Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:43 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.

To be frank, I often think you're an ass but sometimes your insults provide a good laugh. This is one of those times. Thanks.

jinju

Joined: 22 Jan 2006

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

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.

To be frank, I often think you're an ass but sometimes your insults provide a good laugh. This is one of those times. Thanks.

Be frank, I invite it:)

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

To be frank, I often think you're an ass but sometimes your insults provide a good laugh. This is one of those times. Thanks.

And to be frank, I often find your posts smacking of self-righteousness. You tend to come onto threads just to let everyone know who you think is an ass or what-have-you, for example. As if we were all waiting on the edge of our seats for you to interject these useless, non-contributions to whatever discussion may be taking place. But sometimes your self-righteousness provides a good laugh. And this is one of those times. Thanks.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

To be frank, I often think you're an ass but sometimes your insults provide a good laugh. This is one of those times. Thanks.

And to be frank, I often find your posts smacking of self-righteousness. You tend to come onto threads just to let everyone know who you think is an ass or what-have-you, for example. Useless contributions to whatever discussion may be taking place. But sometimes your self-righteousness provides a good laugh. And this is one of those times. Thanks.

why do yo have a picture of Brad Pitt beside your name?

Everytime I see it I ask myself the same question.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:00 pm Post subject:

And why do you not have a picture of Brad Pitt by your name? Every time I see it I ask myself the same question.

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 9:05 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.

Post your resume, big talker. Until you do, I'll continue to believe Jones over an anonymous poster on the an internet chat forum. Oh, and please feel free to pick apart his analysis. It should be a walk in the park for a Nobel winner like yourself.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

To be frank, I often think you're an ass but sometimes your insults provide a good laugh. This is one of those times. Thanks.

Self-righteousness? Yeah, time to bring out the whole pot, kettle, black line. You seem to be accused of that by a fair number of people on this board.

It seems as though the person who I directed the remark to enjoyed it, and I freely admit I'm an a-hole too.

Excuse me loose ends for this digression from the topic at hand.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 9:21 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

Gopher wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

To be frank, I often think you're an ass but sometimes your insults provide a good laugh. This is one of those times. Thanks.

thats ok. i forget the topic. feel free to flame gopher and his pictures of very handsome men.

Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject:

bucheon bum wrote:

You seem to be accused of that by a fair number of people on this board.

ROFL.

There you go again, taking your reality-check from posters like BLT...

Bucheon bum: a fair number of people on this board believe that the W. Bush Adminstration perpetrated 9/11, that America is a fascist country, that Michael Moore speaks a well-reasoned and well-considered discourse, and that Ron Paul ought to be the next President of the United States, among other things. This collection of individuals also exists within a larger socio-professional group of expats that seems to produce an interesting amount of pederasts and drug abusers. You say you are beginning grad school. I hope you pick up better critical-thinking skills soon -- particularly where establishing credible baselines and/or index points are concerned.

bucheon bum wrote:

Excuse me loose ends for this digression from the topic at hand.

By all means, Bucheon bum, do not let me stand between you and this never-before-seen thread treating the 9/11 conspiracy charges...Carry on.

bucheon bum

Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

Bucheon bum: a fair number of people on this board believe that the W. Bush Adminstration perpetrated 9/11, that America is a fascist country, that Michael Moore speaks a well-reasoned and well-considered discourse, and that Ron Paul ought to be the next President of the United States, among other things. This collection of individuals also exists within a larger socio-professional group of expats that seems to produce an interesting amount of pederasts and drug abusers. You say you are beginning grad school soon. I hope you pick up better critical-thinking skills soon -- particularly where establishing credible baselines and/or index points are concerned.

Eh what's your point with all this? Have I tied myself to any of these arguments? Have I agreed with them in regards to any of those topics you mention? I believe my only contributions to silly threads like this are the ones you just complained about. While you might think my posts are petty and pointless, I think we can both agree those posts make it clear that I do not believe in the ideas perpetuated in these threads. If I am wrong, and they do not make it clear, then I will be happy to give my stance on any of the subjects you mentioned above.

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject:

Gopher wrote:

bucheon bum wrote:

You seem to be accused of that by a fair number of people on this board.

Bucheon bum: a fair number of people on this board believe that the W. Bush Adminstration perpetrated 9/11, that America is a fascist country, that Michael Moore speaks a well-reasoned and well-considered discourse, and that Ron Paul ought to be the next President of the United States, among other things. This collection of individuals also exists within a larger socio-professional group of expats that seems to produce an interesting amount of pederasts and drug abusers. You say you are beginning grad school. I hope you pick up better critical-thinking skills soon -- particularly where establishing credible baselines and/or index points are concerned.
.

you are a sad individual. brad pitt wouldn't even be friends with you.

huffdaddy

Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:59 am Post subject: Re: Prominent Engineer Calls for a New Investigation of 9/11

blaseblasphemener wrote:

Until you do, I'll continue to believe Jones over an anonymous poster on the an internet chat forum.

You mean this Steven Jones?

Quote:

Behold My Hands: Evidence for

Christ's Visit in Ancient America

By Steven E. Jones

regicide

Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:23 am 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.

I think he may have meant strengthen his resolve. I know how this guy feels because of my resolve in another government cover up. The mother of all cover ups. I know nothing yet about this one but...

The official version of something is always going to be found in places that so called real "researchers" are going to be able to look;places like government archives and other official sounding places. That doesn't mean the information is more accurate. Actually, it is just the opposite because a government can put its name and resources behind something that isn�t true simply because it is the government.

Primary researchers looking into a conspiracy are going to look into the situation and interview witnesses, look closely at these official documents and come up with conclusions that are contradictory to the original government statement.

These contradictions, also known as "conspiracy theories" are not going to be found in the aforementioned tidy and official sounding governmental places.

That doesn�t mean that they are not valid. When you go against the unlimited resources of the government and it's well educated and credentialed staff, you have a hard road to climb.

As far as doing secondary research via websites and other media, what else can most people do? The primary research done by parties opposed to the official version is often as credible, if not more than the "official�, first version of the events.

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: Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:25 pm Post subject:

Bill O'Reilly's show ambushed Rosie O'Donnell recently to get her to explain what she said about 9/11 truth being hidden. Now, of all the so-called debunking material available, what does this well-informed Fox News anchor use as his material? This: http://bloggasm.com/more-scientists-debunk-911-conspiracy-theories It's a Purdue University Engineering School study of the effect of the airplanes hitting the towers. Their conclusion: The force of the airplanes, combined with the jet fuel, was enough to significantly structurally weaken the columns, and to lead to them failing. One problem with this study though: What about the bottom 70-80 floors that were not hit? Why did they give way like butter? Why did all the bottom floors simultaneously evaporate? Why is the Purdue school of Engineering, and the Bill O'Reilly show, not curious about this?

loose_ends

Joined: 23 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:16 pm Post subject:

blaseblasphemener wrote:

Bill O'Reilly's show ambushed Rosie O'Donnell recently to get her to explain what she said about 9/11 truth being hidden. Now, of all the so-called debunking material available, what does this well-informed Fox News anchor use as his material? This:

http://bloggasm.com/more-scientists-debunk-911-conspiracy-theories

It's a Purdue University Engineering School study of the effect of the airplanes hitting the towers. Their conclusion: The force of the airplanes, combined with the jet fuel, was enough to significantly structurally weaken the columns, and to lead to them failing.

One problem with this study though: What about the bottom 70-80 floors that were not hit? Why did they give way like butter? Why did all the bottom floors simultaneously evaporate?

Why is the Purdue school of Engineering, and the Bill O'Reilly show, not curious about this?

some one who knows their 'official' story to the tee, would respond like this.

Each floor could only hold the static wieght of the floors above. Once one floor collapsed, the floors above were no longer static, and thus the floors below could not hold the force of the building above. As such, each floor collapsed under the INCREASING weight of the floors above. Thus we see a near free-fall collapse.

In fact, one acticle, published in a mainstream engineering journal, estimates the collapse time of such a process. The estimated collapse time reflects collapse times seen on 9/11.

Very neat, and easy. Right?

Wrong.

The above process relies on symmetrical collapse to bring each floor down evenly, such that the entire building collapses.

We know inpact and fire damage was not symmetrical, thus inital collapse should not have been symmetrical. If you watch the first collapse, you can see, the top part falls to the side. Thus, collapse initiation was not symmetrical, following the laws of physics.

So what?

That mean the sledgehammer that would force all the other floors to collapse isn't applying symmetrical force to the floors below. However they collapse symmetrically. Also, the wieght of the upper floors does not increase, as one can see in the videos, steel and debris falls away from the building.

The pancake theory can be disproven by just looking at the videos and using simple physical laws.

Look at the first collapse, the top part falls to the side initially. However the bottom floors collapse symmetrically. BUT the collapse of the floors below depends on the symmetrical collapse of the floors above.

The entire official story revolving around collapse sequence is a complete double think. The whole theory revolves around events that did not happen. And as such, other theories are 'debunked' in reference to a theory that explains an event that didn't even happen.

Why is it so hard to understand? That is what is beyond me.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe