Reply With Quote
Just a word of advice:
Don't tell any potential employer, especially if it's an engineering firm, that you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It would seriously undermine your credibility.
Darrin, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, you give me a ton of confidence in passing the FE and ultimately being able to obrtain my license. After all, if you're lazy half assed approach is any indication of what it takes to succeed in the workforce then I am just fine.You're right
Just a word of advice:
Don't tell any potential employer, especially if it's an engineering firm, that you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It would seriously undermine your credibility.
Why would I want you to be stupid? I applaud Chump and Darrin helping you try to avoid stupidity by explaining how the towers came down.
Of course, your use of the words 'cute', 'adorable' and 'pumpkin' are stupid on a different level and I'm not sure anyone can help you there.
And you still have no idea what an inferiority complex is.
Nice bait and switch. You are showing an incredible lack of an ability to actually address what I say. Now, I know that a lot of that is because you are incapable of understanding simple vectors.
Strawman and ad hominem and it only took you two sentences. Bravo. The only assumption that I am making about your stanec is that you take the NIST report at face value. So now youre lying about me to try and discredit to me. Not very compelling, twinkles.That's what you tried to do with me. Why are you whining about having the whip reversed?
And then you accuse me of whining. That truly is peachy. If anything my tone is derisive.
/yawn more strawmen and characterization.Your only tool is personal incredulity. If that's all you use in deductive reasoning, it's not really reasoning at all.
Lovely more ad hominem. Are you actually capable of making an argument besides trying to insult me? Becasue quite frankly that is all you have. I mean you talk of credulity as not being the basis for an argument well here's a hint. twinkles. this is much worse.So you are saying you can't do the work. I believe that since you are, in fact, not a mechanical engineer.
Stay in school.
It wasn't a rock falling through tissue paper. The support columns were over 20 feet think and designed to support all of that. There are massive slabs of concrete etc. You talk of scale but it obvious that you have no idea that in order for it to be stable there have to be equal and opposite forces throughout the structure equivalent to the ones above at the very least. IT didn't look smooth because of how big it was it looked smooth because it was smooth.It only looks smooth because it was so big. Fact is you can't get your mind around it. Calling it a basketball or a weight plate makes you feel like you can, but it's a really horrible oversimplification.
You know very well I am not saying that. Your bluster is cute though. Using scale as an argument in terms of the heat involved was incredibly stupid. You've done the bait and switch to try and make it seem as if you were talking about something else but we know the score, twinkles.Are you saying there was not?
I cited what i was talking about yesterday but this latest tactic is cute because before you were talking about personal work and how important it was. You are quite the hypocrite, twinkles.Show your work. The fire test I cited already did. Are you just afraid to look at them?
You cannot keep up that is cute. My point was about what would have caused the swing as well as what happened to it. You kept saying gravity prevented it and I showed that gravity doesn't do that. Now once again you try the bait and switch. I really wonder if you're stupid or if this is bluster. I also wonder which is worse.You should change your major. DarrinS would never hire you after you proved you didn't know there were any horizontal forces present in the collapses.
I already have a job lined up. You should look at the labor market for engineers sometime but nice attempt at ad hominem. Oh, and quite frankly if he would not hire me becasue of a disagreement about something like this then I wouldn't want to work for him anyway. I mean really. twinkles, the primary school insults lack real creativity and/or conviction.
You seem more like a petulant child than someone able to express them self with intelligence. I know you are better than that.
Really though I am going to allow you the last word. You can hid ebehind your bluster and for all extents and purposes lie about what I really am saying so you can give Darrin and Blake high 5s as if you actually proved anyhting other than you lack the ability to come up with clever insults.
Like I said you can try and deny it all you want. You have been trying to degrade my intelligence ever since I said I was good at science. Its really all you have done. I have known your kind ofr a long time, pumpkin, and its really transparent.
Unfortunately for you even if I was an idiot it wouldn't help your sad state of affairs.
drop a can a half inch onto the floor a few degrees shy of vertical. More than likely, it will right itself once it hits the ground. this is the kind of example you should be giving.
You don't really know what those terms mean, do you?Strawman and ad hominem and it only took you two sentences. Bravo.
And your only argument against the NIST report is personal incredulity. Not very compelling, especially after you lied about being an engineer.The only assumption that I am making about your stanec is that you take the NIST report at face value. So now youre lying about me to try and discredit to me. Not very compelling, twinkles.
No, you started whining when i did what you did. It was cute.And then you accuse me of whining. That truly is peachy. If anything my tone is derisive.
Ok, you really don't know what those words mean./yawn more strawmen and characterization.
Look, if you did anything but argue from personal incredulity, I would criticize that too. You're a one trick pony though -- that isn't my fault or my problem.Lovely more ad hominem. Are you actually capable of making an argument besides trying to insult me? Becasue quite frankly that is all you have. I mean you talk of credulity as not being the basis for an argument well here's a hint. twinkles. this is much worse.
No the building was not designed to catch a 30 story building. I would like you to draw up some plans for a 70 story building that can catch and 30 story building. Should be simple for you.It wasn't a rock falling through tissue paper. The support columns were over 20 feet think and designed to support all of that.
No, it was quite rough and chaotic. You are just used to watching it on you computer monitor. It's bigger than that.There are massive slabs of concrete etc. You talk of scale but it obvious that you have no idea that in order for it to be stable there have to be equal and opposite forces throughout the structure equivalent to the ones above at the very least. IT didn't look smooth because of how big it was it looked smooth because it was smooth.
You are saying there was not enough heat -- and again your only support for that argument is "because I can't believe there was that much heat." Personal incredulity. Again, if you want me to stop beating you up with that, you need to stop doing it.You know very well I am not saying that. Your bluster is cute though. Using scale as an argument in terms of the heat involved was incredibly stupid. You've done the bait and switch to try and make it seem as if you were talking about something else but we know the score, twinkles.
So your argument against the collected fire temperature data is that it's someone else's work?I cited what i was talking about yesterday but this latest tactic is cute because before you were talking about personal work and how important it was. You are quite the hypocrite, twinkles.
Well, since you have done no work whatsoever regarding any of this, any argument you make can be dismissed out of hand.
Those guys did the work and measured sustained temperatures around 1000C for substantial amounts of time in a simulated office fire -- but your guess trumps all that, right?
Are you kidding me? Your quote proves you were completely ignorant of the horizontal forces. They are your words -- not mine. You started from a position of ignorance ("why wasn't there any horizontal force") and worked your way up to personal incredulity once that ignorance was exposed ("well, it should keep spinning because nothing else could possibly affect that motion"). You're getting whipped by a layman and you are embarrassed, so I understand why you are trying out the name calling now after pretending to be above it.You cannot keep up that is cute. My point was about what would have caused the swing as well as what happened to it. You kept saying gravity prevented it and I showed that gravity doesn't do that. Now once again you try the bait and switch. I really wonder if you're stupid or if this is bluster. I also wonder which is worse.
You are calling someone "twinkles" dip .I already have a job lined up. You should look at the labor market for engineers sometime but nice attempt at ad hominem. Oh, and quite frankly if he would not hire me becasue of a disagreement about something like this then I wouldn't want to work for him anyway. I mean really. twinkles, the primary school insults lack real creativity and/or conviction.
You seem really defensive now that your ignorance on this subject has been exposed. It's ok -- we just spent more time on it that you did.You seem more like a petulant child than someone able to express them self with intelligence. I know you are better than that.
I really expected more from a person who lied about being an engineer. Maybe if you could actually back up your arguments with more than uneducated guesses and ty analogies, you could make a coherent point.Really though I am going to allow you the last word. You can hid ebehind your bluster and for all extents and purposes lie about what I really am saying so you can give Darrin and Blake high 5s as if you actually proved anyhting other than you lack the ability to come up with clever insults.
"It couldn't have happened that way because I don't think it could have happened that way" is a fail.
you still don't know what inferiority complex means.
I haven't degraded your intelligence. You're doing that all on your own.
Just keep bragging about how your coursework makes you smarter than not just the people in this thread, but the NIST itself.
I've seen longwinded dumbasses that have taken a few science courses like you come in and out of 9/11 conspiracy threads. They post nothing but their own expertise on the subject and make themselves look that much dumber with every post.
Did one of you professors mention something about how he feels that 9/11 might be a cover up? Counting down until a Steven E. Jones reference is mentioned by fuzzy.
Unfortunately for you, being an idiot doesn't help your sad state of affairs.Unfortunately for you even if I was an idiot it wouldn't help your sad state of affairs.
Darren would make for a great debater if he wasn't so bias, hard headed and rude.
pretty good video, contains some new stuff I have not seen before.
This Fuzzy person is taking on 3-4 other posters at the same time, that is very rare these days!
Well, the "no plane" hit the Pentagon myth has been thoroughly debunked.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp
Seriously, can you guys give me something more compelling than poorly made videos and a picture of a column that was cut by a steel worker?
Can someone give me an example of ONE THING in this video that makes a case for conspiracy?
Thanks mouse, I was but Chump and Darrin are pretty much only ad hominem anymore and Blake is obsessed with me saying I know more than basic science. Oh and its not because he took it personally.This Fuzzy person is taking on 3-4 other posters at the same time, that is very rare these days!
At the end of the day its pointless and I get tired of having to repeat myself over and over again over the background of 'you're an idiot' and 'you're an idiot.'
They just make it entirely to personal. Whatever.
As an aside that video was very interesting.
Thanks mouse, I was but Chump and Darrin are pretty much only ad hominem anymore and Blake is obsessed with me saying I know more than basic science. Oh and its not because he took it personally.
At the end of the day its pointless and I get tired of having to repeat myself over and over again over the background of 'you're an idiot' and 'you're an idiot.'
They just make it entirely to personal. Whatever.
As an aside that video was very interesting.
Just provide me with ONE good analysis from a reputable organization that supports your theory and I'll be open minded about it.
By a reputable organization, I mean one that is well regarded in fields of structural engineering, fire science, controlled demolition, etc. It can't be by a film school dropout, a video game programmer, a radio talk show host, etc. And it can't be by an organization whose sole purpose is "911 Truth". It should be one whose purpose is investigating accidents, fires, structural failures, in general.
You said you know more than basic science and have not disproven the NIST reports on any level.Thanks mouse, I was but Chump and Darrin are pretty much only ad hominem anymore and Blake is obsessed with me saying I know more than basic science. Oh and its not because he took it personally.
At first you said you are an ME and now you admit that you are still a student.
You don't know what inferiorty complex means.
You don't know what ad hominem means.
You don't know what obssessed means.
You don't know what taking things personally means.
You are a liar.
You are an idiot.
Then stop being an idiot and you won't have to hear "you're an idiot" and "you're an idiot" over and over again.At the end of the day its pointless and I get tired of having to repeat myself over and over again over the background of 'you're an idiot' and 'you're an idiot.'
You don't know what making it personal means.They just make it entirely to personal. Whatever.
lol, "pumpkin" smack
As an aside that video was very interesting.
I figured this was the first time you've ever stepped foot into a 9/11 conspiracy thread........this pretty much confirms it.
stop taking it so personally.
You said you know more than basic science and have not disproven the NIST reports on any level.
At first you said you are an ME and now you admit that you are still a student.
You don't know what inferiorty complex means.
You don't know what ad hominem means.
You don't know what obssessed means.
You don't know what taking things personally means.
You are a liar.
You are an idiot.
Then stop being an idiot and you won't have to hear "you're an idiot" and "you're an idiot" over and over again.
You don't know what making it personal means.
lol, "pumpkin" smack
I figured this was the first time you've ever stepped foot into a 9/11 conspiracy thread........this pretty much confirms it.Keep throwing your fit, pumpkin.
Im kinda confused where you get that I am lying about something from thoguh. I said i was IN mechanical engineering not A mechanical engineer and then in a matter of hours was atlking about my senior design project. If I gave the wrong impression I apologize but I ceratinly was not tryig to mislead anyone.
And an ad hominem is when you attack the person making an argument instead of what the argument is. See in throwing your fit you take everything chump says as gospel; and do not even try and think for yourself.
An inferiority complex is usually very easily displayed when somene repeatedly attempts to insult someone's intelligence or other traits when they are presented as being good. When I say that I am good at science and you spend the next several hours trying to say that I am stupid, that s a sign of an inferiority complex.
You see it in women when they are insecure about their looks and they take umbrage when another women is complimented on their looks.
I know exactly what an inferiority complex and being a self admitted pedant I get it all the time. As I said you can try and deny it all you wnat but its there right in the open.
Hey I respect that and if you read my first post in the thread I stated that it is good to look under the carpet and around the corner but its not good to accept something as true just becasue it cannot be disproven.
Despite what you guys have been trying to characterize me as I do not have the tin foil hat on and I am not stockpiling guns for the apocalypse. I came into the thread with an open mind and was trying to look at things with an open mind. Prima facia at the very least their are some compelling arguments against the NIST report. For example, there is quite a bit of evidence that they force fed the paramenters into the model that were not there.
Does that mean that the CIA and military planted hundreds of explosives into the WTC? Of course not. Unfortunately I let you guys paint me with that brush. I got offended from being called an idiot over and over again and started arguing for the sake of arguing. Whatever.
OTOH its not like I do not give a lot of credence to what you guys are saying. Deespite what you may think. When you say that ASSE helped write the report that is very meaningful and I know that there is a lot of bull being spread around. There is a ton of sulfur in gypsum for example.
At the end of the day I do not believe that when the NIST report states that the fires around the central support columns raged for longer than an hour at 1000 degrees. Does that mean that I think that the crash did not cause the fall? Of course not. It just means that I do not buy that part of the report.
you don't know what throwing a fit means.
lol, "pumpkin" smack
^ this is taking it personal and throwing a fit.
lol, "pumpkin" smack
No, you clearly said you were ME like Darrin.Im kinda confused where you get that I am lying about something from thoguh. I said i was IN mechanical engineering not A mechanical engineer and then in a matter of hours was atlking about my senior design project. If I gave the wrong impression I apologize but I ceratinly was not tryig to mislead anyone.
In a matter of hours you were getting beat down enough to finally have to admit you were still a student.
I will accept your apology for being a flat out liar:
Again, if you think what Chump is doing is ad hominem, you still don't know what ad hominem means. Either that or you can't comprehend what he is saying. Probably a little of both.And an ad hominem is when you attack the person making an argument instead of what the argument is. See in throwing your fit you take everything chump says as gospel; and do not even try and think for yourself.
I'm also not taking Chump's word as gospel. I'm taking the NIST's report as truth.
You have done nothing to "debunk" their report except brag about your smarts and come up with some funky basketball analogy that makes no sense in regards to a building collapsing.
You are stupid "because you have not provided any definitive proof of anything".
Wrong.An inferiority complex is usually very easily displayed when somene repeatedly attempts to insult someone's intelligence or other traits when they are presented as being good. When I say that I am good at science and you spend the next several hours trying to say that I am stupid, that s a sign of an inferiority complex.
You still don't know what inferiority complex means. In no way do I feel inferior to you. I'm not saying you are stupid for the sake of it.
You are stupid for not providing anything legit to back up what you are saying other than "I know lots about science and like Darrin, I am ME."
SHOW YOUR WORK, STUPID.
Next time you admit yourself, ask the doc exactly what it means so that you don't look any more stupid.You see it in women when they are insecure about their looks and they take umbrage when another women is complimented on their looks.
I know exactly what an inferiority complex and being a self admitted pedant I get it all the time. As I said you can try and deny it all you wnat but its there right in the open.
lol, "pumpkin" smack
no, but you have done nothing to disprove the NIST reports.
If you think mouse's 9/11 youtube videos are fun to watch, then you have a tin foil hat on, even if you don't feel it on your head.Despite what you guys have been trying to characterize me as I do not have the tin foil hat on and I am not stockpiling guns for the apocalypse. I came into the thread with an open mind and was trying to look at things with an open mind. Prima facia at the very least their are some compelling arguments against the NIST report. For example, there is quite a bit of evidence that they force fed the paramenters into the model that were not there.
Please provide the "quite a bit of evidence", STUPID.
you claimed controlled demolition.Does that mean that the CIA and military planted hundreds of explosives into the WTC? Of course not. Unfortunately I let you guys paint me with that brush. I got offended from being called an idiot over and over again and started arguing for the sake of arguing. Whatever.
Who planted the bombs?
It's not like you give a lot of credence to the NIST reports either.OTOH its not like I do not give a lot of credence to what you guys are saying. Deespite what you may think. When you say that ASSE helped write the report that is very meaningful and I know that there is a lot of bull being spread around. There is a ton of sulfur in gypsum for example.
You're helping spread the bullsh1t around.
great. You don't buy it. Nobody's calling you stupid for not buying the report.At the end of the day I do not believe that when the NIST report states that the fires around the central support columns raged for longer than an hour at 1000 degrees. Does that mean that I think that the crash did not cause the fall? Of course not. It just means that I do not buy that part of the report.
I'm calling you stupid for thinking you know more on your own than the NIST.
lol, "pumpkin" smack
Yup I got you pegged. Like I said you keep going with your bad self. This whole rant of yours claiming that I say I knnow mroe than the people in NIST is just absolutley delicious. Youre literally the shining example of hypercritical.
But hey lets play a game? What do you think ad hominem means?
Anyway I have to go for a few hours I will await expectantly to see your latest hissy fit.
Since this has been done before, and the NIST has actually put a FAQ up, perhaps it is worth it to see what the NIST actually says and not rely on truther distortions to form our opinions of what the NIST said.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a do ent from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any do entation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”
The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.
The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well do ented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of do ents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
