RE: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001 [W:241:846]

[SanderO]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Talk about cartoonish conceptions! Bowling balls and glass!? The top few floors of the buildings were made of the same stuff and the rest of the buildings. The calculations have been done: total symetrical collapse due to gravity is an impossibility. The "collapse" should have ground to a halt about 2/3 of the way up. And, with 47 core columns offering point resistance, and over 200 other steel columns, the likelihood of symetrical collapse is utterly fantastical.

The law of conservation of momentum would require the falling mass to slow against the resistance of the lower part of the building, until its energy had been dissipated and it stopped. If you want to try to rescue the validity of your model, you'd have to substitute 12 sheets of glass for the bowling ball--and those sheets would have to be spaced apart. As soon as they met resistance they would start to crush upwards, losing energy in collapsing into the spacing between the 12 sheets. This rubble then loses more energy with each sheet it hits on the way down, slowing as it goes, reducing its momentum. There just wasn't enough mass in the mostly empty floors of the towers to feed a continued collapse.

That you tout such an unworthy opinion so strongly in the face of easily available analysis to the contrary suggests either an extraordinary degree of digital incompetence or subterfuge, neither of which recommends you very highly for continued discourse.

wrong... The columns' resistive capacity had nothing to do with the floor collapse. Once a threshold destructive mass destroyed one floor it added that floors mass and then destroyed the one below and arrest was impossible. No WTC floor could resist more than a few times its static design load. You are aware that the floors were designed to support a specific load? What happens when that load is exceeded by 10 or 20 times? Or 50 or 200? or the load is dynamically applied.. that is the difference between resting a hammer on your head and swinging it hitting your skull... same hammer different force on the skull.

You don't understand the basic physics here.. though you think you do.

 

[_Markum_]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

wrong... The columns' resistive capacity had nothing to do with the floor collapse. Once a threshold destructive mass destroyed one floor it added that floors mass and then destroyed the one below and arrest was impossible. No WTC floor could resist more than a few times its static design load. You are aware that the floors were designed to support a specific load? What happens when that load is exceeded by 10 or 20 times? Or 50 or 200? or the load is dynamically applied.. that is the difference between resting a hammer on your head and swinging it hitting your skull... same hammer different force on the skull.

You don't understand the basic physics here.. though you think you do.

It is not a matter of understanding, but of application of that understanding. Whether bowling balls and glass or hammers and skulls, your clumsy analogies do more to hinder your understanding and application of basic physics than help. You keep repeating the same nonsensical assertions without rationale--unless your ham-fisted analogies constitute your rationale. If you can't do better than that, you call into question the validity of your own understanding of basic physics. Certainly, your grasp of conservation of momentum must be lacking as you've avoided any mention of my use of it in my previous post.

But I won't similarly avoid your post: are you aware that the floors were designed to support that floor's occupants (i.e. people, furniture, etc.) and NOT the building? The 280+ steel columns that you dismiss so blithely supported the entire building, and suspended the floors in space. Obviously, then, the columns were not inconsequential in enhancing the ability of the floors to resist falling to earth. I can only guess at what you mean by "a threshold destructive mass", but whatever that is it can't possibly justify the bald assertion that followed it.

Again, once you crunch the numbers, there simply wasn't enough energy available to overcome the building in the manner and circumstances you describe.

 

[SanderO]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

It is not a matter of understanding, but of application of that understanding. Whether bowling balls and glass or hammers and skulls, your clumsy analogies do more to hinder your understanding and application of basic physics than help. You keep repeating the same nonsensical assertions without rationale--unless your ham-fisted analogies constitute your rationale. If you can't do better than that, you call into question the validity of your own understanding of basic physics. Certainly, your grasp of conservation of momentum must be lacking as you've avoided any mention of my use of it in my previous post.

But I won't similarly avoid your post: are you aware that the floors were designed to support that floor's occupants (i.e. people, furniture, etc.) and NOT the building? The 280+ steel columns that you dismiss so blithely supported the entire building, and suspended the floors in space. Obviously, then, the columns were not inconsequential in enhancing the ability of the floors to resist falling to earth. I can only guess at what you mean by "a threshold destructive mass", but whatever that is it can't possibly justify the bald assertion that followed it.

Again, once you crunch the numbers, there simply wasn't enough energy available to overcome the building in the manner and circumstances you describe.

As an architect and one who has studied the structure of the twin towers and wtc 7 and engaged in discussions on numerous sites, attended truth events, served on AE911T's board and produced scores of drawings, diagrams and calculations... I think my perspective is broad and deep and feel confident that I am on the right track. My views evolve as my understanding does.

And what have you been doing to further your understanding about the collapse of the WTC buildings?

 

[_Markum_]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

As an architect and one who has studied the structure of the twin towers and wtc 7 and engaged in discussions on numerous sites, attended truth events, served on AE911T's board and produced scores of drawings, diagrams and calculations... I think my perspective is broad and deep and feel confident that I am on the right track. My views evolve as my understanding does.

And what have you been doing to further your understanding about the collapse of the WTC buildings?

Well, now, that should draw a hearty gaffaw from anyone paying attention.Why didn't you just say, "I am God...thou shalt accept My pronouncements without question!"? Seriously, if all you can manage in response to a few technical points is fallacious logic of the "appeal to authority" type then you have essentially made the case for your opposition. I accept your capitulation.

But right now I have to finish curing cancer and SAVING THE WORLD!:2rofll:

 

[mike2810]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

As an architect and one who has studied the structure of the twin towers and wtc 7 and engaged in discussions on numerous sites, attended truth events, served on AE911T's board and produced scores of drawings, diagrams and calculations... I think my perspective is broad and deep and feel confident that I am on the right track. My views evolve as my understanding does.

And what have you been doing to further your understanding about the collapse of the WTC buildings?

Don't waiste your time with some posters. They only have sarcastic shallow remarks to make. Amazing how they ignore any meaningful input.

 

[SanderO]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Well, now, that should draw a hearty gaffaw from anyone paying attention.Why didn't you just say, "I am God...thou shalt accept My pronouncements without question!"? Seriously, if all you can manage in response to a few technical points is fallacious logic of the "appeal to authority" type then you have essentially made the case for your opposition. I accept your capitulation.

But right now I have to finish curing cancer and SAVING THE WORLD!:2rofll:

Stupid argument. All I said is I did my share of work on the problem including producing my own independent material. I don't make appeal to authority arguments nor do I hold myself out as an authority. I simply represent what I had done and what I have concluded. And like others all knowledge is built on previous knowledge. I am not going to re invent the wheel. I utilize what I can and what seems to hold water.

And what have you done accept your use of other arguments made by your chosen experts... who are likely not expert at all. Witness Gage who is nothing more than a talking head and presenter of bullet points provided to him.

 

[SanderO]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Don't waiste your time with some posters. They only have sarcastic shallow remarks to make. Amazing how they ignore any meaningful input.

It can be and often is a waste of time. But it is interesting to see these deniers pop up and use the same old arguments they read on the net or see in PR presentations made.

Ever notice how all the WTC 7 truth vids leaves off the collapse of the East penthouse?

 

[_Markum_]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Stupid argument. All I said is I did my share of work on the problem including producing my own independent material. I don't make appeal to authority arguments nor do I hold myself out as an authority. I simply represent what I had done and what I have concluded. And like others all knowledge is built on previous knowledge. I am not going to re invent the wheel. I utilize what I can and what seems to hold water.

And what have you done accept your use of other arguments made by your chosen experts... who are likely not expert at all. Witness Gage who is nothing more than a talking head and presenter of bullet points provided to him.

What do YOU call it when someone says, "believe me, I know what I'm talking about"? You assert expertise and simply insist that your pronouncements be accepted uncritically. In this forum you are only what you write. There's no way for me to verify that you are who you say you are. Of course, you must understand this; yet you behave as if you don't.

Even if I believed you are who you say you are, it wouldn't matter to me. The only thing that matters here is the quality of verbal interaction. Some may be impressed by the appearance impartiality and thoughtfulness. I see vapid intellection.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

What do YOU call it when someone says, "believe me, I know what I'm talking about"? You assert expertise and simply insist that your pronouncements be accepted uncritically. In this forum you are only what you write.

And that is pretty much why I have written off so many in here as complete nutcases. They use faulty junk-science pseudo-science or simple paranoia to try and justify their beliefs, and it is complete nonsense.

Like on individual, who has insisted that video proves something happens within 350 ms, proven by video. The only problem is that video is nowhere near that fast, and around 10 350 ms events would happen between one frame and the next. So what is his proof when I challenged him to provide a link to had a high speed video camera focused on the WTC at the moment of impact?

Why, go and check out yet another video of course! This time of something falling, which I guess through some magic of voodoo math translates into something else, which fills in the missing 9 frames of normal speed video and converts it to high speed video.

It may be something like that, it may not be, I really could not give a **** anymore. I see the entire "Truther movement" as brain damaged, and have completely given up trying to find any shreds of logic within it.

 

[SanderO]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

What do YOU call it when someone says, "believe me, I know what I'm talking about"? You assert expertise and simply insist that your pronouncements be accepted uncritically. In this forum you are only what you write. There's no way for me to verify that you are who you say you are. Of course, you must understand this; yet you behave as if you don't.

Even if I believed you are who you say you are, it wouldn't matter to me. The only thing that matters here is the quality of verbal interaction. Some may be impressed by the appearance impartiality and thoughtfulness. I see vapid intellection.

Look in the mirror... don't waste your time on the net... or in school... you might learn something.

As Popeye said

I am what I am.

And I don't misrepresent my credentials who what they mean.

 

[SanderO]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

It may be something like that, it may not be, I really could not give a **** anymore. I see the entire "Truther movement" as brain damaged, and have completely given up trying to find any shreds of logic within it.

Some people simply don't have the tools and trust others. We all do this all the time. But when and if they do take the time to examine ALL the arguments they would not be so sure of their beliefs.

BELIEFS are usually irrational.

 

[SanderO]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

What do YOU call it when someone says, "believe me, I know what I'm talking about"? You assert expertise and simply insist that your pronouncements be accepted uncritically. In this forum you are only what you write. There's no way for me to verify that you are who you say you are. Of course, you must understand this; yet you behave as if you don't.

Even if I believed you are who you say you are, it wouldn't matter to me. The only thing that matters here is the quality of verbal interaction. Some may be impressed by the appearance impartiality and thoughtfulness. I see vapid intellection.

and your contribution are nothing new... not at all... You sound like a parrot without an original thought in your head.

 

[Menard_K]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Just a bit of food for thought:

Imagine a bunch of kids may about 5 years old and the village smart az 12 year-old walks up and sez there is NO Santa Clause, Reindeer can NOT fly so the whole story is FAKE. and the kids say "so who is responsible for all the goodies on xmas morning?"
and anyhow ask any grown-up, they will tell you that Santa is real.

Very simple to discern the logical disconnect here, the 12 year-old makes the statement that Reindeer do not fly, and the kids counter with an argument that has nothing to do with Reindeer. oops!

OK, now we try debating the facts about 9/11/2001
I bring up the fact that it can be seen from various videos that "FLT175" penetrated completely
the south wall of the south tower in less than 350 milliseconds.
I can also cite the fact that WTC 1, 2 were completely destroyed in a manner that pulverized
most of the concrete in the building + all of the office contents.
I can also say with authority that WTC7 descended for 2.25 sec at FREE FALL ACCELERATION.

There are also the peripheral problems of WHY is it considered accounting for "FLT93" that is showing a pix of a dumpster full of rubble?
WHY was "ground zero" cleaned up so fast as to have trucks rolling all night, to clear away the remains of the Twin towers & WTC7?
Where is the PROF that "FLT77" crashed into the PENTAGON
& WHY did the worlds greatest military power FAIL to defend even its own HQ?

S0, when I ask questions - people are quick to label me "nut-case" or "terrorist sympathizer" .... or?
& people feel the need to ask "what kind of explosives were used to bring down WTC 1,2 & 7?"
"How many people would have to be involved to pull this off"

Can we PLEASE address the issues based on the evidence we have, and not tangent out on bits
that only amount to speculation. Once a REAL investigation gets rolling we ( I can only hope .. )
will obtain power to discover the answers to the as yet unanswered questions.

However for now, there is sufficient evidence to prove to me that the events of 9/11/2001
are NOT as the MSM reported and indeed there were no airliners used as weapons & NO
suicidal Arabs!

and if you feel so inclined .... make a report to HOMELANDSECURITY or call for the men in white coats.
whatever!

have a nice day

: )

 

[_Markum_]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

And that is pretty much why I have written off so many in here as complete nutcases. They use faulty junk-science pseudo-science or simple paranoia to try and justify their beliefs, and it is complete nonsense.

Like on individual, who has insisted that video proves something happens within 350 ms, proven by video. The only problem is that video is nowhere near that fast, and around 10 350 ms events would happen between one frame and the next. So what is his proof when I challenged him to provide a link to had a high speed video camera focused on the WTC at the moment of impact?

Why, go and check out yet another video of course! This time of something falling, which I guess through some magic of voodoo math translates into something else, which fills in the missing 9 frames of normal speed video and converts it to high speed video.

It may be something like that, it may not be, I really could not give a **** anymore. I see the entire "Truther movement" as brain damaged, and have completely given up trying to find any shreds of logic within it.

Your penchant for incoherence is your business, but, unless I miss my guess, you said something about 350 ms and "video is nowhere near that fast". What sloppy disinfo! Those who don't already know can easily verify that standard video is shot at precisely 30 frames/sec, which works out to about 33 ms/frame--plenty of resolution for measurement of relatively slow-speed events.

Judging by the virtual indecipherability of what you wrote, you've heard the phrase "brain damaged" uttered in your presence numerous times.

 

[_Markum_]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Look in the mirror... don't waste your time on the net... or in school... you might learn something.

In commanding my behavior, you again presume authority you do not possess. Logical fallacy has you in its grip. I shouldn't expect that you can more than pretend to think logically.

And I don't misrepresent my credentials who what they mean.

Did you drop out of the same elementary school English class that Oozlefinch missed? The best sense I can make of this gobbledygook is more of the same: "Believe me, I'm not lying." You can assert from now until doomsday that you are trustworthy and loyal to your master, and whatever else you like, before such assertions would become meaningful in any written reasoning. Do you actually NOT understand that?

 

[_Markum_]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

and your contribution are nothing new... not at all... You sound like a parrot without an original thought in your head.

Oh, I wasn't aware that others had made the same observations of your vapid intellection.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Your penchant for incoherence is your business, but, unless I miss my guess, you said something about 350 ms and "video is nowhere near that fast". What sloppy disinfo! Those who don't already know can easily verify that standard video is shot at precisely 30 frames/sec, which works out to about 33 ms/frame--plenty of resolution for measurement of relatively slow-speed events.

Judging by the virtual indecipherability of what you wrote, you've heard the phrase "brain damaged" uttered in your presence numerous times.

OK my friend, then show me a normal speed video shot at 24 fps that catches a bullet in flight, and tell me it's speed from that.

When an event takes place that is 10 times faster then the frame rate, it is almost impossible to get any accurate data from it. In fact, you can't even accurately make a claim that "something happened in less then 350 ms" because such an event would have happened 10 times between one frame and another. There is not enough of a frame count or length of video to make anything even close to that kind of determination.

It was not indecipherable at all, ask anybody who has done basic film making and they will tell you the exact same thing that I just have. I am sorry if you are unable to understand it, but that is not my fault. Maybe next time you will not think you need to challenge somebody in something that they have a more then basic understanding of.

 

[_Markum_]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

Can we PLEASE address the issues based on the evidence we have, and not tangent out on bits
that only amount to speculation. Once a REAL investigation gets rolling we ( I can only hope .. )
will obtain power to discover the answers to the as yet unanswered questions.

The topic is psychological warfare re 911, and here, in this thread, you have it. You can see that you will not be allowed to address the issues based on the evidence; the tactic is to distort the value of the evidence, to invalidate it. There will be no real investigation, in the way that I think you mean. The desired political value has already been extracted from the event; the truth would be counter-productive. Ongoing from this point, there is more value to you in the unanswered questions remaining unanswered. The truth is not as important as perceptions, in the realm of persuasion.

 

[mike2810]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

and your contribution are nothing new... not at all... You sound like a parrot without an original thought in your head.

Your not alone SanderO. Some posters just like to post without any backing evidence except their own personal views. If you disagee with them, then you are a govt supporter or such.

I am still waiting for a alternative explanation that stands on its own without saying well the govt report is wrong.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

OK Menard, so you worked on TVs, how does that change what can be captured (or more importantly not captured) in a single frame? 24 FPS, 30 FPS, it still is not fast enough to accurately capture and measure an item to the accuracy of 350 ms. It goes back to having a bullet appear in a single frame, and trying to deduce speed and timing from that. There is simply not enough data aavailable at that frame speed to make such a determination.

 

[_Markum_]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

OK my friend, then show me a normal speed video shot at 24 fps that catches a bullet in flight, and tell me it's speed from that.

I explicitly specified "relatively slow-speed events", did I not? If you want to try to make a case for a bullet in flight being a relatively slow-speed event, I'll, temporarily, forgive the strawman.

What is much less excusable is your assertion that standard video is shot at 24 fps (which is the standard frame rate for film) when I just told you it's shot at 30 fps. If you didn't believe me you could have checked for yourself in a few seconds. Why the attempt at obfuscation?

When an event takes place that is 10 times faster then the frame rate, it is almost impossible to get any accurate data from it. In fact, you can't even accurately make a claim that "something happened in less then 350 ms" because such an event would have happened 10 times between one frame and another.

You really should have been able to avoid this mistake with just a bit of thoughtfulness (I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt--at least until duplicity is evident): 10 times faster than the video frame rate of 33 ms/frame is 3.3 ms, NOT 330 ms! Typically, bullets, depending on type, travel from about 900 - 3000 ft/sec. Let's make the math easy and assume the bullet you mentioned earler was traveling at 1000 ft/sec, which is 1 ft/ms. We would need to capture 33 feet of the bullet's travel in order to see the bullet on consecutive video frames. The stationary camera might have to be 25 feet away from the bullet's path to remain in-frame from one frame to the next, and even then the bullet is liable to be difficult to detect in the image because of its small size at that distance.

There is not enough of a frame count or length of video to make anything even close to that kind of determination.

This nonsensical statement is irrelevant even to your own argument.

It was not indecipherable at all, ask anybody who has done basic film making and they will tell you the exact same thing that I just have.

Clearly, from examination, I described your second-to-last post as indecipherable, not your last post. A further attempt at obfuscation? "Ask anybody...etc", of course, is another appeal to authority.

I am sorry if you are unable to understand it, but that is not my fault.

Irrelevant...disingenuous.

Maybe next time you will not think you need to challenge somebody in something that they have a more then basic understanding of.

Oh, another appeal to (supposed) authority. I don't need to challenge anyone, but I will, if I like, whether his expertise is genuine or fake. Expertise comes from experience, not knowledge; that's how you can have "experts" in a given field disagreeing with one another. They have the same training/knowledge, but different and greater/lesser experience, and so perhaps different opinions. It is a misstep of the ignorant mind to label the one "right" and the other "wrong". Sound thinking is more about reconciliation than judgement.

 

[Menard_K]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

OK Menard, so you worked on TVs, how does that change what can be captured (or more importantly not captured) in a single frame? 24 FPS, 30 FPS, it still is not fast enough to accurately capture and measure an item to the accuracy of 350 ms. It goes back to having a bullet appear in a single frame, and trying to deduce speed and timing from that. There is simply not enough data aavailable at that frame speed to make such a determination.

Have you ever looked up and notice a jet trail forming in the sky, and the jet itself is too far away to see the aircraft, but the trail in the sky forming as you look at it appears to cross the sky slowly, but the aircraft is at cruising speed & above 20,000 ft.
so, an aircraft that may be traveling at aprox 300 mph and is about a quarter mile away, should cross your field of view at what rate? The fact is that the nose to tail dimension of a Boeing 757 traveling its own length takes about 11 frames of video at 30 fps.
Can U dig it?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

I explicitly specified "relatively slow-speed events", did I not? If you want to try to make a case for a bullet in flight being a relatively slow-speed event, I'll, temporarily, forgive the strawman.

What is much less excusable is your assertion that standard video is shot at 24 fps (which is the standard frame rate for film) when I just told you it's shot at 30 fps. If you didn't believe me you could have checked for yourself in a few seconds. Why the attempt at obfuscation?

24 FPS, 30 FPS, that still does not change the fact that it would have to be closer to 200 FPS in order to catch something that fast.

A mere 6 FPS would make no difference in trying to catch an event within 350 ms.

Have you ever looked up and notice a jet trail forming in the sky, and the jet itself is too far away to see the aircraft, but the trail in the sky forming as you look at it appears to cross the sky slowly, but the aircraft is at cruising speed & above 20,000 ft.
so, an aircraft that may be traveling at aprox 300 mph and is about a quarter mile away, should cross your field of view at what rate? The fact is that the nose to tail dimension of a Boeing 757 traveling its own length takes about 11 frames of video at 30 fps.
Can U dig it?

No, because now you are entering the realm of trigonometry. Angle comes into play, along with other things. But now we are getting into the minutia that is absolutely crazy. I guess there was no plane, right? Like HD you believe it was all illusion and projection?

 

[Menard_K]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

24 FPS, 30 FPS, that still does not change the fact that it would have to be closer to 200 FPS in order to catch something that fast.

A mere 6 FPS would make no difference in trying to catch an event within 350 ms.



No, because now you are entering the realm of trigonometry. Angle comes into play, along with other things. But now we are getting into the minutia that is absolutely crazy. I guess there was no plane, right? Like HD you believe it was all illusion and projection?

"it would have to be closer to 200 FPS in order to catch something that fast."

Just for my curiosity, do you hold any sort of degree? any professional credential(s)? ... or?

indulge my curiosity ...... & thanks

 

[mike2810]

Re: the psychological warfare on the subject of 9/11/2001

MK
What is your profession and education? You seem curious of others who post.
enlighten us.