timmyfitz 0 #126 March 31, 2009 Quote I don’t ignore what any of you have to say, and wish any of you could prove to me beyond doubt, that this was not covered up in some sort of way to hide the Awful truth. (From post 95) This is the problem with most conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorist. They put it on others to prove there conspiracies wrong. Conspiracy theorist: George Bush and his administration blew up the WTC. If you don't have evidence to prove me wrong, it must be true. -or- They are hiding evidence. We can not find any proof they are hiding evidence so it must be true. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #127 March 31, 2009 Quote Assumtion is the mother of all fuck ups. Oh, the irony! Quote I supply you with a detailed, comprehensive study detailing the structural components of the building and using NIST's own words and documents. In which respected, peer reviewed journal was that study published?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #128 March 31, 2009 >you didn't even read it did you. I did. Occam's Razor states that if there are two competing theories, the simplest one that explains what happened is generally the correct one. >You tried to get me to imagine a house with concrete and steel dropped onto >as an explanation/interpretation and I supply you with a detailed, comprehensive >study detailing the structural components of the building and using NIST's own >words and documents. Right. I saw nothing that changes my opinion that flying a fully fueled 767 at maximum speed into a building could damage it to the extent that a raging fire could then cause its collapse. Nor did I see anything that changed my opinion that dropping tons of debris onto a building can set it up for the same sort of collapse. Indeed, eyewitness comments in that report contradict many of your claims: =============== " . . . at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged." " . . . on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good." "There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it." " . . . 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center." " . . .also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse." ============== Now, those are disregarded later in the report, of course. I could easily generate a website that had even more data than that on the destruction of the Columbia orbiter, and claim that the length and amazing amount of detail on my website (based on NASA documents!) "proved" that Columbia had been destroyed by a military missile to prevent them from telling anyone about the alien contacts they made during their mission. It would be just as credible. Do not equate the length of a website, or the number of lines the author draws on a picture, with its veracity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #129 April 1, 2009 QuoteWhy don't you try rebutting the 10 or so lines above what you snipped out? Quote I have, and like Bill you obviously hvn't taken the time to read or at least combed over the thread in in it entirety before posting. A common mistake. Go back to post 76 of this thread, you'l tell me that guy was telling lies? I can anticipate that as your type are quite predictable."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #130 April 1, 2009 Quote I did. Occam's Razor states that if there are two competing theories, the simplest one that explains what happened is generally the correct one. Kind of but not quite, it is more correctly the explanation that uses less assumptions. By your rationale a simple statement would generally be more correct than a thesis. Quote When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Quote Right. I saw nothing that changes my opinion that flying a fully fuelled 767 at maximum speed into a building could damage it to the extent that a raging fire could then cause its collapse. Nor did I see anything that changed my opinion that dropping tons of debris onto a building can set it up for the same sort of collapse. Indeed, eyewitness comments in that report contradict many of your claims:.... ....Now, those are disregarded later in the report, of course. Because the report was (using Occam’s razor) explaining the result of the damage rather than assuming it, it points out where NIST assumed and where that could have a dramatic effect on the result. But they, that created this report, did not use 'guesswork' for a basis (as NIST did), and avoided postulating as much as possible. Photographic evidence is used and official photos to boot. Put this report, Steven joneses report, AE911truths report and all the combined explanations of all aspects of this debacle, compiled by intellectual professionals, without repeating information. Then once printed and bound, sit it next to the Official NIST report. The good guys hypothesis would be much smaller (oooh assumtion) in size than that of the NIST report. The NIST report is so huge, you could almost fly a 767 into it . And ommits substance that will undermine thier hypothesis such as; Quote December 2001: Scientific Journal Describes ‘Eutectic Mixture’ in WTC Steel Edit event A sample of WTC steel eroded and corroded due to eutectic formations.A sample of WTC steel eroded and corroded due to eutectic formations. [Source: FEMA]The Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (JOM) reports that the examination of a beam from the remains of WTC Building 7—which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001)—has revealed “unexpected erosion” of the steel. The article states: “The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached around 1,000°C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a ‘blacksmith’s weld’ in a hand forge.” [Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson, 12/2001] The New York Times will call this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” [New York Times, 2/2/2002] FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, released in May 2002 (see May 1, 2002), will add that the same “unusual erosion patterns” have been observed in a sample of the remaining structural steel from one of the Twin Towers. It will state, “This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.” FEMA is unable to explain this phenomenon, saying, “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion… are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.… It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.” [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. C-1 - C-13] Despite FEMA’s call for further research, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will make no mention of the eutectic formations in its final report into the WTC collapses, released in late 2005, following its three-year investigation. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 pdf file] Entity Tags: National Institute of Standards and Technology, World Trade Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, WTC Investigation http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation&timeline=complete_911_timeline Stephn jones' paper again to refute your theory. http://www.911readingroom.org/jones/why_indeed_v3.html And a more recent version for you scientific types http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf The images on Page 67 of 'Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method' are quite descriptive. Occam’s razor my man, Occam’s Razor."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #131 April 1, 2009 Here is a peer reviewed journal covering all aspects of the ordeal with numerous atrilcles; http://www.journalof911studies.com/"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #132 April 1, 2009 >But they, that created this report, did not use 'guesswork' for a basis (as NIST did) . . Right. Just as I could create a report that proved that NASA is covering up something in the Columbia accident. It would not use "guesswork" as a basis, and would use NASA's own crew survivability report (in which they admit they do NOT KNOW SOME FACTS!) to prove that Columbia may have contacted space aliens before re-entry, and thus had to be destroyed by a US military missile. Or a Russian missile. Or an alien particle beam. Doesn't really matter. But what does matter is that I have a website with lots of pictures, arrows, lines and drawings that proves the NASA is involved in a big coverup! >The NIST report is so huge, you could almost fly a 767 into it . . . And if it were shorter, you could claim it has so many gaps you could fly a 767 through it. That's the great thing about conspiracy theories - you can twist any bit of evidence to fit your facts, and not have to have any internal consistency whatsoever. Hard facts on what happened? You can claim it's "so huge you can fly a 767 into it." Aspects we don't understand 100%? You can claim there's a coverup! And if later it becomes understood, well, just claim something else. >"A sample of WTC steel eroded and corroded due to eutectic formations." Good to see you are at least coming around to the idea that a fire, rather than explosives, brought down the WTC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #133 April 1, 2009 QuoteHere is a peer reviewed journal covering all aspects of the ordeal with numerous atrilcles; http://www.journalof911studies.com/ I'm pretty sure that I also specified respected, not just peer reviewed. At any rate, from your peer reviewed journal: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT I believe it addresses your concerns regarding the collapse of the buildings.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #134 April 1, 2009 How high are your academic standrads when you think the journal of 911 studies is a peer reviewed journal? This is a journal set up by three guys committed to a particualr conclusion.They right most of the articles themsleves. They dont publish regularly. Infact they have now said since their is so much evidence in their favour they have stopped publishing and ask contributors to "Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust".. HHmm, so they've got all the facts, so much so they don't publish anymore , yet haven't won over the scientific community. See a discrepecancy? notice how many articles they publish that don't agree with a conspiracy theory? even though the vast amount of academics dont subscribe to a conspiracy theory. They even admit their "journal" isn't trusted, yet you want to come on here and say "here is a peer reviewed jounral". Maybe now you can see why no one is buying your paranoid fantasy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #135 April 1, 2009 Quote And if it were shorter, you could claim it has so many gaps you could fly a 767 through it. How true that is, they have yet to explain what happened from the time the building started to collapse, until it reached the ground. Considering the length of the report, one of the most imortant parts is missing. That is so hillarious as you could fly a 767 through that space. the space between the roof of the buildings and the ground. you are a true comedian. Quote That's the great thing about conspiracy theories - you can twist any bit of evidence to fit your facts, and not have to have any internal consistency whatsoever. Let me get this straight, you are calling Steven Jonses studies inconsitent with scientific experimentation methods, and you belive NIST's report is thourough and complete? Is that really what you are saying? Quote >"A sample of WTC steel eroded and corroded due to eutectic formations." Good to see you are at least coming around to the idea that a fire, rather than explosives, brought down the WTC. Explain how explosives are not fire please? That is inconsistant with popular belief. Quote fire /faɪər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fahyuhr] Show IPA noun, verb, fired, fir⋅ing. –noun 1. a state, process, or instance of combustion in which fuel or other material is ignited and combined with oxygen, giving off light, heat, and flame. 2. a burning mass of material, as on a hearth or in a furnace. 3. the destructive burning of a building, town, forest, etc.; conflagration.... ...29. to subject to explosion or explosive force, as a mine. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fire "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #136 April 1, 2009 Quote, yet haven't won over the scientific community. See a discrepecancy? notice how many articles they publish that don't agree with a conspiracy theory? even though the vast amount of academics dont subscribe to a conspiracy theory. Now show me evidence that; a, The scientific community in it's entirety bar these guys, have refuted thier claims. There are hundreds if not 1000's of scientists (world wide) that are asking for the truth. Please state any impatial claims that refute these b, Evidence what they are saying about NIST's report is not true and c Tell how and why these are not peer reviewed as that clearly state they are; QuoteThank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001. Many fields of study are represented in the journal, including Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Psychology. All content is freely available online. Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic. The intention was to provide a rapid acceptance process with full peer review. That has been achieved. It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust. Two refereed papers have already been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink]. Further papers are now in the peer-review cycle. We will continue for the time being to provide a service for researchers who wish to present a new finding or a new point of view but who feel that..... Are you pulling shit out of thin air? or do you have evidence to support your claims?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #137 April 1, 2009 Quote Maybe now you can see why no one is buying your paranoid fantasy. hmmmmmmpppffffffhhhhhhyes, i am the only one. and you guys are the enlightened ones. Quote A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-435265/An-explosion-disbelief--fresh-doubts-9-11.html "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #138 April 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhy don't you try rebutting the 10 or so lines above what you snipped out? Quote I have, and like Bill you obviously hvn't taken the time to read or at least combed over the thread in in it entirety before posting. A common mistake. Go back to post 76 of this thread, you'l tell me that guy was telling lies? I can anticipate that as your type are quite predictable. No - I want YOU to refute it, not some crackpot from a conspiracy website. I cannot access youtube.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #139 April 1, 2009 According to the US 2001 census there were 3.413m scientists and engineers in the US alone. And you managed to find hundreds , maybe thousands of them who have a tin foil hat , sorry if Im not impressed. Just like the anti evolutionists have done the same with hundreds of them supporting ID, wow. I have to show how the scientific community in its entirety have refuted their claims? What every cell biologist, every astronomer, every particle physicist, evey animal behaviourist? You are being silly now. I have alreayd told what I thought of your article and provided links to their refutation. Saying you are a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it so. A serious peer reviewed academic journal is published regularly by scholars in the field, does not start with its conclusion, does not have the majority of its articles written by its editors, does not desclare they have the "truth" about their conclusion, and is accepted by scholars as a reliable format for said process. Your journal of 911 studies is a complete joke, even they admit that the scientific community doesnt take them seriously. According to their own blurb they only have two articles in proper journals . One of them is actually a letter entitled "14 points of agreement with Official Government Reports", the other is an Enviromental Journal showing high levels of organic chemcials in the months after the attacks. A little look at this journal sheds some light, their own description: "The Environmentalist publishes the critical but constructive views of both industrialists and ecologists, through challenging guest editorials, in-depth articles, interviews and news and comments columns." This is a journal publsihing view points, not exactly Nature is it? if you dont know the difference then you are seriously lost. So lets be clear according to their own web sites there are the only two artciles in in what they themsleves consider as respectable journals. Neither of them present any evidence of a conspiracy. lets contrast this with Structure Mag, a joint publication of the NAtional Council of Strucural Enginners , the Council of American Strctural Engineers, and the Strucual Engineering Institute. they concluded WTC7 fell due to fires caused by debris from WTC1 and WTC 2. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf anothe paper in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, conlcuded "In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings." http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #140 April 1, 2009 3/4 Americans suspect the government of not telling the truth. Not telling the truth and planning the atack are not the same. Nice way to distort the real picture. Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls 15% of people believ the US government was behind it , the vast majority of the rest (71%) think it was either Aq or are dont knows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #141 April 1, 2009 If someone wipes their ass with a piece of toilet paper and then shows it to you, is that peer reviewed? If they did it a thousand times and sent it to you, is that a journal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites XitXitXit 0 #142 April 1, 2009 LOL!!!!!!! You know the first two pages of this thread I was laughing my ass off at rhys, amazed at the fact that there were people out there convinced of such garbage. Now I'm reading this laughing at the rest of you who seem to be convinced that you can convince him otherwise... LOL!!!!!!!!! You guys are great!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!There are no pessimist in skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #143 April 1, 2009 >How true that is . . . Well, at least you admit your refusal to accept anything outside of your favorite scenario! >Let me get this straight, you are calling Steven Jonses studies >inconsitent with scientific experimentation methods . . . . . I am saying that Steven Jonses made a website with lots of pictures, lines and arrows with a paragraph about each one. That's not an example of "scientific experimentation methods." That's an example of website design. >and you belive NIST's report is thourough and complete? Nope, it's not 100% complete. There are a lot of things that we will never know. What happened to the paper in the copier on the 24th floor of the north tower? Did it burn? Was it really explosive? Did space aliens steal it? We will probably never know. That's true of pretty much every analysis of any disaster. >Explain how explosives are not fire please? Ah! Everyone's favorite game here on Speaker's Corner when they're out of arguments - parsing words! Well, let's both play that game: If you think that fire and explosives are exactly the same, I challenge you to roast hot dogs over a pound of Semtex as it's being detonated! After all, they're just fire, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #144 April 1, 2009 Quote I am saying that Steven Jonses made a website with lots of pictures, lines and arrows with a paragraph about each one. That's not an example of "scientific experimentation methods." That's an example of website design. Maybe he just wasn't prepared for a typical case of American blind justice. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #145 April 2, 2009 Quote I am saying that Steven Jonses made a website with lots of pictures, lines and arrows with a paragraph about each one. That's not an example of "scientific experimentation methods." That's an example of website design. So NIST say (in their $20million investigation) the molten substance falling out of the tower just prior to collapse is most likely aircraft aluminum even though it is glowing orange, Steven Jones and co. do experiments (even though as scientists that know molten aluminum does not glow orange at that temperature). NIST says organic matter mixed with the metal made it this color and it is common knowledge that organic matter does not mix with molten aluminum. For fucks sake, I have melted lots of non ferrous metals as a jeweler and like their Experiments concluded. Aluminum does not produce that color at those temperatures, and organic matter does not mix with it at all. You lot seem to skip the parts that make sense and assume they are implying things they are not. NIST have yet to try to explain the collapse from the point of onset (after spending $20 million on it), FEMA did and they said their hypothesis has a very low probability. I.E your pancake collapse theory. Stop picking through the bits you want to see. For you out there that think I am crazy and think this was a big old plot from the GW Admoronastration. You are wrong. i am not going to jump to conclusions as you all have. All I am implying is NIST have made a mockery of the investigation and they do not explain the collapse of the buildings and the rate in which they collapsed. But i suppose that is irrelevant. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 93 #146 April 2, 2009 For the 3rd time, what do you mean by the term "freefall speed"?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #147 April 2, 2009 Quote For the 3rd time, what do you mean by the term "freefall speed"? The amount of time it would take an object to fall from a height, with the assistance of gravity, without any significant resistance, aside from the usual resistance of the earths atmosphere. A strange question from a skydiver? "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites speuci 0 #148 April 2, 2009 So I'm curious, what is your estimation of the total head count of people necessary to pull off this "conspiracy"? 100? 1000? 10,000? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #149 April 2, 2009 You seem to have missed the link in post 133 of this thread, which incidentally, came from the "peer reviewed" journal to which you linked. There was no evidence of controlled demolition bringing down WT1, WT2, or WT7. None. The buildings didn't collapse into their own footprints. There was no seismographic evidence of controlled demolition related explosions, despite several seismographs operating in close enough proximity to have detected such explosions. There was no reported evidence of collapse due to controlled demolition within the rubble as it was being cleaned up, despite use of workers with enough experience with controlled demolition cleanup to be able to recognize such evidence. Occam's Razor supports the official explanation of the building collapses, or one very, very similar to it. It's not a search for truth when legitimate answers are discarded because they don't fit well with the conspiracy theory (and, no, the official explanation is not a conspiracy theory).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #150 April 2, 2009 >For you out there that think I am crazy and think this was a big old plot >from the GW Admoronastration. You are wrong. Sorry. I just came to the realization that this is your religion, and I'm arguing with someone over their religion. For me this is just an interesting exercise in structural forensics, but for you it's something much, much more. I'll leave you to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next Page 6 of 41 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rhys 0 #130 April 1, 2009 Quote I did. Occam's Razor states that if there are two competing theories, the simplest one that explains what happened is generally the correct one. Kind of but not quite, it is more correctly the explanation that uses less assumptions. By your rationale a simple statement would generally be more correct than a thesis. Quote When multiple competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selecting the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor Quote Right. I saw nothing that changes my opinion that flying a fully fuelled 767 at maximum speed into a building could damage it to the extent that a raging fire could then cause its collapse. Nor did I see anything that changed my opinion that dropping tons of debris onto a building can set it up for the same sort of collapse. Indeed, eyewitness comments in that report contradict many of your claims:.... ....Now, those are disregarded later in the report, of course. Because the report was (using Occam’s razor) explaining the result of the damage rather than assuming it, it points out where NIST assumed and where that could have a dramatic effect on the result. But they, that created this report, did not use 'guesswork' for a basis (as NIST did), and avoided postulating as much as possible. Photographic evidence is used and official photos to boot. Put this report, Steven joneses report, AE911truths report and all the combined explanations of all aspects of this debacle, compiled by intellectual professionals, without repeating information. Then once printed and bound, sit it next to the Official NIST report. The good guys hypothesis would be much smaller (oooh assumtion) in size than that of the NIST report. The NIST report is so huge, you could almost fly a 767 into it . And ommits substance that will undermine thier hypothesis such as; Quote December 2001: Scientific Journal Describes ‘Eutectic Mixture’ in WTC Steel Edit event A sample of WTC steel eroded and corroded due to eutectic formations.A sample of WTC steel eroded and corroded due to eutectic formations. [Source: FEMA]The Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (JOM) reports that the examination of a beam from the remains of WTC Building 7—which collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11 (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001)—has revealed “unexpected erosion” of the steel. The article states: “The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached around 1,000°C, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a ‘blacksmith’s weld’ in a hand forge.” [Barnett, Biederman, and Sisson, 12/2001] The New York Times will call this “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” [New York Times, 2/2/2002] FEMA’s World Trade Center Building Performance Study, released in May 2002 (see May 1, 2002), will add that the same “unusual erosion patterns” have been observed in a sample of the remaining structural steel from one of the Twin Towers. It will state, “This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion.” FEMA is unable to explain this phenomenon, saying, “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion… are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.… It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.” [Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. C-1 - C-13] Despite FEMA’s call for further research, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will make no mention of the eutectic formations in its final report into the WTC collapses, released in late 2005, following its three-year investigation. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 pdf file] Entity Tags: National Institute of Standards and Technology, World Trade Center, Federal Emergency Management Agency Timeline Tags: 9/11 Timeline Category Tags: 9/11 Investigations, WTC Investigation http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?investigations:_a_detailed_look=wtcinvestigation&timeline=complete_911_timeline Stephn jones' paper again to refute your theory. http://www.911readingroom.org/jones/why_indeed_v3.html And a more recent version for you scientific types http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf The images on Page 67 of 'Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method' are quite descriptive. Occam’s razor my man, Occam’s Razor."When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #131 April 1, 2009 Here is a peer reviewed journal covering all aspects of the ordeal with numerous atrilcles; http://www.journalof911studies.com/"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #132 April 1, 2009 >But they, that created this report, did not use 'guesswork' for a basis (as NIST did) . . Right. Just as I could create a report that proved that NASA is covering up something in the Columbia accident. It would not use "guesswork" as a basis, and would use NASA's own crew survivability report (in which they admit they do NOT KNOW SOME FACTS!) to prove that Columbia may have contacted space aliens before re-entry, and thus had to be destroyed by a US military missile. Or a Russian missile. Or an alien particle beam. Doesn't really matter. But what does matter is that I have a website with lots of pictures, arrows, lines and drawings that proves the NASA is involved in a big coverup! >The NIST report is so huge, you could almost fly a 767 into it . . . And if it were shorter, you could claim it has so many gaps you could fly a 767 through it. That's the great thing about conspiracy theories - you can twist any bit of evidence to fit your facts, and not have to have any internal consistency whatsoever. Hard facts on what happened? You can claim it's "so huge you can fly a 767 into it." Aspects we don't understand 100%? You can claim there's a coverup! And if later it becomes understood, well, just claim something else. >"A sample of WTC steel eroded and corroded due to eutectic formations." Good to see you are at least coming around to the idea that a fire, rather than explosives, brought down the WTC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #133 April 1, 2009 QuoteHere is a peer reviewed journal covering all aspects of the ordeal with numerous atrilcles; http://www.journalof911studies.com/ I'm pretty sure that I also specified respected, not just peer reviewed. At any rate, from your peer reviewed journal: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT I believe it addresses your concerns regarding the collapse of the buildings.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #134 April 1, 2009 How high are your academic standrads when you think the journal of 911 studies is a peer reviewed journal? This is a journal set up by three guys committed to a particualr conclusion.They right most of the articles themsleves. They dont publish regularly. Infact they have now said since their is so much evidence in their favour they have stopped publishing and ask contributors to "Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust".. HHmm, so they've got all the facts, so much so they don't publish anymore , yet haven't won over the scientific community. See a discrepecancy? notice how many articles they publish that don't agree with a conspiracy theory? even though the vast amount of academics dont subscribe to a conspiracy theory. They even admit their "journal" isn't trusted, yet you want to come on here and say "here is a peer reviewed jounral". Maybe now you can see why no one is buying your paranoid fantasy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #135 April 1, 2009 Quote And if it were shorter, you could claim it has so many gaps you could fly a 767 through it. How true that is, they have yet to explain what happened from the time the building started to collapse, until it reached the ground. Considering the length of the report, one of the most imortant parts is missing. That is so hillarious as you could fly a 767 through that space. the space between the roof of the buildings and the ground. you are a true comedian. Quote That's the great thing about conspiracy theories - you can twist any bit of evidence to fit your facts, and not have to have any internal consistency whatsoever. Let me get this straight, you are calling Steven Jonses studies inconsitent with scientific experimentation methods, and you belive NIST's report is thourough and complete? Is that really what you are saying? Quote >"A sample of WTC steel eroded and corroded due to eutectic formations." Good to see you are at least coming around to the idea that a fire, rather than explosives, brought down the WTC. Explain how explosives are not fire please? That is inconsistant with popular belief. Quote fire /faɪər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fahyuhr] Show IPA noun, verb, fired, fir⋅ing. –noun 1. a state, process, or instance of combustion in which fuel or other material is ignited and combined with oxygen, giving off light, heat, and flame. 2. a burning mass of material, as on a hearth or in a furnace. 3. the destructive burning of a building, town, forest, etc.; conflagration.... ...29. to subject to explosion or explosive force, as a mine. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fire "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #136 April 1, 2009 Quote, yet haven't won over the scientific community. See a discrepecancy? notice how many articles they publish that don't agree with a conspiracy theory? even though the vast amount of academics dont subscribe to a conspiracy theory. Now show me evidence that; a, The scientific community in it's entirety bar these guys, have refuted thier claims. There are hundreds if not 1000's of scientists (world wide) that are asking for the truth. Please state any impatial claims that refute these b, Evidence what they are saying about NIST's report is not true and c Tell how and why these are not peer reviewed as that clearly state they are; QuoteThank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001. Many fields of study are represented in the journal, including Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Psychology. All content is freely available online. Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic. The intention was to provide a rapid acceptance process with full peer review. That has been achieved. It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust. Two refereed papers have already been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink]. Further papers are now in the peer-review cycle. We will continue for the time being to provide a service for researchers who wish to present a new finding or a new point of view but who feel that..... Are you pulling shit out of thin air? or do you have evidence to support your claims?"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #137 April 1, 2009 Quote Maybe now you can see why no one is buying your paranoid fantasy. hmmmmmmpppffffffhhhhhhyes, i am the only one. and you guys are the enlightened ones. Quote A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-435265/An-explosion-disbelief--fresh-doubts-9-11.html "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #138 April 1, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhy don't you try rebutting the 10 or so lines above what you snipped out? Quote I have, and like Bill you obviously hvn't taken the time to read or at least combed over the thread in in it entirety before posting. A common mistake. Go back to post 76 of this thread, you'l tell me that guy was telling lies? I can anticipate that as your type are quite predictable. No - I want YOU to refute it, not some crackpot from a conspiracy website. I cannot access youtube.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #139 April 1, 2009 According to the US 2001 census there were 3.413m scientists and engineers in the US alone. And you managed to find hundreds , maybe thousands of them who have a tin foil hat , sorry if Im not impressed. Just like the anti evolutionists have done the same with hundreds of them supporting ID, wow. I have to show how the scientific community in its entirety have refuted their claims? What every cell biologist, every astronomer, every particle physicist, evey animal behaviourist? You are being silly now. I have alreayd told what I thought of your article and provided links to their refutation. Saying you are a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it so. A serious peer reviewed academic journal is published regularly by scholars in the field, does not start with its conclusion, does not have the majority of its articles written by its editors, does not desclare they have the "truth" about their conclusion, and is accepted by scholars as a reliable format for said process. Your journal of 911 studies is a complete joke, even they admit that the scientific community doesnt take them seriously. According to their own blurb they only have two articles in proper journals . One of them is actually a letter entitled "14 points of agreement with Official Government Reports", the other is an Enviromental Journal showing high levels of organic chemcials in the months after the attacks. A little look at this journal sheds some light, their own description: "The Environmentalist publishes the critical but constructive views of both industrialists and ecologists, through challenging guest editorials, in-depth articles, interviews and news and comments columns." This is a journal publsihing view points, not exactly Nature is it? if you dont know the difference then you are seriously lost. So lets be clear according to their own web sites there are the only two artciles in in what they themsleves consider as respectable journals. Neither of them present any evidence of a conspiracy. lets contrast this with Structure Mag, a joint publication of the NAtional Council of Strucural Enginners , the Council of American Strctural Engineers, and the Strucual Engineering Institute. they concluded WTC7 fell due to fires caused by debris from WTC1 and WTC 2. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf anothe paper in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, conlcuded "In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings." http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites philh 0 #140 April 1, 2009 3/4 Americans suspect the government of not telling the truth. Not telling the truth and planning the atack are not the same. Nice way to distort the real picture. Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls 15% of people believ the US government was behind it , the vast majority of the rest (71%) think it was either Aq or are dont knows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites warpedskydiver 0 #141 April 1, 2009 If someone wipes their ass with a piece of toilet paper and then shows it to you, is that peer reviewed? If they did it a thousand times and sent it to you, is that a journal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites XitXitXit 0 #142 April 1, 2009 LOL!!!!!!! You know the first two pages of this thread I was laughing my ass off at rhys, amazed at the fact that there were people out there convinced of such garbage. Now I'm reading this laughing at the rest of you who seem to be convinced that you can convince him otherwise... LOL!!!!!!!!! You guys are great!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!There are no pessimist in skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #143 April 1, 2009 >How true that is . . . Well, at least you admit your refusal to accept anything outside of your favorite scenario! >Let me get this straight, you are calling Steven Jonses studies >inconsitent with scientific experimentation methods . . . . . I am saying that Steven Jonses made a website with lots of pictures, lines and arrows with a paragraph about each one. That's not an example of "scientific experimentation methods." That's an example of website design. >and you belive NIST's report is thourough and complete? Nope, it's not 100% complete. There are a lot of things that we will never know. What happened to the paper in the copier on the 24th floor of the north tower? Did it burn? Was it really explosive? Did space aliens steal it? We will probably never know. That's true of pretty much every analysis of any disaster. >Explain how explosives are not fire please? Ah! Everyone's favorite game here on Speaker's Corner when they're out of arguments - parsing words! Well, let's both play that game: If you think that fire and explosives are exactly the same, I challenge you to roast hot dogs over a pound of Semtex as it's being detonated! After all, they're just fire, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #144 April 1, 2009 Quote I am saying that Steven Jonses made a website with lots of pictures, lines and arrows with a paragraph about each one. That's not an example of "scientific experimentation methods." That's an example of website design. Maybe he just wasn't prepared for a typical case of American blind justice. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #145 April 2, 2009 Quote I am saying that Steven Jonses made a website with lots of pictures, lines and arrows with a paragraph about each one. That's not an example of "scientific experimentation methods." That's an example of website design. So NIST say (in their $20million investigation) the molten substance falling out of the tower just prior to collapse is most likely aircraft aluminum even though it is glowing orange, Steven Jones and co. do experiments (even though as scientists that know molten aluminum does not glow orange at that temperature). NIST says organic matter mixed with the metal made it this color and it is common knowledge that organic matter does not mix with molten aluminum. For fucks sake, I have melted lots of non ferrous metals as a jeweler and like their Experiments concluded. Aluminum does not produce that color at those temperatures, and organic matter does not mix with it at all. You lot seem to skip the parts that make sense and assume they are implying things they are not. NIST have yet to try to explain the collapse from the point of onset (after spending $20 million on it), FEMA did and they said their hypothesis has a very low probability. I.E your pancake collapse theory. Stop picking through the bits you want to see. For you out there that think I am crazy and think this was a big old plot from the GW Admoronastration. You are wrong. i am not going to jump to conclusions as you all have. All I am implying is NIST have made a mockery of the investigation and they do not explain the collapse of the buildings and the rate in which they collapsed. But i suppose that is irrelevant. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 93 #146 April 2, 2009 For the 3rd time, what do you mean by the term "freefall speed"?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhys 0 #147 April 2, 2009 Quote For the 3rd time, what do you mean by the term "freefall speed"? The amount of time it would take an object to fall from a height, with the assistance of gravity, without any significant resistance, aside from the usual resistance of the earths atmosphere. A strange question from a skydiver? "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites speuci 0 #148 April 2, 2009 So I'm curious, what is your estimation of the total head count of people necessary to pull off this "conspiracy"? 100? 1000? 10,000? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #149 April 2, 2009 You seem to have missed the link in post 133 of this thread, which incidentally, came from the "peer reviewed" journal to which you linked. There was no evidence of controlled demolition bringing down WT1, WT2, or WT7. None. The buildings didn't collapse into their own footprints. There was no seismographic evidence of controlled demolition related explosions, despite several seismographs operating in close enough proximity to have detected such explosions. There was no reported evidence of collapse due to controlled demolition within the rubble as it was being cleaned up, despite use of workers with enough experience with controlled demolition cleanup to be able to recognize such evidence. Occam's Razor supports the official explanation of the building collapses, or one very, very similar to it. It's not a search for truth when legitimate answers are discarded because they don't fit well with the conspiracy theory (and, no, the official explanation is not a conspiracy theory).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 2,384 #150 April 2, 2009 >For you out there that think I am crazy and think this was a big old plot >from the GW Admoronastration. You are wrong. Sorry. I just came to the realization that this is your religion, and I'm arguing with someone over their religion. For me this is just an interesting exercise in structural forensics, but for you it's something much, much more. I'll leave you to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next Page 6 of 41 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
philh 0 #139 April 1, 2009 According to the US 2001 census there were 3.413m scientists and engineers in the US alone. And you managed to find hundreds , maybe thousands of them who have a tin foil hat , sorry if Im not impressed. Just like the anti evolutionists have done the same with hundreds of them supporting ID, wow. I have to show how the scientific community in its entirety have refuted their claims? What every cell biologist, every astronomer, every particle physicist, evey animal behaviourist? You are being silly now. I have alreayd told what I thought of your article and provided links to their refutation. Saying you are a peer reviewed journal doesn't make it so. A serious peer reviewed academic journal is published regularly by scholars in the field, does not start with its conclusion, does not have the majority of its articles written by its editors, does not desclare they have the "truth" about their conclusion, and is accepted by scholars as a reliable format for said process. Your journal of 911 studies is a complete joke, even they admit that the scientific community doesnt take them seriously. According to their own blurb they only have two articles in proper journals . One of them is actually a letter entitled "14 points of agreement with Official Government Reports", the other is an Enviromental Journal showing high levels of organic chemcials in the months after the attacks. A little look at this journal sheds some light, their own description: "The Environmentalist publishes the critical but constructive views of both industrialists and ecologists, through challenging guest editorials, in-depth articles, interviews and news and comments columns." This is a journal publsihing view points, not exactly Nature is it? if you dont know the difference then you are seriously lost. So lets be clear according to their own web sites there are the only two artciles in in what they themsleves consider as respectable journals. Neither of them present any evidence of a conspiracy. lets contrast this with Structure Mag, a joint publication of the NAtional Council of Strucural Enginners , the Council of American Strctural Engineers, and the Strucual Engineering Institute. they concluded WTC7 fell due to fires caused by debris from WTC1 and WTC 2. http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf anothe paper in the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, conlcuded "In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings." http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #140 April 1, 2009 3/4 Americans suspect the government of not telling the truth. Not telling the truth and planning the atack are not the same. Nice way to distort the real picture. Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_opinion_polls 15% of people believ the US government was behind it , the vast majority of the rest (71%) think it was either Aq or are dont knows. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #141 April 1, 2009 If someone wipes their ass with a piece of toilet paper and then shows it to you, is that peer reviewed? If they did it a thousand times and sent it to you, is that a journal? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
XitXitXit 0 #142 April 1, 2009 LOL!!!!!!! You know the first two pages of this thread I was laughing my ass off at rhys, amazed at the fact that there were people out there convinced of such garbage. Now I'm reading this laughing at the rest of you who seem to be convinced that you can convince him otherwise... LOL!!!!!!!!! You guys are great!!!!!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!There are no pessimist in skydiving. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #143 April 1, 2009 >How true that is . . . Well, at least you admit your refusal to accept anything outside of your favorite scenario! >Let me get this straight, you are calling Steven Jonses studies >inconsitent with scientific experimentation methods . . . . . I am saying that Steven Jonses made a website with lots of pictures, lines and arrows with a paragraph about each one. That's not an example of "scientific experimentation methods." That's an example of website design. >and you belive NIST's report is thourough and complete? Nope, it's not 100% complete. There are a lot of things that we will never know. What happened to the paper in the copier on the 24th floor of the north tower? Did it burn? Was it really explosive? Did space aliens steal it? We will probably never know. That's true of pretty much every analysis of any disaster. >Explain how explosives are not fire please? Ah! Everyone's favorite game here on Speaker's Corner when they're out of arguments - parsing words! Well, let's both play that game: If you think that fire and explosives are exactly the same, I challenge you to roast hot dogs over a pound of Semtex as it's being detonated! After all, they're just fire, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #144 April 1, 2009 Quote I am saying that Steven Jonses made a website with lots of pictures, lines and arrows with a paragraph about each one. That's not an example of "scientific experimentation methods." That's an example of website design. Maybe he just wasn't prepared for a typical case of American blind justice. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #145 April 2, 2009 Quote I am saying that Steven Jonses made a website with lots of pictures, lines and arrows with a paragraph about each one. That's not an example of "scientific experimentation methods." That's an example of website design. So NIST say (in their $20million investigation) the molten substance falling out of the tower just prior to collapse is most likely aircraft aluminum even though it is glowing orange, Steven Jones and co. do experiments (even though as scientists that know molten aluminum does not glow orange at that temperature). NIST says organic matter mixed with the metal made it this color and it is common knowledge that organic matter does not mix with molten aluminum. For fucks sake, I have melted lots of non ferrous metals as a jeweler and like their Experiments concluded. Aluminum does not produce that color at those temperatures, and organic matter does not mix with it at all. You lot seem to skip the parts that make sense and assume they are implying things they are not. NIST have yet to try to explain the collapse from the point of onset (after spending $20 million on it), FEMA did and they said their hypothesis has a very low probability. I.E your pancake collapse theory. Stop picking through the bits you want to see. For you out there that think I am crazy and think this was a big old plot from the GW Admoronastration. You are wrong. i am not going to jump to conclusions as you all have. All I am implying is NIST have made a mockery of the investigation and they do not explain the collapse of the buildings and the rate in which they collapsed. But i suppose that is irrelevant. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #146 April 2, 2009 For the 3rd time, what do you mean by the term "freefall speed"?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhys 0 #147 April 2, 2009 Quote For the 3rd time, what do you mean by the term "freefall speed"? The amount of time it would take an object to fall from a height, with the assistance of gravity, without any significant resistance, aside from the usual resistance of the earths atmosphere. A strange question from a skydiver? "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
speuci 0 #148 April 2, 2009 So I'm curious, what is your estimation of the total head count of people necessary to pull off this "conspiracy"? 100? 1000? 10,000? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #149 April 2, 2009 You seem to have missed the link in post 133 of this thread, which incidentally, came from the "peer reviewed" journal to which you linked. There was no evidence of controlled demolition bringing down WT1, WT2, or WT7. None. The buildings didn't collapse into their own footprints. There was no seismographic evidence of controlled demolition related explosions, despite several seismographs operating in close enough proximity to have detected such explosions. There was no reported evidence of collapse due to controlled demolition within the rubble as it was being cleaned up, despite use of workers with enough experience with controlled demolition cleanup to be able to recognize such evidence. Occam's Razor supports the official explanation of the building collapses, or one very, very similar to it. It's not a search for truth when legitimate answers are discarded because they don't fit well with the conspiracy theory (and, no, the official explanation is not a conspiracy theory).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #150 April 2, 2009 >For you out there that think I am crazy and think this was a big old plot >from the GW Admoronastration. You are wrong. Sorry. I just came to the realization that this is your religion, and I'm arguing with someone over their religion. For me this is just an interesting exercise in structural forensics, but for you it's something much, much more. I'll leave you to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
