I ask for papers published in independent peer-reviewed engineering/demolition journals, and what do I get? Thirty papers published in a peer reviewed 9-11 conspiracy site! Are you joking?
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Oh, and what Peer reviewed engineering journal did you get that from?
You mean what Peer reviewed engineering journal told me that 90 undamaged floors of a steel framed building offers more resistance than AIR? That’s exactly the problem–people who still believe the official story are clinging to an IMPOSSIBILITY so FUNDAMENTAL it boggles the mind.
“Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself nearly as fast as it would fall through air? (When the only force available is gravity)”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/110407fall.htm
[/quote]
That is interesting: how DOES that happen? My common sense says that can’t happen.
I’ve always wondered how a building obviously designed to withstand the impact of an airliner could fall as it did.
This is kind of like the JFK stuff — who do we believe and why.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Tell me guys…
If we have done SUCH A SHITTY job planning and executing the war then how in hell could our “incompetent” leaders plan such a perfectly timed and coreographed attack on ourselves with civilian equipment???
Please, logic and facts only…
[/quote]
Maybe what we have currently was the objective? If we didn’t go in convincingly and totally dedicted to cleaning out Iraq, maybe that was the goal.
Headhunter, I had to read those last two posts of yours a few times, all the while looking at the screen name next to them, just to convince myself that it really was you who wrote them.
Could it be that you (of all people) don’t buy the government’s official version of the story either?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
That is interesting: how DOES that happen? My common sense says that can’t happen.[/quote]
Common? How common can our sense of how fast a collapsing building should come down? It’s not like we have tons of experience to draw from, no?
How should it have fallen then? 12 seconds? 15? Should the collapsing top remain on the top of the 3 or 4 crushed floors?
What’s the norm for this type of event? Against what standard are the Truthers comparing the actual collapse?
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Headhunter, I had to read those last two posts of yours a few times, all the while looking at the screen name next to them, just to convince myself that it really was you who wrote them.
Could it be that you (of all people) don’t buy the government’s official version of the story either?
[/quote]
Well, you know my view of a mixed economy — the power to rule others is a big draw to the lowest forms of humanity. So, such a government that is imbedded in an economy tends to become fascistic over time…the murderer overcomes the pickpocket.
So, I think we’re basically doomed and living on the twilight of our legacy, that of a truly great country. The lights may go out tomorrow or in 50 years; my hope is that a miracle will happen, that our future Hitler is a George Washington in disguise. Unlikely, but one can only hope…
Love the legacy, despise the present.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
K, I will respond to this part. It isn’t just semantics…The model was never used as part of the official investigation. It is a simple working model, period. The ground in the animation wasn’t even rendered accurately. In fact, if I remember correctly, it’s turned 20 degrees in the wrong direction. It is not a finished product. It is not meant to be treated as a finished and exact model. It is not to be used to try to derive exact data from. That’s why, in the cover letter, it specifically told them it was a working model, not used for any official purposes. They were told this, up front. End of story.
[/quote]
Thats what you don’t seem to understand, IT IS exact data. They are not DERIVING data FROM it. The model is just a visual representation of the DATA from the flight recorder.
If its wrong its because they WANTED IT THAT WAY. You don’t produce and release a model turned 20 degrees in the wrong direction with a disclaimer that its wrong so don’t use it for anything. The ground is rendered with as much detail as it needs to be, its not a sightseeing tour.
With GPS coordinates and satellite imagery built into the flight animation software combined with direct input of raw flight data–do you realize how ludicrous it to say the model might be 20 degrees off?
“CEFA can realistically and accurately reconstruct a flight just a few minutes after the data from the flight data recorder becomes available.”
http://www.cefa-aviation.com/flight_data_analysis.htm
Vision, Flight Animation System
“Fully integrated with Flight Data Analysis systems (direct Recorder interface, replay, conversion, options).”
http://www.teledyne-controls.com/productsolution/vision/technicalsummary.asp
Besides, the eyewitness testimony from the two Pentagon police officers collaborate the flight path of the NTSB simulation. Their complete testimony is here on video, back at the original scene of the crime…
http://www.thepentacon.com/index.htm
What we have at this very moment, USING THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN CONFLICTING DATA between the 9/11 Report and the NTSB info-- is Flight 77 flying OVER the Pentagon, and “something else” hitting the light poles and the Pentagon.
Of course since we KNOW that CAN’T be true–the conflict of data needs to be rectified–because oddly enough, the GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA, supports the “wacky” conspiracy theory.
The difference between people like you and the “conspiracy theorists” is that you accept conflicting data and half-ass crap from the likes of NIST and NTSB.
Your fine with a 450pg, $20 million dollar NIST report that fudges data to get a desired result and then stops short of its actual stated goal (to the dismay of structural engineers)–or an “unofficial” NTSB data model 20 degrees off… or that Porter Goss was having breakfast with the hijackers’ money man on the morning of 9/11…
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html
This link contains the video. Below are my own words.
Ok. Here we go. It is imperative to listen and watch from the very beginning of this clip. Right of the bat the camera is focused on a group of fire-fighters. The one to really focus on is facing the camera and wearing sunglasses.
But first, listen from the 0-1s mark. You will distinctly hear the roar of the collapse as it’s starting. I’m easily hearing it around the .3s-.5s mark. But, I’ll settle on the .5 mark to simplify. You will continue to hear this roar build as the clip goes on. Loop through the 0-1s span a few times. The roar is very clear.
Ok, now, through the .8-1s span, the FF facing the camera (wearing the sunglasses) suddenly looks to the upper part of the building. While he does this, the cameraman does the same, getting the building clearly in view at about the 1.8s-2s mark. Loop through this a couple times.
Now, add the fact that the rumble started at around the .5s mark. The rumble has obviously roused them from the discussion they were having. In about 1s at least one FF, and the cameraman, have both quickly shifted their attention to the building. The roar…
Still with me? Good.
At this point go ahead and restart the clip and watch it all the way through a couple times. Focus on the roar for now. You will easily hear it before the 1 sec mark. Furthermore, you will hear it build in volume.
Next crucial part. Advance to the 11 second mark. You want to be right at 11s. The cameraman has begun filming the building again. Look at all of those stories still standing. Also, note the free falling debris outracing the main collapse of the building, which is significant in itself.
At the the 11s mark we are already approximately 10.5s from the roar, to this image of a considerable amount of floors still standing.
Now, very slowly, click advance your way from 11s-12s mark. Do this a couple of times. At the very start of the 12s mark there are clearly floors still standing. And, the debris, falling free of the main collapse mass, has obviously outpaced the building’s collapse.
So, at the 12s mark we are now at approximately 11.5s from hearing the roar of the collapse that suddenly drew the FF/CM’s attention. And, it’s beyond argument that the collapse has started from near the top and made it’s way down. Not, from the bottom failing. Not really conducive to the demolition theory.
And that’s it for visuals of the building, but you still hear a continued roar as those floors we saw at the 12s mark continue to collapse.
So how long from the 12s mark did it take for all those remaining floors to collapse? With no visual, we can only speculate. But, I’d say 1s would be an impossible rate for that many remaining floors to have all collapsed. Still, let’s use 1s and be generous to the ct’ers. Add 1s more to our 11.5 mark.
We have now reached at LEAST 12.5 That does not fit the 6.6s-8.5s (depends on the ct theorist) free fall speed.
In conclusion,
-
At least 12.5s collapse.
-
The debris falling free of the main mass, is outracing the main mass of the building.
-
It is clear the collapse has initiated towards the top of the building
and moved down, with us seeing many floors still intact (taller than the building on it’s left). Again, collapse has not initiated at the bottom, with the rest of the building coming down into the collapse zone.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall__video_evidence.html
This link contains the video. Below are my own words…
…We have now reached at LEAST 12.5 That does not fit the 6.6s-8.5s (depends on the ct theorist) free fall speed.
In conclusion,
-
At least 12.5s collapse.
-
The debris falling free of the main mass, is outracing the main mass of the building.
-
It is clear the collapse has initiated towards the top of the building
and moved down, with us seeing many floors still intact (taller than the building on it’s left). Again, collapse has not initiated at the bottom, with the rest of the building coming down into the collapse zone.
[/quote]
FYI, your “6.6s-8.5s” times are for the 47 story WTC7–which is not the tower in your example.
From the 9/11 Report:
“At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds, killing all civilians and emergency personnel inside, as well a number of individuals-both first responders and civilians-in the concourse, in the Marriott, and on neighboring streets.”
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch9.htm
But here is THE MOST straight forward, simple to understand, explanation you will ever hear. The whole 5 minute or so video is very informative, but Prof Steven Jones explanation of the collapse 3/4 of the way thru is COMPLETELY UNARGUABLE and dumbfoundingly simple.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/080307nist.htm
It even includes your video clip and he states it would take 10 to 12 secs. freefall–which you’ve kindly confirmed but have compared in collapse time to the much shorter building 7.
You do realize the NCE posts actually hurt your case? They aren’t debating the basic causes. Structural damage and heat. In fact, it appears you missed this little NCE article. That’s too funny.
"Collapse mechanisms
Fire engineers are still debating the exact sequence of events that caused the catastrophic collapse of the iconic Twin Towers (NCE 30 June).
Conspiracy theorists still pour over every detail of every report into the disaster, looking for apparent anomalies and contradictions. But most engineers have long since accepted the basic scenario as established both by the NIST investigation and the earlier analysis by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Put simply, WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed primarily because terrorists flew fuel laden wide bodied jet airliners into them at high speed. Each tower was struck at a different angle and sustained slightly different damage. Had it been 300t Boeing 747s hitting the towers square on instead of 100t 757s, collapse would have been virtually instantaneous, as too many structural members would have been severed in the impacts.
Instead, the very strong ?perimeter tube? structure of the towers took massive damage ? but there were enough alternative load paths around the gaping holes left by the Boeings for the structures to remain stable. However, as the shredding, disintegrating remains of the aircraft plunged further into the towers, they dealt three more blows that were to prove fatal.
In both towers the wreckage penetrated the core, damaging and severing core columns and blocking escape stairs. And in both cases the impact also severed the single water supply line feeding the sprinkler system. Worst of all was the effect on the spray applied fire protection that coated all the structural steelwork.
How much of this was dislodged by the initial impacts will never be known. In its simulations NIST chose to assume that the steel only lost protection by debris scour.
Jet fuel remaining after the initial fireballs splashed through the upper floors of the towers and poured down the cores. It burned only for a few minutes, but this was long enough to ignite the office contents on many floors. Flames from these fires began to heat up the columns and floor trusses that were now naked and unprotected.
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, many eminent engineers voiced their suspicions about the vulnerability of the floor truss/column joints to fire. NIST believes these joints in fact remained intact except where they had taken direct impact. NIST also believes that a combination of core column shortening and floor truss sagging eventually pulled heat softened perimeter columns inwards, triggering progressive buckling and structural failure.
These opinions are based partly on an exhaustive study of nearly 7,000 videos and much the same number of still photographs and the examination of 236 fragments of steel from the towers, partly on large scale fire testing of the floor trusses, and partly on computer simulations of the effects of both aircraft impact and fire spread. Once the upper storeys began their downward plunge, the effects were brutal. Entire office floors including all contents were literally pulverised to dust by the massive kinetic energy of the falling towers."
So, yeah, ever find any demo papers published in an independent peer-reviewed journal? Or, are you going to post articles from Steven Jone’s site again? You know, the site where CT’ers peer-review each other’s papers.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
It even includes your video clip and he states it would take 10 to 12 secs. freefall–which you’ve kindly confirmed but have compared in collapse time to the much shorter building 7.
[/quote]
Apparently you’re not reading me correctly. My time frame doesn’t fall between 10-12 seconds. My time is AT LEAST 12.5s. Again, AT LEAST. Reread it all again. You obviously skimmed. At second 12, I give the remaining floors only 1 second to fall. AS I said, that’s just not possible.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Apparently you’re not reading me correctly. My time frame doesn’t fall between 10-12 seconds. My time is AT LEAST 12.5s. Again, AT LEAST. Reread it all again. You obviously skimmed. At second 12, I give the remaining floors only 1 second to fall. AS I said, that’s just not possible. [/quote]
Watch the video, it makes your argument completely laughable when you emphasize “AT LEAST 12.5s”–since in reality it would be 40 seconds to NEVER.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/080307nist.htm
You appear to be looking for the most complicated answer to a fundamental impossibility. You could prove me wrong of course by running thru a series of 20 closed doors at almost the exact same speed as if they were open. Or better yet, do the 100 meter hurdles at your 100 meter sprint time.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Apparently you’re not reading me correctly. My time frame doesn’t fall between 10-12 seconds. My time is AT LEAST 12.5s. Again, AT LEAST. Reread it all again. You obviously skimmed. At second 12, I give the remaining floors only 1 second to fall. AS I said, that’s just not possible.
Watch the video, it makes your argument completely laughable when you emphasize “AT LEAST 12.5s”–since in reality it would be 40 seconds to NEVER.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/080307nist.htm
You appear to be looking for the most complicated answer to a fundamental impossibility. You could prove me wrong of course by running thru a series of 20 closed doors at almost the exact same speed as if they were open. Or better yet, do the 100 meter hurdles at your 100 meter sprint time.[/quote]
Hah, nice dodge! I invite anyone to listen for the roar of the collapse initialization towards the top of the building(btw, didn’t even factor speed of sound to mic). And then view how much is still standing at the 12 second mark. Right there, at least 11.5 seconds have passed, with that much building still left. Would Jones have us believe it took .5s for the rest to collapse?
One more time, I said at least 12.5s for a reason. That’s because I used a ridiculous collapse time for the remaining building, at the 12 second mark…1 sec. Are you arguing that it took a mere 1 sec for the rest to collapse?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Hah, nice dodge! I invite anyone to listen for the roar of the collapse initialization towards the top of the building(btw, didn’t even factor speed of sound to mic). And then view how much is still standing at the 12 second mark. Right there, at least 11.5 seconds have passed, with that much building still left. Would Jones have us believe it took .5s for the rest to collapse?
One more time, I said at least 12.5s for a reason. That’s because I used a ridiculous collapse time for the remaining building, at the 12 second mark…1 sec. Are you arguing that it took a mere 1 sec for the rest to collapse?
[/quote]
How about we say it took 15 seconds… watch the video.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/080307nist.htm
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hah, nice dodge! I invite anyone to listen for the roar of the collapse initialization towards the top of the building(btw, didn’t even factor speed of sound to mic). And then view how much is still standing at the 12 second mark. Right there, at least 11.5 seconds have passed, with that much building still left. Would Jones have us believe it took .5s for the rest to collapse?
One more time, I said at least 12.5s for a reason. That’s because I used a ridiculous collapse time for the remaining building, at the 12 second mark…1 sec. Are you arguing that it took a mere 1 sec for the rest to collapse?
How about we say it took 15 seconds… watch the video.
Alex Jones' Endgame [/quote]
I will if Jone’s WTC work has been published in any independent peer-reviewed engineering journal. Otherwise, why waste my time on a man who can only publish on his own site, where it’s peer-reviewed by his fellow CT’ers. Sorry, but I won’t be turning to “Prisonplanet” as a resource of independent and peer reviewed science, either.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
lixy wrote:
For the record, none of the hijackers’ relatives were harmed.
Also for the record, the family of the alleged ringleader of the plot was hustled out of the country on a private jet, with the approval of the FBI, at a time when all flights both foreign and domestic were supposedly grounded.[/quote]
Yup. And I was grounded on a business trip 2,000 miles from home at the same time. And I was not happy about being made to stay away from my family for a longer period of time.
Yet this fucker’s family was allowed to fly chartered jets out of the country, without questioning.
interesting, isn’t it?
Or not if you are a Republican.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
pookie wrote:
Better to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them again.
Yeah, you’d think!
On 9/11, I hoped the world will realize that in this day and age you can’t get away with oppressing and alienating people, and that we’ll finally achieve some kind of peace on Earth. The lesson was supposed to be that any evil you unleash will ultimately bite you right in the ass.
You have finally figured it out! The USA WILL crush the satanic forces that have overrun the Middle East and democracy and freedom will come to that troubled region of the world.
Just like the British got rid of the Hindu practice of wife burning, we will dispose of the satanic rituals of clitoral slashing, whipping of women for showing an ankle, beheading those who disagree with you, and so on. Reason will prevail.
[/quote]
HH, this is just insane man. It is not our job, nor the job of anyone to sort out the sinners from the saints.
If these people feel their acts are fine, who are we to say they are not?
When did jesus step down and crown you master of sinners? WTF makes you so divine? It is not our job to sort out the human race. It is our job to praise jesus as our lord, and he will take care of the others. It is not your job, nor anyone’s job to condemn others.
It is when these people threaten other nations, like ours, with things like, ummmm, I dunno, nuclear weapons (cough), that we need to step in and prevent such activity.
But at this point it seems the nuc’s were just a ploy to get us to go to war with IRAQ. Can you say OIL?
There is no mystery here, there were no nuc’s aimed at the US, Saddam had no power nor desire to create them, and he certainly had nothing to do with 9/11.
SO WTF are we doing there? Why has bin Laden become:
"Bush wants Osama “dead or alive” (Sept. 2001), then says “I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him… I truly am not that concerned about him.” (March 2002)
And exactly why is it that Bush is not that concerned with killing Bin Laden when Bush is really close to the rest of his family? Close your eyes and imagine for a minute Bush is actually Bill Clinton in disguise, now re-think your position.
Do you really not see the fucking tie here? It is practically smacking you in the face.
I realize Bush’s reign has earned you some money. You spoke about it in other threads…you know…your stocks that have shot up…is this really christian behavior to open your hand and close your eyes?
And don’t give me the crap that we are worried about how they treat people in their country.
Mother fuckers been killing and eating people for years in Africa, but we are not there stopping that shit. Why is that not a concern? They actually kill people, and fucking eat their bodies, yet you are worried about a muslim woman not being allowed to show her face? WTF man? Lets twist the bible a little more, shall we?
Get off the moral majority platform. It does not work when you are behind mass murder, and frankly it is not what jesus preached. Ever heard of Haditha? Look it up, because I am sure you know JACK SHIT about it. What weapons were used there? Yea, weapons of mass destruction.
Go to Africa and stop people from killing each other and eating the corpse. Yea, I am not making that up. The fecal matter you spew on these boards is starting to stain my monitor.
When I first started debating with you, you did not know the difference between a shiite and a Suni. WTF makes you so informed now?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Hah, nice dodge! I invite anyone to listen for the roar of the collapse initialization towards the top of the building(btw, didn’t even factor speed of sound to mic). And then view how much is still standing at the 12 second mark. Right there, at least 11.5 seconds have passed, with that much building still left. Would Jones have us believe it took .5s for the rest to collapse?
One more time, I said at least 12.5s for a reason. That’s because I used a ridiculous collapse time for the remaining building, at the 12 second mark…1 sec. Are you arguing that it took a mere 1 sec for the rest to collapse?
How about we say it took 15 seconds… watch the video.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/080307nist.htm
I will if Jone’s WTC work has been published in any independent peer-reviewed engineering journal. Otherwise, why waste my time on a man who can only publish on his own site, where it’s peer-reviewed by his fellow CT’ers. Sorry, but I won’t be turning to “Prisonplanet” as a resource of independent and peer reviewed science, either.
[/quote]
You seem to have no problem paying homage to entities that are paid big money by the Bush administration to come up with pre-determined findings.
I don’t know why anyone would ask you to open your mind a little. It seems to me like a really fucking stupid question. I would not ask something like that of you, and I really dont expect it.
I would not be suprised if you work for your good ol boy gee-dub.
Probably sucking his dick at Bohemian Grove every year. Yea, look that up, because I am sure you never heard of it.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
I will if Jone’s WTC work has been published in any independent peer-reviewed engineering journal. Otherwise, why waste my time on a man who can only publish on his own site, where it’s peer-reviewed by his fellow CT’ers. Sorry, but I won’t be turning to “Prisonplanet” as a resource of independent and peer reviewed science, either.
[/quote]
“In a way, the worldview of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them… By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.”
–George Orwell, 1984
[quote]Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Apparently you’re not reading me correctly. My time frame doesn’t fall between 10-12 seconds. My time is AT LEAST 12.5s. Again, AT LEAST. Reread it all again. You obviously skimmed. At second 12, I give the remaining floors only 1 second to fall. AS I said, that’s just not possible.
Watch the video, it makes your argument completely laughable when you emphasize “AT LEAST 12.5s”–since in reality it would be 40 seconds to NEVER.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/080307nist.htm
You appear to be looking for the most complicated answer to a fundamental impossibility. You could prove me wrong of course by running thru a series of 20 closed doors at almost the exact same speed as if they were open. Or better yet, do the 100 meter hurdles at your 100 meter sprint time.
Hah, nice dodge! I invite anyone to listen for the roar of the collapse initialization towards the top of the building(btw, didn’t even factor speed of sound to mic). And then view how much is still standing at the 12 second mark. Right there, at least 11.5 seconds have passed, with that much building still left. Would Jones have us believe it took .5s for the rest to collapse?
One more time, I said at least 12.5s for a reason. That’s because I used a ridiculous collapse time for the remaining building, at the 12 second mark…1 sec. Are you arguing that it took a mere 1 sec for the rest to collapse?
[/quote]
Do you know the number 1 republican campaign contirbutor up to the 2000 elections?
That’s right idiot, it was ENRON.
I suppose you also know that ALL of the evidence against ENRON and the GOVT. involvement with ENRON and the contributions was stored in WTC 4, the last building to fall, which was not hit by any fucking thing. NOTHING DOUCHE!
All evidence was lost in the collapse of that building.
And you have absolutely no reason to question this? NONE? No reason to request an independent investigation. INDEPENDENT, not a bunch of BUSH croneys.
My advice to you, keep sucking dick my friend. Jesus will sort you out.
Yea, and by the way I work for the company that analyzed the data from ENRON, Onsite Sourcing. And the data was lost in WTC building 4 collapse.
Look it up, I am sure you know ZERO about it.
Yet you proclaim the studies of paid hit men.
Brillaint. I won sustody of my son. My son’s mother appealed and paid over 5 psychiatrists to testify in court why she should have custody of my son.
I suppose in your mind, she should have custody of my son, and I am wrong. After all, I couldn’t even pay one psychologist to testify on my behalf. So the professionals that testify for her win, and I lose since I couldn’t afford one testimony.
So my son needs to go to my mother, and you need your balls cut off so you cannot contaminate the rest of the population.
Seem fair?