Question for Ryan Mackey

[beachnut]

Just to let you people know, I will keep popping this up until you answer. LOL!



...
My question, to all you JREF morons, who can't understand that free fall COULD NOT HAPPEN unless the columns were removed within 1/10 of a second is:

... it???

Wrong again; and off topic! It was 1/1000 of a second. Got some numbers to confirm your delusion, or is a false statement?

 

[T.A.M.]

Just to let you people know, I will keep popping this up until you answer. LOL!



Yes Ryan, the computer model.....the model that is sooooo correct, nobody can see it!!! There have been FOIA requests for their input, which have all been denied. There reason is "it could jeopardize public safety" (Micheal Newman).

My question, to all you JREF morons, who can't understand that free fall COULD NOT HAPPEN unless the columns were removed within 1/10 of a second is:

What is so dangerous about the input data in NIST's "Hypothetical Collapse Analysis" input data?????

My next question is:

Do any of you know what "hypothetical" means? I ask all of you because you don't even understand grade 7 physics.

And finally:

Why does NIST say that there were NO SHEER STUDS on the steel girder spanning between exterior column 44 and interior column 79 ( see NCSTAR 1-9 pg 342-343), when a paper written in 1986, shows a diagram of the girder of interest having 30 evenly spaced sheer studs???

Here is the paper:" Seven Wold Trade Center, New York, Building and Construction Aspects" I challenge any of you to look it up.

Figure 5 clearly shows these studs in place along the girder of interest. This is where your beloved NIST says "hypothetical (there's that word again) collapse initiated".

THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE IF THE STUDS WERE THERE!!!!!!!

and they clearly were according to this paper in 1986 lol!

Why would NIST say they were not there, and that is where the "poof poof" collapse initiated? Did they think no professionals would look into it???

didn't take you long to get all angry and "truther" like, did it?

Don't forget, now when you call members of JREF morons, you are calling YOURSELF a moron.

ok, lets play your way....

You truther morons. You don't know grade 7 physics. I challenge you to provide a theory all of your own that tells us what happened to WTC7 on 9/11. CD won't due....inside job won't do. Be specific...use yer math.

Come on there dude, you are the expert...show us where they are wrong...

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

I don't really know what superthinker is talking about, but this thread is an absolute classic.

 

[T.A.M.]

I don't really know what superthinker is talking about, but this thread is an absolute classic.

Yes, it is absolutely filled with the typical, CLASSIC truther bullcrap canards and useless rhetoric.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

Yes, it is absolutely filled with the typical, CLASSIC truther bullcrap canards and useless rhetoric.

TAM

I started reading some of it from the beginning and I thought it was very interesting. Tony S asks some specific, relevant questions. Gravy enters with vague bluster. Mackey provides civil, persuasive responses.

Pom, Swing, Gregory U, it was the good old days. I miss those guys.

 

[beachnut]

I started reading some of it from the beginning and I thought it was very interesting. Tony S asks some specific, relevant questions. Gravy enters with vague bluster. Mackey provides civil, persuasive responses.

Pom, Swing, Gregory U, it was the good old days. I miss those guys.

The good old days when 911 truth had moronic delusions and no evidence; and Tony was the realcddeal. Those were the days, signing up for idiotic petitions claiming they had ample evidence and other crazy claims and lies. Poor Gregory, signed up and never posted his ample evidence.

Vague bluster = evidence for RedIbis and 911 truth.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Threatening to flood the forum, violation of Rule 6



Civility violation, Rule Zero



Civility violation, Rule Zero

And all that in only your second post ever at the JREF... in theory. Clearly discussion with you will be fruitful.

You're not interesting, kid. I'm leaving others to report you, as for me, you go on my Ignore list. I don't owe you a bloody thing.

But you do owe everybody an admission that you were incorrect on two major issues in our debate on Hardfire last September.

One was where you stated several times that I was overestimating the strength of the core columns and that their factor of safety was much less than my estimate of 3.00 to 1. You said that isn't what NIST showed and you even made the bold comment that NIST doesn't make those kinds of mistakes. It is now proven that the factor of safety of the core columns was 3.00 to 1 with the actual in-service loads considered.

Second was your use of the NIST assertion that the upper section of WTC 1 tilted 8 degrees before it descended. This has also been proven to be ridiculously incorrect as it has been shown that the upper section begins to descend when the tilt is no greater than 1 degree.

It won't look good to just ignore this Ryan. You need to come clean and admit that it was wrong for you to trust the NIST report on the twin towers implicitly. There is no shame in that but there is in ignoring proven errors.

 

[beachnut]

... There is no shame in that but there is in ignoring proven errors.

Your CD delusion is an error. A paranoid conspiracy delusion, a big error unless you have found a silent explosive like Crackomite. And your thermite delusions makes your CD delusion extra credit stupid. 9 years of failure, and no evidence continues unabated.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Your CD delusion is an error. A paranoid conspiracy delusion, a big error unless you have found a silent explosive like Crackomite. And your thermite delusions makes your CD delusion extra credit stupid. 9 years of failure, and no evidence continues unabated.

The reality is that after 9 years the truth about what happened has not been discerned because we haven't had a real investigation. It is high time for a new and real investigation.

Many people who know that the freefall acceleration of WTC 7 is a very serious contradiction for the present official story now joke that it wasn't because he was water boarded 183 times but that KSM finally admitted to planning 911 from A to Z when they produced photos of him planting charges in WTC 7.

 

[beachnut]

The reality is that after 9 years the truth about what happened has not been discerned because we haven't had a real investigation. It is high time for a new and real investigation.

A lie many times over. There is nothing real about your real cd deal, you have delusions based on nothing.

Many people who know that the freefall acceleration of WTC 7 is an achilles heal of a domestic criminal operation now joke about KSM admitting to planning 911 from A to Z when they showed him photos of him planting charges in WTC 7.

You call an over 15 second collapse free-fall? This is another big lie. The only joke is 911 truth, nukes, beam weapons, silent explosives, thermite and flyovers.

9 years of failure.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

A lie many times over. There is nothing real about your real cd deal, you have delusions based on nothing.


You call an over 15 second collapse free-fall? This is another big lie. The only joke is 911 truth, nukes, beam weapons, silent explosives, thermite and flyovers.

9 years of failure.

To have any credibility you really need to address the freefall acceleration. It is the issue that matters.

 

[triforcharity]

The reality is that after 9 years the truth about what happened has not been discerned because we haven't had a real investigation. It is high time for a new and real investigation.

Feel free to do your own, pay for it, and stop bitching on obscure random internet forums.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Feel free to do your own, pay for it, and stop bitching on obscure random internet forums.

There is no way to credibly claim that the NIST investigations of the three NYC three building collapses on Sept. 11, 2001 were complete and without serious flaws and contradictions.

I showed two of them to you in my post to Ryan Mackey above. It was the NIST report that Ryan was parroting when he made those errors.

The American people have a right to a real investigation with the appropriate resources. And people like you have no right to deny it.

 

[beachnut]

To have any credibility you really need to address the freefall acceleration. It is the issue that matters.

WTC 7 collapse took over 15 seconds. Very slow, not near free-fall.


You have all those other paranoid conspiracy theorists who claim to be engineers and more, do your own investigation. 9 years of failure, I bet you can't do much more than make delusional claims of CD by MIB.

New Investigation! DENIED!

 

[Tony Szamboti]

WTC 7 collapse took over 15 seconds. Very slow, not near free-fall.

Well I guess this shows people where you are Beachnut! Denial is the operative word for you.

 

[tsig]

There is no way to credibly claim that the NIST investigations of the three NYC three building collapses on Sept. 11, 2001 were complete and without serious flaws and contradictions.

I showed two of them to you in my post to Ryan Mackey above. It was the NIST report that Ryan was parroting when he made those errors.

The American people have a right to a real investigation with the appropriate resources. And people like you have no right to deny it.

With over 1200 architects and engineers I would think your organization would have the talent and resources to investigate all you want.

They seem to have enough money to send Gage all over the world so that should be no problem.

Far from denying you your right to investigate I fully endorse it.

 

[ozeco41]

...The American people have a right to a real investigation with the appropriate resources. And people like you have no right to deny it.

True that the "American people have a right to a real investigation with the appropriate resources."

The situation is that, prima facie, there has been investigation and it was real and properly resourced. Therefore due process requires that any person disagreeing with that prima facie position has to show how the former investigation was flawed and that the extent of flaws is sufficient to warrant a further process of review.

No such case for review has been made out.

It seems unlikely that such a case could be made out by the quasi legal procedures of administrative review. Therefore the decision to review, if it is to be made, would need to occur in the political arena.

The barriers to that approach are clear - no agreement among all the protesters as to what the flaws are in the extant investigations for the first. No apparent agreement on strategy/tactics for the second. And "divided they fall".

Plus major tactical weaknesses such as continued reliance on claims which are technical nonsense including demolition at WTC and no plane at the Pentagon. Only fringe politicians are likely to attach themselves to outright demonstrable untruths such as those.

And, yes, the US political culture is different to that of the Australian and other political systems but I don't see those differences being sufficient to back an unfocussed stack of unwinable technical arguments and no coherent strategy on the pure "conspiracy/collusion/competency" issues.

 

[T.A.M.]

I started reading some of it from the beginning and I thought it was very interesting. Tony S asks some specific, relevant questions. Gravy enters with vague bluster. Mackey provides civil, persuasive responses.

Pom, Swing, Gregory U, it was the good old days. I miss those guys.

you know, from a discussion, and civility pov, those were better times...

too bad all that never produced any common sense in the truthers.

That was the time when all of this was discussed, hashed out, and left for what it was...

That is why we so really do need that archive we discussed.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

The reality is that after 9 years the truth about what happened has not been discerned because we haven't had a real investigation. It is high time for a new and real investigation.

Many people who know that the freefall acceleration of WTC 7 is a very serious contradiction for the present official story now joke that it wasn't because he was water boarded 183 times but that KSM finally admitted to planning 911 from A to Z when they produced photos of him planting charges in WTC 7.

There is no way to credibly claim that the NIST investigations of the three NYC three building collapses on Sept. 11, 2001 were complete and without serious flaws and contradictions.

I showed two of them to you in my post to Ryan Mackey above. It was the NIST report that Ryan was parroting when he made those errors.

The American people have a right to a real investigation with the appropriate resources. And people like you have no right to deny it.

1. There was a REAL investigation. Your phrasology is simply code for we want OUR investigation, which is basically a biased, skewed, paranoid driven witch hunt with nothing close to the actual truth actually desired.

2. The 2.25 seconds of WTC7 North Face Free Fall time is being discussed in another thread, so I suggest you take it there. Not that it matters. You nor none of your ilk can get past what NIST actually said, versus what Chandler and others have WARPED and TWISTED it into.

TAM

 

[Horatius]

Here is the paper:" Seven Wold Trade Center, New York, Building and Construction Aspects" I challenge any of you to look it up.

I'd love to look it up! Problem is, Googling that title gives absolutely no hits whatsoever, not even the Truther Echo Chamber of Fake Citations I've come to know and love.


Why do you Truthers find it so *********** hard to properly cite your references? Would it kill you to provide a journal title, volume, issue and page number?

Since you're so convinced we won't look it up, providing such info should pose no risk to you.

Until such a time as you can provide that information (which should be trivially easy for someone who is describing figures from the paper), I shall simply assume you're lying out your ass about the existence of this paper.


Do feel free to prove me completely wrong.