OGCT True Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink OGCT True Believers BS Excuses Options

[dMz]

As a matter of fact, perhaps I can call on you and dMole to help me with the more advanced math involved
with these equations.

Hi Turbo,

The equations really aren't too bad (that stuff is on another thread around here somewhere (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ).

Here are some projectile motion Excel spreadsheet pages that might help. I haven't tried these spreadsheets yet, but you should be able to get a "horizontal" launch for the steel beam above by setting the launch angle to 0 degrees (but Excel likes radians- not sure if it converts for you or not). I'll let you guys sort out exactly what the mass of the beam is here.

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/Ph...ctileIntro.html

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/5...tilesExcel.html

And the spoiler for the less-technical, more busy, and just plain ol' lazy (his is an excellent page):
http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/ribando/mo...xls/projectile/

http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/ribando/mo...le/projmotn.xls

------
And some "free fall" spreadsheet pages:
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/5...ingInExcel.html

http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/Ph...spsheet_ex1.htm

Are you writing the above down nicepants? All of the above neglect air friction/drag, I believe. Nicepants is welcome to correct the above for air drag (HINT: -b * velocity^2, but b isn't the simplest thing to find).

And lunk- LOL! Sometimes you kill me. That was pretty dry. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

ETA: (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/teach.gif)

This post has been edited by dMole: May 20 2008, 04:10 PM

[nicepants]

nicepants:


No. I'm referring to the photo that is marked NYPD. As always, you are jumping to conclusions. There is no proof that the photo was taken by a NYPD officer or that it was manipulated by the NYPD. And so what if it was?

If you have evidence that this photo was manipulated, or was supplied by someone other than the NYPD, please present it.

Are you saying that we should treat the photo as though it's real and holy just because it supposedly comes from the police?

No. What I said was that if this photo is faked, the NYPD is in on the conspiracy. (Since it's their photo)

[nicepants]

Please expand on the bolded part. Are you saying that the vertical downward motion of the top section of WTC 1
caused the debris to spring horizontally?

"Spring" is probably not the right word. But yes, the vertical compression caused material from inside the building to eject laterally.

300 feet from base of WTC #1 to base of WTC #7, correct?

2 tons for one steel assembly projected from WTC #1 toward WTC #7, correct?

8 seconds from a height of 93 floors. Is this the height we should use for this calculation?

How about the impact floor of WTC #7. If I'm not mistaken, the lowest level hit was floor 8, on
the southwest corner?

I don't have all of the exact measurements for those numbers, but it's fine with me if you want to use those numbers for the example.

According to NIST, the debris would have (DID) cut the columns when they were cold and free of any fire, and at 100% strength. Agree?

Which NIST publication contains this claim?

[grizz]

The entire police force faked the photo?

[nicepants]

WTC7 fell straight down. Have you ever watched the footage? What would it have to do to meet your definition of symetrical?? And by the way, how would you explain how the BBC knew the building was going to come down 20-odd minutes before the fact???

You are the one saying it was symmetrical. What was your criteria?
The BBC reported it wrong, just like many other news agencies reported things wrong on 9/11. They had been told that firefighters were worried that WTC7 might collapse and got mixed up.

Are you implying in any way that all, some or any of us here think that Bush was behind 9/11??? LoL. I'd be surprised if he even knew about it.

No, I was responding to someone who lumped me in with "Bush Supporters". Many 9/11 "truthers" like to claim that anyone who is against them is a bush supporter. I guess since you don't think Bush was involved, you don't find fault with his actions on 9/11?

Structural steel is said to lose half of it's strength at about 1200 degrees F, the building, as best as I and other people have been able to guess, was rated for 6:1 loads, and worst case it was built for 5:1 loads since that's the rule of thumb for commercial buildings. (In other words, 1200 F degrees doesn't do it - you gotta heat the steel up enough so that the columns and beams lose 80% of their strength.) Not only that, but the fires just being that hot isn't enough either, you gotta get the steel itself up above that temperature ... steel conducts heat away from the source, so you gotta keep cranking up the heat fast and hard enough to get the temperature of the steel up faster than it can carry the heat away to other parts of the building. There have been many field tests and investigations into actual building fires and opportunities to measure the effects of fire on steel-framed buildings that attest to the fact that open air fires just do not get that hot, and steel framed buildings do not fail from fires.

Then why are they fireproofed? Seems like a waste of money, don't you think?

That's a well-published number, I have read it many many times in many places. I'll bet you can find it somewhere in the NIST or ASCE reports (I could be wrong).

I don't recall seeing anything about a 200-ton steel section having flown 300 feet. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.

For your information, buildings do fall over, just like trees. Granted, buildings are full of air, but they are structurally rigid, kind of like trees. Though the comparison breaks down and I don't want to suggest that buildings behave like trees, they have been known to fall over - and a good way to get one to do that might be to take out it's structural support on one side.

(IMG:http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5846/2001986837dp9.jpg)

And what was this building constructed of? Steel like WTC7?

(I've seen other photos of moderate sized building that have toppled over - but I wouldn't know were to find them. BTW please don't try to suggest that a smallish building can topple over but a taller one can't - that would make no sense at all.)

It makes plenty of sense for a 47 story building to behave differently than a 4 story one. Feel free to run your assertion by a structural engineer.

WTC7 fell into it's own footprint. And you're wrong, WTC7 did not severely damage the surrounding buildings.

Define the word "footprint" in the context that you're using it....because if it spilled out into the street, that's not in its footprint.
This building was damaged by WTC7's collapse:

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg/414px-Fiterman_hall_damage.jpg)

[nicepants]

The entire police force faked the photo?

I'm not saying that.
The photo was from the NYPD.
If that photo is faked, it requires NYPD involvement in the conspiracy.

[Sanders]

Nicepants, it's too bad you weren't born in the 18th century, the Vatican could have used you. ...you know, arguing against that "round earth" stuff. BTW, after I ban you in the next day or two (... I'm not promising anything, but jeeeze this trigger finger keeps twitching and that big red shiny "ban-nicepants-button" is SOOOO tempting!!!) and you come back as a sock puppet, I really like the 'NIST-Groupie' handle idea. I think it would suit you. Whay'ya think??

I'm really really sorry, I'm not going to bother replying to your replies ... they were pathetic. In all honesty, it's my bedtime and I'm a little drunk, that's part of the reason. But, in Winston Churchill fashion, tomorrow I'll be sober. you'll still be a NIST-groupie, grasping at any and all available, however absurd, straw, to defend an indefensible lie which is being utilised daily to justify the destruction of the America that I love.

In other words, you are a traitor to your country - whether for your stupidity or your insolence or inability to detatch from the (unsupportable) premise that the people who work within the US government are all immune to corruption of the worst kind and/or are working for all of our best interests (and that there isn't a league of billionaires behind them all "suggesting" to them what to or not to do on a regular basis). In other words, you are blind. I cannot make you see, nor do I care to try - because I do know basically what you are - although I truly have a hard time comprehending how people like you keep spewing the same bunk day after day with your blinders on tight. Do you??? Whatever, you made your bed, sleep in it. You are the enemy - Washington was smart enough not to let the enemy into his tent. So, when I ban you, it won't be for any "rule infraction". You're too "professional, you won't break any "forum rules", I know that - it makes me dislike you all the more. Nope, when I ban you, it'll be because you are the proclaimed enemy of those of us who love freedom, America and what it stands for, those of us that read up about the country's founders and what they wrote about and thought and why those concepts are at least as important now as they were then, and know that our country is under attack and, not to put too fine a point on it, being 'hijacked' by bankers and lawyers and oil conglomerates and globalists and - whatever, people trying to usurp the last vestages of American wealth for a dime on the dollar ... while invalidating, executive order by executive order, the Constitution.

But you have no idea what I'm talking about. You thinik that we think that "Bush did it". Seriously, Nicepants, you are so behind.

[dMz]

I don't recall seeing anything about a 200-ton steel section having flown 300 feet. If you have a source, I'd love to see it.

Well FEMA (who contributed to Gene Corley's ASCE report) for starters.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...ails.do?id=3942

"Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09/18/2001 in New York"

"New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo"

I'd call the 600,000 lb steel debris section 300 tons, but usage of "ton" tends to vary. The above is discussed in some detail at:

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/27...ns_Sideways.htm

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/27..._Ton_Detail.htm

It makes plenty of sense for a 47 story building to behave differently than a 4 story one. Feel free to run your assertion by a structural engineer.

HANDWAVING ALERT!

So are you implying that 47 story buildings are subject to a different form of gravitation than 4 story ones are? How about 110 story ones? How about 2 story ones? I'm going to guess here that you're not too familiar with the concept of superpostion, but that is pure speculation on my part. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) FYI, I've worked professionally on engineering some structures that see some unearthly-high forces, stresses, and loads. I've also been metalworking for over 2 decades and have a reasonably firm grasp on materials science, statics, dynamics, heat transfer, and thermodynamics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

I think you must have missed a few questions in my post above. (For your convienience, it's at about 13:07 above, dMole). I'll wait.

Perhaps your supervisor would like to answer my questions for you. Enjoy the soup...

P.S. Wouldn't your (structural engineering) questions be better directed toward Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth? You might want to go do a little reading over there first- here's the link for you:

http://www.ae911truth.org

This post has been edited by dMole: May 20 2008, 06:24 PM

[Sanders]

...P.S. Wouldn't your (structural engineering) questions be better directed toward Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth? You might want to go do a little reading over there first- here's the link for you:

http://www.ae911truth.org

Exactly (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[dMz]

Skyscrapers don't behave like trees ;-) I highly recommend you consult a physics professor about your theory.

I'm starting to wish nicepants behaved like a tree... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[rob balsamo]

I'm starting to wish nicepants behaved like a tree... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

He's like a ball of yarn and we're the cats. Everyone needs a play toy i suppose. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[dMz]

I'll let you guys sort out exactly what the mass of the beam is here.

Hm, nicepants apparently went away. Must I do all the work here? See my post above at 16:20, but the structural steel "chunk" in question was 600,000 lbs, according to FEMA.gov, in case he missed that part.

4:20P.M.- Hmmm, maybe that's where nicepants went... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/toke.gif)

EDIT: Say hi to Towelie for me.
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/south-pa...sion/3967820838

[Polishing the dog's nose (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) : d]

This post has been edited by dMole: May 20 2008, 08:30 PM

[dMz]

Common sense? You mean personal incredulity. ("I believe X, therefore X should have happened")

Incredulity? I think you mean "wishful thinking." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incredulity
"Noun- unwillingness to believe"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wishful_thinking
"Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality."

Hey, isn't that a little like Fox News, flag waving, Randiite, FEMA, NTSB, and NIST groupies? It certainly isn't "pleasing to imagine" that our own government could have been involved in 9/11 now is it?

I wonder if I'm "lively and friendly" enough for nicepants yet? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif)

[nicepants]

Come on dude!

Are you telling me WTC 7 was on fire BEFORE the debris struck it? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

No..I want to know what colums NIST claims the debris cut, and where you read that.

according to NIST, the debris would have (DID) cut the columns when they were cold and free of any fire, and at 100% strength. Agree?

[nicepants]

Well FEMA (who contributed to Gene Corley's ASCE report) for starters.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...ails.do?id=3942

"Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09/18/2001 in New York"

"New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo"

I'd call the 600,000 lb steel debris section 300 tons, but usage of "ton" tends to vary.

Which building did it hit? How far was that from towers 1 & 2?

HANDWAVING ALERT!

So are you implying that 47 story buildings are subject to a different form of gravitation than 4 story ones are?

No...I'm saying that the construction is different. Taller buildings, in general, must be made more lightweight (per floor) than shorter buildings. There's no reason to expect a 47 story building to behave the same way, structurally, as a 4 story building.

P.S. Wouldn't your (structural engineering) questions be better directed toward Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth? You might want to go do a little reading over there first- here's the link for you:

You mean the site where they claim that Molten Metal is a "characteristic of controlled demolition by explosives"?

I think you're better off going to a physics professor who is neutral on the issue of 9/11.

[maturin42]

I guess some engineers can buy their degrees?

In order for WTC 7 to fall in that manner, 100% of the columns would require severe damage.

How does the horizontal gravity blasted ( (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) ) debris from the Twin Towers pierce the Salomon Building and damage all the core columns? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Even if ... IF... there was extensive damage to WTC 7,it would have to be the side facing the tower. So how would it fall straight down?

Get a clue.

Go cut down some trees, and when you find one that drives itself straight down come and see us.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

As an alternative, to be actually comparable, see if you can find one that turns itself into tiny particles of sawdust.

[nicepants]

I guess some engineers can buy their degrees?

In order for WTC 7 to fall in that manner, 100% of the columns would require severe damage.

Source? Or is this your "common sense?"

How does the horizontal gravity blasted ( (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) ) debris from the Twin Towers pierce the Salomon Building and damage all the core columns? (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Who is claiming that the debris damaged all the core columns? (Or is this just a strawman?)

Even if ... IF... there was extensive damage to WTC 7,it would have to be the side facing the tower. So how would it fall straight down?

Because that's the direction that gravity was pulling it.

Go cut down some trees, and when you find one that drives itself straight down come and see us.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laughing1.gif)

Considering that trees aren't constructed in the same way as 47-story skyscrapers, I don't see the relevance.

[dMz]

Which building did it hit? How far was that from towers 1 & 2?

HINT: Why don't you try the two links that I provided under the one that you just quoted? They've got plenty of footnotes if you can/will read to the bottom of both articles... You also might try reading Chapter 7 of the FEMA/ASCE report, since you are the one defending the OGCT here. Also, Google Earth has a distance tool by the way...

No...I'm saying that the construction is different. Taller buildings, in general, must be made more lightweight (per floor) than shorter buildings. There's no reason to expect a 47 story building to behave the same way, structurally, as a 4 story building.

Ok, that's fair enough, now that you finally answer a question here in a direct manner. That wasn't so hard was it? Which reminds me- I think you have still avoided answering 4 of mine from 13:07 today. Again the post was by dMole in case you forgot... Here's a link so you don't get lost again:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10741168

But uh, have you got any links to blueprints, photos, engineering data to support your 47 story vs. 4 story speculations? Isn't this getting tedious for you by now? Have you noticed a pattern yet? [Many of we "twoofers" here have- you might want to read those forum rules and Sanders' last post again]. I think you might have missed a few more of my questions along the way, why don't you go back and read this whole thread again and call us when you're done? BTW- You might want a notebook and a few pencils handy when you do this...

You mean the site where they claim that Molten Metal is a "characteristic of controlled demolition by explosives"?

I think you're better off going to a physics professor who is neutral on the issue of 9/11.

I see that you are still coming to a site organized by aviation professionals asking materials science and engineering questions. Would you go to a licensed plumber for brain surgery? WAIT- maybe I don't really want you to answer that question... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Just out of curiosity, do you have any "neutral" physics professors that you recommend? I seem to recall some in the "debunking" movement demanding a Ph.D CE expert for anything to have merit- didn't those guys build the universe?

I must admit- I've got to give you some credit for your persistence nicepants. I'm just not certain that you are very B R I T E. [deliberately spelled incorrectly for the benefit of someone on this forum].
(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/bait.gif)

EDIT: Nicepants must not have read this part of the Debate forum, so I'll post it here for his/her benefit:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=4993

This post has been edited by dMole: May 21 2008, 01:56 AM

[dMz]

OK, in the interests of time efficiency, I think we've all wasted enough of OURS on nicepants' sophistry. Here are some points from the excellent page linked WAAAY above by OceansFlow IIRC:

http://www.matriots.com/bh/25.html

EDIT: Adding OceansFlow's link:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10740979

Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these. In the end, you can usually spot the professional propagandists by one or more of seven distinct traits:

* They never actually discuss issues head on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

* They tend to pick and choose their opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

* They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussion in the particular public arena. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

* They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

* They express complete disdain for "conspiracy theorists". Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.

* An odd kind of "artificial" emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a propaganda artist is that emotions can seem artificial.

* There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat Freudian in that they really root for the side of truth deep within.
---------
Another link of basically the same:

http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html
-----------
OK, now moving to logical fallacies- I won't list them, but read up 1976, Turbofan, and other "twoofers," if you haven't already. I'd advise printing these lists and reading them every day or so as you get time. It will eventually become instinct.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
-----------
OK- let me propose the following: we have asked our questions of nicepants-- now isn't it time to DEMAND the answers to the questions that we have ALREADY asked?

I'll wager that nicepants will either try to badger, goad, and obfuscate further parcels of our time from us, or else nicepants will just "disappear" (and likely come back wearing a fresh "sock puppet" handle over his/her hand as Sanders already suggested). DON'T answer any further "slippery/oily" questions from nicepants or respond to his/her taunts- just provide a link to the previous questions that you have ALREADY asked, maybe quoting your question(s) to make it convenient for nicepants to answer.

Peace "nicepants" (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/lame.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whip.gif)

[metaphor]
P.S. Nicepants- "I'M RICK JAMES [GS-]BEEEYOTCH!"
[/metaphor]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1305108/dave...ck_james_bitch/

EDIT2: Did anyone else notice that it only took nicepants 3 minutes to respond to Turbofan's ~20:40 post above? Hmmm....

EDIT3: 1976 already did an excellent job of describing the "information phishing" that intelligence agents (and others) are specially-trained to do- see 1st page near OP.

EDIT4: Here's the complete quote that nicepants took out of context, conspicuously leaving out the "in some detail" part. Hmmm....:

"Well FEMA (who contributed to Gene Corley's ASCE report) for starters.
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...ails.do?id=3942

"Photograph by Michael Rieger taken on 09/18/2001 in New York"

"New York, NY, September 18, 2001 -- Ohio Task Force workers anchored this 600,000 pound beam from the World Trade Center lodged in a nearby building. Photo by Michael Rieger/ FEMA News Photo"

I'd call the 600,000 lb steel debris section 300 tons, but usage of "ton" tends to vary. The above is discussed in some detail at:

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/27...ns_Sideways.htm

http://www.cloakanddagger.de/_Grossmann/27...etail.htm"

This post has been edited by dMole: Jun 5 2008, 11:25 AM

Reason for edit: Added quotation marks and metaphor

[KP50]

But, but, but dMole (he gasps in best debunker fashion) AFTER NEARLY 7 YEARS, YOU'VE GOT NO PROOF