Diamonds-

The whereabouts of the missing plane from the pentagon may never ever be known.

Whats this then, parts of the Boeing 757?

and then this quote by blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer who was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash:

“It was absolutely a plane, and I’ll tell you why, I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box.”

But of course, your next comment which was:

But let’s leave that alone as it’s way too much for any of your to grasp this early in your awareness.

Sets you up to not be accountable for your claims.

Diamonds,

Dude, or dudette, it’s late where I’m at, but I’ll get to your points more thoroughly in due time.  I’m actually willing to debate this with you, if everyone else has the patience to sit through it.  A few starters, though…

So, you don’t think a plane hit the Pentagon?  There were documented eyewitnesses who saw a plane flying very low towards it.  There are fragments of aircraft lying all around it.  I’ll provide links later.

I’m going to go out on a limb and say the building in Madrid wasn’t crashed into by a commercial airliner and didn’t have thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning inside it.  Can you provide a source that gives the temperature of that fire in Madrid - you state unequivocally that it was “much hotter.”

And regarding WTC7, what exactly was the govt’s motivation to implode it?  Is this where the gold comes in?

You people are at least paying attention, it’s a start. And Buzz’s comments about the internet isn’t far from the truth of what will happen if they succeed.

The events of that day were so elaborate, trying to understnad all of what is a lie within comprehension is extremely difficult as no one will stay on subject long enough to take it seriously.

Your points you made, of course planes hit the tower… and yes I don’t think a plane hit the pentagon. The whereabouts of the missing plane from the pentagon may never ever be known.  But let’s leave that alone as it’s way too much for any of your to grasp this early in your awareness.

Jesus Christ, first of all, spare us the condescending welcome oh ye seeker crap.  It’s irritating as hell when those assholes in white shirts and black ties show up at my door and it’s infuriating when you do it. Second, a missing airplane is a pretty damn big whole in your theory.

Let’s just look at WTC7. Then we can branch out. I’d like to see if anyone would like to see if they can try to see a reason why WTC7, wasn’t hit by a plane, had fires ona only a few floors, was nearly a block away from the Towers while Amercian Express, Merril Lynch, and Oppenhiemer were virtually next door to the Towers were still standing.

Actually this was explained in great detail in the NIST report. Why do I know a guy who had an artillery shell go off literally under his feet who was unharmed, but another guy who was 50 yards away was struck by shrapnel which sliced through the frame of his pack lodging both pieces of the pack and the shrapnel in his ribcage? Surely you don’t think that was because the guy who survived unscathed was in on the plot. Maybe because he was Jewish?

Several of those buildings were damaged, but because they were not hit be as much debris, they were not affected in the same way. WTC7 was also constructed in such a way that the wall facing the towers bore a disproportionate amount of the buildings weight. 

I won’t mention the lease that Silverstein had and the double insurance policy he had on it just shortly instated before they all came down, and they fact that WTC 1, 2, & 7 were the only buildings under his financial control, and he got a huge settlment.. those historical and admitted facts aren’t relevent yet.

You just mentioned it. Why do you keep saying you’re not going to do something right before you do it?  He got a huge settlement because he was smart and purchased insurance on his multibillion dollar investment, which was then struck by airplanes and fell over. Granted, he might have had some clues beforehand, such as the fact that terrorists had been trying to blow up his buildings for several decades, or it might have been his evil Zionist intuition. 

I just find it interesting how none of you are willing to even consider or question for yourselves that the first 3 skyscrapers in the history of man all came down at freefall speed that day. After being on fire for less than an hour or so… and WTC7 came down at freefall speed having fires on floors 7 & 12.

That whole freefall speed argument is nonsense. It’s based on the fact that a philosophy professor says that the buildings fell faster than he thinks they should have. It’s based on nothing. I watched a lecture were that asshat defended his theory by dropping his keys from shoulder height, then claiming that that’s how the towers fell.

Many of you claim to need witness accounts, and professional input… well, there is one in particular that covers all of this.... using a physics professor, an MIT enginneer, and dozens of police and news ppl’s eyewitness accounts of that day.

I have never made any such claim, all I have ever asked for are facts to support your position. Neither of the asshatts you’re talking about are scientists. They are professors of philosophy of science which usually means that they have a bachelor’s degree in a science and a graduate degree in philosophy. Regardless, why should the opinion of two “experts” override the findings of literally thousands of other ones? 

No one mentions “Wow, that one tower in Madrid stood for almost an entire day on fire, a fire engufling half the building that was much much hotter. It never fell.

And the fire in the world trade center was hotter and much more sustained than, say, what happens to a building when a mortar shell hits it and they often fall almost instantaneously. Does that mean that every building that has ever been destroyed by mortar fire was pre-wired with thermite by Dick Cheney?

I realize how hard it is to accept. If you have the patience to try to open a reasonable debate, please watch this doc involving the people and witnesses involved in this defense.

I will do so if you promise to read a book on critical thinking.

Why would the 9/11 commission leave out WTC7 out of it’s report entirely?
Also, why would the 9/11 commission claim there wasn’t 47 steel beams that are the central support columns? Why would they DENY thier existence?

They didn’t. Granted there’s no in depth discussion of the WTC7 collapse because that issue is beyond the scope of the commissions report. It was part of the scope of the NIST investigation and they discuss it in great detail. If the commission and its report are part of the conspiracy, why wouldn’t they include falsified information to support their claims rather than leaving the issue out? If they had included it, what would keep you from claiming that they had just made the information up? 

We aren’t going away, we are going to expose these criminals. And you all will eventually wake up and see for yourselves. The movment for the exposure of this truth is doubling every year. The only way this admin can stop it, is to allow another HUGE ‘terrorist’ attack to occur to scare everyone back into submission, and forget all about it

If the thing that got this whole “movement” of yours started was a faked terrorist attack, wouldn’t another one just add to it?

The motive for the aid to making sure 9/11 is pefectly clear in their very OWN document entitled THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY. There’s is a chance their motives could be noble,: a free world giving everyone an equal opportinity and freedom under the ‘control’ of the US.... but they want to create a global controlled society controlled by the US… and it’s going to take a long time, it might not be done in our lifetime… but they see this as an opportune chance ever since the fall of Russia.

I think its telling that you feel the need to break your thoughts up with ellipses. It seems to indicate that you know your thoughts are not connected logically. 

Whatever, is you have the patience.... watch this, and let’s debate it. You can’t get around the stunning irregularities of the entore thing from the events to the investigation:
http://911revisited.com/video.html

Or, you could read the 9/11 commission report and or the NIST report and we’ll discuss that.

Oh, on a side note, it should be embarrassing for you as a citizen of this country to know that only $600,000 was spent on the WTC investigation vs. $40 million on Clinton’s sex scandal.

You or someone else made that up.

Diamond, you keep talking about how you want to have a discussion or debate about this theory of yours. Notice all those weird squiggles above many of the periods in my writing? Like this one-->? Those are called question marks. In a discussion, they indicate that the other person is asking you to clarify something about what you’ve said or trying to point out something you may have missed. In a debate, they generally indicate that your opponent is challenging either your logic or facts. In order to have either a discussion or debate, you must respond to such questions. Kind of like when you claimed that there was no generator in WTC7 and I gave you conclusive evidence that there was. Or when you claimed that jet fuel and diesel fuel are not the same and I explained to you that you are a moron. Not doing so indicates that you do not have a point and are just running your mouth.

If you recall, when our little exchange began several months ago, I responded to your posts by countering the points you made and raising questions of my own, often in the form of a question. You have responded directly to only one question I asked you. I asked why the government wanted to destroy WTC7 and you simply insisted that there were “a million reasons”, none of which you chose to share with us. Discussions and debates rely on the exchange of thoughts and ideas. You simply make an unsubstantiated claim and when someone refutes it, you simply make a different unsubstantiated claim. I continue to counter your points and raise my own, but because you lack either the critical thinking ability or the knowledge to either recognize the flaws in your position or to defend it, there is no chance of us having either a discussion or debate and you deserved to be mocked and ridiculed.

Perhaps Diamond is referring to the $600K FEMA allocated for their WTC investigation.  (Available here for those with reading time to spare.)

I won’t mention the lease that Silverstein had and the double insurance policy he had on it just shortly instated before they all came down, and they fact that WTC 1, 2, & 7 were the only buildings under his financial control, and he got a huge settlment.. those historical and admitted facts aren’t relevent yet.

You just mentioned it. Why do you keep saying you’re not going to do something right before you do it?  He got a huge settlement because he was smart and purchased insurance on his multibillion dollar investment, which was then struck by airplanes and fell over. Granted, he might have had some clues beforehand, such as the fact that terrorists had been trying to blow up his buildings for several decades, or it might have been his evil Zionist intuition. 

Actually, it’s even simpler than that. It was the leasing company. Since the towers had already been attacked the company putting up the money for Silverstein insisted he get insurance so they wouldn’t end up out of luck in the case of a sucessful repeat of the 1993 attack.

Actually, it’s even simpler than that. It was the leasing company. Since the towers had already been attacked the company putting up the money for Silverstein insisted he get insurance so they wouldn’t end up out of luck in the case of a sucessful repeat of the 1993 attack.

There you go. See diamond, there’s a rational, factual explanation for it that doesn’t require a Zionist banking conspiracy. Also notice that because Johnreb’s explanation is plausible and reasonable and not based on unsubstantiated assumptions,I accepted it. That is how a discussion works. When you start saying things that are based on something other than paranoid assumptions, we can have a discussion.

You people are at least paying attention, it’s a start.

Well, let’s see if you’re paying attention.  This is going to be very telling, Diamonds . . . very telling indeed.  We’re going to find how exactly how honest you are.

Now, I watched a video with your so-called expert, “MIT Engineer” Jeff King who was standing behind a podium giving a crowd of ignoramuses his uneducated opinion about the collapse the Twin Towers.  During his presentation, King made the following statement:

There’s a large central rectangle at each of the towers that contained 47 columns, and these columns were basically the primary structural support of the building.  They were given the role of supporting the whole gravitational load of the building.

That’s what he said, Diamonds . . . a direct quote.

I wonder if you noticed that the video had no question and answer segment?  What a shame!  I wonder why they didn’t show one?  Or did they even have one?  I wonder how many structural engineers were in the audience that night?  Better yet, I wonder why they didn’t show anyone asking Jeff King what supported the simple span joists that supported the steel decking that supported the concrete slab that made up the floor system?  I mean a simple span floor joist must be supported at both ends for it to be in static equilibrium.  If the whole gravitational load of the entire building were supported only by those 47 interior columns as King says, how is the load from the exterior end of those floor joists transferred to the interior columns?  Didn’t you find it awfully strange that King never mentioned all those perimeter support columns supporting half the floor live and dead loads?  I sure did.

Now, Diamonds, does Jeff King really understand structural systems?  Did it ever occur to you to ask some simple questions . . . for example, why didn’t King mention the effects of removing lateral support for those 47 columns?  Do you even know what lateral support is?  Does King?  Are you aware that columns must be laterally supported at given intervals to prevent column buckling?  Do you or King understand what column buckling is?  Do you know what residual stresses are?

See, Diamonds, you cannot fathom what you do not know, nor can you fathom what Jeff King does not know.

So, just what are King’s credentials?  Well, it seems he indeed went to MIT.  There he spent his first two years as a math major.  Then he embarked on a dual major in electrical engineering and biology.  After graduation King entered medical school.  Then he spend about 12 months at the Harvard School of Public Health in the Pulmonary Physiology lab doing electrical and mechanical engineering work before deciding to do an internship and practice clinical medicine.

Now, listen to this quote from Jeff King about how this video was produced:

BTW, the “MIT Engineer” caption on the video was not my doing, and the brief bio I gave at the beginning was truncated to almost nothing when the video was produced.

In other words, Diamonds, your MIT engineering expert seems to think the title of “engineer” doesn’t exactly jive with his area of expertise.  He has a degree in electrical engineering, biology, and medicine.  His expertise is in medicine.  Smart guy . . . but not smart enough to ask the very questions any 4th year civil engineering student who had taken courses in Theory of Structures and Structural Steel Design would have asked.  Seems King’s expertise is not in structural engineering, is it?

I actually graduated in civil engineering.  My emphasis was structures.  I actually practiced structural engineering for over two decades.  I like to think I learned something about steel structures during all those years.  But what I know about electrical engineering would hardly make up a single paragraph on this thread.  And what I know about medicine wouldn’t fill a sentence.  So why do you think Jeff King knows a damn thing about structural engineering?

See Diamonds, you didn’t know all this.  You don’t seem to understand how specialized a field structural engineering really is.  You accept things at face value never bothering to ask the right questions because not only do you not know what questions to ask, you really don’t want to understand the true facts anyway.

Can you point to a single so-called expert who supports this conspiracy theory that is actually qualified to assess the cause of failure of the Twin Towers?  Name just one, that’s all I ask.  And don’t give me the name of some physicist or doctor or mathematician or geologist or software engineer or butcher or baker or candlestick maker.  (I mean do you go see a structural engineer when you’re having chest pains?) I want the name of someone who is really qualified to thoroughly and accurately analyze the causes of catastrophic failures of structural steel buildings.

It’s put up or shut up time, Diamonds.  No more diversions.  You say you want to have a real discussion, then let’s talk structural engineering.  Let’s talk about fire proofing.  Let’s talk about the advantages of continuous lateral support for cold-formed zee purlins.  Let’s discuss web crippling of wide-flange beams.  Let’s talk about shear versus friction connections.  Let’s talk about dynamic impact loading of structural members.  Let’s talk about the moment distribution method used in structural analysis.  Let’s discuss the old flexibility method of structural steel design.  Let’s talk about the properties of A36 steel.

Hell, let’s just bore the bark off a log and discuss how the direct stiffness method can be used in computer analysis of statically indeterminate structures.  I bet everyone here is just dying to know how to invert a matrix on their computer.

So like I said, Diamonds, this is going to be very telling.  Let’s see how truthful you really are by answering the following question:

Do you honestly think you have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the merits of any argument about why the Twin Towers collapsed?

I think I confused Diamond’s “expert” with James H. Fetzer form the U of Minnesota-Duluth. Oh well, different ass, same hat. Still an asshat.

These conspiracy sites are so completely wrong it is mind baffling.  Their MO is to state something as fact (which is not documented and incorrect), then draw ridiculous conclusions, and then urge the reader to “make up his own mind.” Pretty watertight.

Since others are on working on WTC7, I’ll jump on the Pentagon crash:

Here’s one site:  Eyewitness accounts:  Boeing 757 or military craft?

It starts off by quoting witnesses who saw an aircraft hit the Pentagon.  Then it presents other witnesses, who:

1) Saw an “aircraft that held 8-12 people”
2) Said it sounded like the high pitched squeal of a fighter (Fighters have a high pitched squeal?  Fighters and commercial aircraft are both powered by turbofan engines)
3) It “sounded like a missile”, whatever that means.
4) It was “like a cruise missile with wings” - maybe this guy was referring to how the airplane was being used as if it was a cruise missile.  Notice he said “like a cruise missile” not “I saw a cruise missile”.  How many people have seen an actual cruise missile in flight, anyway, to know what one would look like?  How many people have seen an airplane in flight, to know what one would look like?

So, conspiracy theorists (this means you, Diamonds), what was it?  A fighter, an aircraft that holds 8-12 people, or a missile?  These are all mutually exclusive.  Since none of the people who claim not to have seen an airplane can get their stories straight, how can you totally discount the eyewitnesses who did see a commercial aircraft?  They’re part of the coverup, right?

This site then continues to question how the nose of an aircraft could have penetrated so far into the Pentagon.  Get ready for this logic:

The nose couldn’t have travelled that far because it is made of fiberglass and would have disintegrated upon impact.

Finally, something I agree with.  The nose (radome) would indeed have disintegrated upon impact.  But what about the tons of fuselage behind it?  Do you think the fuselage of an aircraft just stopped, or that maybe its kinetic energy propelled it into the Pentagon?

One fire fighter says he saw a nose (landing) gear inside the building, and this is not disputed by this web site.  But the web site goes on to suggest that a depleted-uranium tipped missile could well have been capable of such damage.  Can somebody please explain who is going to put a landing gear on a missile?  Oh wait, that nose gear was planted by gov’t operatives after the crash but before firefighters arrived, yes?

The web site states as a fact:  “Missiles have heads that are much stronger than aircraft noses. They are made from depleted uranium and are designed for penetration. Depleted uranium is an extremely dense metal that friction heats up, increasing its penetrative capacities. Such missiles are particularly used to enter bunkers.”

Where the hell do I start with this one?  Most readers would take this to mean all missiles have depleted uranium (DU) noses.  However, cruise missiles listed in wikipedia have no mention of being DU tipped.  And the DU article mentions nothing about being used on missiles.  So, what is stated as fact really isn’t.  Where is the source for this?  None is listed, of course.  A true conspiracist will probably claim it was a secret gov’t program and there is no published evidence of such a missile.  So, lacking published evidence, how would they arrive at such a conclusion besides pulling it directly from their arse?

So, here we go again, Diamonds.  What hit the Pentagon?  Was it a cruise missile with a landing gear?  Maybe a depleted-uranium tipped commuter jet that held 8-12 people?  A fighter?  Let me guess, you don’t know, but you do know it wasn’t Flight 77, because, uh…

All you have is a bunch of non-experts stating as fact the damage couldn’t have been caused by a large aircraft because the entry hole isn’t big enough.  And they are basing this on what?

Diamonds, none of your friends’ conspiracy theories are even consistent or make any sense.  If you think they do, please explain:

1) Why several witnesses saw an aircraft, and some more all saw different things (can you find any who say it was “definitely a missile”?)
2) Why a missile would have a landing gear
3) Where the pieces of American Airlines fuselage came from (depicted in a link in another post)

Vermin,

For the record, James H. Fetzer got a degree in philosophy from Princeton.  He later went back to college and got a PhD in the history and philosophy of science.  Of course, in Diamond’s world this guy is eminently qualified to evaluate the collapse of the Twin Towers because he co-authored a book on how the airplane crash that took Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone’s life wasn’t really an accident, but a conspiracy by the Republicans to gain control of the Senate.

Sorta makes you wanna sing the old Buffalo Springfield song, “For What It’s Worth”:

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you’re always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

I wonder if the man is coming to take Diamonds away?

This is why I love this crowd.  Always able to find true information with true links (unlike someone I could mention whose last name rhymes with “poor").

Buzz, I learned stuff today myself.  Good stuff, Maynard.

With a wall of facts, backed by links, evidence and common sense, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the point of the thread where Diamonds goes away. 

We’ll hear from him again soon enough, of course.  He’ll jump into a new thread spouting the same unsubstantiated nonsense.  And, like high scores on a reset video game, he’ll have no knowledge or memory of the proof thrown in his face this week.

Wow.  Buzz, voice, and Vermin...great posts.  Nice to read some facts after Diamond’s uninformed rants.

1) Saw an “aircraft that held 8-12 people”
2) Said it sounded like the high pitched squeal of a fighter (Fighters have a high pitched squeal?  Fighters and commercial aircraft are both powered by turbofan engines)
3) It “sounded like a missile”, whatever that means.

I’ve been around aviation in one form or another since I was 15, and I can definitely say that most people are generally ignorant of all things aviation.  That’s fine...until others try to use the uninformed statements of others as proof of a conspiracy.

The high bypass turbofans on 757s and 767s have a very distinctive engine howl that’s almost instantly recognizable.  Hence the “high pitch squeal”. 

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Boeing_757-200-Airline_New_Zealand_-_Air_Force_Aviation_Video-5203.html

. . . I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the point of the thread where Diamonds goes away.

Oh BDO5, you’re wrong!  Diamonds will be here any moment now.  We’re going to have a very lively and exciting discussion on how structually damaged columns that have lost their fireproofing can resist the combined axial and bending stresses produced by P-delta effects without any lateral support after being heated to over 800 degrees C.  I’m sure everyone here will be rivited to their computer screens during this discussion.  And best of all, at the end of the discussion, Diamonds is going to show us all how to invert a matrix in C++ programming language . . . and no one wants to miss that!

The high bypass turbofans on 757s and 767s have a very distinctive engine howl that’s almost instantly recognizable.  Hence the “high pitch squeal”. 

See, what Bundy posted here just gets ignored by those engaged in conspiracism.  It had to be a missle because it just had to be a missle.  That’s the only explanation that satisfies their need for this to be a conspiracy.

If I believed this conspiracy theory I’d be asking myself not only why I believe it, but why I need to believe it.

For the record, James H. Fetzer got a degree in philosophy from Princeton.  He later went back to college and got a PhD in the history and philosophy of science.  Of course, in Diamond’s world this guy is eminently qualified to evaluate the collapse of the Twin Towers because he co-authored a book on how the airplane crash that took Democratic Senator Paul Wellstone’s life wasn’t really an accident, but a conspiracy by the Republicans to gain control of the Senate.

Do you have a deck of moonbat trading cards or something?

I’ll be back Saturday. No ignoring. You people are so misguided and so blind.

I’ll bet anyone a nickel that when he does come back, he ignores everything we’ve posted and just continues ranting about more nonsense.

Do you have a deck of moonbat trading cards or something?

It’s not often I laugh out loud here, Vermin.  Thanks for the humor!  :)

You people are so misguided and so blind.

Well, thanks for setting us straight on that, Diamonds.  For a while there it’s obvious I was under the illusion that your experts were clueless ignoramuses who were way out of their element.  I must have been out of my head.

You people are so misguided and so blind.

See? What’d I say? For every bit of monumental evidence that you throw at him, he reacts the same way as if you’d called him a shit-tard.

Hell, I just wish I could believe he was some student who’d found a really great way to make you guys do all his research for him on a project about 9/11, but I don’t have that much faith in humanity.

You people are so misguided and so blind.

Damn facts, they keep getting in the way of liberal theories. 

Diamonds, when you come back, make sure you clarify how facts can make one so misguided and blind.

Is anyone else thinking that Diamonds asked for this time so he/she could dig up research to “refute” all these points?

Is anyone else thinking that Diamonds asked for this time so he/she could dig up research to “refute” all these points?

i thought it was obvious…

Dunno why he’d start now, his “I’m right because other people say I am and no amount of other people who actually know about these things is going to change my mind” stance hasn’t exactly needed the support of actual research so far…

Dunno why he’d start now . . .

Rann’s probably right . . . Diamonds doesn’t need to research anything because he’s got all the lame opinions coming from bogus experts he needs to believe what he wants to believe.  Confirmation bias is the code of the moonbat.

While we’re waiting for Diamonds, a couple more off-topic topics that have been bothering me:

1) Liberals keep shouting that Bush should have known about the impending 9/11 attack from that infamous PDB.  How much do you want to bet that if he had done something like, oh, say, not allowing any nail clippers, pocketknifes, etc on board, and prevented the attacks - liberals would have been the first ones lining up to bitch about their civil rights being violated?  And that Bush “made up” the threat to scare us?  That’s been their response to just about all of the foiled plots recently.

2) These same liberals love to point out that we haven’t captured OBL.  Yet for every other central figure we’ve captured or killed, their response is “No big deal, this doesn’t change anything, someone else will just step in to take their place, it’s just a diversion from ______”

I suppose this is all central to liberals’ hatred of Bush.  He did everything wrong, but if he’d have done things completely differently, it’s still be completely wrong.

He did everything wrong, but if he’d have done things completely differently, it’s still be completely wrong.

To them, the only correct way is their way, unfortunately.

Buzz said:
We’re going to have a very lively and exciting discussion on how structually damaged columns that have lost their fireproofing can resist the combined axial and bending stresses produced by P-delta effects without any lateral support after being heated to over 800 degrees C.  I’m sure everyone here will be rivited to their computer screens during this discussion.

Actually, I am quite interested in this potential discussion.  But, if it’s not too much trouble, could you also include some talk of some of those other things you mentioned?  (Ex. “the advantages of continuous lateral support for cold-formed zee purlins,” “web crippling of wide-flange beams,” “shear versus friction connections,” “dynamic impact loading of structural members,” and “the moment distribution method used in structural analysis")

If I’m to read what I can only assume is going to be a rivetting and informative colloquium, I’d like the knowledge I gain not necessarily be so 9/11-centric.

This might interest some of you.  It seems one of Diamonds so-called experts, Dr. Steven Jones, a physics professor from BYU, has been put on paid leave by the University for being the moonbat that he is.  Here’s the link”

Dr. Steven Jones’ late summer vacation

Dr. Steven Jones, a physics professor from BYU, has been put on paid leave by the University for being the moonbat that he is.  Here’s the link”

Sad thing is, moonbats will only dismiss this as ‘proof’ that the government is trying to silence one of the ‘truth seekers.’ That’s the great thing about conspiracies: you can make them up as you go along.  Factual cohesion and logical motives need not apply.

The State Department has released a rebuttal to Jones’ theory in a 10-thousand page report.

Yet again, countless eyewitnesses and qualified technical experts weigh in against the demolition theory...NOT TO MENTION a 10,000 page official rebuttal...and people like Diamonds still hone in one the one wackjob in the Row 67, Section Z, wearing the ‘X-Files’ t-shirt.  Sometimes I really weep for our future.

Whoever checks out Buzz’s link above might want to spare themselves from reading the comments section.  There are some really, really gone individuals out there.

Epoch,

If you can tune in tomorrow, Diamonds is going to host an 8-hour seminar on structural engineering.  During that time he will present those subjects along with several other aspects of forensic engineering.  I’ll be here to ask questions and garner information myself.

No doubt this will be one of the most interesting discussions ever held on MooreWatch . . . some folks might even find it better than watching paint dry.

Well, I was planning on oppressing some minorities and polluting the planet with hydrocarbons tomorrow...but it looks like I’ll have to shelve those plans in lieu of this discussion.  Sounds like it’ll be a scorcher!

I just hope the guys down at the Klan house will understand.

There are some really, really gone individuals out there.

You know, Bundy, until this 9/11 Conspiracy came along, I never really understood just how far “gone” some of these people were.

To them, the only correct way is their way, unfortunately.

Too bad they won’t even bother to tell us what that way IS…

Willing to continue.... so called ‘monumental evidence’ to be discussed.

By all means, the floor is yours. I believe there are more than a few open questions awaiting your response (remember, the questions are the ones with the squiggly periods).

I dont know if this has already been cleared up. I just started to read the comments and didnt even read page 2.

We used JP-8 in our hmmwv’s in Afghanistan. JP-8 is jet fuel that can also be used to run heaters, stoves,electricity, and aircraft, it is also used as a coolant. I hope I am being helpful and not just repeating others.

Would it be helpful to Diamonds if we were to consolidate our statements and questions into a comprehensive bullet-pointed post?  That way, he/she could go through it sequentially, and hopefully keep his/her answers organized and—dare I say it—lucid.

I posted this before, but the government crashed Moorewatch so that Diamond’s truth wouldn’t get out. Anyway, here it is again. This is from “Forensic Detective” by Dr. Robert Mann. He’s a forensic anthropologist out of Hawaii.

“The mortuary was a converted hangar, all steel and concrete floors, everything washable. Passing the blue-carpeted administtration offices and a makeshift cafeteria, we found the work area. We donne surgical scrubs, plastic aprons, and gloves, and soon we were in the middle of a bustling reception area, among a throng of people desperately working to identify the more than two hundred victims who arrived by helicopter in batches. These were the one hundred twenty-five workers and sixty-four airline passengers who had been killed at the Pentagon"(p169).

So where did these bodies come from? Is Dr. Mann a liar? Is his book a part of the conspiracy? Haven’t I asked all these questions before?

Answer the questions, or go back to your poorly-lit room and study all the newspaper clippings and grainy photos that serve as wallpaper in there.

I read that article in the AFJ. Did you? You pulled the quote “ethinic cleansing works” as proof that Donald Rumsfeld wants to engage in that kind of operation.

If you read the entire article, you would have come across this paragraph as well:

“In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism — in some cases, both. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion, we would certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today’s boundaries, offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century.”

This article deals with unjust borders, drawn by European countries, as a source of the problems in the Middle East. If anything, it criticizes the U.S. government for allowing these unjust borders to continue causing problems:

“The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin to correct this injustice after Baghdad’s fall. A Frankenstein’s monster of a state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately. We failed from cowardice and lack of vision, bullying Iraq’s Kurds into supporting the new Iraqi government — which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for our good will. But were a free plebiscite to be held, make no mistake: Nearly 100 percent of Iraq’s Kurds would vote for independence.”

I invite your response, Mr. Aremyfriend.

True Fact:  Jeff King said the entire gravitational load of the Twin Towers was supported by the 47 interior columns.

True Fact:  Jeff King is dead wrong!

True Fact:  Each floor of the Twin Towers was almost an acre in area . . . 40,000 square feet.  Each floor was supported by simple span bar joists . . . some 35 feet long . . . some 60 feet long.  Each end of any simple span structural member MUST be supported at each end unless it is designed as a cantilever (meaning one end is a fixed connection and on end is free).  This is simple high school physics, Diamonds . . . why doesn’t Jeff King know this?

True Fact:  One end of each floor joist was supported by the interior core consisting of those 47 columns.

True Fact:  The other end of those joists was supported by the exterior wall which bore half the gravitational load of each joist that attached to it.  The exterior wall consisted of tube columns as part of a composite wall design.

True Fact:  Jeff King doesn’t understand basic elementary structural design.

True Fact:  Neither do you.

I feel very confident that neither you nor Jeff King can explain how the Twin Towers resisted lateral loading . . . nor can either of you explain anything else about the design of the Twin Towers.

Now let’s see how honest you are.  Answer my question:

Do you honestly think you have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the merits of any argument about why the Twin Towers collapsed?

(Be careful how you answer this, Diamonds.  Your credibility is on the line . . . what little you have left here, that is.)

And by the way . . . none of the 139,000 members of the American Society of Civil Engineers is a member of the so-called Scholars for 9/11 Truth which is has a grand total of 75 warm bodies that for the most part have degrees in philosopy, education, economics and the like.

And remember, almost every single civil engineering professor at every university in this entire country is a member of the ASCE.

Do you understand just how isolated you are when it comes to credibility?

DiamondsAreMyFriend wrote:
Here’s a report written by Steven Jones. He was recently fired from his job as a Physics professor for writing this paper. Steven voted for Bush, and was a Bush supporter until his findings.

Points of interest:

1) BYU physics professor (energy research), Dr. Steven Jones is on paid leave.  “Paid leave” is not synonymous with “fired” (i.e. he’s still an employee of the University).  He is also still found on the BYU faculty list web page).  In the meantime, the University is investigating what further action, if any, should be taken against him.

2) The whole “Bush supporter” thing is a red herring.  It doesn’t add to Dr. Jones’ credibility, or lend any credence to his claims.  It’s like me saying, “I was seriously considering moving to Boston, but changed my mind when I found that the government has a super-top-secret nuclear arms factory--manned by Oompa Loompas--buried five miles beneath the Museum of Fine Art.” Just because I once was a Boston supporter but now am not doesn’t mean that anything I’ve claimed is true.

And a small comentary:

For those who weren’t aware, Brigham Young University is a private college owned and controlled by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).  It isn’t known for being fair and open-minded (especially since non-LDS students pay twice the amount in tuition as the LDS students pay according to their tiered tuition system).  Also, it is known for its academic freedom infringements and questionable conduct toward students and faculty who do not strictly adhere to the Church’s doctrines.

Okay, carry on.

There is always more than one way to look at an article. One way is through a process called “reading comprehension.” This involves reading the words and deriving meaning from them. In this particular case, an important word used in the article is “hypothetical.” That word modifies the phrase “redrawing of boundaries” so that the reader will understand that this redrawing of boundaries is imaginary, and not planned. This point is merely a repitition of what was stated earlier in the article:

Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East’s “organic” frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected.

In this paragraph, the author reasons that engaging in a mental exercise will help us understand the current difficulties in the Middle East. This is neither arrogant, nor fascist, as it attempts to achieve the will of the various peoples involved. Arrogance is accompanied by a sense of infalability, and the basis of this article is that the European powers who divided up the Middle East in the early 20th century did a poor job. It goes on to say that the West is still doing a poor job because we aren’t taking the cultural, ethnic and religious differences in the Middle East seriously enough.

Another way of looking at an article is called “assumption.” This occurs when a person makes a conclusion first, and then reads the article looking for ways to make the article fit his conclusion, instead of coming to a conclusion about the article after reading it.

Are you for real, or is this some elaborate joke cooked up by JimK just to get our goats?

Diamonds, Steven Jones is a physics professor.  He is not a structural engineer.  Therefore, he understands Newtonian physics, but he does not understand how to design a building SYSTEM.

Physics majors don’t take courses in structural steel analysis.  Physics majors don’t take courses in structural steel design.  Physics majors don’t take courses in reinforced concrete design.  Physics majors don’t the difference between a building code and Morse code.

Why are hanging your hat on what Jones says?  He’s as clueless as you are as to why the Twin Towers came down.  Why did Jones or King say a word about the unbraced length of those interior columns?  Why didn’t they tell us how the various structural members in those buildings were fire-proofed.  (What material was used?  By what code was it designed?)

Why don’t you answer these questions for us?

Oh, and you didn’t answer my question about the passage from Dr. Mann’s book.

The plane made a big hole in the side of the building, disintegrating as it did so. You’ve looked at photos of plane wreckage. (The fact that you dismissed them as fake doesn’t enter into it, because you only asked that we show you the plane, not that you believe it.) There, I showed you the plane. Now explain the bodies.

C’mon, out with it. Which Moorewatch regular are you? Your moonbat impersonating talents are legendary, whoever you are.

Regarding that last post, let me put that another way.  When I was in school I didn’t take courses in particle physics.  I didn’t take courses in quantum mechanics.  I don’t shit about superheated plasmas or super-cooled superconductivity.

In other words I’m not a physicist.  And Jones ain’t no structural engineer.

Any eyewitnesses that sas “they saw a plane” – A plane coming in at 500-600 miles per hour. Covering a couple hundred yards at best of visibility if you are in the area, I find it hard to believe these people that swear it’s a plane, and even to say they could “see the logo of the airline” as it passed then and hit the building.

Yet again, the observations of ignorant laymen (ie: Diamonds) being passed off as fact.  Just because you find it hard to believe doesn’t mean others aren’t capable of it.

Not to mention only one jet engine was found, one that doesn’t match the Rolls Royce engine in any 757.

Wrong again.  Are you making this up as you go along?

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:EX5HNx02I2wJ:www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

I’ll spare you the trouble of reading the whole article and cut right to the relevant parts:

The above analysis indicates that the Pentagon debris does in fact match the characteristics of a rotor disk from the Rolls-Royce RB211-535.

It isn’t a question of agreeing. Evidence from the text makes it pretty clear what the intent of the article was. How you perceive the article has nothing to do with it. Of course, rather than provide your own evidence from the text to support your position, you trot out another article.

Regardless of what that other article says, it doesn’t change the intent of the AFJ article, which incidentally has nothing to do with the rest of your conspiracy nonsense, so I don’t even know why we’re talking about it.

If this info is indeed true, and it does seem quite convincing. Why the hole so small then?

There you go again with your assumptions.

I take it you’ve got an abundance of experience examining plane wrecks, correct?  Do you have plenty of prior exposure to what a crashed aircraft should look like?  I’m not talking about what you think it should look like.

I didn’t think so.  So you’ll pardon me if I regard your opinion as completely uninformed and therefore totally irrelevant.  Come back and talk to us after you get a few years experience in examining wrecks at the NTSB.  I think I’ll go with the experts....and the experts far outweigh the conspiracy theorists on this one.

You don’t need to be a structural engineer to figure out that a speeding hollow aluminum tube is always going to lose out against a massive reinforced concrete structure.  Look at the Flight 93 crash site.  That was an even larger aircraft, and it left an even smaller crater.  This whole assumption that plane wrecks need to leave a neat, pretty, and exact silhouette of their fuselage and wing structures is absurd.  I think the people who create these “theories” have seen one too many Road Runner cartoons.

Do me a favor and go buy one of those large styrofoam glider kits at your local hobby shop; one with a 4 or 5 foot wingspan.  Then go toss it through the nearest open doorway you can find.  Surprise, surprise...the wings came off, didn’t they?  Or did you expect there to be a neat outline on the wingspan on your doorjamb?

YES...I realize that is a gross oversimplification of what occurred, but the basic premise still applies.

Ok, I read the OTHER article, which has nothing to do with the previous article, and I think that the intent of that article was to inform the reader about a program that will be televised on the British TV network Channel Four. It also describes the reactions of people to the film. Furthermore, it describes other shows thematically related to the film “Death of a President.”

What I think of the film has absolutely nothing to do with the article writer’s intent. It also has nothing to do with the filmmaker’s intent.

You can ignore entire paragraphs in that AFJ article if you want to, but you run the risk of looking silly when you try to use a partially ignored article as proof of your conspiracy.