The 911 challenge thread - Page 9 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Insert BS here A place to discuss anything you want

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-30-2008, 11:46 PM   #161
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 701
Total Cats: 0
Default

Ok, well someone would have to make the model then. No firm is going to take you up on it because no one has anything to prove anymore. It would require the model from Perdue, as well as calculations from the tower collapsing, then the affects of tower 1 collapsing on tower two. I don't know that you'd need to prove the same fall on tower two that happened on one but for ***** and giggles...why not?
MX_Eva is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2008, 11:50 PM   #162
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 143
Total Cats: 2
Default

a 3 page paper, mostly diagrams, which cites no references and is written by an author with three, count 'em again, two other citations on machinery failures and safety, and pressure vessel explosion. Not metallurgy, structural engineering of large buildings, or anything similar.

A reasonable paper on the building collapse would have about that many pages of citations and call out other research in materials science, structural engineering, civil engineering, ad nauseum.

for the love of god man, are you just trolling, or are you really willing to accept such shoddy "science"? if so, i have a number of perpetual motion machines which i would gladly sell the plans for, at extreme markup.

as i feel like i'm talking to someone with his fingers firmly in his ears, i'm done feeding your troll.
thebeerbaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 12:03 AM   #163
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

drewbroo et al, you're arguing from the point of view that a "conspiracy" is impossible. If you objectively look at the physical evidence, without siding one way or the other, it's pretty undeniable.

There is a shitload more circumstantial evidence unrelated to the actual collapse of the towers that I have barely mentioned in this thread.

There is an investigative journalist by the name of Michael Ruppert, an ex LAPD narcotics detective who treated this like a murder case. He looked at the evidence leading up to the event, and subsequent events afterwards, and looked for motive.

- insider trading all over the world just before 911, profiting on the drop in stock prices of the 2 airlines and the tenants of the WTC - one was traced to an ex CIA director

- multiple warnings from several foreign intelligence agencies, including the UK, Russia, Egypt, Germany, Jordan, Morrocco - and the most detailed, from the Israelis

- in 1995 Philippine police caught some terrorists with a laptop with emails talking about flying planes into buildings

- several people were warned not to travel on 911 including SF mayor ***** Brown

- the announcement of "drills" on the morning of 911 which delayed the scrambling of interceptors

- special forces preparing for Afghanistan just before 911

- Fire Engineering people protested the rapid cleanup of WTC7 so they could study how fire caused collapse, but it was cleaned up very quickly

- The Patriot Act was up for voting 13 days afterwards; 2 senators who protested it got Anthrax letters

-the possible real motive for invading Afghanistan is to lay an oil pipeline from Uzbekistan to the Arabian Sea

Have a look in here:
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/...rueStory911_04
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 12:06 AM   #164
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Does anyone here actually think it's plausible for a building to collapse such that the top of the building reaches the ground in about the same time as a free falling object? Just think about it. It's very simple, any resistance offered by the structure will slow it down significantly. Even with just the *inertia* alone of the floors below, the towers 1 and 2 should have taken 2.5s longer than free fall.

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 01-31-2008 at 12:18 AM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 12:16 AM   #165
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 502
Total Cats: 0
Default

Most of us believe it because most of us have degrees in the matter. Did you also factor in vacuum? Fire eats O2 creating vacuum, vacuum creates suction/compression on every level affected. Every 10th floor of the building contained a kitchen with natural gas for heating. Even on the top level of each building was a giant restaurant. Natural gas stoves. Do you know the size of the tanks in the building? No. Do you know other things that may have used gas? (Air conditions/Heating?) I take it thats a no too. The building was built to code. It was attacked in the early 90's. The daily stress of so many people being in it gives the structure its weakness. There are many factors that you are not considering here, then you have the inertia of a plane hitting each building. Causing a ripple effect down each building. The buildings move in the ******* wind for god sakes. Planes and fuel exploding don't help the structure very much. Inside the building there was enough propellant to destroy any building. (Not to mention the force of the whole structure flexing.)
drewbroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 12:21 AM   #166
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 502
Total Cats: 0
Default

drewbroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 12:26 AM   #167
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

If there are restaurants they have giant OA requirements because of the hoods. When there is a fire the hoods remain on (to clear smoke) but the rooftop units shut down not to send the smoke through the building. Were talking they can pump easily 2500 CFM on a small restaurant.

Jason,

I do not know about everyone else here, but your talking to an engineer, without hard data, and the evidence you have is circumstantial at best. The "degreed professors" that are your sources have been published less times than i have and that was during UNDERGRAD.
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 02:41 AM   #168
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Loki you still haven't come up with any possible explanation as to how #7 could collapse at near free fall speed. You cantilever beam theory might explain *a* collapse but (a) not vertically at free fall speed without tipping over and (b) the photos of the building don't show much damage at all.

Also as per the concrete pulverization the point is not that there's *some* pulverization, it's that most of the concrete was pulverized - no large slabs *at all*. Most of the concrete ended up in the dust cloud.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 04:24 AM   #169
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 502
Total Cats: 0
Default

put the weight of a building on crumbling concrete, and it will get pulverized. It doesn't take many PPSI of pressure to pulverize concrete. Nit pick all you want, but sometimes the easiest conclusion is the simplest.
drewbroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 10:28 AM   #170
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Jason,

The reason i haven't come up with a reason for WTC7 falling at freefall speeds, its because it doesnt matter.

How would the cause of the base failing make it fall faster or slower? (i am not talking the speed of failure because if you already proved my point with your failed connecting rods, which by the way is the wrong mode of failure for the beams)


PS. On your cutting torch beams, ever occur to you crazy people that it was cut after the collapse to help with rescue?
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 01:41 PM   #171
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

drew, concrete is pretty tough stuff. You take a jackhammer to it, it cracks into smaller pieces, and very little powder is produced. If you drop a large piece of concrete from 1000 ft, it won't turn into powder when it hits the ground, it breaks into pieces. Most of the building's concrete was turned into a fine powder that blanketed several blocks, very little was left in the rubble.

And look at the physics. Even if the ~100 floors were barely supported by anything, and you drop the upper fifth like a piledriver, the mass alone of the floors below will slow down the drop by ~2.5s.

Loki, look at the photo, that beam was high up. It wasn't cut by a rescuer.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 01:55 PM   #172
I'm Miserable!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 589
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
drew, concrete is pretty tough stuff. You take a jackhammer to it, it cracks into smaller pieces, and very little powder is produced. If you drop a large piece of concrete from 1000 ft, it won't turn into powder when it hits the ground, it breaks into pieces. Most of the building's concrete was turned into a fine powder that blanketed several blocks, very little was left in the rubble.

And look at the physics. Even if the ~100 floors were barely supported by anything, and you drop the upper fifth like a piledriver, the mass alone of the floors below will slow down the drop by ~2.5s.

Loki, look at the photo, that beam was high up. It wasn't cut by a rescuer.
So you know the exact specs on the concrete that was use on the building between 1966-1973 and exactly how it would react? Not all Concrete is the same.

the only conspiracy I see is you and the AE911 folks conspiring to fool yourselves into believe an opinion.
MX5-4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 03:36 PM   #173
Guest
iTrader: (1)
 
ray_sir_6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 714
Total Cats: 0
Default

Slide 231 - He never said the dust cloud was caused by explosives, just that it was, "in his opinion", unexplained.

Slide 232 - Considering every floor hit the floor below it, it wouldn't need to hit the ground to cause the pulverization of the concrete. Look at 23 seconds on this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ng5qwtR59A See where the top portion makes a "pryroclastic cloud" before it hits the ground? That was where it contacted the floors below it, not caused by explosives. The only reason every floor didn't do that was cause it met no resistance until it hit the ground. The WTC towers met resistence on every floor.

Slide 233 - That's what happens when several tons of concrete and steel flooring SANDWICH together. Look what happens in car wrecks...whatever part of the car was involved in the impact is deformed, and the parts where the impact initiated are NOT RECOGNIZABLE anymore. So it's luck you even found pieces big enough that you could identify it as part of something.

Slide 234 - "90,000 tons of concrete missing from each building" - "Settling to 4" thick all over downtown NY" Those two statements just don't go together. It wasn't missing, it was laying 4" thick all over NYC.

Slide 235 - Watch ANY controlled demo video and see when the dust cloud happens. Is it when the explosives go off? No, it's when the building hits the ground. So trying to say that dust clouds don't happen unless there are explosives is just idiotic. http://youtube.com/watch?v=o1Vu15D_0oI Another example of a dust cloud. If you ever watched a show about controlled demo and the way they do it, you would know the WTC wasn't one. They gut the building of EVERYTHING, and wrap blankets around the explosives mounted to the columns, using chain-link fence. This is all done to reduce the amount of dust and to keep projectiles from flying off. And yet they still have a HUGE dust cloud. Now imagine if it still had everything inside...desks, chairs, computers, walls, carpet, etc. That would make a TON OF DUST!!! And the dust on controlled demos isn't till after it hits the ground, and it wasn't caused by the explosives. http://youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI Look, a dust cloud...but expansion can't happen without explosives. You don't need HEAT, you need pressure. I am sure a few dozen floors collapsing on each other will create enough pressure to push the dust cloud out.

Slide 236 - All the concrete was pulverized and settling all over NYC. Most of the remaining concrete was in the 7 basement levels BELOW the big pile of metal you see in the picture. It looks like 2 110 story buildings collapsed. Nothing about how it fell or how it came to rest indicates explosives had any part in it.

Slide 238 - So the explosives brought the building down, and pulverized all the concrete, yet didn't burn most of the paper. How did that happen? Paper is flamable, and the dust cloud was supposed to be caused by extreme heat from explosives. Is the paper "fire resistant", part of a newly implemented "fire code" for the WTC?

Slide 241 - If it did that to concrete, then what did you think was gonna happen to frail human bodies?

Slide 259 - These were done with the insulation still on them. I already read about that awhile ago. So, yeah, after 2 hrs they hadn't failed.

Slide 260 - "The damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themsleves were not enough to bring down the towers." But the continual burn from office furniture, walls, etc, could cause enough structural compromise to.

Slide 289 - Way to edit it so it looks like he says it was a controlled demo. He was merely stating it LOOKED the same as one, since it fell straight down.

Done.

They still didn't answer how the explosives got put there, why noone saw them, and how they remained after the tremendous impact and fireball from a jetliner. They did put people in the main spaces where explosives could be put, the elevator shafts, and basicly ruled out the only thing that made me think it was possible. So, again, the "conspiracy" hinges on the fact that everyone in the building had to be in on it. I think the chances of it being caused by the "accepted" theory is more plausible than that TENS OF THOUSANDS of people, some of who DIED in the towers, were in on it.
ray_sir_6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 03:51 PM   #174
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
drew, concrete is pretty tough stuff. You take a jackhammer to it, it cracks into smaller pieces, and very little powder is produced. If you drop a large piece of concrete from 1000 ft, it won't turn into powder when it hits the ground, it breaks into pieces. Most of the building's concrete was turned into a fine powder that blanketed several blocks, very little was left in the rubble.

And look at the physics. Even if the ~100 floors were barely supported by anything, and you drop the upper fifth like a piledriver, the mass alone of the floors below will slow down the drop by ~2.5s.

Loki, look at the photo, that beam was high up. It wasn't cut by a rescuer.
No WRONG! Concrete is not tough, its very hard and very brittle. When you see people using jack hammers, what do you see? A ton of dust.
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 04:07 PM   #175
I'm Miserable!
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 589
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki047 View Post
No WRONG! Concrete is not tough, its very hard and very brittle. When you see people using jack hammers, what do you see? A ton of dust.
What I normally see is a bunch of water all over the place to keep the dust down.

Jason simple wants to believe this as with many things in life if you want to believe something there will be no shortage of things you can find to support it.

Let's take the after life as an example while we have no really evidence of it's exisitence there is a huge population on this planet that believe in it and are willing to die for it.

Think of 9/11 do you really feel these guys would have hijacked a plane and flown it into a building if they didn't 100% believe they would have an after life? Many humans don't need real data to make up their minds. Speculation is more than enough.

To me that's the only thing Jason is proving here.
MX5-4me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 04:18 PM   #176
Guest
iTrader: (1)
 
ray_sir_6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 714
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
drewbroo et al, you're arguing from the point of view that a "conspiracy" is impossible. If you objectively look at the physical evidence, without siding one way or the other, it's pretty undeniable.
I did. I was almost swayed by the location of the core support beams in the elevator shafts. Out of sight where explosives could be put and noone would know. But then they destroyed that by having the elevators undergoing modernization at the time. Yes, they tried to say that those workers could have planted the bombs, but until they prove that company was a CIA shell company, I'm gonna have to say "NO" to that happening.

Quote:
There is a shitload more circumstantial evidence unrelated to the actual collapse of the towers that I have barely mentioned in this thread.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL...exactly.

Quote:
There is an investigative journalist by the name of Michael Ruppert, an ex LAPD narcotics detective who treated this like a murder case. He looked at the evidence leading up to the event, and subsequent events afterwards, and looked for motive.
So he uncovered enough evidence to prove it was not an accident? When/how did he die? I am sure the conspirators wouldn't want someone with that kind of knowledge to be out there telling everyone. They killed a few thousand already, so why not one more, or ten more, or, HELL, just wipe out his whole town to be safe.

Quote:
- insider trading all over the world just before 911, profiting on the drop in stock prices of the 2 airlines and the tenants of the WTC - one was traced to an ex CIA director
The airlines were already going thru hard times, when have they EVER made a profit? Yes, they post "earnings" but that all goes to pay their debts. So these people were just playing the market, using well known facts about certain industries. If you were to do that same research right now, and move 9/11 to yesterday, you would find the same thing. It happens everyday. It doesn't mean they KNEW anything.

Quote:
- multiple warnings from several foreign intelligence agencies, including the UK, Russia, Egypt, Germany, Jordan, Morrocco - and the most detailed, from the Israelis
Did any of them say, hey, on 9/11 they are gonna hijack planes and try to run them into buildings in NYC and DC? No. The message was "upside down cake with a candle in it" for the 9, I don't recall what they said for the two ones. It was SOO OBVIOUS, right?

Quote:
- in 1995 Philippine police caught some terrorists with a laptop with emails talking about flying planes into buildings
With a map of NYC and DC? Anything at all pointing to what the targets might be?? No.

Quote:
- several people were warned not to travel on 911 including SF mayor ***** Brown
Coincidence. I'm not gonna find out the reason he was told to not fly. I have wasted enough time looking up things to help show you the light.

Quote:
- the announcement of "drills" on the morning of 911 which delayed the scrambling of interceptors
What? The two aircraft doing patrol were in the Atlantic ocean. They had to fly back. And scrambling fighters in the post Cold War era isn't normal anymore. They don't have squadrons waiting on the runway 24hrs just waiting for the word.

Quote:
- special forces preparing for Afghanistan just before 911
They always train for possible areas they might be dropped into. So I guess Libya is next, cause they practice for there all the time, too.

Quote:
- Fire Engineering people protested the rapid cleanup of WTC7 so they could study how fire caused collapse, but it was cleaned up very quickly
Never heard of that. Hell, I didn't know WTC7 fell until a few months ago.

Quote:
- The Patriot Act was up for voting 13 days afterwards; 2 senators who protested it got Anthrax letters
It took 13 days? Damn. That is a long time. I would have expected it in under a week. I guess all the red tape slows things down. Were they the only 2 who got Anthrax letters?

Quote:
-the possible real motive for invading Afghanistan is to lay an oil pipeline from Uzbekistan to the Arabian Sea
It's all about the oil. Hell, prices are at $3/gal here, so we can use some cheap oil. Do you buy into the "cheap" price we pay for gas compared to Europe??? We pay $0.30/gal in tax...so we pay $2.70/gal for the GAS. In Europe they pay $8/gal, and pay 75% gas tax. So that's $6/gal in tax, and $2/gal for the GAS. And they have higher octane, too, which is more expensive to make. So we get screwed in every way.
ray_sir_6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 04:34 PM   #177
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Loki047's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,145
Total Cats: 0
Default

That pipeline theory is in one of the michael moore movies...
Loki047 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 05:11 PM   #178
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki047 View Post
No WRONG! Concrete is not tough, its very hard and very brittle. When you see people using jack hammers, what do you see? A ton of dust.
But MUCH more of the mass of the concrete is in pieces, and NOT dust. With the WTC it was the opposite.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 07:02 PM   #179
Elite Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki047 View Post
That pipeline theory is in one of the michael moore movies...
I don't know about MM, but it's Michael Ruppert's theory. Zbigniew Brzezinki's book "The Grand Chessboard" from the late 90s discusses it:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/brzezinskigrandchessboard

If you want to know what an ******* Brzezinski is:
http://www.augustreview.com/issues/g...ty_2007080373/
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2008, 07:16 PM   #180
Guest
iTrader: (1)
 
ray_sir_6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 714
Total Cats: 0
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
But MUCH more of the mass of the concrete is in pieces, and NOT dust. With the WTC it was the opposite.
Well, they were using a MUCH BIGGER jackhammer...about the size of the floor above it.
ray_sir_6 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OTS Bilstein to motorsports ASN conversion stoves Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 04-21-2016 04:00 PM
My solution for Oiltemp and Oilpressure input into Megasuirt (MS3) Zaphod MEGAsquirt 41 01-24-2016 01:25 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM
Leaky Wilwoods mx592 Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 1 10-01-2015 01:45 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:19 PM.