What evidence would accept to prove 9/11 was an inside job?

Originally posted by impressme


And would that include Bush & Cheney?

Is it something in my writting?
Whom ever it might be, means anybody. OK?

Isn´t that clear enough? JEEEZZ......!!!!

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

What exactly are 90,000 L gallons? Is it litres or gallons? It cannot be both. This report was obviously written by an individual who either does not know the difference between litres and gallons or by someone who does not know how to proofread. But, of course, we are to assume he knows how the buildings collapsed?

In this sentence, you ask what the "L" is in 90,000 L. Not one paragraph Later, you say the max Load for a 767 is 90,000 liters . There's no flipping way you're going to tell me you can't figure out this is in liters. You certainly aren't stupid.

90,000 Litres of jet fuel equals approximately 23,775 gallons. Why would there be 23,775 gallons of fuel on an airplane traveling cross country, a trip which only requires approximately 9,000 gallons, according to the following story? Are airlines in the business of overloading their planes with fuel and wasting more fuel due to the increased weight this causes?

You are being disingenuous. This article was written in 2008, seven years too late to be relevant. This was when fuel prices had us all by the cojones, and all concerns of weight were over conserving expensive fuel, not over flight characteristics. This was not as big a factor back in 2001.

Secondly, the absurd 90,000 litre estimate does not take into account the approximate one hour flying time the plane was in the air prior to impact with the building.

So that brings it to, what, 88,000 liters? You're being anal retentive in your criticisms and you know it.

In conclusion, this report was written by a moron. If he cannot even get the correct quantity of fuel involved, how can he even begin to theorize about how the building collapsed? If you're going to try and pull the wool over people's eyes, at least get your damn facts straight!

I'm sorry, but your critique is largely silly. It makes no mention of the stated levels of heating necessary for structural failure, it makes no mention of the unique design of the towers, and it makes no mention of the uneven heating which caused irregular stretching and contraction of the steel, all of which are core arguments in his report. Your beef seems to be entirely over obvious typos, which is rather dangerous ground, seeing how none of us here are experts in spelling and grammar, certainly not me and definitely not you. What say you read it once more and then try it again.

FYI if you don't agree with Thomas Eagar, fine, but calling him a moron is being childish, and only impacts your credibility, not his.

reply to post by rush969



And would that include Bush & Cheney?

Is it something in my writting?
Whom ever it might be, means anybody. OK?

Isn´t that clear enough? JEEEZZ......!!!!

So, you do agree that means Bush & Cheney.

Here you want to be funny, how many pilots do you need to tell you that commercial airliners practically fly on their own after a pilot programs the onboard computers in the cockpit.

A few thousand pilots, not a couple hundred.
A few thousand 9/11 relatives, not a few hundred.

How many?

Why don’t you answer the question?









[edit on 15-11-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
MIT materials engineering professor's report on the wtc collapse

I consider this to be irrefutable because despite all the times I posted it, not one person has been able to refute it.

Yet you keep ignoring me when I say that he ignores the core structure that held 60% of the load. It has now been refuted.

So please, tell me why his report is wrong.

He ignored the cored structure.

if there would be a very simple answer to your question
I believe it would be:

WTC7

it was a controlled demolition, and it is a fact

"In this sentence, you ask what the "L" is in 90,000 L. Not one paragraph Later, you say the max Load for a 767 is 90,000 liters . There's no flipping way you're going to tell me you can't figure out this is in liters. You certainly aren't stupid."

Just for the record, I asked what are "L gallons", as written by your genius engineer. Nice try at attempting to put words in my mouth and thank you very much for the degrading pat on the back by observing that I am not "stupid".

"You are being disingenuous. This article was written in 2008, seven years too late to be relevant. This was when fuel prices had us all by the cojones, and all concerns of weight were over conserving expensive fuel, not over flight characteristics. This was not as big a factor back in 2001."

So according to your statement, conserving fuel and saving money was not a big factor for airlines back in 2001? Gee, I didn't know airline companies were in the business of throwing away money and fuel back in 2001? Please tell me another fairy tale mommy.

Secondly, the absurd 90,000 litre estimate does not take into account the approximate one hour flying time the plane was in the air prior to impact with the building.

"So that brings it to, what, 88,000 liters? You're being anal retentive in your criticisms and you know it."

So basically what you're saying is that one hour of flight time for a 767 consumes only 2,000 litres of fuel? It appears your research and simple math skills are just as lacking as that of your engineer buddy.

"FYI if you don't agree with Thomas Eagar, fine, but calling him a moron is being childish, and only impacts your credibility, not his."

This statement is coming from an individual who just called me anal retentive, disingenuous and childish. According to your own words, what do these insults say about your credibility?

"Your beef seems to be entirely over obvious typos, which is rather dangerous ground, seeing how none of us here are experts in spelling and grammar, certainly not me and definitely not you. What say you read it once more and then try it again."

You call "L gallons" a typo? With regards to your spelling and grammar comment, speak for yourself. Since, according to your omniscient wisdom, I am no expert in spelling and grammar, can you please point out one grammatical or spelling mistake I have made in this thread?

By the way, any particular reason why you ignored and failed to respond to my statement about a portion of the fuel burning outside of the building during the massive fire ball eruption and not making it into the building.

In summary, only someone with the intelligence of a fish would believe the 90,000 litres of jet fuel story within the building. But then again, there are plenty of fish in the sea.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Meaning the world is perfect and everyone always does exactly what they are idealistically supposed to in this perfect world, without exception, of course.

When you graduate, you'll learn that professionalism, and the view that the public has about your chosen profession, is a very big deal. Without it, you'll be no better than a burger flipper.

Getting a paper into a journal isn't "gonna cut it," either.

It would be a start. So far, nada of any consequence.

There have already been papers in journals

And the chosen journals they have published in - Jones' rag and Bentham - have had absolutely zero effect. They need to step up their game. They don't have the guts, nor the evidence, to do it.

No one really needs to. The TM needs to put doubt about the NIST report into SE's heads.

The relevance of structural engineers here is being extremely over-emphasized. I notice you are apparently not familiar with the technical fields yourself, but CE's and SE's only work with static systems. Metallurgists would be more relevant to the study of heating steel to deformation or those types of things. Dynamicists are needed to analyze moving, chaotic systems. The only motions a CE or SE will commonly study are things like simple machines, basically mechanical engineering.

And yet still, none of those other professions have come out for the TM.

The internet has been wonderful for allowing free exchange of information, yes.

I'd say that as far as the TM goes, it's been a wonderful place for spreading garbage and reinforcement for their delusions.

It's a real shame that you don't get to decide who matters and who doesn't for anyone other than yourself.

I never said that I get to decide. All those professional fields that you mentioned above get to decide. They have disdain for the TM. They're the ones who have decided.

Right, so you are both equally ignorant on that particular subject.

I agree that he''s ignorant. i also agree that anyone who would believe his statement over the NIST report is also ignorant.

If you are seriously going to tell me that a man who obviously knows more about how structures behave than you do is a complete nut job, then you might as well stop trying to tell me any damned thing about any building.

The 2 are not exclusive.

I agree that he knows more about structures.

He's also nuts for stating that a nuke was used.

[edit on 15-11-2009 by Joey Canoli]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'm sorry, but your critique is largely silly. It makes no mention of the stated levels of heating necessary for structural failure, it makes no mention of the unique design of the towers,

You mean this "unique" design that didn't include the core structure?

and it makes no mention of the uneven heating which caused irregular stretching and contraction of the steel, all of which are core arguments in his report.

Irregular strectching and contraction of steel causes symmetrical collapse? How so?

Your beef seems to be entirely over obvious typos, which is rather dangerous ground, seeing how none of us here are experts in spelling and grammar, certainly not me and definitely not you. What say you read it once more and then try it again.

But, if you or especially I have a report out there with obvious typos, you know damn well that you would be all over it. Don't lie to us Dave.

FYI if you don't agree with Thomas Eagar, fine, but calling him a moron is being childish, and only impacts your credibility, not his.

His credibility would go a lot longer if he had:

a. Included the core structure in his theory.

b. Wasn't already refuted by NIST themselves.

So, who do you believe? Eager or NIST?

You guys complain that the TM doesn't have a unified theroy, but find it irrefutable when the OS has multiple collapse theories?

So who do you believe? Eager or NIST?

Originally posted by Nutter


His credibility would go a lot longer if he had:

a. Included the core structure in his theory.

www.tms.org...

"Inside this outer tube there was a 27 m × 40 m core, which was designed to support the weight of the tower. It also housed the elevators, the stairwells, and the mechanical risers and utilities. Web joists 80 cm tall connected the core to the perimeter at each story."



What were you saying?

Originally posted by Nutter

Irregular strectching and contraction of steel causes symmetrical collapse? How so?

www.tms.org...

"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. "

Explained.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
What were you saying?

I was saying that he only mentions the core (my bad for saying he ignores it...I was thinking of his earlier work I think) 3 times. And that's it. And not even that, he only describes the core and not how it collapsed.

Furthermore, his theory holds that the angle clips that held the floor joists to the core are what failed. And then a pancake collapse ensued.

NIST contents that the angle clips held and the floor joists pulled in the outer columns.

Now, I'll ask you the same question I asked Dave.

Who do you believe Joey? Eager or NIST?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Nutter

Irregular strectching and contraction of steel causes symmetrical collapse? How so?

www.tms.org...

"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. "

Explained.

If you really think that that sentence explains it, then I can totally understand why you hold to your beliefs. Notice I said "beliefs"? Because without real evidence, that is what they are....just as much as the truther's theories are "beliefs".

Originally posted by impressme

So, you do agree that means Bush & Cheney.

No, I don´t. It means WHOM EVER IS RESPONSIBLE.
Could they be the ones? That´s what you want me to say, right?
Well, I don´t think so. I think they might be responsible of negligence to a certain point, but I believe that would be very hard to proove.

Here you want to be funny, how many pilots do you need to tell you that commercial airliners practically fly on their own after a pilot programs the onboard computers in the cockpit.

This has nothing to do with our discussion.
I´m saying that the pilots who are supporting the "inside job" theory on 9/11 are too few.
And I´ll tell you something else, many pilots and other proffessionals are supporting those theories in ignorance, because as many of them find out more facts about the attacks they will tend to stop supporting them theories. That has been my experience. I have seen the numbers in P4T for example, dwindling down in time.


[edit on 15-11-2009 by rush969]

Originally posted by Nutter

If you really think that that sentence explains it,

I don't.

It's meant to start a logical thinking process in you, so that you can understand the implications of it.

I see that didn't happen.

Originally posted by Nutter


Who do you believe Joey? Eager or NIST?

NIST.

I believe Eager gets several things wrong.

1-Columns bowed inward, not outward.

2- there wasn't 90,00L of fuel per plane.

3-in the scenario you reference, he gives no sequence about how "the floors above them (the outer box columns that he incorrectly states bowed out) also fell.


However, he gets other things right, and you misrepresent what he said - "The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect "

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Hey do you have a published scientific peer review rebuttal in Bentham or another journal? If not, then you will simply have to accept the facts within the paper.

Now if you could answer the OP, that would be wonderful! Thanks!

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by Nutter

If you really think that that sentence explains it,

I don't.

It's meant to start a logical thinking process in you, so that you can understand the implications of it.

I see that didn't happen.

Let's break that sentence down and you tell me the "thinking" process I was supossed to have.

"First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air "

So? The columns are what holds ALL buildings up. Hence, they are ALL 95% air.


"and, hence, can implode onto itself. "

How does he go from the buildings being 95% air to being able to implode onto itself? Does he mean when all support columns are severed/lost all strength in some way?

Please tell me the "thinking process" when my question was "irregular stretching and contraction of steel causes symmetrical collapse?". What you posted has nothing to do with what I asked.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
However, he gets other things right, and you misrepresent what he said - "The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect "

I didn't misrepresent anything.

He states:

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell.

Tell me how do the joists give way if not for failing support angles? How do floors also fall without failing support clips? Did they snap in half and give way? No. He is assuming that the angle clips failed and then the angle clips on the lower floors couldn't hold the falling floors from above.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
NIST.

I believe Eager gets several things wrong.

So, we can count on you to tell your buddy GoodOleDave that his hero Eager has been refuted. Correct?

Originally posted by Swing Dangler


Now if you could answer the OP, that would be wonderful! Thanks!

You should read my response on the last page.

I clearly answered it there.