Eric Lawyer-Firefighter-911 was a Criminal Coverup

reply to post by thedman


The weed will tell you those planes don't fly that fast when banking and turning in tight radiuses.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by Dogdish
Read this:
What Melted Cars - Rense

Oh dear, the dreaded "beam weapons from space destroyed the WTC towers" reappears!

Just when you thought the "truthers" had gotten as silly as they could, they bring the beam weapons back up!

reply to post by GenRadek


Here is a source to your first response.
Oh, something is missing in this report; yes, I believe it is the sciences.
Nothing here but someone opinions to what they THINK what happened.
I think we all can agree to that, don’t you?

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions


Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. The most infamous paradigm is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. After reviewing the mechanics of their collapse, the motion during the crushing of one floor (or group of floors) and its energetics are analyzed, and a dynamic one-dimensional continuum model of progressive collapse is developed. Rather than using classical homogenization, it is found more effective to characterize the continuum by an energetically equivalent snap-through. The collapse, in which two phases—crush-down followed by crush-up—must be distinguished, is described in each phase by a nonlinear second-order differential equation for the propagation of the crushing front of a compacted block of accreting mass. Expressions for consistent energy potentials are formulated and an exact analytical solution of a special case is given. It is shown that progressive collapse will be triggered if the total (internal) energy loss during the crushing of one story (equal to the energy dissipated by the complete crushing and compaction of one story, minus the loss of gravity potential during the crushing of that story) exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story. Regardless of the load capacity of the columns, there is no way to deny the inevitability of progressive collapse driven by gravity alone if this criterion is satisfied (for the World Trade Center it is satisfied with an order-of-magnitude margin). The parameters are the compaction ratio of a crushed story, the fracture of mass ejected outside the tower perimeter, and the energy dissipation per unit height. The last is the most important, yet the hardest to predict theoretically. It is argued that, using inverse analysis, one could identify these parameters from a precise record of the motion of floors of a collapsing building. Due to a shroud of dust and smoke, the videos of the World Trade Center are only of limited use. It is proposed to obtain such records by monitoring (with millisecond accuracy) the precise time history of displacements in different modes of building demolitions. The monitoring could be accomplished by real-time telemetry from sacrificial accelerometers, or by high-speed optical camera. The resulting information on energy absorption capability would be valuable for the rating of various structural systems and for inferring their collapse mode under extreme fire, internal explosion, external blast, impact or other kinds of terrorist attack, as well as earthquake and foundation movements.
________________________________________

cedb.asce.org...

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal

My belief

What dont you google :Fresh Kills Landfill. Educate yourself as to what in fact went on there.

My beliefs are backed up with facts.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by ImAPepper]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Here is a source to your first response.
Oh, something is missing in this report; yes, I believe it is the sciences.
Nothing here but someone opinions to what they THINK what happened.
I think we all can agree to that, don’t you?

Written by Engineers and PEER REVIEWED....and all you read was the abstract!

Please list the peer reviewed papers by the TM ...... thank you

[edit on 3-3-2010 by ImAPepper]

[edit on 3-3-2010 by ImAPepper]

reply to post by ImAPepper

Written by civil Engineers. Now, go through the list. MANY are peer reviewed... Why dont you make a list right now and post the peer reviewed papers the TM has published.

Because there is none!

[edit on 3-3-2010 by demonseed]

Originally posted by GenRadek
I looked into his website and it is nothing more than a rehash of the same old 9/11 truther nonsense that can be found across the world wide web word for word. Same old videos, same old junk, same old lies and twists and misinfo and disinfo.

I guess you didnt know but if you take a few thousand people at random, you will always get a few who get suckered in to conspiracies or such. Of the millions of engineers a few hundred is a just small fraction. Of the thousands of firefighters, there will ALWAYS be a few who are just as easily suckered into the nonsense. No surprises really.

so first its "ya lets see some credible people backing this garbage up."
then its "well there are millions of credible sources a few hundred doesn't make it true.'

What next? "well just because 70% of the public believes theres something to it doesn't mean we need another investigation. Screw majority, fascism 100%!!"



[edit on 3-3-2010 by demonseed]

reply to post by ImAPepper

A&E has already debunked NIST. You do not have a leg to stand on period.

The FACT is those report you gave have not been peer reviewed, you are telling tales again.

The OS is a proven lie, why support it?

Originally posted by impressme



Because there is none!

Thank you for your honesty.... Sorry, I edited my post while you responded.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Dogdish
Read this:
What Melted Cars - Rense

Oh dear, the dreaded "beam weapons from space destroyed the WTC towers" reappears!

Just when you thought the "truthers" had gotten as silly as they could, they bring the beam weapons back up!

You go ahead and make those wild comments did you even read the link?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by smurfy

 

What does it say in your manual if all the engines give out and won't restart...

Pretty much the way it went January 2009, on the Hudsoin River in NYC...

You see...engines don't just fail, simultaneously, for no reason.

If it's fuel starvation (unlikely) or as seen with USAir substantial damage from OUTSIDE then it calls for a team effort, and very quick thinking, to consider all possiblities, attempt to use the procedures handbook (we call it the QRH) and first, foremost, save as many lives as possible....


SO, substantial damage at the WTC? Check.

Lives needed saving as fast as possible? Check.

Team effort? Check. (However, communications were hampered, due to circumstance, resulting in unfortunate deaths).

Consideration and/or comprehension that the damage was so severe to buildings that, based on fairly unusual construction design, that a collapse might be imminent? Not so much.....

Comparison to that would be structural damage to an airplane in flight, rendering control difficult, impossible or challenging. United 232, Sioux City Iowa.

There was NOTHING in any procedure in that case to help. They made up a way to salvage the situation as best they could. Based on knowledge, experience, and even lacking full knowledge of what had happened. Still, while they succeeded in saving some lives, they weren't perfect.

Sound familiar?

What is your explanation for why the fallen steel was sold for scrap and shipped to India and China while investigators were petitioning the state and city for access? Does this sound at all like a criminal act to you, or is it just another "normal departure" from standard procedure that based on the unique aspects of the attacks can be rationalized as OK?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by ImAPepper

 

A&E has already debunked NIST. You do not have a leg to stand on period.

The FACT is those report you gave have not been peer reviewed, you are telling tales again.

The OS is a proven lie, why support it?

HAHAHAHAH What did Gage "debunk?"

YOU need to learn to read. What you linked us to was the American Society of Civil Engineers- PUBLICATIONS.

Do you know how a paper gets "published?"

reply to post by ImAPepper

Thank you for your honesty.... Sorry, I edited my post while you responded.

I asked GenRadek to show proof now, I will ask you to show these PEER REVIEWED.... reports?

Originally posted by impressme



I asked GenRadek to show proof now, I will ask you to show these PEER REVIEWED.... reports?

impressme.... YOU listed a peer reviewed paper.


Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions

by Zdene P. Bazant

Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 133, No. 3, March 2007, pp. 308-319, (doi 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308))

IT IS A PUBLISHED PAPER!!

reply to post by ImAPepper

A&E has already debunked NIST. You do not have a leg to stand on period.

The FACT is those report you gave have not been peer reviewed, you are telling tales again.

The OS is a proven lie, why support it?

HAHAHAHAH What did Gage "debunk?"

YOU need to learn to read. What you linked us to was the American Society of Civil Engineers- PUBLICATIONS.

Do you know how a paper gets "published?"

We all know you have a genuine dislike for Gage because he threw some box on a table and ask people to use their logic.
The fact is it’s not just Gage but a many credible scientists and engineers who have proven NIST report is a lie.

You can mock, laugh, ridiculed, insult, but you cannot make the truth go away.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Dogdish
Read this:
What Melted Cars - Rense

Oh dear, the dreaded "beam weapons from space destroyed the WTC towers" reappears!

Just when you thought the "truthers" had gotten as silly as they could, they bring the beam weapons back up!

You go ahead and make those wild comments did you even read the link?

Yes, and you go to
drjudywood.com...

Which is Dr Judy Woods webpage where she rants on about beam weapons
The Star Wars Beam Weapons
and
Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)

So as I said, the dreaded "Beam weapons from space" reappear! which show how silly the "truther" movement actually is!

Originally posted by smurfy
Hi Donney, I think he may be talking about the conversation, maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, there has to be a clue in the conversation, like if the firemen were asking to "pull it" as in bringing down the building, then they would be looking for an affirmative from LS. If, on the other hand they wanted to pull out, they would not be asking LS. The actual conversation with the head of the team was about the fire.

[edit on 3-3-2010 by smurfy]

How very true. Pull it is never used by fireman ever.
It is a demolition term. And most important is the building owner that was no where to be found during the tragedy, shows up to give orders to the NYCFD!!!!! Oh yeah!!!

reply to post by ImAPepper

IT IS A PUBLISHED PAPER!!

Really, well no one notices it.
I don’t see people rallying behind.
I do not see it getting any media attention.
Hummm, perhaps because it hasn’t stood up to sciences very well don’t you think.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by Dogdish
Read this:
What Melted Cars - Rense

Oh dear, the dreaded "beam weapons from space destroyed the WTC towers" reappears!

Just when you thought the "truthers" had gotten as silly as they could, they bring the beam weapons back up!

You go ahead and make those wild comments did you even read the link?

Yes, and you go to
drjudywood.com...

Which is Dr Judy Woods webpage where she rants on about beam weapons
The Star Wars Beam Weapons
and
Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)

So as I said, the dreaded "Beam weapons from space" reappear! which show how silly the "truther" movement actually is!

Well there is HAARP all over the news these days. Causing all kinds of static.