LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 02:05 PM

traveler - http://www.csi911.info/CSI911.html
This site uses official data. That good enough for you? FEMA, NIST, the Commission report…

No, it really isn’t good enough. That is Josef’s description. I looked at his work history. He claims to be an inventor for several patents, yet when I enter his name into HERE, no patents come up. (I enter my name and my patents come up.)
Rather than providing a link to a fellow truther’s site, why not link me to the official sources where he claims to have gotten his data? Where’s the harm in that?

Misdirection about what some truthers claim is irrelevant.

Well, now that might have worked had you not in turn provided a link to what some truther claims. You see my problem with that?

I do not wish to debate opinion.

“Debating opinion is ‘Chewing Gum’ for the mind.
Its taste may be irresistible. It keeps your jaw moving -
Yet it offers no real nutrition.”
Josef Princiotta

Interesting, since all Josef presents is opinion (what you call facts from reliable sources) while asking others to do work.

Wrong thread.

VYAZMA - 28 September 2011 11:32 AM

“many sources say….”  What does that mean?  What sources?  List your sources!  Please don’t include overdubbed You-tube videos made by hermit-like cranks who haven’t seen the sunlight in years!

But!  What do you mean LOST!?!?  Energy or matter is not lost!! .

Dude, you are talking about an event that occurred in a matter of minutes and happened ten years ago and anyone is is just making semieducated guesses about.  If the word LOST bothers you instead of consumed that is too damn bad.

Go complain to Mr. Spock about it.

psik

VYAZMA - 28 September 2011 11:55 AM

I don’t care about your models or theories… I just like heckling!

EXCELLENT!

You have just explained why it makes perfect sense to totally ignore you.

psik

traveler - 28 September 2011 11:58 AM

While interesting, they don’t overpower my observation that two airliners crashed into the buildings. Psik and LanceThruster (really???) might be right, but they really need to gather more convincing evidence - most of the ‘evidence’ is in the form of questions. Can you construct a model that blah blah blah. Why won’t someone tell us how much steel there was? Why??? That’s not evidence.

The fact that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up is not evidence?  LOL

What is evident is that people cannot understand Newtonian Physics.

You can’t do much for people who don’t want to conquer their own ignorance.  If the Conservation of Momentum and the Square-Cube Law don’t make sense to people there ain’t much I can do.  To me that is better evidence than some thermite in some dust.  That is why I NEVER tell people that the “supposed” finding of thermite in the dust is PROOF of something.  I didn’t test it myself and don’t know how to test it even if I had the equipment.

I can test the conservation of momentum myself and build self-supporting models and demonstrate the physics.  I also provide info so people can duplicate the experiment for themselves.  It is not my fault if people doubt their own intelligence in comprehending grade school physics and need QUALIFIED experts to tell them what to think.

Why don’t atheists consider the Pope to be a QUALIFIED expert?

ROFLMAO

People talk about intelligence but if you Google

+intelligence +“problem solving”

you get About 36,600,000 results (0.20 seconds).

So the 9/11 Decade is a great demonstration of failure to problem solve.

psik

domokato - 28 September 2011 02:17 PM

Points 6 and 7 do not refute my theory, at least not as far as I can tell.

You’ve put forth nothing falsifiable as of yet. The wall panels are roughly 8000lbs each. Can you calculate the energy generated from the rush of air from the potential energy released from the collapse. The points cited indicate matching ejection particulars despite the differences in the damage to both buildings. It also pointed out the uniform nature of these pressure waves top to bottom. Can your theory account for that in any fashion?

psikeyhackr - 28 September 2011 02:50 PM

traveler - 28 September 2011 11:58 AM

While interesting, they don’t overpower my observation that two airliners crashed into the buildings. Psik and LanceThruster (really???) might be right, but they really need to gather more convincing evidence - most of the ‘evidence’ is in the form of questions. Can you construct a model that blah blah blah. Why won’t someone tell us how much steel there was? Why??? That’s not evidence.

The fact that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up is not evidence?  LOL

What is evident is that people cannot understand Newtonian Physics.

You can’t do much for people who don’t want to conquer their own ignorance.  If the Conservation of Momentum and the Square-Cube Law don’t make sense to people there ain’t much I can do.  To me that is better evidence than some thermite in some dust.  That is why I NEVER tell people that the “supposed” finding of thermite in the dust is PROOF of something.  I didn’t test it myself and don’t know how to test it even if I had the equipment.

I can test the conservation of momentum myself and build self-supporting models and demonstrate the physics.  I also provide info so people can duplicate the experiment for themselves.  It is not my fault if people doubt their own intelligence in comprehending grade school physics and need QUALIFIED experts to tell them what to think.

Why don’t atheists consider the Pope to be a QUALIFIED expert?

ROFLMAO

People talk about intelligence but if you Google

+intelligence +“problem solving”

you get About 36,600,000 results (0.20 seconds).

So the 9/11 Decade is a great demonstration of failure to problem solve.

psik

Well, none of that was helpful. 

LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 02:51 PM

domokato - 28 September 2011 02:17 PM

Points 6 and 7 do not refute my theory, at least not as far as I can tell.

You’ve put forth nothing falsifiable as of yet. The wall panels are roughly 8000lbs each. Can you calculate the energy generated from the rush of air from the potential energy released from the collapse. The points cited indicate matching ejection particulars despite the differences in the damage to both buildings. It also pointed out the uniform nature of these pressure waves top to bottom. Can your theory account for that in any fashion?

Ah, that would require a lot of calculation…Don’t really have time for this right now. Maybe later

traveler - 28 September 2011 02:30 PM

Interesting, since all Josef presents is opinion (what you call facts from reliable sources) while asking others to do work.

Are Dr. Terry Morrone and Dr. Rob Lang real people?

They did the calculations.

Look at whom Mr. Princiotta has contacted in regards to requesting that others intimately familiar with the construction or the physics work out the equations for the properties of the collapse(s).

These are the people you would agree are capable of producing the desired results.

Seems as if they could end years of controversy with just a fraction of their skill and knowledge put to the task.

Showing their work is an important part of the process as these finding can be checked, verified, and even replicated. This is that core science to which you are so dedicated.

Finally, we are on the same team and same page!

I’ll be anxiously looking forward to their input. They have even more to work with now that the additional explosive energy of the molten aluminum and water can be factored in.

*Now* we’re getting somewhere!

domokato - 28 September 2011 03:27 PM

LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 02:51 PM

domokato - 28 September 2011 02:17 PM

Points 6 and 7 do not refute my theory, at least not as far as I can tell.

You’ve put forth nothing falsifiable as of yet. The wall panels are roughly 8000lbs each. Can you calculate the energy generated from the rush of air from the potential energy released from the collapse. The points cited indicate matching ejection particulars despite the differences in the damage to both buildings. It also pointed out the uniform nature of these pressure waves top to bottom. Can your theory account for that in any fashion?

Ah, that would require a lot of calculation…Don’t really have time for this right now. Maybe later

Yes it would. And the so-called experts have had close to a decade to do just that.

Would ten years be enough time for you (if you were to embark on such a task) to do the calculations?

We can pick this up again then if you’d like (2021).

If so, I’ll buy the box set of one of my favorite Cartoon Network Adult Swim shows and we can have a marathon viewing party to celebrate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealab_2021

LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 02:51 PM

domokato - 28 September 2011 02:17 PM

Points 6 and 7 do not refute my theory, at least not as far as I can tell.

You’ve put forth nothing falsifiable as of yet. The wall panels are roughly 8000lbs each. Can you calculate the energy generated from the rush of air from the potential energy released from the collapse. The points cited indicate matching ejection particulars despite the differences in the damage to both buildings. It also pointed out the uniform nature of these pressure waves top to bottom. Can your theory account for that in any fashion?

Potential energy is weight times height.  50 tons of steel on the 100 floor has more potential energy than 50 tons of steel on the 5th floor.

So if we don’t have accurate data on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete on each level then the potential energy cannot be accurately calculated.

We end up with people taking the total weigh of the building and dividing by 110 and saying that is the weight of each level.  Some of the steel at the bottom of the building was 5 inches thick.  At the top it was 1/4th of an inch.  Plus the columns were 50 inches wide at the bottom and 12 inches at the top.  And that does not bring in the issue of the 6 basement levels.  I have never even seen the above ground versus the below ground weight specified.

9/11 is a scientific travesty with the missing but critical data.  The twin towers are mill stones around the physics profession’s neck like we are supposed to give a damn about neutrinos 1/400th of 1% faster than light when they won’t resolve this crap.  But there are no political implications to FTL neutrinos and government funds are necessary to finance this metaphysical research of COSMIC importance.  People dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant.

psik

traveler - 28 September 2011 03:01 PM

Well, none of that was helpful. 

Right, Newtonian Physics isn’t HELPFUL to some people.

psik

People dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant.

Not directly in regards to the calcuations you rightfully insist have bearing on this whole issue, but certainly indirectly in regards to those who are unconcerned that a few lies here and there by top officials across the board are not cause for a sense of urgency as far as uncovering the truth.

The truth of what happened sure makes a lot of difference to your common Afghan or Iraqi civilian because those same physical forces you write so compellingly about were, in many, many instances, used to rend their bodies asunder.

LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 12:53 PM

traveler - 28 September 2011 11:58 AM

An event so tragic as 9/11 is bound to incite emotion. That brings out the expletives (which I easily gloss over while perusing any content).

Back to the topic… I don’t know that there was no conspiracy behind 9/11. I don’t know that we went to the moon. I don’t know that Bush stole the elections. I simply have my beliefs and they are based on what I was admittedly fed by various media. I’m an average guy who reads and listens.

What makes something look like a conspiracy theory is often the presentation made by the theorists. I’ve seen a simplistic model. I’ve heard emotional appeals. I’ve seen videos of people claiming they worked for the CIA or who found nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

While interesting, they don’t overpower my observation that two airliners crashed into the buildings. Psik and LanceThruster (really???) might be right, but they really need to gather more convincing evidence - most of the ‘evidence’ is in the form of questions. Can you construct a model that blah blah blah. Why won’t someone tell us how much steel there was? Why??? That’s not evidence. The nano-thermite evidence is interesting, but I don’t know how the scientist extrapolates the small amount observed under the microscope to perhaps 100s of tons. The questions are supposed to come from the audience side. It is up to the presenters of various theories to answer questions, not ask them.

“So Mrs. Lincoln, other than that…how did you like the play?”

[groan]
{..}
You could build a tower model from bread sticks and potato chips, and I defy you to try to replicate the pattern of destruction, even if you smacked it with a hatchet, doused it in kerosene, and lit it on fire.

Perhaps you LT could do that and extrapolate all sorts of theories out of the results, but from what I’ve read I think Traveler would have a much saner approach to building an educational model of the WTC.

PS. I thought Travelers comments make excellence sense.

psikeyhackr - 28 September 2011 04:47 PM

Potential energy is weight times height.  50 tons of steel on the 100 floor has more potential energy than 50 tons of steel on the 5th floor.

So if we don’t have accurate data on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete on each level then the potential energy cannot be accurately calculated.

We end up with people taking the total weigh of the building and dividing by 110 and saying that is the weight of each level.  Some of the steel at the bottom of the building was 5 inches thick.  At the top it was 1/4th of an inch.  Plus the columns were 50 inches wide at the bottom and 12 inches at the top.  And that does not bring in the issue of the 6 basement levels.  I have never even seen the above ground versus the below ground weight specified.

9/11 is a scientific travesty with the missing but critical data.  The twin towers are mill stones around the physics profession’s neck like we are supposed to give a damn about neutrinos 1/400th of 1% faster than light when they won’t resolve this crap.  But there are no political implications to FTL neutrinos and government funds are necessary to finance this metaphysical research of COSMIC importance.  People dying in Iraq and Afghanistan are irrelevant.

psik

“So if we don’t have accurate data on the amount of steel and the amount of concrete on each level then the potential energy cannot be accurately calculated.”. . . 

Yea, but… if we remember to add in ~ the accumulative mass (energy potential) above each floor, then, I dare say,
the figures you’re sweating become meaningless. . .  or as some of my pals in the trade like to say LOST IN THE SAUCE.

Even one of your opening argument?:
How can (the mass of) an airoplane bring down the mighty World Trade Center…
ignores that the plane did not bring down the tower
{get it?}
It initiated a series of cascading events that resulted in the WTC’s collapse.

So while you fret about the specific weights of specific components,
it changes nothing about the basic physics that was involved in the collapse.
~ ~ ~

ps. did you ever get around to explaining what the supposed big deal was surrounding the various timings of collapse.  If they defy physics, how do they support demolitions… just asking