LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 03:41 PM

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!

Josef doesn’t provide a link to anything Rob Lang wrote - just a link to the university where he used to be Dean of Engineering. I’d like to see what Dr. Lang wrote. Any ideas???

LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 05:04 PM

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.

You are the first person I have encountered to point this out.  The military uses weapons constantly that depend on this simple physics.  They should have been among the first people to jump up and shout, “A measly airliner can’t do that!”  What is that oath they have about enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC?

But after TEN YEARS this whole thing is psychologically ridiculous.  It is like a BIG LIE tar baby.  Tens of thousands of people are stuck in it.  They will look like fools if they say it was impossible now.

psik

citizenschallenge.pm - 28 September 2011 07:27 PM

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   

It defies physics based on KNOWN INPUTS, airliners and jet fuel.

If there were demolitions then those are CURRENTLY UNKNOWN INPUTS.

Is that too difficult?

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

How is the weight of all of the steel on a level a SPECIFIC COMPONENT?  How is the weight of all of the concrete on a level a SPECIFIC COMPONENT?  How is POTENTIAL ENERGY not basic physics?

ROFLMAO

Your semantic bullsh# makes no sense in terms of BASIC PHYSICS.

psik

traveler - 28 September 2011 02:30 PM

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.

I contacted him and he replied, “Patents held by Ramo - Wooldrige and Knickerbocker toy co. I am “Inventor of record.”“
He suggested I stop wasting my time.

Atheists and humanists are “my people.” They are supposed to examine information objectively. I’ve always told those who give credence to the paranormal and other such beliefs, “It only has to be true in one instance to be true.” If we have been visited by alien travelers, or witchcraft or ESP exists, it doesn’t matter if all the other claims of such are bogus, these things exist and are true.

The group here is guilty of a lot of handwaving in regards to smugly dismissing so many of the troubling issues and questions regarding 9/11.

If they were honest (which I’m resigning myself to the admission that this is most likely not the case), they would at least be arbiters of what can and cannot be ascertained by the facts.

Mr. Princiotta’s site is described by him in our email as follows—-

My CSI911 site is what is called “informal peer review”

If they could come up with a formula I would like to see it.
To date no one has.

traveler - 29 September 2011 07:18 AM

LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 03:41 PM

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!

Josef doesn’t provide a link to anything Rob Lang wrote - just a link to the university where he used to be Dean of Engineering. I’d like to see what Dr. Lang wrote. Any ideas???

Why not tackle the one that did provide the documentation?

Just for larfs.

Are your credentials comprable to Dr. Lang’s? Just curious. What did you used to be the dean of? What degree(s) does the esteemed Dr. Traveler hold?

psikeyhackr - 29 September 2011 07:30 AM

LanceThruster - 28 September 2011 05:04 PM

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.

You are the first person I have encountered to point this out.  The military uses weapons constantly that depend on this simple physics.  They should have been among the first people to jump up and shout, “A measly airliner can’t do that!”  What is that oath they have about enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC?

But after TEN YEARS this whole thing is psychologically ridiculous.  It is like a BIG LIE tar baby.  Tens of thousands of people are stuck in it.  They will look like fools if they say it was impossible now.

psik

I heard a radio interview with Jesse Ventura who has special forces training. The military taught him how to blow stuff up. He doesn’t consider the collapse as not being a demolition of some sort.

Yet Bill Maher is too cowardly to delve into that tidbit on his show.

Remember when the Taliban tried to destroy 700 year old Buddhist statues carved into a cliff? They used sustained high-explosive artillery fire and couldn’t do much more than chip away at the ediface.

They should have just flown a jet full of fuel into the cliff and the whole thing would have vaporized, no?

LanceThruster - 29 September 2011 09:45 AM

Why not tackle the one that did provide the documentation?

Just for larfs.

Are your credentials comprable to Dr. Lang’s? Just curious. What did you used to be the dean of? What degree(s) does the esteemed Dr. Traveler hold?

Wow, that’s sad. All I did is ask if you could help me find Dr. Lang’s writeup. Regarding the article by Moronne, I found it pretty basic, but interesting (I didn’t poo-poo it). I also read Moronne’s article about brainwashing and the thought that the Murrah building was also not solely a McVeigh job. I weigh all the evidence and have not made any conclusions - hence my request. I’d prefer not to repeat my credentials here. Been there, done that. If sarcasm is all you have to offer now, then I’m disappointed.

traveler - 29 September 2011 10:12 AM

LanceThruster - 29 September 2011 09:45 AM

Why not tackle the one that did provide the documentation?

Just for larfs.

Are your credentials comprable to Dr. Lang’s? Just curious. What did you used to be the dean of? What degree(s) does the esteemed Dr. Traveler hold?

Wow, that’s sad. All I did is ask if you could help me find Dr. Lang’s writeup. Regarding the article by Moronne, I found it pretty basic, but interesting (I didn’t poo-poo it). I also read Moronne’s article about brainwashing and the thought that the Murrah building was also not solely a McVeigh job. I weigh all the evidence and have not made any conclusions - hence my request. I’d prefer not to repeat my credentials here. Been there, done that. If sarcasm is all you have to offer now, then I’m disappointed.

Sarcasm is not all I have to offer, but rears its ugly head on occasion due to my own shortcomings..

Thanks for pointing out that Dr. Lang did not “show his work”, but rather added his voice to the view that additional energy was needed for the results that were witnessed.

I do not mind being kept honest or revising my views or statements where applicable.

I have no credentials to speak of (an AA degree from a JC and some 4 year college in the Urban Planning program).

I have a desire to use facts as a basis for determining “truth”, even at my less credentialed level.

My default assumption is that secular humanists hold a similar position.

LanceThruster - 29 September 2011 10:40 AM

My default assumption is that secular humanists hold a similar position.

For the most part, I hope that’s true but it’s always dangerous to generalize. 

traveler - 29 September 2011 10:44 AM

LanceThruster - 29 September 2011 10:40 AM

My default assumption is that secular humanists hold a similar position.

For the most part, I hope that’s true but it’s always dangerous to generalize. 

Joseph Heller once remarked (“Great Books” series on cable TV) ~ “Catch-22 means people have the right to do to you anything which you cannot prevent them from doing to you.”

The real question is, why do you think no one seems to care about investigating this stuff? Psik seems to think there are too many people “invested” in the official story that they would have to admit they were wrong for TEN YEARS. I don’t buy it. If you can prove there were explosives, that makes you right above everyone else. If these people are so worried about being right or wrong, surely they would like to be more right than everyone else. No, the most likely reason no one cares is because the official explanation makes enough sense and only has a few anomalies that should be expected - we can’t always have all the data.

domokato - 29 September 2011 11:24 AM

TEN YEARS.

domokato - 29 September 2011 11:24 AM

The real question is, why do you think no one seems to care about investigating this stuff? Psik seems to think there are too many people “invested” in the official story that they would have to admit they were wrong for TEN YEARS. I don’t buy it. If you can prove there were explosives, that makes you right above everyone else. If these people are so worried about being right or wrong, surely they would like to be more right than everyone else. No, the most likely reason no one cares is because the official explanation makes enough sense and only has a few anomalies that should be expected - we can’t always have all the data.

Thankfully, facts are not determined by populism, nor by experts exclusively - “Most Americans believe in ghosts” http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general533.html

I have a hard time understanding why modeling the towers and their destruction would not be a good thing for ALL invested in the question, regardless of one’s view of the issue.

It has to potential to demonstrate the principles involved in order to build upon that knowledge.

“Teach a man to fish” and all that.

traveler - 29 September 2011 11:39 AM

domokato - 29 September 2011 11:24 AM

TEN YEARS.

Yeah, The NIST spent 3 years and $20,000,000 producing a report 10,000 pages long.

It does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers even though it specifies the total for the steel in three places.

So after TEN YEARS how many people cannot even conceive of how stupid they are? 

The distribution of steel down a skyscraper is just so unimportant.

The shape of the CN Tower is just so cool.  What does it have to do with GRAVITY?

psik

“FAITH means not wanting to KNOW”