JA2340 16 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 More fun than a hat full of ar$eholes! Link to post Share on other sites
spacefrog 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: Journey Man Hehehe, the response to my post will be very telling then! I must not feed trolls 100 times. Funny coming from the man that thinks CNN is a valid news source. Link to post Share on other sites
spacefrog 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: JA Unfortunately, all the conspiracy theorists are convinced by their wacky logic, and there ain't a damned thing you can do to change their mind. Couldn`t agree more, just curious on why they defend the party line to the death. Now that is down to wacky logic. Link to post Share on other sites
Go Native 70 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Posted by Spacefrog in another thread where he got all excited over conspiracy theories around global warming. Quote: As for my academic credentials being relevant I have now idea why but I can assure that I hold multiple degrees in social science from an ancient University. I really don`t see why it is relevant anyway but if you think social science has nothing to do with this you are sadly mistaken.You can`t teach someone who doesn`t want to learn And I bet you got very excited when you saw another opportunity to sprout your ridiculous ideas once again. I posted the above just to remind everyone how qualified you are. Although you still haven't explained exactly what degrees you hold or where we might find this mysterious 'ancient' university that bestowed them upon you. Anyway your words of wisdom are welcome if for no other reasons than their comedic value and they help the rest of us realise just how sane we actually are. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 This subject has jacked me off to the extent that dealing with the willfully ignorant has driven me away for the past week. Coming back, I see that the terminally stupid are still convinced that steel retains it`s full strength until it melts at impossibly high temperatures. The totally ignorant are also convinced that welds which hold in shear when cool are also perfectly sound in tension when at 1000C and at 5% of their cool strength. This continuation of thread has nothing to with logic, and it has no basis in fact. Nothing I posted earlier is in any way controversial. The softening of steel with heat and the failure of welds at red heat is something that has been known to man for the past 3000 years. Mr W and others. I used to hold some of you in some regard as a critical thinkers. I try to avoid pronouncing on stuff (languages, humanities etc.) where I know absolutely bugger-all. My personal failure is to respect others who know more than me in their areas. I now realise that giving respect to others is my own personal failure. Getting a 2-1 in humanities and being able to speak another language really justifies the graffitti over the science dept bog-roll holders: Get your Sociology Degree here. The 9/11 conspiracists continue to demonstrate (melting point of steel etc. etc. ) that they are total incompetents. The Pentagon thing is another example. "N" people saw it happen. The Pentagon had a hole in it shaped like the hard parts (engines, landing gear) of a plane, and aluminium body shed everwhere. It even had the APU (auxuilliary power unit) lying in the quad. One of O11`s links had this turbine mis-identified as a rocket motor. Pathetic. I`m a pretty ratty person. Very short tempered with the willfully stupid who parade their total ignorance of anything practical as a badge of pride. When you can convince me that steel needs to melt to loose strength then I will be convinced. Otherwise continue to demonstrate to the world what total jerks you are Link to post Share on other sites
BagOfCrisps 24 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 No need to get overly worked up about it soubs - probably best just avoid this particular thread when you know it's just going round in unpalatable circles. That's what I do anyway. ( SJ got rid of that white space for you, notice? ) Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 No mate, I`ve kept myself away for the past week. I can`t believe how supposedly educated people can parade their wilfull ignorance with pride. I grew up in the midlands and watched the nonces destroy UK engineering. Having no clue seems to be the way to make money. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Cheers Link to post Share on other sites
journey_man 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: spacefrog Originally Posted By: Journey Man Hehehe, the response to my post will be very telling then! I must not feed trolls 100 times. Funny coming from the man that thinks CNN is a valid news source. And there endth the lesson. Link to post Share on other sites
spacefrog 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: Journey Man Originally Posted By: spacefrog Funny that, Les Robertson the WTC structural engineer says in a TV interview that the towers were designed to withstand a crash of a FULLY laden 707. He then goes on to say they didn`t consider the fuel load. Seriously, a man who designs 2 modern towers overlooks this fact. He didn't, he considered a fully laden 707 at the end of it's flight flying slowly. So light on fuel. Actually the videos I just watched didn't mention fuel at all. Originally Posted By: spacefrog The core of the building in his words was a steel cage made up of 47 steel beams. A cage not a tube! A cage which load bearing capacity would be too strong to just collapse in under 10 seconds! Please provide your sources sources showing that the building was too strong. BTW, even the youTube conspiracy video says it was a tube! Check out and go to 1m30s. Originally Posted By: spacefrog Next the construction of the building was in 3 tiers! so at 1/3 and 2/3 the floors were reinforced to take the load. The pancaking would have had a very hard time getting through the first one let alone the second one. Please provide your sources saying that the pancaking isn't a viable theory. Originally Posted By: spacefrog The jet would never have been full of fuel(not a long haul flight) and most of that would have burnt off in the initial impact. Then we see fire with dark smoke signifying a low temp fire with little oxygen. The fire could never have been the cause to melt the steel core or warp it to the point it would fall in on itself neatly in under 10secs! The fuel thing is discussed in the FEMA report including how much fuel was on the plane, how much initially burnt, how much remained and where it went. Please supply your sources showing how much fuel the plane had and why most if it would have burnt off in the initial impact. The FEMA report doesn't mention melting, just loss of strength. Loss of strength occurs at a much lower temperature than melting of steel - ie melting being when it turns to liquid. Originally Posted By: spacefrog The melting point of steel is way above the maximum temperature that the fire could have reached. Pancaking of the floors would have had a slowing effect as resistance comes into play but yet you think it`s plausible scientifically that it would suddenly neatly collapse in it`s own footprint in under 10 seconds. Surely based on scientific models you must come to the conclusion that it would have taken well over a minute to fully collapse with your pancaking theory. Again sources please showing that pancaking should slow down and also for the mentioned scientific models. Again talk of melting. Melting isn't an issue, loss of strength is. I've read and heard many people saying that the buildings fell into their own footprint. This is false as both towers badly damaged surrounding buildings when they fell. Very sloppy if it was controlled demolition. This link defines footprint as "the total area at the base of the building". Originally Posted By: spacefrog The FEMA report contains many facts that have had science bent in it`s favour. You can say the conspiracist use antiscience, and they do. That report is so full of holes and pushed as scientific fact. It`s disgraceful and the people who propagate it are the conspiracists who try to pull the wool over the sheeples eyes by assuming they can use antiscience that will never be questioned. Please provide sources showing bent science. I don't quite understand the 2nd sentence, but I think you just said that the conspiracy theorists use anti science - errr, isn't this something you would not want to admit to? Actually, what is anti-science? I can't find a good definition. Originally Posted By: spacefrog And Oyuki please watch the following video that uses scientific facts that can be verified by the science community to disprove the official story. http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11&hl=en&sitesearch=#q=911%20mysteries&hl=en&sitesearch= I'm not Oyuki, but I watched this video anyway. It was a clip that reviewed aspects of that day with many sound bites in it from prominent figures. No interesting facts at all - for or against. Spacefrog, I understand that you are totally convinced that 911 was a conspiracy. I get that. I also understand that you would like to show others who do not believe it was a conspiracy where they went wrong. I understand this too. I cannot speak for anyone else, but to get me to change my mind, and I am prepared to do so, you will have to show me opinions and theories backed up with solid evidence. So far you have shown me opinions and theories but none of the evidence. Until you show me the evidence you have very little chance of changing my views. Ok so you think you can conclude I am a conspiracy theorist. And you think I am trying to convince everyone to conclude it was a conspiracy. Well you couldn`t be farther from the truth. I am purely refuting the official theory and not offering any other in place. The opposing theory is no more amusing than the official one. Except the official one was carefully packaged for everyone to swallow without questioning it. And really let`s be honest, this is coming from a country that was born out of false flag terror and has a long of false flag operations. And JM please research by yourself about operation Northwoods. And it is a declassified US military document that can be found and verified. The crashing of remote controlled planes into buildings and blaming it on the cubans to foment war. As for my second sentence, well if you don`t get that you never will so it`s pointless to explain. You think that those huge buildings falling in on themselves don`t constitute a controlled demolition because they managed to damage surrounding buildings. Well since we could all see how they collapsed I would say that they fell straight in on their footprint. The top of one of the towers was slanted and if we apply the laws of gravity then it could never have fallen straight down and should have deviated however it fell straight down. As for the construction of the building, search for the plans!!!!! They can be found online so go do it, I won`t in case you attack the sites I give.So go research by yourself. You will see that the outside structure of the towers was a tubular structure and the inner was a 47 beam steel cage structure. So you can see that the lightest part of the structure are the floors which apparently had enough mass to pancake. If you look at the plans for the building you can see that the building is 3 tiered and to support the weight there are 2 layers of strengthening in the structure. So we know that the building collapsed in under 10 seconds then we are to conclude that all the rivets popped at the same time to let the trusses and light weight floor collapse onto the next one then why do the outside tubular structure and inner steel core collapse? Surely if you apply logic then you and you believe the pancake theory then the core and outer tubular frame should be left standing. OK well if we decide the trusses let go only on the core you might be able to argue the outer tubular frame might go with the floors. However you cannot argue the 47 beam steel cage just going in under 10 secs. Furthermore Les robertson says clearly that they planned to resist an impact of a fully laden 707 which means full of passengers and luggage/cargo, flying slowly o and empty LOL. Yeah passenger planes fly on empty and with the absolute minimum fuel. Seriously look at the Civil aviation requirements and look at united airlines requirements and you will find : 5. MINIMUM FUEL REQUIREMENTS - AEROPLANES OTHER THAN FLOATPLANES OPERATION UNDER VFR 5.1 The minimum quantity of fuel required to be on board before the aeroplane departs, should be calculated and recorded. Only those procedures that are specified in the Operations Manual and approved, may be used. 5.2 The minimum fuel carried in an aeroplane before flight shall be at least the sum of the amount of fuel as indicated below. (a) start-up and taxi fuel; ( sector fuel © alternate fuel i.e. fuel for a missed approach procedure and then from overhead the intended destination airfield to a suitable alternate. (d) holding fuel, i.e. fuel to hold and make an approach at the alternate airfield calculated as follows. (i) in the case of propeller-driven aeroplanes, fuel to hold for 45 minutes and carry out an approach and landing; (ii) in the case of turbo-jet aeroplanes, fuel to hold for 30 minutes at 1500 ft above the airfield under International Standard Atmosphere (ISA) conditions and carry out an approach and landing; (e) contingency fuel i.e. not less than 5% of the sum of Sector fuel and Alternate fuel. Note 1: Account should be taken also of additional amounts of fuel such as those required for power checks, lengthy standard departure and arrival procedures and to compensate for potential delays enroute such as weather avoidance. yes and now you realise that Les robertson says they didn`t calculate the fuel part of the 707. OK so the 767 was never empty nor completely full fo fuel. So we are to believe Robertson that he never even thought that the plane they calculated to crash into had any fuel in it. And as for the resistance in the pancaking theory, well what resistance could that be sheeple? Of course each floor will resist the next and the whole anti science theory that it would accelerate is just unjustifiable. The whole structure is light and if we examine building code for the towers then we should conclude that each floor would be able to carry alot more weight than necessary. I don`t have the figures right now but I am trying to get them. But we should assume that they would be able to hold at least twice the weight they are supposed to for safety and insurance underwriting. That coupled with the 2 fortified layers in the structure and we are still supposed to think the whole tower collapsed neatly on itself in under 10 secs. I really can`t understand how you can think that credible. Anyway this still doesn`t explain the foundations and the molten metal for weeks at the bottom of ground zero nor the sulphur found. And really it explains nothing about the fire crews and eyewitnesses that reported explosions and other anomalies over their 2 ways during the whole event. Obviously they are 911 nutters. Link to post Share on other sites
spacefrog 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: Go Native Posted by Spacefrog in another thread where he got all excited over conspiracy theories around global warming. Quote: As for my academic credentials being relevant I have now idea why but I can assure that I hold multiple degrees in social science from an ancient University. I really don`t see why it is relevant anyway but if you think social science has nothing to do with this you are sadly mistaken.You can`t teach someone who doesn`t want to learn And I bet you got very excited when you saw another opportunity to sprout your ridiculous ideas once again. I posted the above just to remind everyone how qualified you are. Although you still haven't explained exactly what degrees you hold or where we might find this mysterious 'ancient' university that bestowed them upon you. Anyway your words of wisdom are welcome if for no other reasons than their comedic value and they help the rest of us realise just how sane we actually are. Thanks No but I can see you got very excited about ridiculing me again. Oh well and why should I tell you what degrees I have from which university, how is it relevant anyway? Get that angst out! Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Who is Les robertson? Link to post Share on other sites
journey_man 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 One of the WTC design engineers Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 For whom did he work? Link to post Share on other sites
journey_man 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I found this here http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml Height: 1,368 and 1,362 feet (417 and 415 meters) Owners: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. (99 year leased signed in April 2001 to groups including Westfield America and Silverstein Properties) Architect: Minoru Yamasaki, Emery Roth and Sons consulting Engineer: John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson Ground Breaking: August 5, 1966 Opened: 1970-73; April 4, 1973 ribbon cutting Destroyed: Terrorist attack, September 11, 2001 Actually it's a great article, it explains the collapse mechanism of the towers in pretty close to layman's terms. Here is a talk Les Robertson gave about the design of the buildings. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Ha ha! I was only guessing that the conspiracists had sociology degrees, but bang on target. Next time you get out of bed have a piss (into the engineered toilet), wash yourself with the engineered water. Cook breakfast with the engineered gas and electricity. Go to work on your engineered bike/in your engineered car. Ride/drive on engineered roads and over bridges. Work in your engineered environment and go back to your engineered home. Take a shit and exult in the fact that your finger doesn't come up through the bog roll stinking of shit, because an engineer can make paper with wet strength. Now what where you telling us about engineering? Ah yes. Soubriquette is just about to go back into hospital for her second round of surgery. What she needs is a sociologist to tell her that it's a conspiracy. Dork. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The twin towers were 1,325ft tall. In the old money, the acceleration due to gravity is 32ft/per second/per second. In ten seconds, that gives 1,760 feet. Spacefrog: you are full of shit. You can fool your friends, but not me. Prior to the enlightenment, the establishment was based on the rhetoric of the Greeks. People suffered and died in order to establish the difference between what can be measured and rhetoric For every axiom, there are corollaries. If your axiom is wrong, the corollaries will fail. The 9/11 axiom is that the twin towers were designed to be aircraft-proof. The corollary is that their failure demonstrates that "whoever" were conspiring for whatever reason to do something or other. Now, Spacefrog and other masterminds. Please show us the specific details which made the twin towers immune to aircraft impact. I'm not not interested in what your uncles cousin thought. I want to see the technical specifics of the anti-air measures. Unless you can come up with the specific technical aircraft-resistant details, I'm going along with the theory that impact and fire caused the collapse. I'm confident. Bullshit away.. Link to post Share on other sites
Mantas 3 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: soubriquet Who is Les robertson? Didn't he invent the Taser? Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Originally Posted By: soubriquet Here's No1 son aged 1 day This is No1 son a little older Getting conspiracy theories is really important. Idle mind etc. I'll quote myself. No1 son had an APGAR score of 1. He was born dead. Scientists and Engineers made him live. Conspiracists, Sociologists and other wankers can get stuffed. You bstards create nothing. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 It never ceases to amaze me how supposedley educated and intelligent people can be so willfully stupid. I was expelled from grammar school at age 15 for "Not Following the Rules". The Army spat me out shortly thereafter. Not following the rules. The CSIRO made me a Senior Research Scientist, before they chucked me out for not following the rules. I don't buy O'11's standard conspiracy theory. My interpretation is based on my analysis of the information available. I'm not convinced that the failure of the twin towers needs anything other than impact and fire. I am convinced that some people for some reason choose to pick and manipulate information. I'm naive and I don't understand the agenda. I recognise and call bullshit when I see it, and this thread is full of shit. Link to post Share on other sites
JA2340 16 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Don;t hold back, soubs ... let it all out! FWIW I agree wholeheartedly! BTW No 1 son looks the goods! I can recall when my No1 looked a bit like that, cheeky look, tousled hair. Now he's 30+ and living somewhere in the US (I believe). Link to post Share on other sites
SnowJapan Admin SnowJapan 178 Posted June 12, 2008 SnowJapan Admin Share Posted June 12, 2008 There are obviously some very strong opinions and feelings going on in this thread, but lets please keep it on the friendly side of nasty everyone. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The last time I was in New Zealand was on a field trip in South Island. One vehicle was towing a trailer. The trailer had a puncture. 1 1/12 hours after it dropped off, we got back. There were 11 PHds and a bunch of others all fussing over finding the key to get the lock off the spare. They all had the wrong analysis of the problem. The problem was not to undo the lock, it was to get the spare off the trailer. It took me all of 35 seconds and one whack with my geopick to release the spare and solve a problem which had beaten NZ and Oz's best minds for two hours. Afterwards, a really fit Kiwi chick told me I was a useful person. That is one of the nicest compliments I've ever been paid. I should have stayed there with her rather than return to Perth to try to mend a broken marriage. The world is full of clueless dickheads. This thread proves it. Link to post Share on other sites
Oyuki kigan 0 Posted June 12, 2008 Author Share Posted June 12, 2008 7 pages! Mission accomplished! Link to post Share on other sites
RobBright 35 Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 the thing with this, as we can all guess by now, is that some people will always feel the need for alternate explanations or theories, maybe some of the info has been fudged but look at any major event around the world and there is ALWAYS a conspiracy theory. Believe what you want - for me I take both lines with a huge pinch of salt from the local izakaya and mix it all together. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts