user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Newest Ballots
Newest Blogs
Private Ballots
Joke Ballots
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Date of the article is September 11 2006.
So quite up to date.
Voted : Not surprised, it supports the reality of the events
They will respond with their usual reams of irrelavent "evidence". Gleaned from various nut fudge web sites. They will continue to spout mis quoted statements. They will misunderstand the significance of words like "sounds like" and "looked like" and assume that they mean "was" and "is". In short they are beyond reach.
I've just recently started researching the C/theories... don't they pertain more to WTC-7 and the pentagon?
by MO_ on Sat Sep 23, 06 7:49am
[+]
Hoffman's stuff already got blown; his simulation DOES NOT WORK as he didn't base it on the empirical data. See the physorg site 9-11 Events thread for the debate about it.
Later, I'll post some of the quotes as to why it failed.
Voted : Not surprised, it supports the reality of the events
Well facts and science haven't really being the conspiracy theorists forte.
"he didn't base it on the empirical data"
For 10 bonus points: what does empirical mean?
I just visited the link page provided, and guess what folks? - this project was 100% funded by the Bush administration, the ‘research‘, funded by the National Science Foundation or NSF is a US government agency. I’m not surprised, as when I read the report it is the biggest pile of ‘make it up as you go along garbage’ which includes the use of cans of coke fired into walls to simulate airliners hitting buildings! Can you believe that.
It also tries to propose a whole new branch of physics involving ‘liquid hammers’, I kid you not, the fuel that was mostly evaporated in a fireball on impact is supposed to have done more damage to the building than the steel and aluminium of the craft itself! LOL!
It gets worse, they compare the aircrafts to ‘giant sausage skins’ filled with fluid, I beg to differ, I would compare the so called ‘researchers’ to giant sausage skins, and their sponsors to even bigger sausage skins.
Here is some of the stuff even WHoK was too embarrassed to post in his ballot subtext;
‘…and how the tower later collapsed from the ensuing fire fed by an estimated 10,000 gallons of jet fuel, said Mete Sozen, the Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering in Purdue's School of Civil Engineering.’
Nonsense, most of the fuel was evaporated in the huge fireballs on impact. -Ken (o:
‘In the coming months, we will explore how the structure reacted to the extreme heat from the blaze that led to the building's collapse…’
~Will you now? Well you’ll find that the laws of physics and thermodynamics will not have changed in the meantime and that steel will never melt or even soften at the temperatures that those oxygen starved fires burnt at, indeed they were almost out at the time of collapse as was evidenced by the audio witness account of the fireman calling for just two lines to be sent up to the 77th floor as the two small fires were nearly out. - Ken (o:
‘The researchers are analyzing how many columns were destroyed initially in the building's core, a spine of 47 heavy steel I-beams extending through the center of the structure, Sozen said.’ and ‘"Current findings from the simulation have identified the destruction of 11 columns on the 94th floor, 10 columns on the 95th floor and nine columns on the 96th floor," he said. "This is a major insight. When you lose close to 25 percent of your columns at a given level, the building is significantly weakened and vulnerable to collapse."
~These are the same 47 columns that the writers of the 9/11 Commission Report denied the existence of, so we have a contradiction here who is telling the truth, the bible for the Official conspiracy theorists namely the 9/11 Commission Report or these Bush sponsored quacks.
Plus the fact that the core columns were massive, thick steel entities and would not be expected to be severed by a impact with a light-weight aluminium plane, so these buffoons are trying to tell us it was the fuel in the plane that severed them! -Ken (o:
"Damage resulting solely from the metal fuselage, engines and other aircraft parts is not as great as that resulting from the mass of fluids on board. You could think of the aircraft as a sausage skin. Its mass is tiny compared to the plane's fluid contents."
~ The core columns were massive, thick steel entities and would not be expected to be severed by a impact with a light-weight aluminium plane, so these buffoons are trying to tell us it the fuel in the plane that severed them. -Ken
‘Santiago Pujol, an assistant professor of civil engineering, worked with the researchers to develop experimental data to test the accuracy of the simulation by using an "impact simulator" to shoot 8-ounce beverage cans at high velocity at steel and concrete targets at Purdue's Bowen Laboratory. These data enabled the researchers to fine tune and validate the theoretical model for the simulation.’
"We created a mathematical model of the beverage can and its fluid contents the same way we modelled the airplane, and then we tested our assumptions used to formulate the model by comparing the output from the model with that from the experiment," Sozen said.
~Cans of soda being fired at walls to simulate an airliner hitting a building!
I wonder did George Bush himself suggest that one? -Ken (o:
Right, so the National Science Foundation are in on it now are they?
So how many is that? 10,000 conspiractors now?
Bush/PNAC sponsored quack soda can, sausage skin, liquid hammer nonsense, get over it.
"Cans of soda being fired at walls to simulate an airliner hitting a building!"
Nice try. Clearly you do not understand what you copy and paste. They used the data from the experiment to test their assumptions about the behaviour of fluids impacting objects at high speed.
If you knew anything about physics (which seems doubtful) you would realise that the kinetic energy of the liquid fuel (which is virtually incompressible) far outweighed that of the metal 'skin' of the aircraft.
I didn't for one minute actually think that your refutations would hold water but you've blessed us with your comments that show you do not even understand the science behind the simulation.
The ultimate ad ignorantum argument.
Yeah right, mr wide head of know nothing, you swallow everything you are spoonfed - that's your problem, you'll be arguing they attached wings to the soda cans next, wrapped them in sausage skin and the result was they demolished the building they were testing in!
The fuel in the tanks evaporated on impact into a million cubic metre fireball, fact.
Voted : Not surprised, it supports the reality of the events
With Ken's "logic", all research by the National Institutes of Health isn't credible because it is funded by "Bush/PNAC Mafia".
I admire you tenacity wisehead, but common sense and logic has no effect on these numbnuts.
"The fuel in the tanks evaporated on impact into a million cubic metre fireball, fact."
Idiotic.
'numbnuts' and 'idiotic' Fiddle and Wide Head
- that's their response, how can we take these OFT denialists seriously when they can't even engage in a civilised debate without resorting to personal attack when confronted with the facts that they obdurately and obstinately point blank refuse to acknowledge?
Your 'million cubic meter' fireball is idiotic, Ken.
And irrelevant. The fuel ignited AFTER the impact as you can clearly see on the video.
Why did World Trade Center 7 go down in 6.6 seconds?
Did they answer that?
The Official Story is so thoroughly filled with lies it doesn't stand any real questioning.
This simulation is only concerned with the initial damage sustained as a result of the aircraft impacts.
Who cares about the uneducated opinions of OCT reality denialists like WNC, and WHoK.
Professors and scientist are the people who know what they are talking about, not 'heard it down the pub'laymen like you hacks.
The 9/11 terrorist attack on America which left almost 3,000 people dead was an "inside job", according to a group of leading academics.
Around 75 top professors and leading scientists believe the attacks were puppeteered by war mongers in the White House to justify the invasion and the occupation of oil-rich Arab countries.
The claims have caused outrage and anger in the US which marks the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on Monday.
But leading scientists say the facts of their investigations cannot be ignored and say they have evidence that points to one of the biggest conspiracies ever perpetrated.
Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history.
He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US.
"We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."
In essays and journals, the scientists are giving credence to many of the conspiracy theories that have circulated on the internet in the past five years.
They believe a group of US neo-conservatives called the Project for a New American Century, set on US world dominance, orchestrated the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to hit Iraq, Afghanistan and later Iran.
The group says scientific evidence over the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon is conclusive proof.
Professor Jones said it was impossible for the twin towers to have collapsed in the way they did from the collision of two aeroplanes.
He maintains jet fuel does not burn at temperatures high enough to melt steel beams and claims horizontal puffs of smoke seen during the collapse of the towers are indicative of controlled explosions used to bring down the towers.
The group also maintains World Trade Centre 7 - a neighbouring building which caught fire and collapsed later in the day - was only partially damaged but had to be destroyed because it housed a clandestine CIA station.
Professor James Fetzer, 65, a retired philosopher of science at the University of Minnesota, said: "The evidence is so overwhelming, but most Americans don't have time to take a look at this."
The 9/11 Commission dismissed the numerous conspiracy theories after its exhaustive investigation into the terror attacks.
Subsequent examinations of the towers' structure have sought to prove they were significantly weakened by the impact which tore off fire retardant materials and led the steel beams bending under heat and then collapsing.
Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts, has dismissed the academic group.
He said: "To plant bombs in three buildings with enough bomb materials and wiring? It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.
"After every major crisis, like the assassinations of JFK or Martin Luther King, we've had conspiracy theorists who come up with plausible scenarios for gullible people. It's a waste of time."
But University of Wisconsin assistant professor, Kevin Barrett, said experts are unwilling to believe theories which don't fit into their belief systems.
He said: "People will disregard evidence it if causes their faith to be shattered. I think we were all shocked. And then, when the voice of authority told us what happened, we just believed it."
As the fifth anniversary approached, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth is urging Congress to reopen the investigation claiming they have amassed a wealth of scientific evidence to prove their version of the terror attacks.
(Irish Daily Mail)
You hacks know you are talking bullshit, you are just too scared of the truth.
I listen to professor and scientists, not half-witted OFT's with their warped logic and new laws of physics to accomodate their baloney layman theories.
Stick your heads back in the sand, the jackboot of truth is still kicking your asshole, which is tighter against admitting the sands of truth than a camel's asshole in a sandstorm.
Who cares what 600 deluded academics think - are they supposed to be immune to stupidity?
They are outnumbered thousands of times over by the academics who do not agree with them.
If you truly went with 'academic opinion' you wouldn't believe in a conspiracy.
Following this group who are the subject of international ridicule speaks volumes about your ability to distinguish evidence from speculation.
CBSNews...
"In addition to the 77 full members, there are 138 associate members and 46 “society associates” (unclear as to what these labels mean), in addition to 58 student members. Total number of members, associate members and society associates: 261. Total number of these identified as having expertise in civil or structural engineering: Zero. Total number of these identified as having expertise in controlled demolitions: Zero. Of the student members, total number identified as studying civil or structural engineering: Zero. Total number of articles published in peer reviewed science journals by any of the group's 319 total members arguing that the WTC collapsed by controlled demolitions: Zero. "
"Of the 76 full members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, only four are listed as having backgrounds in physics, three in engineering; the other 69 "scholars" are mostly in the humanities and social sciences."
You also ignore the
135 Architects and Engineers who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
ae911truth . org
Another 170+ Engineers who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
patriotsquestion911 . com / engineers
50+ Pilots and Aviation professionals who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
patriotsquestion911 . com / pilots
140+ Professors who don't believe the Bush Administration's lies.
patriotsquestion911 . com / professors
|
|
