Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

To those who believe the 911 official story


Zaus

Recommended Posts

Repoman, you might like to know that these quotes are not from any recognised engineering journal, nor are they endorsed by the majority of structural engineers. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is purely for believers in the "inside job" theory. There are papers in mainstream engineering journals analysing the collapse processes that do not find such problems. Q24 has a strange view of what is "authoritative".

The only difference is the technical papers I posted have not been peer reviewed. We have discussed at some length why current political conditions are not right for papers asserting such controversial conclusions to pass through official channels. As I remember, you conceded that the peer review process is "not perfect". The point is the papers are written and supported by professionals, supplying the reasoning and calculations for why a 'natural' collapse cannot occur that Repoman said he has not seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    313

  • Q24

    205

  • turbonium

    180

  • merril

    113

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

The only difference is the technical papers I posted have not been peer reviewed. We have discussed at some length why current political conditions are not right for papers asserting such controversial conclusions to pass through official channels. As I remember, you conceded that the peer review process is "not perfect". The point is the papers are written and supported by professionals, supplying the reasoning and calculations for why a 'natural' collapse cannot occur that Repoman said he has not seen.

Yes, your worldview gives the US government complete control over all the world's structural engineers, including those in countries that are not US allies. Other people may not see the world in those terms.

Just to spell it out, the editors of Journal of 911 Studies are believers in the "inside job" theory, and the "professional support" you claim is that the editors only publish papers that support that view. The editorial panel that selects papers for publication does not appear to include a structural engineer, and shows a marked bias in favour of papers written by members of the same editorial panel. Peer review may not be perfect, but the process at J911S is a travesty of peer review, about as imperfect as you can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your helpful reminder there of the rules, and I'm pleased to see that you're following your own advice there in not randomly attacking people. Who are pple, by the way?

When I say "pple," I'm refering to anyone that would and/or has attacked pple personally. It's just uncalled for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I thought you might have read the link since you commented on it.

I've bolded the points in quoting your post. The Dec 2006 quote certainly questions the reality of the fireball,

No, it doesn't. He said...

"Last, funny everybody brings the position that the ball of fire went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.."

He clearly acknowledges that there was a fireball.

and I note you leave out this quote, Aug 2006:

“(911myths.com) says 'A jet fuel fireball erupted upon impact and shot down at least one bank of elevators.' ...Very strange indeed, since there were only one elevator shaft (the 50A car) that went all the way to B6, the operator was inside, Mr. Griffith and he survived with a broken ankles. He should have died burnt since on this theory the ball of fire went down. He is alive and well and I will interview him in the future to clear the disinformation.”

in which he also suggests that there was no fireball.

A quote? It isn't a quote from Rodriguez, so it's totally irrelevant.

So why are you even posting it?

You have shown nothing that supports your argument.

Anything else you'd like to bring up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there are no cables, pipes, lift shafts or anything needing maintenance in the core areas?

The elevators were in the "core areas" too. I'm talking about the actual steel - the critical support columns in the core - which wasn't accessed by standard maintenance.

Perhaps you could provide some links to this "majority of witnesses" since all the 32 quotes in Roberts' link were from people on the spot, mostly firefighters.

Sure.

Oh yeah, that really makes sense. Demolish the penthouse first, otherwise it wll remain floating in thin air after the rest of the building collapses.

You'll have to do a lot better than that.

What the *%^ are you talking about, "floating in thin air"?

WTC 7 collapsed from the bottom floors, progressively. The penthouse would have been the last structure still intact after the 47th floor collapsed. But it wasn't part of the main, original structure, it was off-center (away from the central support core columns) and it wouldn't have any weight coming down on it, which means it would not have been pulverized like the rest of the building.

So? All depends on which way the building falls. The "damage and fire" scenario allows the building to fall to the north, but the CD theory is supposed to have a symmetric fall which would certainly have included plenty of debris falling on the walkway. I think this is one of the "nothing like a CD" features of the collapse.

Nonsense. Look at the photos to see just how symmetrical the collapse really was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. He said...

"Last, funny everybody brings the position that the ball of fire went down the center elevator shaft and exploded in the basement.."

He clearly acknowledges that there was a fireball.

Read it again. He mentions the fireball only to question whether it was real.

A quote? It isn't a quote from Rodriguez, so it's totally irrelevant.

On the contrary, it is his own post from an internet forum:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/dazinith/...85844162914307/

(long link, about two-thirds down)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The elevators were in the "core areas" too. I'm talking about the actual steel - the critical support columns in the core - which wasn't accessed by standard maintenance.

You admit the lift shafts were in the core area, but deny that anyone working on a lift shaft would be able to see the core structure? I find this very hard to believe, but no doubt you can back this claim up?

Sure.

So?

What the *%^ are you talking about, "floating in thin air"?

I'm only trying to find the logic in your argument. You said it was a separate structure, not me. Is this supposed to mean it will remain in place unless separately demolished? If it is part of the building it will fall whether it has its own demolition system or not.

WTC 7 collapsed from the bottom floors, progressively. The penthouse would have been the last structure still intact after the 47th floor collapsed. But it wasn't part of the main, original structure, it was off-center (away from the central support core columns) and it wouldn't have any weight coming down on it, which means it would not have been pulverized like the rest of the building.

So this penthouse could fall 47 floors and hit the ground and emerge without being damaged? And because it was so superstrong it had to be demolished first? This is just getting weirder with each of your posts.

Nonsense. Look at the photos to see just how symmetrical the collapse really was.

Like these?

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/didwtc7fal...Dinitsownfootpr

Edit to add: the UM link problem occurs again here, try replacing the strings of # symbols with % and 9

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've answered this - there are similar lower amplitude cycles at other points in the same traces, so the chances of such events is obviously quite high.

To try and estimate the odds, about one cycle in five appears lower than the surrounding cycles, there are about 1.3 cycles per second of the trace, and you appear to accept a match if you get a low cycle within a second of your significant time. That gives you a window of 2.6 cycles, and by my understanding of probability theory, the chance of a lower cycle appearing in such a window is 1-(1-0.2)^2.6=0.44 and the chance of this happening in both traces is (0.44)^2=0.19. In other words, 19% chance. I might point out that a chance of greater than 5% is not considered statistically significant.

I am not sure I agree with the one in five estimate as that is taken from across the whole graph, whereas focussing on the Tower collapses before debris impacts the ground, the lower readings are unique. I am not sure I agree with your calculations either – the window divided by the period you suppose each low reading should fall in seems simpler, ie 2.6/6.5=0.40. And then, 0.4^2=0.16. Never mind, for the purposes of what I am about to say, let’s assume your 19% is correct.

So it may be possible, as unlikely as you have shown it to be, that the low readings occur due to chance. What other occurrence could produce a reduced reading on a seismograph? There is no getting away from the fact that reduced seismic activity could give a lower reading! And where a reduction in activity occurs, this will cause a lower reading on the seismograph every time.

Now we have covered the odds of the reading being due to chance (19%) or design (81%), we see a far greater likelihood of a reduced reading because of reduced activity; indication of a loss in momentum after the fall of the upper blocks.

The realist is the man, who having weighed all the visible factors in a given situation and having found that the odds are against him, decides that fighting is useless.

Do you just believe what you want to believe, or are you a realist? It's ok, I already know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, your worldview gives the US government complete control over all the world's structural engineers, including those in countries that are not US allies. Other people may not see the world in those terms.

Just to spell it out, the editors of Journal of 911 Studies are believers in the "inside job" theory, and the "professional support" you claim is that the editors only publish papers that support that view. The editorial panel that selects papers for publication does not appear to include a structural engineer, and shows a marked bias in favour of papers written by members of the same editorial panel. Peer review may not be perfect, but the process at J911S is a travesty of peer review, about as imperfect as you can get.

Of course the US government does not have control over every engineer but it does hold sway over the mainstream institutions. It is a brave editor that publishes conclusions contesting the official story of 9/11 - we know what happened to Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, plus the unfair media treatment of others promoting any opposing theory. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a place where scholars and academics can publish their work free from these political restrictions.

You may say the Journal panel has no structural engineers but the site is supported by the many professionals registered with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and further linked with the hundreds of construction experts registered with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It appears the Truth Movement has quite a formidable and ever expanding line-up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the US government does not have control over every engineer but it does hold sway over the mainstream institutions. It is a brave editor that publishes conclusions contesting the official story of 9/11 - we know what happened to Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, plus the unfair media treatment of others promoting any opposing theory. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is a place where scholars and academics can publish their work free from these political restrictions.

Jones was put on paid leave for using his employer's name to back his own ideas.

Ryan sued his employer for wrongful dismissal, but the case was thrown out.

You may say the Journal panel has no structural engineers but the site is supported by the many professionals registered with Scholars for 9/11 Truth and further linked with the hundreds of construction experts registered with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It appears the Truth Movement has quite a formidable and ever expanding line-up.

So the "truth movement" can muster a few hundred out of the hundreds of thousands of such professionals, less than a tenth of one percent - very impressive. Seeing how much support the "truth movement" claims among the general populace, it appears that the more you know about building construction, the less likely you are to be in the "truth movement".

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it may be possible, as unlikely as you have shown it to be, that the low readings occur due to chance. What other occurrence could produce a reduced reading on a seismograph? There is no getting away from the fact that reduced seismic activity could give a lower reading! And where a reduction in activity occurs, this will cause a lower reading on the seismograph every time.

You still don't understand how the system responds. Lack of activity will give a gradually decaying oscillation. A sudden reduction can only come from an out-of-phase input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do u people know how much the insurance companied had to pay??? the goverment did this no dout do u know where g bush was at the time? he was reading a sotry bout a goat to 1 grader nice huh he didnt leave that school untill 2 hours after the second plane hit.....nor did he care.....he showed no sighns of anything but happiness for the goat that made it home... later commented that he didnt want to worry the kids...the govement collected the money that so many including my little brother died for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

do u people know how much the insurance companied had to pay???

What insurance companied?

the goverment did this no dout do u know where g bush was at the time? he was reading a sotry bout a goat to 1 grader nice huh he didnt leave that school untill 2 hours after the second plane hit.....nor did he care.....he showed no sighns of anything but happiness for the goat that made it home... later commented that he didnt want to worry the kids...

A reasonable comment to make. What? Would you say to a group a first graders, "Sorry kids, I have to go now, our country is being attacked by Lord knows who and we may be at war....have a nice day!"

You weren't among that first grade class, were you?

the govement collected the money that so many including my little brother died for

What money did they collect that your little brother died for?

The government paid a bunch of money out to lots of people...but I don't remember them collecting any.

Advice:

Try to take a little more time, and spell so we can actually read what you're writing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A reasonable comment to make. What? Would you say to a group a first graders, "Sorry kids, I have to go now, our country is being attacked by Lord knows who and we may be at war....have a nice day!"

You weren't among that first grade class, were you?

You've got to be kidding, right? Our country is at war and you think it's more reasonable for him to have stayed in a classroom with first graders reading a book about a goat rather than take action?

Their first graders - you can tell them whatever it is you want to leave the place. Heck, you don't have to tell them anything. Stand up, say please excuse me to the teacher, and bang, you're out of the classroom. You have a whole country to protect, that should be your first focus, not worrying about a class of first grade students, who likely don't even understand who the President is to begin with.

And one other thing, it wasn't attacked by "Lord knows who", George Bush knew who it was. The government knew such an attack was coming. They simply chose not to stop it. They let the WTC attack in 93 happen also rather than stopping that one.

Edited by Left Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got to be kidding, right? Our country is at war and you think it's more reasonable for him to have stayed in a classroom with first graders reading a book about a goat rather than take action?

Their first graders - you can tell them whatever it is you want to leave the place. Heck, you don't have to tell them anything. Stand up, say please excuse me to the teacher, and bang, you're out of the classroom. You have a whole country to protect, that should be your first focus, not worrying about a class of first grade students, who likely don't even understand who the President is to begin with.

And one other thing, it wasn't attacked by "Lord knows who", George Bush knew who it was. The government knew such an attack was coming. They simply chose not to stop it. They let the WTC attack in 93 happen also rather than stopping that one.

absolutely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that I cannot find a explantion for from anyone is the reason why the buildings dropped in the way that they did. If you fly a plane into the center of a building the upper portion would fall off, leaving the bottom portion. The bottom part would slowly burn and fall to the ground.

Buildings of that size can hold MUCH more weight than the weight of a single airplane. The building didn't have nearly as many people in it as usual by the time it collapsed so if anything it was lighter than normal. People might say that the supports were weak because of fire. That is true for the middle of the building, but why would weak supports in the center effect the foundation?

I could have believed it if one of the buildings dropped like it was demolished, but BOTH of them did it exactly in the same way. The odds of that happening have to be very low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the same events were to happen again, under the same circumstances, with NO chance of sabotage from explosives being in the building- would you trust remaining in that building for some duration?

Of course not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still don't understand how the system responds. Lack of activity will give a gradually decaying oscillation. A sudden reduction can only come from an out-of-phase input.

You still don't understand what the seismograph shows. The reduced activity readings I have highlighted could be exactly described as a decaying oscillation - that is in essence what I have been suggesting from the start. You cannot argue that a lower reading could not be given by reduced seismic activity. Otherwise, what do you think reduced activity will show... a continuation or rising of readings on the graph?! No, as the graph does, it will show a lower reading.

It is one thing to have faith in your 'chance' theory but another altogether to let it blind you from other explanations - blind faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still don't understand what the seismograph shows. The reduced activity readings I have highlighted could be exactly described as a decaying oscillation - that is in essence what I have been suggesting from the start. You cannot argue that a lower reading could not be given by reduced seismic activity. Otherwise, what do you think reduced activity will show... a continuation or rising of readings on the graph?! No, as the graph does, it will show a lower reading.

If the input stops, the graph will show a number of cycles of steadily decreasing magnitude. How on earth do you see such a decaying oscillation in either of your "calm points"? The first graph has has four cycles of about the same magnitude followed by a much smaller one which you pick as a "calm point", the second graph has a large-small-large-small pattern, with you selecting the second small swing as your "calm point", although the the previous small cycle had a similar magnitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The change in activity is not gradual and the calm points are like no other reading through the collapse duration, occurring specifically where the upper blocks have fallen through their height.

I would also remind you of this post of yours. You claimed then that the change was not gradual, now you are claiming that it was gradual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've got to be kidding, right? Our country is at war and you think it's more reasonable for him to have stayed in a classroom with first graders reading a book about a goat rather than take action?

Do you think that the President knew the country was at war at that moment?

Do you honestly think....that not knowing what the hell was actually going on at that moment, that "action" was advisable, or dictated?

What he knew was that a tragedy had occurred. No one knew squat about it beyond that.

Personally, I thought that he handled himself with incredible restraint in the face of the news whispered into his ear that an airplane had crashed into the world trade center towers.

And you may be assured that his staffers were doing nothing but gathering information and making advance plans and on the phone with the White House non-stop while this appearance at that school was going on And the moment the President was finished, he was barraged by advisors and staffers filling him in on the way to his car...do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Are YOU kidding???

And one other thing, it wasn't attacked by "Lord knows who", George Bush knew who it was. The government knew such an attack was coming. They simply chose not to stop it. They let the WTC attack in 93 happen also rather than stopping that one.

Now I know why you use the name "Left Field"...

DEFINITION: a position that is so different from mainstream beliefs that it is not generally taken seriously.

At least you stopped short of implying that the Bush Administration planned the whole thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a CT'er but there are a lot of questions that remain unanswered and until they are I just don't buy the official report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the input stops, the graph will show a number of cycles of steadily decreasing magnitude. How on earth do you see such a decaying oscillation in either of your "calm points"?

I am not saying the input stops, but was reduced. The “calm points” are the beginning of this decrease or decaying oscillation, a slowing in seismic activity and loss of momentum mid-collapse, which lasts for only approximately 1 second before the activity increases again.

The first graph has has four cycles of about the same magnitude followed by a much smaller one which you pick as a "calm point", the second graph has a large-small-large-small pattern, with you selecting the second small swing as your "calm point", although the the previous small cycle had a similar magnitude.

I did not “pick” anything; I matched the seismograph to video footage and the “calm points” occurred in the moments the upper blocks had fallen through their height. Also, you are not appreciating the difference between reduced “spike” readings and the “calm points” which are drawn out giving a much more constant reading for approximately 1 second than other areas.

I would also remind you of this post of yours. You claimed then that the change was not gradual, now you are claiming that it was gradual.

I don’t recall using the word “gradual” in my description of the reduced activity, though even if I did you are just quibbling. Apart from the term being very vague, how can it be determined if the reduced activity was gradual or not when the apparent resumption of the collapses at that point prevents us seeing how the oscillation would progress?

If the collapse had been arrested with resistance of the lower intact block greatly slowing the fall by the time the upper block had dropped through its own height, and assuming debris impacting the ground does not obscure the reading, I would expect to see something like this for WTC2: -

linked-image

Note the calm point still there, indicating the beginning of the reduced activity. Perhaps this is how the reading would have progressed had not explosives completed the collapses. I mean how else should it progress with reduced activity leading to a halt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.