|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
^the above does not explain the presence of molten metal
joo, read your links. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
^the above does not explain the presence of molten metal
joo, read your links. |
What's mind boggling is that Joo et. al can't understand a simple point: that is, even if fire caused the floors to sag, buckle, collapse, on the top floors, it would still leave the bottom floors intact. Those bottom floors were made of thousands of tons of steel and concrete, and would not dissapear/give way like air, which would be required for the buildings to collapse at the rate of speed in which they did. Why is that such a difficult concept for the true believers to grasp??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
do you seriously need me to post more expert opinion that CDT needs to investigated? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, specifically, if you are able, please take one paragraph, or more if you need, that shows how the building could have collapsed at virtual free fall speed, whilst at minimum, the bottom 8 floors were completely structurally intact. To put it in as clear a way as possible for you, show me, specifically, how the BUILDING'S STEEL AND CONCRETE OFFERED EQUAL RESISTANCE AS AIR. If you don't understand what I'm asking, let me know. If you do understand, please post a quote from one of your many sources. BUT, NO LINKS PLEASE. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand what you are asking.
but is about the towers falling at freefall speeds? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:01 am Post subject: Re: Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 |
|
|
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
You should read your own quote. We have an engineer who thinks we need a new investigation. It doesn't say that he agrees with any of the nonsense put out by the "truthers."
I think we need a new investigation. There are questions that need to be answered. We need to make a better determination as to the cause of the loss of structural integrity of the two towers. This would provide a valuable structural engineering case study in failure, if nothing else. We need to study the original design and determine the actual theoretical survival collision capacity of the structures. We then have two twin failures under slightly varying conditions to compare to the model. This is a great learning opportunity.
Of course, we have to go in with our eyes and minds open. But, we cannot accept the nonsense of the "truthers" sense it is obviously false on its face. It was created by people who have no clue.
There is no evidence of molten steel.
The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, and the calculations use the wrong distance of fall from the outset.
There is no evidence of thermite.
The "expolsions" are the sounds of joints, bolts, welds, beams, trusses, collumns, etc. failing. Go to a "Strengths of Materials" Lab at a major Engineering College and LISTEN. After you do, you will understand, and if you haven't (and architects do not take that kind of coursework) then you are unqualified. |
You obviously have not read the link I posted earlier, by Jones. Your second point, that the buildings did not fall at freefall speed, is laughable. They don't have to fall at freefall speed to knock the official explanation down. Read the link, then pick it apart, or come back here with your condesencion. I doubt your scientific abilities are greater than his. |
Dr. Quack Jones reminds me of another quack physics prof that got fired when I exposed him. Dr. Quack was also fired for being a quack.
As I heve previously implied, you should become your own expert. Go to an Engineering University. Take the major. Go to the labs. Listen. Study. Do the strenghts of materials testing. Bust a few joints, welds, bolts. Build some model structures. Bust those. Learn something. Do the statics, the dynamics, the surveying, the geology, the physics, the chemistry, the math, the labs, foundation design, structural design, do 4 times the number of required credits as any nonengineering major. Graduate. Get a job. Do the drawings. Do the math. Build the structures. Inspect the welds, the materials. Analyze the drawings. Supervise the design and drawings. Audit the calculations. Become a consultant. Give advice on the design, construction and maintenance of major projects, buildings, power plants, paper mills. Then interface with the nonengineers. Listen to the babble of the PR & advertising men who don't understand, and make scientifically ridiculous claims to impress or soothe the public. Listen to architects who only draw pretty pictures but have to get everything checked by real engineers in the end cause they're clueless. Then, a bunch of politicians put out nonsense about fire bringing down buildings that collapsed straight out from the collision (deep politics on that one) but who are challenged by people who can't understand why the towers actually fell 80 and 95 stories and not 110. Then you want me to listen to a quack who knows less than I did as a freshman in college so many decades ago? Ha. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: Re: Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
You should read your own quote. We have an engineer who thinks we need a new investigation. It doesn't say that he agrees with any of the nonsense put out by the "truthers."
I think we need a new investigation. There are questions that need to be answered. We need to make a better determination as to the cause of the loss of structural integrity of the two towers. This would provide a valuable structural engineering case study in failure, if nothing else. We need to study the original design and determine the actual theoretical survival collision capacity of the structures. We then have two twin failures under slightly varying conditions to compare to the model. This is a great learning opportunity.
Of course, we have to go in with our eyes and minds open. But, we cannot accept the nonsense of the "truthers" sense it is obviously false on its face. It was created by people who have no clue.
There is no evidence of molten steel.
The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, and the calculations use the wrong distance of fall from the outset.
There is no evidence of thermite.
The "expolsions" are the sounds of joints, bolts, welds, beams, trusses, collumns, etc. failing. Go to a "Strengths of Materials" Lab at a major Engineering College and LISTEN. After you do, you will understand, and if you haven't (and architects do not take that kind of coursework) then you are unqualified. |
You obviously have not read the link I posted earlier, by Jones. Your second point, that the buildings did not fall at freefall speed, is laughable. They don't have to fall at freefall speed to knock the official explanation down. Read the link, then pick it apart, or come back here with your condesencion. I doubt your scientific abilities are greater than his. |
Dr. Quack Jones reminds me of another quack physics prof that got fired when I exposed him. Dr. Quack was also fired for being a quack.
As I heve previously implied, you should become your own expert. Go to an Engineering University. Take the major. Go to the labs. Listen. Study. Do the strenghts of materials testing. Bust a few joints, welds, bolts. Build some model structures. Bust those. Learn something. Do the statics, the dynamics, the surveying, the geology, the physics, the chemistry, the math, the labs, foundation design, structural design, do 4 times the number of required credits as any nonengineering major. Graduate. Get a job. Do the drawings. Do the math. Build the structures. Inspect the welds, the materials. Analyze the drawings. Supervise the design and drawings. Audit the calculations. Become a consultant. Give advice on the design, construction and maintenance of major projects, buildings, power plants, paper mills. Then interface with the nonengineers. Listen to the babble of the PR & advertising men who don't understand, and make scientifically ridiculous claims to impress or soothe the public. Listen to architects who only draw pretty pictures but have to get everything checked by real engineers in the end cause they're clueless. Then, a bunch of politicians put out nonsense about fire bringing down buildings that collapsed straight out from the collision (deep politics on that one) but who are challenged by people who can't understand why the towers actually fell 80 and 95 stories and not 110. Then you want me to listen to a quack who knows less than I did as a freshman in college so many decades ago? Ha. |
Good analysis Ontheway. What did you study in university Loose_Ends? I studied Political Science and minored in Business Ad. Now I am working on post grad work in marketing. So I am one of those quacks who don't understand physics and engineers. However, I do one thing; two huge jetliners crashed into those buildings. Also, the same group that hijacked those airplanes tried to blow up the WTC in 1993. so they've had the WTC in their sights for quite a while.
Also, where is the paper trial for all these bombs? No invoices, court documents ect. It would be quite a conspiracy to keep quiet. There has been no direct testimony of actually planting these bombs. It seems as though the truther brigade only wants to exploit the anomalies that exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:23 pm Post subject: Re: Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 |
|
|
| Pluto wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
You should read your own quote. We have an engineer who thinks we need a new investigation. It doesn't say that he agrees with any of the nonsense put out by the "truthers."
I think we need a new investigation. There are questions that need to be answered. We need to make a better determination as to the cause of the loss of structural integrity of the two towers. This would provide a valuable structural engineering case study in failure, if nothing else. We need to study the original design and determine the actual theoretical survival collision capacity of the structures. We then have two twin failures under slightly varying conditions to compare to the model. This is a great learning opportunity.
Of course, we have to go in with our eyes and minds open. But, we cannot accept the nonsense of the "truthers" sense it is obviously false on its face. It was created by people who have no clue.
There is no evidence of molten steel.
The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, and the calculations use the wrong distance of fall from the outset.
There is no evidence of thermite.
The "expolsions" are the sounds of joints, bolts, welds, beams, trusses, collumns, etc. failing. Go to a "Strengths of Materials" Lab at a major Engineering College and LISTEN. After you do, you will understand, and if you haven't (and architects do not take that kind of coursework) then you are unqualified. |
You obviously have not read the link I posted earlier, by Jones. Your second point, that the buildings did not fall at freefall speed, is laughable. They don't have to fall at freefall speed to knock the official explanation down. Read the link, then pick it apart, or come back here with your condesencion. I doubt your scientific abilities are greater than his. |
Dr. Quack Jones reminds me of another quack physics prof that got fired when I exposed him. Dr. Quack was also fired for being a quack.
As I heve previously implied, you should become your own expert. Go to an Engineering University. Take the major. Go to the labs. Listen. Study. Do the strenghts of materials testing. Bust a few joints, welds, bolts. Build some model structures. Bust those. Learn something. Do the statics, the dynamics, the surveying, the geology, the physics, the chemistry, the math, the labs, foundation design, structural design, do 4 times the number of required credits as any nonengineering major. Graduate. Get a job. Do the drawings. Do the math. Build the structures. Inspect the welds, the materials. Analyze the drawings. Supervise the design and drawings. Audit the calculations. Become a consultant. Give advice on the design, construction and maintenance of major projects, buildings, power plants, paper mills. Then interface with the nonengineers. Listen to the babble of the PR & advertising men who don't understand, and make scientifically ridiculous claims to impress or soothe the public. Listen to architects who only draw pretty pictures but have to get everything checked by real engineers in the end cause they're clueless. Then, a bunch of politicians put out nonsense about fire bringing down buildings that collapsed straight out from the collision (deep politics on that one) but who are challenged by people who can't understand why the towers actually fell 80 and 95 stories and not 110. Then you want me to listen to a quack who knows less than I did as a freshman in college so many decades ago? Ha. |
Good analysis Ontheway. What did you study in university Loose_Ends? I studied Political Science and minored in Business Ad. Now I am working on post grad work in marketing. So I am one of those quacks who don't understand physics and engineers. However, I do one thing; two huge jetliners crashed into those buildings. Also, the same group that hijacked those airplanes tried to blow up the WTC in 1993. so they've had the WTC in their sights for quite a while.
Also, where is the paper trial for all these bombs? No invoices, court documents ect. It would be quite a conspiracy to keep quiet. There has been no direct testimony of actually planting these bombs. It seems as though the truther brigade only wants to exploit the anomalies that exist. |
I majored in biochemistry at UBC. Will start my masters next year, but in an unrelated field.
There is no direct evidence or testimony of any identified individual or group planting bombs. That is correct. However, a formal investigation has not taken place.
As mentioned earlier, one doesn't need to make a connection to a specific criminal in order to identify that a crime has occured.
Research at the moment is concerned with identifying evidence that supports that a crime (inside job) actually occured.
In my opinion, a crime occured. Indeed I am not an expert. However I have researched the opinions of experts and looked at the evidence they use to support their claims.
Experts that support CDT as a possible hypothesis come from the following areas.
Structural Engineers
Civil Engineers
Architects
Demolition experts
Metallurgical Engineers
I have posted their statements in previous threads.
In addition, a number of former CIA agents support a new investigation because they think the government is covering something up.
I have posted links to these previously. If you want to check them out let me know.
again, I am no expert but I do feel the evidence supporting CDT is very strong while the evidence supporting the official story is vey weak.
evidence for CDT can be found on ae911truth.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:26 pm Post subject: Re: Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11 |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| blaseblasphemener wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
You should read your own quote. We have an engineer who thinks we need a new investigation. It doesn't say that he agrees with any of the nonsense put out by the "truthers."
I think we need a new investigation. There are questions that need to be answered. We need to make a better determination as to the cause of the loss of structural integrity of the two towers. This would provide a valuable structural engineering case study in failure, if nothing else. We need to study the original design and determine the actual theoretical survival collision capacity of the structures. We then have two twin failures under slightly varying conditions to compare to the model. This is a great learning opportunity.
Of course, we have to go in with our eyes and minds open. But, we cannot accept the nonsense of the "truthers" sense it is obviously false on its face. It was created by people who have no clue.
There is no evidence of molten steel.
The buildings did not fall at freefall speed, and the calculations use the wrong distance of fall from the outset.
There is no evidence of thermite.
The "expolsions" are the sounds of joints, bolts, welds, beams, trusses, collumns, etc. failing. Go to a "Strengths of Materials" Lab at a major Engineering College and LISTEN. After you do, you will understand, and if you haven't (and architects do not take that kind of coursework) then you are unqualified. |
You obviously have not read the link I posted earlier, by Jones. Your second point, that the buildings did not fall at freefall speed, is laughable. They don't have to fall at freefall speed to knock the official explanation down. Read the link, then pick it apart, or come back here with your condesencion. I doubt your scientific abilities are greater than his. |
Dr. Quack Jones reminds me of another quack physics prof that got fired when I exposed him. Dr. Quack was also fired for being a quack.
As I heve previously implied, you should become your own expert. Go to an Engineering University. Take the major. Go to the labs. Listen. Study. Do the strenghts of materials testing. Bust a few joints, welds, bolts. Build some model structures. Bust those. Learn something. Do the statics, the dynamics, the surveying, the geology, the physics, the chemistry, the math, the labs, foundation design, structural design, do 4 times the number of required credits as any nonengineering major. Graduate. Get a job. Do the drawings. Do the math. Build the structures. Inspect the welds, the materials. Analyze the drawings. Supervise the design and drawings. Audit the calculations. Become a consultant. Give advice on the design, construction and maintenance of major projects, buildings, power plants, paper mills. Then interface with the nonengineers. Listen to the babble of the PR & advertising men who don't understand, and make scientifically ridiculous claims to impress or soothe the public. Listen to architects who only draw pretty pictures but have to get everything checked by real engineers in the end cause they're clueless. Then, a bunch of politicians put out nonsense about fire bringing down buildings that collapsed straight out from the collision (deep politics on that one) but who are challenged by people who can't understand why the towers actually fell 80 and 95 stories and not 110. Then you want me to listen to a quack who knows less than I did as a freshman in college so many decades ago? Ha. |
i found a metal expert that supports CDT. check it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why do all you boners with advanced degrees teach English? You're wasting your time. Your efforts to argue about 9/11 here are fruitless. Go home. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| Why do all you boners with advanced degrees teach English? You're wasting your time. Your efforts to argue about 9/11 here are fruitless. Go home. |
i don't see it as a waste of time. I will be going home next summer.
My efforts here are fruitless. However challenges to my opinion have strengthened my research.
No time is ever wasted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| Why do all you boners with advanced degrees teach English? You're wasting your time. Your efforts to argue about 9/11 here are fruitless. Go home. |
i don't see it as a waste of time. I will be going home next summer.
My efforts here are fruitless. However challenges to my opinion have strengthened my research.
No time is ever wasted. |
Well, that's fine. As long as you are able to back yourself up with a reasonable retort. Go to a good school when you get home and study hard so you can contribute academic work to scholarly publications and to educate the public.
9/11 was caused by airplanes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jinju
Joined: 22 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
My efforts here are fruitless. However challenges to my opinion have strengthened my research.
No time is ever wasted. |
Um, surfing conspiracy web sites isnt research. You arent a researcher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jinju wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
My efforts here are fruitless. However challenges to my opinion have strengthened my research.
No time is ever wasted. |
Um, surfing conspiracy web sites isnt research. You arent a researcher. |
your denial will only last so long little sheep.
ae911truth.org 207 architects and engineers now support CDT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
