Also, here is a simple FACT. Cheney adamantly refused to testify under oath in front of the 9-11 Commission. He would only discuss "certain" topics behind closed doors. What is he hiding?
Come on, Hutch, you seem to have all the answers.
0
Also, here is a simple FACT. Cheney adamantly refused to testify under oath in front of the 9-11 Commission. He would only discuss "certain" topics behind closed doors. What is he hiding?
Hutch: Are chemists and physicists not enough to prove that nano-thermite was found at the WTC?
_________________
Not chemists and physists who are quacks are the ones doing the research.
When studied closely, there is no verifiable evidence that thermite played ANY SIGNIFICANT role in the destruction of the WTC. (It MAY have been used in cutting some of small amounts of remaining steel in the clean up operation). If it were truly significant, why didn’t Jones and his team submit his research in their legal challenges to NIST (see below).
The jackass didn't even submit his OWN research in their legal challenges to the NIST....because it was bullshit.
That takes care of that. Next question?
Wait wait wait...
You can call the sources that I quote "quacks", which I might add is your opinion and nothing more, but the people you quote from the 9/11 debunking website are known to be reliable?
Explain that to me please...
0
Quote Originally Posted by HutchEmAll:
Hutch: Are chemists and physicists not enough to prove that nano-thermite was found at the WTC?
_________________
Not chemists and physists who are quacks are the ones doing the research.
When studied closely, there is no verifiable evidence that thermite played ANY SIGNIFICANT role in the destruction of the WTC. (It MAY have been used in cutting some of small amounts of remaining steel in the clean up operation). If it were truly significant, why didn’t Jones and his team submit his research in their legal challenges to NIST (see below).
The jackass didn't even submit his OWN research in their legal challenges to the NIST....because it was bullshit.
That takes care of that. Next question?
Wait wait wait...
You can call the sources that I quote "quacks", which I might add is your opinion and nothing more, but the people you quote from the 9/11 debunking website are known to be reliable?
I've argued 2 main points in this thread, Hutch. And you haven't adressed either of them.
1.) Both the South and North tower, as well as Tower #7, fell in exactly freefall speed. 9.2 seconds. Please refute?
2.) Cell phone calls made above 20,000 feet have a .0001 probability of lasting more than 3 seconds. Cell phone calls made above 30,000 feet have a .0000001 probability of lasting more than 5 seconds.
On 9/11/2001, 13 cell phone calls were made above 20,000 feet, ranging from 2 minutes to 7 minutes in talk time.
Only the first 2 or 3 sentences of these phone calls were ever released to the public. The remaining approximately 75% were never heard by anyone other than the "victims" families.
Please refute.
#2 is wrong. I know personally, since I've had an estimated 10 minute conversation on my cell phone at 30,000 feet. Sorry, but I did. Clearly you've never tried, so you can't even debate this.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
I've argued 2 main points in this thread, Hutch. And you haven't adressed either of them.
1.) Both the South and North tower, as well as Tower #7, fell in exactly freefall speed. 9.2 seconds. Please refute?
2.) Cell phone calls made above 20,000 feet have a .0001 probability of lasting more than 3 seconds. Cell phone calls made above 30,000 feet have a .0000001 probability of lasting more than 5 seconds.
On 9/11/2001, 13 cell phone calls were made above 20,000 feet, ranging from 2 minutes to 7 minutes in talk time.
Only the first 2 or 3 sentences of these phone calls were ever released to the public. The remaining approximately 75% were never heard by anyone other than the "victims" families.
Please refute.
#2 is wrong. I know personally, since I've had an estimated 10 minute conversation on my cell phone at 30,000 feet. Sorry, but I did. Clearly you've never tried, so you can't even debate this.
#2 is wrong. I know personally, since I've had an estimated 10 minute conversation on my cell phone at 30,000 feet. Sorry, but I did. Clearly you've never tried, so you can't even debate this.
No I did not try, and I don't believe you for a second. Scientific experiments were done to disprove what you just said. Thousands and thousands of times. The percentages came out to be .000001. You just lied, plain and simple.
0
Quote Originally Posted by gfinger:
#2 is wrong. I know personally, since I've had an estimated 10 minute conversation on my cell phone at 30,000 feet. Sorry, but I did. Clearly you've never tried, so you can't even debate this.
No I did not try, and I don't believe you for a second. Scientific experiments were done to disprove what you just said. Thousands and thousands of times. The percentages came out to be .000001. You just lied, plain and simple.
No I did not try, and I don't believe you for a second. Scientific experiments were done to disprove what you just said. Thousands and thousands of times. The percentages came out to be .000001. You just lied, plain and simple.
Yeah, they were done by the conspiracy nuts. I already sent a link to you where NUMEROUS people talk about their SUCCESSFUL experiences using cell phones on a plane.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
No I did not try, and I don't believe you for a second. Scientific experiments were done to disprove what you just said. Thousands and thousands of times. The percentages came out to be .000001. You just lied, plain and simple.
Yeah, they were done by the conspiracy nuts. I already sent a link to you where NUMEROUS people talk about their SUCCESSFUL experiences using cell phones on a plane.
I don't need to...this quack Jones refuted it himself.
So sure were these scientists of their findings here, the team DIDN'T EVEN SUBMIT THESE FINDINGS IN THEIR LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE NIST.
The jackass didn't even submit his OWN research in their legal challenges to the NIST....because it was bullshit.
You are the one who needs to dig deeper and follow up on this "evidence" you are presenting. The FN people who did the study don't have faith in the findings....why should you?
I answered your question. How 'bout you anser mine:
ONE qualified engineer who says that thermite or explosives brought the towers down...and includes evidence (that they actually believe )
0
Quote Originally Posted by Flash_Man:
Sounds like someone is scared of the truth, dig deeper Hutch. Care to refute the claims here?
I don't need to...this quack Jones refuted it himself.
So sure were these scientists of their findings here, the team DIDN'T EVEN SUBMIT THESE FINDINGS IN THEIR LEGAL CHALLENGES TO THE NIST.
The jackass didn't even submit his OWN research in their legal challenges to the NIST....because it was bullshit.
You are the one who needs to dig deeper and follow up on this "evidence" you are presenting. The FN people who did the study don't have faith in the findings....why should you?
I answered your question. How 'bout you anser mine:
ONE qualified engineer who says that thermite or explosives brought the towers down...and includes evidence (that they actually believe )
You can call the sources that I quote "quacks", which I might add is your opinion and nothing more, but the people you quote from the 9/11 debunking website are known to be reliable?
Explain that to me please...
Because present reliable evidence.....eyewitness testimony and facts. And they don't leave out part of the story.
You don't even know how thermite works yet you are convinced it was involved. It's a joke.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Wait wait wait...
You can call the sources that I quote "quacks", which I might add is your opinion and nothing more, but the people you quote from the 9/11 debunking website are known to be reliable?
Explain that to me please...
Because present reliable evidence.....eyewitness testimony and facts. And they don't leave out part of the story.
You don't even know how thermite works yet you are convinced it was involved. It's a joke.
No I did not try, and I don't believe you for a second. Scientific experiments were done to disprove what you just said. Thousands and thousands of times. The percentages came out to be .000001. You just lied, plain and simple.
Well then shut it until you try it ! It works.
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
No I did not try, and I don't believe you for a second. Scientific experiments were done to disprove what you just said. Thousands and thousands of times. The percentages came out to be .000001. You just lied, plain and simple.
1.) Both the South and North tower, as well as Tower #7, fell in exactly freefall speed. 9.2 seconds. Please refute?
_________________
I'm expecting a lot from you to understand this, but we'll give it a try.
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see, d = 1/2at^2 so t = (2d/a)^1/2 a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.] d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source) so t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough, v = at v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top DID fall freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
0
1.) Both the South and North tower, as well as Tower #7, fell in exactly freefall speed. 9.2 seconds. Please refute?
_________________
I'm expecting a lot from you to understand this, but we'll give it a try.
When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see, d = 1/2at^2 so t = (2d/a)^1/2 a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.] d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source) so t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough, v = at v = (9.8m/s^2 x 9.23s) = 90.4m/s So in the following second, it would have fallen about another hundred meters. That's almost a quarter of the height it already fell. And we haven't even made it to eleven seconds yet; it could have fallen more than twice its height in that additional four seconds. If the top DID fall freely, in 13.23 seconds it would have fallen about two and one-half times as far as it actually did fall in that time. So the collapse was at much less than free-fall rates.
This is what BYU (Jones's University) thinks about the paper you "dug deeper" and found:
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
0
Flash_Man
This is what BYU (Jones's University) thinks about the paper you "dug deeper" and found:
Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.
A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".
The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
The guy has been removed from his position at BYU as well.
Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.
Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
D. Allan Firmage
Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU
0
At least his collegues believe in Jones.
The guy has been removed from his position at BYU as well.
Dear Editor,
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).
I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.
The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.
Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
You can call the sources that I quote "quacks", which I might add is your opinion and nothing more, but the people you quote from the 9/11 debunking website are known to be reliable?
Explain that to me please...
_________________
If they are not reliable, please post something from a QUALIFIED scientist or engineer that indicates they are not reliable.
And I don't just call Jones and company quacks....their colleagues do.
I have answered all your questions. When are you going answer mine?
0
You can call the sources that I quote "quacks", which I might add is your opinion and nothing more, but the people you quote from the 9/11 debunking website are known to be reliable?
Explain that to me please...
_________________
If they are not reliable, please post something from a QUALIFIED scientist or engineer that indicates they are not reliable.
And I don't just call Jones and company quacks....their colleagues do.
I have answered all your questions. When are you going answer mine?
I bet you this ass smdio comes back on here saying that all your evidence is wrong. Then he'll say that planes didn't hit any of the buildings, it was all faked and all the people on the planes were forced to sign confidentiality agreements or they would be shot or spend the rest of there life prison. Don't forget also that all the passengers of Flight 93 and Flight 77 are living in Area 51 with the Aliens that were recovered from Roswell.There living in underground apartments with the Aliens, Elvis, and the real shooter of JFK. This is where they put all the people that they screw over after they make them sign confidentiality agreements.
0
I bet you this ass smdio comes back on here saying that all your evidence is wrong. Then he'll say that planes didn't hit any of the buildings, it was all faked and all the people on the planes were forced to sign confidentiality agreements or they would be shot or spend the rest of there life prison. Don't forget also that all the passengers of Flight 93 and Flight 77 are living in Area 51 with the Aliens that were recovered from Roswell.There living in underground apartments with the Aliens, Elvis, and the real shooter of JFK. This is where they put all the people that they screw over after they make them sign confidentiality agreements.
Marvin Sirbu, professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14, 2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell
phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight."
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified in the report).
0
Marvin Sirbu, professor of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University said on September 14, 2001, that "The fact of the matter is that cell
phones can work in almost all phases of a commercial flight."
According to the 9/11 Commission Report, 13 passengers from Flight 93 made a total of over 30 calls to both family and emergency personnel (twenty-two confirmed air phone calls, two confirmed cell phone and eight not specified in the report).
If your dad died that day what was his name? what floor and what was his business? in which tower? I do not believe you and you waste too much time on needing to think conspiracys are real. You prove something and if you are right so what. Now what will you focus your attention on. Whats next in your miserable life? You suck and please tell all the girls you meet about your extensive work on your consp.ther they will be most impressed. The odds on you getting a second date are -911
0
If your dad died that day what was his name? what floor and what was his business? in which tower? I do not believe you and you waste too much time on needing to think conspiracys are real. You prove something and if you are right so what. Now what will you focus your attention on. Whats next in your miserable life? You suck and please tell all the girls you meet about your extensive work on your consp.ther they will be most impressed. The odds on you getting a second date are -911
If your dad died that day what was his name? what floor and what was his business? in which tower? I do not believe you and you waste too much time on needing to think conspiracys are real. You prove something and if you are right so what. Now what will you focus your attention on. Whats next in your miserable life? You suck and please tell all the girls you meet about your extensive work on your consp.ther they will be most impressed. The odds on you getting a second date are -911
0
If your dad died that day what was his name? what floor and what was his business? in which tower? I do not believe you and you waste too much time on needing to think conspiracys are real. You prove something and if you are right so what. Now what will you focus your attention on. Whats next in your miserable life? You suck and please tell all the girls you meet about your extensive work on your consp.ther they will be most impressed. The odds on you getting a second date are -911
Knowledge that the burning temperatures of jet fuel would not melt the
steel support structure of the WTC contributed to the belief among
skeptics that the towers would not have collapsed without external
interference (something other than the planes). NIST does not claim that
the steel was melted, but rather that the weakened steel (at 1000
degrees Celsius steel weakens to roughly 10% of its room temperature
strength), together with the damage caused by the planes' impacts,
caused the collapses.
0
Knowledge that the burning temperatures of jet fuel would not melt the
steel support structure of the WTC contributed to the belief among
skeptics that the towers would not have collapsed without external
interference (something other than the planes). NIST does not claim that
the steel was melted, but rather that the weakened steel (at 1000
degrees Celsius steel weakens to roughly 10% of its room temperature
strength), together with the damage caused by the planes' impacts,
caused the collapses.
Airplane debris including Flight 77's black boxes,the nose cone, landing gear,an airplane tire,the fuselage,and an intact cockpit seat were observed at the crash site. The remains of passengers from Flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site and their identities confirmed by DNA analysis
https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/14/pentagon-fire.htm (The Black box being found)
Plus there is quite a few pictures of wreckage on the internet, you just have to look for it.
0
Airplane debris including Flight 77's black boxes,the nose cone, landing gear,an airplane tire,the fuselage,and an intact cockpit seat were observed at the crash site. The remains of passengers from Flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site and their identities confirmed by DNA analysis
https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/14/pentagon-fire.htm (The Black box being found)
Plus there is quite a few pictures of wreckage on the internet, you just have to look for it.
I bet you this ass smdio comes back on here saying that all your evidence is wrong. Then he'll say that planes didn't hit any of the buildings, it was all faked and all the people on the planes were forced to sign confidentiality agreements or they would be shot or spend the rest of there life prison. Don't forget also that all the passengers of Flight 93 and Flight 77 are living in Area 51 with the Aliens that were recovered from Roswell.There living in underground apartments with the Aliens, Elvis, and the real shooter of JFK. This is where they put all the people that they screw over after they make them sign confidentiality agreements. ___________
reilly-
It's what the conspiracy folks do....they seek out information to back them up, but then they stop when they get to something that doesn't. Like they mention this Jones guy's paper, but they fail to say that they didn't even submit it for approval in the States because they KNEW it would get just hammered in the process and never published. Nor do they say that this guy has been proven to be a quack by his peers and his employer.
Or they provide video evidence and cut off the video right at the point where an explanation would be offered.
Like the "pull it" B.S. Read about it. The workers themselves testify that it meant that the building was going to have to be pulled with cables. The FN people who were there say this and the conspiracy morons just totally discount it because it doesn't fit in with their fantasy world.
I have answered every single one of their questions.....yet they can't even answer my one simple one. Isn't that suprising?
0
I bet you this ass smdio comes back on here saying that all your evidence is wrong. Then he'll say that planes didn't hit any of the buildings, it was all faked and all the people on the planes were forced to sign confidentiality agreements or they would be shot or spend the rest of there life prison. Don't forget also that all the passengers of Flight 93 and Flight 77 are living in Area 51 with the Aliens that were recovered from Roswell.There living in underground apartments with the Aliens, Elvis, and the real shooter of JFK. This is where they put all the people that they screw over after they make them sign confidentiality agreements. ___________
reilly-
It's what the conspiracy folks do....they seek out information to back them up, but then they stop when they get to something that doesn't. Like they mention this Jones guy's paper, but they fail to say that they didn't even submit it for approval in the States because they KNEW it would get just hammered in the process and never published. Nor do they say that this guy has been proven to be a quack by his peers and his employer.
Or they provide video evidence and cut off the video right at the point where an explanation would be offered.
Like the "pull it" B.S. Read about it. The workers themselves testify that it meant that the building was going to have to be pulled with cables. The FN people who were there say this and the conspiracy morons just totally discount it because it doesn't fit in with their fantasy world.
I have answered every single one of their questions.....yet they can't even answer my one simple one. Isn't that suprising?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
