BYU professor has theory about 9/11 attacks - news video

[Meuge]

And after two-fold reposting, my comment was still not addressed. Coincidence... I think not.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Oh, now you are denying the existence of the molten metal. Convenient.

Unlike you I don't believe everything I read on the internet. Corroborate the evidence with a reliable source and I'll consider it, otherwise all you have is someone claiming they saw something and a photo who's origin and content can't be determined other than someone else claiming they are something. For someone who claims to be skeptical you sure believe a lot of unverifiable evidence, I guess that's why your a nut.

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Please tell me where I at any time claimed to have evaluated a 'structural analysis of a high rise structure.'

And they all worked on the NIST report with the fire-collapse theory as the only theory in mind. The NIST report talks about all these supposed 'computer models' they did. Let's see the computer models and if they are even realistic.

But the NIST report completely excludes all of that by conveniently avoiding analysis of the events that occured during the collapse.

The idea that three buildings could all collapse in perfect symmetry due to fires when no steel building in the history of buildings had ever collapsed due to a fire sounds more like easter bunny material to me.

Futhermore, one doesn't need to be a structural engineer to understand the impossibilities of a building collapsing from a fire..

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Once again, why in the fing world does it require an 'analysis of a high rise structure' to point out obvious physical impossibilities using basic laws of physics.

Quite simply because you don't know a damn thing about HOW to apply those laws of physics in such a complex situation. Structures don't behave like stationary cars and the failure mode of a hi-rise has extremely complex interactions, beam or column failures on one floor can trigger failure on other floors before the above floor even reaches that point. See it's this critical lack of understanding on your part and all these other "physicists" that make everything you and they are saying complete and utter BS. Physics is about theory, engineering is about application in the real world.

Originally posted by: Dissipate
For a building collapse that you previously claimed to be so complex, a heck of a lot more than $600,000.

How many man-hours does that buy? What value is there to adding more man-hours? How many engineers is appropriate to devote to the task? For how long? What product should be produced? In what detail? What's the benefit/cost of the study?

If you are going to claim $600k isn't enough why don't you answer the above questions? Clearly if you assert that it isn't enough you have done at least the minimal amount of calculations to evaluate just how much work was done and an estimate on how much more should have been done.

Originally posted by: Dissipate
However, on principle I do not believe that any tax dollars should have been used at all. The fact that so little was spent on the investigation by the government is tell-tale of a coverup though.

So not enough was spent, but it shouldn't have been spent at all. Interesting logic.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: morkinva
Doesn't a forge need forced air in order to raise the temperature of iron? This is what I assume you're talking about, a coal/coke or gas forge. Where did the forced air come from, under the rubble?

A forge uses forced air to speed the process, you don't want to wait a couple days to heat something that hot so you force air in to expend the heat from the fuel source so that the item in the forge comes to the desired temperature quickly.

 

[morkinva]

Oh, I see, so now the process was NOT like a forge.... un huh.

I see you've found a new way to fell steel buildings by just starting fires. You've also found a way to solve the energy crisis. Just start a fire, throw tons of rubble on top of it, and the fire will automatically start increasing it's temperature, with no fuel and no air to complete the combustion.

Let's ignore your new inventions for now and please answer this:

The President and/or his administration resisted, for 18 months, an investigation into the events of 911. The 911 commission report starts off by presupposing that Arab terrorists attacked us, coloring it from the beginning.

Are you vociferous proponents of the official story averse to a truly independent investigation into these events, like the good professor asks? Or are you all 'rahvin' lunatics'?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: morkinva
Oh, I see, so now the process was NOT like a forge.... un huh.

Actually the conditions in the debris pile were almost identical to a forge. There were millions of pounds of fuel in the debris, plenty of air ciruclation and lots of time for those hot spots to smoulder themselves up to pretty high temps.

Originally posted by: morkinva
I see you've found a new way to fell steel buildings by just starting fires.

Don't put words in my mouth retard. The buildings fell down because significant structural elements were destroyed or damaged and a fire gutted and softened the connections to the point that the structure fell.

Originally posted by: morkinva
The President and/or his administration resisted, for 18 months, an investigation into the events of 911.

Maybe they are like Dissipate and didn't want to waste government money on a report because they didn't think it was something the government should pay for.

Originally posted by: morkinva
The 911 commission report starts off by presupposing that Arab terrorists attacked us, coloring it from the beginning.

What does the independent political report have to do with the independent technical report on the failure? Have you ever heard of an executive summary? Do you even know how to write a report?

Originally posted by: morkinva
Are you vociferous proponents of the official story averse to a truly independent investigation into these events, like the good professor asks? Or are you all 'rahvin' lunatics'?

You don't want an independent analysis, you want a report that supports the conclusions you read on the internet. You want some solid evidence for your pet theory because you don't have any. The real skeptics know you and your ilk are all full of sh!t because the only evidence you can bring to the front is on the same calibur of that used to say the moon landing is false. The evidence is comprised almost entirely of bad science, innuendo and a presupposition that the government is some nebulous entity that has some nefarious plot.

 

[morkinva]

Professor Jones seminar on Feb.01 - 254MB wmv

 

[Votingisanillusion]

The 697.1 MB version (very good quality, 2h15) is also on emule:
ed2k://|file|Steven.Jones.2.2006.avi|730957182|ADEA559F8ACAE1C45CBEBBDF6B9400BE|/
The torrent is available there: http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/news/
Go to this site for daily updates on 9/11 research:
http://www.911blogger.com/

I am watching the video now and the example of the stove is very convincing! When you burn anything in a stove, do you expect the stove to collapse? No, of course! Then why did 3 WTC buildings with 284 steel reinforced columns (WTC 1&2) collapse? The planes? No, the collapse would have been immediate, and WTC7 was not hit by a plane.
Jones quotes a mechanical engineer teaching at another university who contacted him and agreed with his paper, but does not want to be named because she fears losing her job. Sibel Edmonds, the FBI translator, said the same in a video available on emule and here: there is an incredible amount of pressure on her, who is famous, but also on many others, to shut up. A famous engineer (Kevin Ryan, of Underwriter Labs, that set up models of the WTC buildings components and tested them: they did not fail as required by the official story) has been fired because he contradicted the official version too well. Another retracted his first convincing analysis that it was a controlled demolition, but why? At least noone got killed, unlike after JFK's assassination.

By the way: one more thread about 9/11 got locked: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
And of course the moderator closing all these topics about 9/11 always refuses to explain why.
Anyway, he is ridiculous: as if he could censor internet! D

 

[arsbanned]

Oh crap not this again. They get closed because they're ridiculous maybe? I can't stand Bush or any of his admin, but they didn't set charges off to bring the WTC down. Damn people, get lives.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think it was termites.

Most assuredly

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Votingisanillusion

And of course the moderator closing all these topics about 9/11 always refuses to explain why.
Anyway, he is ridiculous: as if he could censor internet! D

I think the reason why is that there are too many of them. I've seen multiple threads on the same 9/11 movies.

Let's try to keep it all in one thread.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: realsup
I think it was Al Sharpton.

nah, i think i was Riley and Huey from the Boondocks.