User Pass
Home Sign Up Contact Log In
Forum > General Discussion > Politics and Religion > Watch the video... then call me a tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist.
Page:
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Damn it, baum! Your sources are horrible!

Originally posted by http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/dissecting-collapses.html

the fire burns at such a high temperature that a stream of molten metal begins to pour over the side of the tower. The heat output from these fires will later be estimated to have been comparable to that produced by a large nuclear generating station.


You have got to be kidding me! Do you read any of this garbage?
 
Gart888
things!
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Homage
I have an engineering degree but I don't even pretend to be able to comprehend the level of education, analysis and design it takes to make a processor.


To that point, I went to my provincial association's conference a couple week's back. Day 1 of it was just a bunch of people giving talks on interesting local projects ,which counts as a cool 8 hours of PD, so that's why everyone is there. I completely understood all of the civil, mining, mechanical (duh), industrial, and policy talks. But omg that talk from the electrical engineer. What a waste of 45 minutes for me to even be listening.
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Homage
Gart and I are probably the only two in this thread that could actually run those calculations.

And I guarantee NIST never said it was a simple statics problem. You said that.

I'm going to continue to laugh at your energy shpeel because your grasp of mechanical physics is laughable. Your an EE supposedly... stick to making chips and fucking with circuits. I have an engineering degree but I don't even pretend to be able to comprehend the level of education, analysis and design it takes to make a processor. So please, don't throw your degree around and imply you even took more than one course in anything related to structural engineering. It's borderline insulting to those of us in our profession. You're not competent enough to throw your opinion out there and have it taken seriously.


Really? You poor, poor bastard!

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

Originally posted by NIST

Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.


Care to re-think your stance? I disagree with NIST... so do you. But it gets real hard to admit when presented with the part you disagree with being the official (the only official) story.
 
Link
 
Originally posted by Gnosis


These guys think that I just woke up one day, leapt out of bed and started screaming ISRAEL DID IT!!!!

Nothing could be further from the truth... the process took years and years and countless hours of research.



No, I think we all understood that your insanity is a progressive one and took time to reach its full blown state.
 
Gart888
things!
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
Really... you missed all of the things about the collapse calculations and you have that to post? You do realize that every other poster in this thread has now decided to no longer try to support the NIST failed mathematics, and instead are going after personal attacks and attacks on sources. I guess they are making stuff up, too.


I haven't read most of this thread... but you were clearly 'checkmate!'ing there. nbd
 
baumusc
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Gnosis
Which is why one must do due diligence in their OWN research and come to their OWN conclusions based on all the available evidence and information. Not rely solely on so called "experts" to formulate your opinions on what happened that day.



Unless you actually went down to ground zero or created your own model of the WTC buildings in a 3d engineering program like ArchiCad or Pro Engineer and did your own stress/strain analysis using multiple loads then you really can't do your own research. Your own research basically entail mulling over data that you can find on the internet. You can tell that your opinions have been formulated by reading other 9/11 CT sites because you use the same talking points a lot of times that you can find right on there. So to claim that your opinion is formulated through your own research than any one of our opinions is pompous and naive.
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by Gart888
I haven't read most of this thread... but you were clearly 'checkmate!'ing there. nbd

I'm winning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib3Y-Q3QnOk
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by baumusc
Unless you actually went down to ground zero or created your own model of the WTC buildings in a 3d engineering program like ArchiCad or Pro Engineer and did your own stress/strain analysis using multiple loads then you really can't do your own research. Your own research basically entail mulling over data that you can find on the internet. You can tell that your opinions have been formulated by reading other 9/11 CT sites because you use the same talking points a lot of times that you can find right on there. So to claim that your opinion is formulated through your own research than any one of our opinions is pompous and naive.


Are you seeing what I am showing you about your sources? Seriously?
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
Here, I will post the quote and NIST page... just for you! Thank god you finally woke up!!!

------------------
13. Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analyses of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?

Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities. Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate. Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations. The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm
----------------

You see... It's when we least expect it that we realize the truth. The simple truth is this.... The NIST report is full of holes. Read it for yourself. I did, and it is a batch of BS. There are some good things within, but it's when you come to the lies/bad math/ignored evidence that it really makes you sick.


Just for homage again. Not me... NIST
 
Homage
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
Care to re-think your stance? I disagree with NIST... so do you. But it gets real hard to admit when presented with the part you disagree with being the official (the only official) story.


You clearly don't understand what they're doing there. They have to simplify the model for basic analysis... according to the analysis, it failed anyways. If we were to introduce other factors such as wind and degradation of the steel connections over time we would see much more damaging results... but those are hard to introduce in a model when we don't know where the weak points of said srructure were. Again, they used static analysis as their model... but there's a lot more going on that is damn near impossible to include.

And they never said simple.
Edited by Homage on Nov 1, 2013 13:59:06
Edited by Homage on Nov 1, 2013 13:31:16
 
baumusc
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
Baum... I am checking them all for you. You obviously checked none of them.

read the title of this one and then tell me it's relevance to the events of 9/11.... It is exactly what it looks like. 11 pages of "There are no missile defenses at the pentagon".
http://jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf


Every single peer reviewed paper on 9/11 that I listed tears down multiple conspiracy theories about 9/11 that have been spread since the beginning. They don't just deal with the WTC collapse although many of them do. They are all relevant because they all shoot down different little conspiracies.
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Jesus, baum... they all suck! This one is completely irrelevant!
http://jod911.com/thirdjet.pdf
Originally posted by anotherbadarticle

Journa
l of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
,
Volume 1, Issue 1
Journa
l of D
ebunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
-
Aug
2006/
Volume 1, Issue 1
P a g e
|
1
Flea
s under
a Microscope: Evidence there was
no third jet involved in the World Trade Center attacks
Abstract
It has been suggested by at leas
t one conspiracy theorist that
there was a “Third jet” involved in a
p
urposeful conspiracy to destroy
the three Wo
rld Trade
Center structures on September 11
,
2001.
Not every point in the conspiracy story document will be addressed since the
evidence
presented in
this document, if accurate, will render them moot.
This paper proposes to examine the
conspiracy
stories
v
eracity and offer alternative
explanations which fit the time table and events of the day.


Forgive that I am posting from pdf. Doesn't convert well.
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
Fuck!!! Baum... you need to read what you cite as a credible source!!!

Originally posted by http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/fall-of-3rd-tower.html

As much as 42,000 gallons of diesel fuel was stored near ground level in the tower and ran in pipes up to smaller tanks and emergency generators for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's command center, the Secret Service's office and other tenants.

Investigators have determined that the burning fuel apparently undermined what is known as a transfer truss. The trusses, a series of steel beams that allowed the skyscraper to be built atop multistory electricity transformers, were critical to the structural integrity of the building and ran near the smaller diesel tanks.


Proven to be completely false. Diesel was not burning, and had no effect on the collapse.
 
wormser1971
no title
offline
Link
 
This one is political http://jod911.com/The_PNAC_and_Other_Myths.pdf

It's about Project For a New American Century. It has nothing to add to the 9/11 discussion.

I can tell that there is no reason to check your sources, because you didn't bother to check them for anything. most of them are not even relevant.
 
baumusc
offline
Link
 
Originally posted by wormser1971
Forgive that I am posting from pdf. Doesn't convert well.


You are just getting angry now and it is pretty humorous. Posting every three minutes about how a source that you couldn't have possibly read is awful while posting other comments in between. I also love the fact that this is about 'winning' to you, like you are converting people to the dark side or something.
 
Page:
 


You are not logged in. Please login if you want to post a reply.