because that is the calling cry of the true CT when being presented with incontrovertible evidence...evidence he has no hope of understanding because it required a college degree in special fields to grasp.




And as has been explained, it's all available to you.  It doesn't require someone to explain it to you., it's required that you read, and study.  Understanding it will show you everything you need to know.  No coloration, no attitude.

It's long been over, and long been understood.

I find it very offensive the way You have attacked me and my education....

even more so that You do NOT know me or anything about me

[booNyzarC]

Jackofalltrades, on 05 October 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

I find it very offensive the way You have attacked me and my education....

even more so that You do NOT know me or anything about me

You may find it offensive, but your lack of technical expertise is blatantly apparent.

I'm not trying to deride your for that by the way.  There are many well intentioned and intelligent people who lack the technical expertise needed to truly understand and appreciate the diligent work and detailed investigations into the events of 9/11 that have been done by qualified people.  Take Q24 as a prime example.  He's clearly one of the most intelligent people I've ever encountered who is in support of the truth movement.  He has managed to string together all kinds of interesting and compelling "loose ends" through vigorous study and focused analysis.  I can envision a wall of his study containing photographs, hastily scribbled post it notes, strings linking exhibit to exhibit, etc... like you see on TV crime drama shows.  Perhaps a disheveled desk or table with stacks of manilla folders labeled 'Pentagon' 'North Tower' 'South Tower' 'Shanksville' 'FDNY' 'Commission' 'Thermite' etc...  Yet, at the same time he fails to get certain technical details right, and that is simply because he doesn't understand the physics and engineering aspects of the topic.  I don't fault him for that either, but I do fault you both for making assumptions and asserting that your assumptions and misinterpretations are facts when they fly in the face of well established, clearly documented, and legitimate work that has been done by qualified people.  I also fault you both for championing a conspiracy theory that has been shot down on almost every front by people who know more about this and have spent more time looking into this than either of you.  Okay, maybe not more time in Q24's case...  

At any rate, the bottom line is that you need to bring something substantial to the table if you want to make any headway.  So far all you've done Jack is regurgitate the same old tired and repeatedly debunked garbage that every other conspiracy theorist before you has brought.

You want to make some headway?

Then you'll need to do more than the average conspiracy theorist.  You'll need to bring something real to the table.  You'll need to bring something verifiable to the table.  You'll need to bring something to the table that hasn't already been put to rest long ago by people who clearly know more about this topic than you do.

If you can't do that, you don't have much to stand on, and you're wasting your time.

With all due respect.

Cheers.

[MID]

Jackofalltrades, on 05 October 2012 - 12:13 AM, said:

I find it very offensive the way You have attacked me and my education....

even more so that You do NOT know me or anything about me

And where did I "attack" any of those things?  I didn't even attack your ideas!

Perhaps you should resist feeling badly about something that didn't happen and study so as to learn!

I merely stated that you're obviously not a scientist or an engineer.  I made it very clear about how that's not hard to determine, and, I gave you some hints about where you could see the evidence that you're preaching about here on this thread.  I thought it might be valuable to know for you, since you need to see it, and you're obviously afraid that someone's not seeing it. I also gave you a hint or two about how difficult it might be to determine what's being presented unless you take the time needed to learn the basics.

But you weren't attacked, at all.  Not even your CT ideas and attitude!

Your offense at being attacked is ridiculous.  I accept no responsibility for such an action.

But you are responsible for your attitude, and for accusing me of attacking you.

You said I didn't know you or anything about you.
Actually I guessed you correctly.Right from the start.  Your actions give you away!

[skyeagle409]

Jackofalltrades, on 04 October 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

Posting a video online and seeing every shred of evidence and investigating fully,  are very different thing's entirely....

While You may THINK You know what transpired that day or believe what the government suggest's transpired, it is still a possibility that the government have told You and everyone else a load of BS...

I didn't need the government to tell me there were no explosives were involved because I could see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears, there were no bomb explosions. When you hear and feel the blast wave of bomb explosions then you will know what I mean. In the videos there was no sound of bomb explosions as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC 7 collapsed.

Quote

The ONLY way to get to the truth of 9/11 and what happened that day is for the evidence to be made fully available and to have the incident/s of that day fully investigated by someone impartial (not just a little bit of evidence or a few second's of video clip's like what has happened), something that the American government do not seem to want to do.

You can take the government out of the loop and still  have private companies stating that no explosives were involved.

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 October 2012 - 01:30 AM.

[Lilly]

Here's the bottom line: While everyone has a right to their opinion, some opinions are simply more informed than others. When looking for a reliable opinion, there are three things that are critically important, educational background, training and experience.

We accept this readily in medicine. If one's having a heart attack we'd all rather consult a cardiologist with a good background who has strong training and experience. Most of us wouldn't put the opinion of a trained cardiologist on the same level as that of our friend who's a plumber or a neighbour who sells cars. Our friends and neighbors might be equally concerned with our health but they do not possess the education or expertise of the cardiologist. Hence, our pals aren't as likely to be able to offer us a life saving diagnosis or treatment.

It' really the same thing when one is dealing with concepts involving engineering and physics, educational background, training and experience are critical in supporting any hypothesis.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 12:50 AM, said:

Take Q24 as a prime example.  He's clearly one of the most intelligent people I've ever encountered who is in support of the truth movement.  He has managed to string together all kinds of interesting and compelling "loose ends" through vigorous study and focused analysis.  I can envision a wall of his study containing photographs, hastily scribbled post it notes, strings linking exhibit to exhibit, etc... like you see on TV crime drama shows.  Perhaps a disheveled desk or table with stacks of manilla folders labeled 'Pentagon' 'North Tower' 'South Tower' 'Shanksville' 'FDNY' 'Commission' 'Thermite' etc...  Yet, at the same time he fails to get certain technical details right, and that is simply because he doesn't understand the physics and engineering aspects of the topic.  

I don’t have a study.  But that might be a good abstract description of the inside of my head.  I really need to get a study.  Regarding “fails to get certain technical details right”... this coming from someone who gets basic physics flat out wrong, such as initially believing mass or velocity affect the balance of equal and opposite forces during a collision, until I corrected them... it holds little weight.  Additionally I have physicists, engineers and other relevant professionals on my side – more so than any official theory adherent.

Lilly, on 05 October 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

It' really the same thing when one is dealing with concepts involving engineering and physics, educational background, training and experience are critical in supporting any hypothesis.

I second that...

1,725 architects and engineers support a new investigation of the WTC collapses: -
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Hundreds upon hundreds of other scientists, scholars and professionals support 9/11 truth: -
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Read the expert opinion in the links – you won’t find this many demonstratably informed individuals who support the official story.

Edited by Q24, 05 October 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[booNyzarC]

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

I don’t have a study.  But that might be a good abstract description of the inside of my head.  I really need to get a study.  

You should.  

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Regarding “fails to get certain technical details right”... this coming from someone who gets basic physics flat out wrong, such as initially believing mass or velocity affect the balance of equal and opposite forces during a collision, until I corrected them... it holds little weight.  Additionally I have physicists, engineers and other relevant professionals on my side – more so than any official theory adherent.

Really?  I had a poorly worded portion of a post, admitted this at the time when you pointed it out, and yet the key points I was trying to illustrate still stand un-refuted.  You still don't appear to account for gravity in the collapse.  You completely ignore it after the initially failed story.  You still seem to have no concept of how much energy was in the upper block even though you've been given the numbers numerous times.  You've stated yourself that the lower portion of the building couldn't possibly stop the collapsing upper block, and yet you seem to think that after a while it actually would stop it.  How?  It's still the same amount of original mass plus additional mass acquired from failed stories.

You said in another thread that if the upper block were 14 stories deep, by the time it had crushed through 11 stories that 11 stories should be destroyed in the upper block at which point Bazant's statement that if there were only 3 stories collapsing the rest of the building should be able to resist collapse.  Seriously?!?  Here, I'll quote it.

Q24, on 01 October 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

No, I think you’re going to extremes in characterising “the block” in my description as “one brick [of the block]”.  Ok, let’s see if we can define where Bazant’s theory stops working completely.  Let’s ask him: -

"But if the upper part had the height of only  3 stories, then this ratio would be about 5. In that case, the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times.  Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal."

So if the initial upper block were 14 stories, and it crushes through 11 stories below, sustaining approximately equal damage and leaving 3 stories intact, at this point, rather than “one powerful jolt”, that whole upper mass is going to provide, “a series of many small vertical impacts”, none of which are necessarily fatal.

So you somehow think that Bazant's statement supports this scenario you've proposed?  Do you not even realize that in this scenario there would be 22 broken, falling, and compacted stories between those last three top floors and the remaining intact structure below?  When I first read this I literally laughed out loud at the complete absurdity of what you appear to envision happening.

Suppose the last three upper floors get destroyed by the next three lower floors (wouldn't happen, but let's just assume it does for the sake of argument), what then?  Now there are 28 broken, falling, and compacted stories.  How does the rest of the building bring that much mass to a halt or divert it all outside the building footprint?

Bazant's proposal only applies if the original upper block were that small.  If the failure had taken place at the 107th story, it most likely wouldn't have resulted in global collapse.  Your scenario is nothing like this.  The fact that you seem to think it applies to your scenario belies your lack of technical understanding in both physics and engineering.

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

I second that...

1,725 architects and engineers support a new investigation of the WTC collapses: -
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Hundreds upon hundreds of other scientists, scholars and professionals support 9/11 truth: -
http://patriotsquestion911.com/

Read the expert opinion in the links – you won’t find this many demonstratably informed individuals who support the official story.

If these people are so qualified they should write a paper proving something in relation to their claims.  Over 11 years have passed now and not a single one has been able to write a paper which proves controlled demolition or proves the supposed impossibility of gravity driven global collapse.  Not even one?  Are these all actual and practicing scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers?  Why can't one of them write something up which is convincing and well substantiated?  They have their own *cough* journal(s) don't they?  Nearly every point raised has been rebutted, and I guarantee that not every single member of these 911 truth organizations supports all of the notions presented.  Some probably signed up for completely different reasons than the technical ones you seem to think have them all convinced, and I'd bet that some of those that signed up no longer support any of the notions at all but just haven't bothered to press for removal from the list.  I'm guessing there, so let's ignore that and assume that every single one is convinced for the same reasons and is still an active and supporting member.  They should get together and write something substantial if they want to make any headway.

[Q24]

booNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Really?  I had a poorly worded portion of a post, admitted this at the time when you pointed it out, and yet the key points I was trying to illustrate still stand un-refuted.

It was poor alright – and no matter you failing to take the information onboard, it’s all been refuted except in your own mind.

booNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

You still don't appear to account for gravity in the collapse.

Err yeah... of course, I do think the tower debris is still hovering there in mid-air today.

booNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

You've stated yourself that the lower portion of the building couldn't possibly stop the collapsing upper block, and yet you seem to think that after a while it actually would stop it.  How?  It's still the same amount of original mass plus additional mass acquired from failed stories.

Once you appreciate the significant difference between the application of a boulder and the same mass of sand, despite the fact that each may contain overall equivalent energy, then we can talk.  When you reach that stage, you will understand how the eventual broken mass of the upper tower which initially drove the collapse is no longer like the intact and rigid block/‘piledriver’ the official theory depends upon.  You might also then understand how a collapse may be arrested – because, believe it or not, once a collapse begins, it is not necessarily perpetual.  Sorry but I don’t think this thread is really the place for you to be going over old ground and easily answered points on the WTC demolitions just because you didn’t understand the first dozen times around.

booNyzarC, on 05 October 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

If these people are so qualified they should write a paper proving something in relation to their claims.  Over 11 years have passed now and not a single one has been able to write a paper which proves controlled demolition or proves the supposed impossibility of gravity driven global collapse.  Not even one?  Are these all actual and practicing scientists, scholars, architects, and engineers?  Why can't one of them write something up which is convincing and well substantiated?  They have their own *cough* journal(s) don't they?

There have been many papers written by experts, published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies, which prove the case for the false flag nature of the attack and WTC demolitions to any unbiased mind: -

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

There have also been a number of papers published in mainstream journals, which unfortunately have been proven biased in applying publishing rules when it comes to 9/11 truth, such is political sensitivity of the subject: -

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

As I have explained this to you and provided the evidence before, I find your complaint to be quite disingenuous.

Those who want the truth will find it - move along booNy.

[skyeagle409]

Q24, on 05 October 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

I don’t have a study.  But that might be a good abstract description of the inside of my head.  I really need to get a study.  Regarding “fails to get certain technical details right”... this coming from someone who gets basic physics flat out wrong, such as initially believing mass or velocity affect the balance of equal and opposite forces during a collision, until I corrected them... it holds little weight.  Additionally I have physicists, engineers and other relevant professionals on my side – more so than any official theory adherent.




I second that...

1,725 architects and engineers support a new investigation of the WTC collapses: -
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Were you aware that the majority of architects and civil engineers do not support the 9/11 movement? In fact, they have distanced themselves from 9/11 Truthers.

Quote

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

WASHINGTON, D.C., MAY 1, 2002
Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee. That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCHITECT Magazine
The Magazine of the American Institute of Architects

The boardroom at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of the American Institute of Architects is an impressive place: Beautiful concentric wooden desks, with microphones in front of every seat, encircle a small central dais, offering the impression that important discussions are had here. “It feels like the United Nations,” a guest recently commented.

This room recently served as a peculiar venue for the 23rd stop on the 30-city “world premiere tour” of AIA member Richard Gage’s new film 9/11: Explosive Evidence—Experts Speak Out: Final Edition. Since 2006, Gage has been traveling all over the world under the banner of his organization, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth—an organization that has no affiliation with the AIA, express or otherwise—to preach the theory that the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center were actually brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001, and not the impact of two hijacked jetliners and the resulting fires and debris.

“I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing that our government and the Israeli government, the Israeli Mossad, could be responsible for the Twin Towers demolition,” one member of the DC chapter of 911truth.org declared from the AIA-emblazoned podium.

The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments, he says that melted steel was visible at the Ground Zero site proving that the fires burned too hot to have been caused by jet fuel; that because the buildings collapsed at “near free fall speed” there must have been a controlled demolition; and that traces of athermitereaction found in the World Trade Center debris proves that explosives were used.

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

What is more interesting than these bizarre and debunked conspiracy theories is the way that Gage places his AIA membership front and center in his presentations. He seems to be attempting to cloak his organization in the officialdom of the venerable 155-year-old professional institution, even as AIA wants nothing to do with his organization. At the start of his latest film, he explains that he is “a licensed architect of over 20 years and member of the American Institute of Architects.”

Gage often seems to wield his AIA status in promoting his conspiracy theories. In making his case, he also regularly cites that more than 100 AIA members and at least six AIA Fellows have signed his petition calling for a new investigation. In total, Gage says that more than 1,700 of the petition’s roughly 16,000 signatures are from architects and engineers.

During the screening, Gage was at the very least intimating that his organization had been invited to AIA officially. “I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.
_________________________________________________________________

http://www.architect...y-theory_2.aspx

Edited by skyeagle409, 05 October 2012 - 04:33 PM.