|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 122)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| culorut |
| quote: | | wrong. no peer review = you got nothing. |
No you are not doing a good job. Take a peak at my previous post.
| quote: | | somehow im gonna listen to the musings of one of the world's great intellects over an under-educated child like yourself. |
Great intellects are not perfect and do make false notions. Try not so hard to place so much faith in others and use your own thick skull for a second if that's remotely possible.
| quote: | | it was hardly perfectly symmetrical. that's about as bad as your people's contention that WTC1&2 fell on their own "footprint". yeah, coz their footprint was 400 feet in every direction. |
It was symmetrical.
WTC 1 and 2 had debris shooting outwards over 400 feet because of bombs and not that crazy gravity driven official collapse story.
| quote: | | and yet your side of the argument still hasn't produced anything near the complexity of the NIST report. you'v had six years too. what's keeping you? |
The masses seem to disagree without the NIST report, it is not needed. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
No you are not doing a good job. Take a peak at my previous post.
|
no peer review. thats all that counts mate.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
Great intellects are not perfect and do make false notions. Try not so hard to place so much faith in others and use your own thick skull for a second if that's remotely possible. |
but im not putting so much faith in chomsky (tho its interesting that you still like to point at the vote, as if that means a damned thing! :haha:
i do put a great deal of faith into the world's structural engineers however.
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
It was symmetrical.
|
not really. also, why do you keep posting that video instead of the full version? which shows the building took about 18 seconds to fall? why so disingenuous??
| quote: |
Note just past building 7 is a small amount of debris on the white building behind it. (Building 7 is pile in the upper center-left of the photo. The white building is at the top center-left of the photo.) That building is to the north east corner of building 7. Note about 1/3rd of the east side of the building falling to the north in the photo below.
Here is another photo from over Building 7. The white building is on the left. Note the debris from building 7 which crossed the street and landed on top of the white building.
This suggests the building was split by the penthouse collapses most of the way down. One section went to the south-east while a smaller section went to the north. It wasn't that symmetrical.
Below are snapshots from a video taken from the northeast of Building 7 just as it collapses. Note that it has just begun to collapse and it is already tilting to the south.
|
| quote: |
Half way through and it's still tilted to the south. Note the west side of the building has come away from the west face around what used to be the 43rd floor. Light can be seen through the east face windows. |
| quote: |
Note the angle to the south has increased and so has the space between the west face and the rest of the building. The west face later lays on the Verizon building to the west. While it looks like it's about to hit the ground, it's still almost as high as the white building to the right. That makes it about 20 stories. |
| quote: |
If the majority of the building fell to the south-east based on the resulting debris locations, as conspiracy theorists point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right. |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
WTC 1 and 2 had debris shooting outwards over 400 feet because of bombs and not that crazy gravity driven official collapse story. |
serious LOL. so now its not really a controlled demolition at all- its really an explosion. could you PLEASE (im in the mood for a good laugh) explain to me how thermite causes such explosions. wow, you kids will believe anything! :haha:
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
The masses seem to disagree without the NIST report, it is not needed. |
what "masses"? coz you my friend, are not nearly expert enough to contradict a single thing from NIST. and the NIST reports are (more or less) supported by expert engineers.
im still waiting for your conspiracy, peer-reviewed or published paper. tick tock. where is it? if its all so obvious, why hasn't someone with the professional commitment to truth been published huh? man, id be pretty disappointed if i were you. 6 years is a long time to sit in the dark awaiting just ONE expert.
tick tock. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
you can use your minds to analyze the political aspects of a cover up to your hearts content, because frankly i dont really give a .
just stop posting youtube videos and quotes from CT sites to show "conclusive evidence" to support your bull theories when this evidence has not been corroborated by an independent study, it has not had its results and conclusions peer reviewed by experts in the field of FMEA forensics (structural engineers)
another proper engineering investigation would take 2-5 years to do properly, cost millions of dollars (i would estimate between 15-20M) But even if it was done you would all just sit here and discredit it based on the fact that the monies to pay for such a study would no doubt somehow come from some government coffer.... |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
:/
My opinion is that the US government had no part in organizing the 9/11 attacks, although they seemed to be very happy that an event like this would occur as to begin fulfilling their own agenda. I think it was just absolute sheer "luck" of the draw that in a time of critical reform, this ominous administration just happened to be in place.
also, my bandwidth is completely ed (so i can't watch all these videos), but the video of that engineer who led his presentation with the "explosions" coming from lower floors of the collapsing WTC buildings was completely full of .
also, the fact that all these truth websites seem to be run on a .COMmercial domain as well as FILLED with AdSense, makes it seem that even if someone were to come out with an absolute definitive answer to 9/11 that disproves the theories of whatever these half assed engineers/Youtube college drop-outs can fathom next, they will keep their mouths shut and continue to ask for "donations"
there are still people in secluded areas of America that reject the ideas of the sun's position in our galaxy or 'witchcraft' of batteries. |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
just stop posting youtube videos and quotes from CT sites to show "conclusive evidence" to support your bull theories when this evidence has not been corroborated by an independent study, it has not had its results and conclusions peer reviewed by experts in the field of FMEA forensics (structural engineers)
another proper engineering investigation would take 2-5 years to do properly, cost millions of dollars (i would estimate between 15-20M) But even if it was done you would all just sit here and discredit it based on the fact that the monies to pay for such a study would no doubt somehow come from some government coffer.... |
This is my major complaint about any truth movement material. I've even read a paper by physics prof. that didn't have one equation in it.
I disagree with the engineering analysis costs though. A simple model would take 2 graduate level students a year to make and would require office space + computers.
Say 100,000 / year for grad students, 5,000 per computer, 50,000 for office space, 10,000 for travel, 5,000 for office supplies.
That's 275,000 for a primary analysis of the problem by non-partisan experts. Why has the truth movement been spending on publicity when it could get this done? |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by culorut
The government should have spent more money on studying the collapses in the first place. If they say the towers fell the way they did they could have spent more then they did on investigating Clinton over a blow job. If all you have read on the issue seems "grade 9ish" you need to start looking a little harder, there is plenty of solid material available.
|
Please feel free to post all of the equations you've had the chance to scrutinize and I would be happy to offer my professional opinion. |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
This is my major complaint about any truth movement material. I've even read a paper by physics prof. that didn't have one equation in it.
I disagree with the engineering analysis costs though. A simple model would take 2 graduate level students a year to make and would require office space + computers.
Say 100,000 / year for grad students, 5,000 per computer, 50,000 for office space, 10,000 for travel, 5,000 for office supplies.
That's 275,000 for a primary analysis of the problem by non-partisan experts. Why has the truth movement been spending on publicity when it could get this done? |
while i appreciate our shared view of professional analysis.....
you have no idea how much it costs for engineering analysis. im currently working on a project here in ottawa, designing a bridge spanning about 900m. project scope is that it will take 2 years to complete the design at a cost of 2 million CDN.
it would better suit society if it were post grad, engineers with years of field experience doing the study. No offense to grad students..... but in cases like this practical knowledge is key in these types of analysis |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
you can use your minds to analyze the political aspects of a cover up to your hearts content, because frankly i dont really give a .
just stop posting youtube videos and quotes from CT sites to show "conclusive evidence" to support your bull theories when this evidence has not been corroborated by an independent study, it has not had its results and conclusions peer reviewed by experts in the field of FMEA forensics (structural engineers)
another proper engineering investigation would take 2-5 years to do properly, cost millions of dollars (i would estimate between 15-20M) But even if it was done you would all just sit here and discredit it based on the fact that the monies to pay for such a study would no doubt somehow come from some government coffer.... |
Yeah, so much for any real investigation - I'd be happy just to get a non-partisan, independent study!!! I think that we American's deserve at least that much!!!
No more cover-up reports! We need civilians who aren't in the pockets of big-business and government who are actually dedicated to seeking the truth as opposed to just serving corporate interests by "doing their jobs" (i.e. - looking the other way.) |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by colonelcrisp
while i appreciate our shared view of professional analysis.....
you have no idea how much it costs for engineering analysis. im currently working on a project here in ottawa, designing a bridge spanning about 900m. project scope is that it will take 2 years to complete the design at a cost of 2 million CDN.
it would better suit society if it were post grad, engineers with years of field experience doing the study. No offense to grad students..... but in cases like this practical knowledge is key in these types of analysis |
The cost is why a pre-analysis should be done by graduate level people before a 2 million dollar project is taken up. A cheap initial analysis would give a cursory understanding and basic numbers that could be used to determine if further study by seasoned P.Eng types should be carried out.
If the initial work done by the students is EXTREMLY confident that there is nothing questionable it would save considerable funds.
I'm not talking about a finite element analysis or anythign like that. Just a fact finding and primary research type of analysis. |
|
|
| culorut |
That is the most explosive fire I have ever seen. |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | | Buildings do not do this spontaneously |
LOL
I have always said that the evidence was in the steel that was carted off and eventually smelted down to make way for a new USN boat.
The non or pro explosives evidence in the steel would sort this demolition/fire collapse monkey business once and for all.
But since the steel is gone, people are relying on the swill the media and others are pouring on their plates.
Here come the boys from Langley and their nonsensical forum rantings... |
|
|
|
|
