REVscene Automotive Forum - Joe Rogan - The American War Machine

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - Joe Rogan - The American War Machine (https://www.revscene.net/forums/635705-joe-rogan-american-war-machine.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 7294982)

I see I wasted my money finishing up my engineering degree this past year. I should simply have come to you and Arash for answers to any questions I had. I want to see some mathematical equations explaining why the WTC buildings would fall over. I don't want some bullshit statements like "That would NEVER collapse on itself" or "place a semi truck on 4 x 1 inch bolts". Seriously? Now we're comparing balancing a semi on bolts to a skyscraper? Do you truthers sit around conducting these stupid experiments to try to explain phenomenom you can't understand (or refuse to even try to understand)?

Prove to me that a building will lean or topple over. Aside from a few low-rise concrete buildings on poor foundations, no skyscraper in history has ever fallen over. So why do you think the WTC should fall over? As soon as one side weakens, the building supports will shear. You should read up on this phenomenom - there's lots of information out there. Once the shearing takes place, the entire structure will lose its ability to support the loads from above and the structure will collapse.

I see you're also complaining about the National Geographic video showing how heating steel weakens beams. You are absolutely correct - the beams the National Geographic used are tiny in comparison to the WTC steel beams, so their video demonstration should no longer be used.

I now fully expect the truthers to remove all the videos from their websites showing thermite cutters (molds used to hold thermite against steel columns to demonstarte it can cut steel vertically). I mean, you guys are using thermite to cut little 1/4" and 1/2" steel girders when the WTC beams are anywhere from 3-5" thick. So I think it's only fair you stop posting those stupid videos as well.

There are many curiosities in the natural world. Things that when people see they wonder how it's possible for that to happen - they simply don't make sense or seem to defy the laws of physics. You can see such things at your local science centre - they make for good demonstrations to make people go "oooohh and aaahhhh". As odd as they seem, they all have simple explanations to show why they behave that way. They are only "curiosities" for the simple person. Same with the WTC tower collapses. They behaved as they should according to the laws of physics. But because they didn't behave the way a "simple" person thinks they should (because they know fuck all about engineering & physics), then it must be a conspircy of some sort.

dangonay, no offense, but your appeal to authority fallacies are getting tiresome. Just because you have a degree in engineering doesn't really mean that helps your arguments. "Show me an equation that it should have fallen over", could easily be turned around to "show me an equation that shows it conclusively would've free fallen!"

It would've have though WTC would have had a partial collapse like this,

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor5.jpg

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor8.jpeg

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/windsor14.jpeg

By the way, how about a response to the debris point I made earlier about your comparision to a crash in the mountains of Pakistan. You seem to thing that 99% wreckage can magically vaporize instantaneously upon impact.

Basically I have no problem w/ WTC1 and 2 falling. I do have issues with WTC7 and Pentagon. There are different levels of 'truthers' as you like to call them.

Essentially all I need to shut me up is simply a CLEAR video or a photo of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

I know there were earlier videos of some pictures of a few tiny pieces of wreckage, but it is not anything 100% conclusive. I think the world needs a video of the plane hitting a pentagon. 3 frames of a blurry video of a stick, and then an explosion, does not constitute anything conclusive.

hey, you know that new port mann bridge? why don't we just get a bunch of BAs to build it. Then they can iron out the design by writing persuasive essays to each other. Maybe attach some pics from google. A couple of schematics in crayon and you're good to go. Gravity doesn't stand a chance against arguments and persuasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³ (Post 7294168)

:Until the US government releases the footage that has a clear view of the strike then all anyone has is speculation.

First off, there won't be any clear footage. The idea such footage exists is pure speculation. Which is also great for truthers - claim something exists and therefore there's a reason they're keeping it a secret (hiding something).

The security cameras weren't high-def and they weren't running at 1,000 frames per second. Any footage would be like what we've got - blurry, grainy, fuzzy. These cameras were in place to catch "normal" stuff like vehicle traffic or faces of people accessing the Pentagon.

Besides, even if they released a video showing the plane, we all know what would happen. Within days some truther with a background in forensic video analysis would have "proof" the video was doctored and nothing more than Hollywood special effects.

You can't provide proof to someone who doesn't want to believe.
Posted via RS Mobile

The Pentagon is one of the most secure buildings on the planet. Enough said. Also, do you believe the wreckage mostly vaporized instantly?

A plane could fly intro Metrotown and we would have better footage than what we have for the Pentagon.

I would love to believe, but the evidence doesn't add up for me. Maybe it does for you, but it doesn't for me, and a lot of people.

You know, there were probably 'truther's' debating the Gulf of Tonkin incident back in the day. No one would have ever believe that crazy conspiracy theory of the US performing a self inflicted wound to instigate a war with Vietnam. But they did. And decades later, documents have surfaced. But it's too late and no one gives a shit. Of course that doesn't mean that 9/11 is necessarily the same, but you can ask yourself this. Do you think there ever have been a war with Iraq if 9/11 never occurred?

Posted via RS Mobile

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 7295714)

wait... so you are telling me that the cameras they had were "blurry, grainy, fuzzy" so they cant show video of a plane hitting the building. BUT if someone is walking around the building they can identify their face with this same camera?
Last I checked a plane was much bigger then a persons face.
While the Pentagon thing doesnt make much sense to me I'm not gonna get into that since the way the building was designed is totally classified.
The other buildings there is lots of documentation on that. The funny thing is you can actually find articles that date back to when the buildings were actually being built so you dont even need to go on a "truther" website.

Or how about his
http://community.seattletimes.nwsour...7&slug=1687698

This is from 1993 when the building got bombed... One of the designers saying the building could withstand a fully fueled 707.
I know you are gonna say that a 707 isnt a 767 which you are right. The 767 is bigger. BUT... Its also slower. And was only carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel (at the time).
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES...comparison.gif
Now if we take the stats of the planes and calculate kinetic energy we will see that

707 - 5622849971 Joules
767 - 5231481666 Joules

The 707 should actually do more structural damage. The 767 CAN carry more fuel but again it wasnt fully loaded while in the simulations they would have done tests on a fully loaded 707.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 7295714)

Bullshit, and now you're being hypocritical. You argued earlier that witness accounts of Flight 77 were concrete evidence. The problem with witness accounts is they can be influenced and the truth altered. A very basic example:

Gov't: "What did you see?"
Witness: "I saw this plane, it happened so fast... I was light in color and flew right over top of me at highspeed. I didn't get a good look but saw a big explosion at the Pentagon!"
Gov't: "That was American Airlines Flight 77! Terrorists hijacked took it over and flew it into the Pentagon!"
Witness: "Oh my god! Really! Oh my god!"

Media: "What did you see sir?"
Same Witness: "I saw American Airlines Flight 77 fly right over top of me clear as day! I watched it slam right into the Pentagon! Crazy terrorist attack!"

All of a sudden a glance of a learjet becomes a supposedly concrete witness account with identification of all markings and tail numbers of a commercial jet liner. There are numerous accounts of government agents collecting tapes from surveillance camera's in gas stations, hotels, or anything else that had a view of the park and Pentagon where the attack took place. People coming and taking tapes is such a basic witness account that it's very unlikely to be faked.

Video can be altered, but something as complex as this attack from multiple angles couldn't be done. Especially trying to match it to existing albeit it crappy footage. Bottom line is video of what hit the Pentagon exists, and the collection of it would be the ONLY 100% indisputable evidence of what really happened. In my mind there's a reason none of it has been released.

EDIT - If it is someday and you're right, I'll buy you a case of beer and cheers you to a good debate.

I never said anything about eyewitness accounts regarding Flight 77 - clearly someone is mixing up my posts with somebody else's.

penner2k, I never said the cameras were "blurry or fuzzy". I said the footage would be. A camera that has a low frame rate and low equivalent shutter speed can take great shots of slow moving vehicles or people stopped at checkpoints while their ID is being checked. Video of objects (planes or missiles) travelling at 500MPH would be very poor quality.

And my original point still stands: If video footage was released, truthers would dismiss it as doctored. The Pentagon is in the same position as a celebrity that gets accused of sexual assault. Anything they say will get twisted around, so the best option is to simply keep quiet. People who believe in a conspiracy will dismiss new footage that disagrees with their position, and people who already believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon don't need any additional proof.

BTW, penner2k, I know full well how the WTC towers are constructed. Why is it that you seem to think the reason I disagree with truthers is because I don't understand their construction? It's specifically because of my knowledge of the towers, and of engineering and physics that I don't believe in any controlled demolition BS.

Why don't you find me some simulations showing the WTC towers getting hit by a 757, and burning for hours and NOT collapsing? Or show me a simulation of the towers collapsing where they lean and fall over?

There are lots of simulations on the internet available to any engineer. I can download a full simulation of the WTC towers and run it on my PC, play around with variables, remove columns, add fires wherever I want and sit back and watch what happens. Why don't the truthers produce some simulations that they themselves have run on a program like LS-DYNA (there are many more available)? They could even take out far more columns than were actually damaged to try and "force" the towers to fall over.

And then they have to "release" these simulations so anyone can go over them and check for errors or omissions that might affect the quality of the simulation. This is exactly what has happened with simulations that support the official position - I can download one and compare it with the widely available WTC blueprints to make sure the simulation is accurate and hasn't been rigged to provide a favourable outcome.

LiquidTurbo previously posted a link to a truther site with over 1,400 engineers/architects that signed a petition. How come this collective group of people (many of which would own finite element analysis software) haven't got together to create some alternate simulations?

JD13, you seem to be coming off as a a moderate truther - not like the hardcore loonies out there. So I wonder, where are you getting your 9/11 information from? I've never seen a moderate truther site, but if one exists I'd definitely go and visit it. And if there are no "moderate" truther sites that accept new evidence with an open mind, then what does that say about where you're getting your information from? Are you going to believe what some "fundamentalist" tells you?

Hey, I found two simulations from a truther site. Check these babies out: :buttrock:

Code:

//

//        Collapse1.java:

//

//        Simulation of Twin Tower collapse times using a model that embodies

//        the "pile driver" concept embraced by Bazant and Zhou

//        (despite the clear evidence the tops disintegrated)

//

//        Assumptions:

//

//        * Each floor is an infinately thin slab, and all the mass

//          of a story is concentrated in the slab.

//        * Mass is uniformally distributed among the stories.

//        * The overhanging portion (eg: 14 floors in the North Tower)

//          falls as a block, with its bottom floor accumulating pancaked slabs

//          of the once-intact floors as it encounters them.

//        * Once the bottom of the block reaches the ground, the floors in it

//          start to pancake from bottom to top, the roof of the tower

//          falling at freefall at that point.

//        * The falling block remains perfectly centered over he intact portion.

//        * The accumulation of floors is inelastic.

//        * Each floor's support vanishes when touched by the falling block.

//        * Momentum is conserved.

//        * None of the kinetic energy of the falling mass is diverted to other

//          sinks (concrete pulverization, steel bending, etc.)

//

//

//        Equation for elapsed time, given initial velocity v, height h,

//        and gravitational acceleration g:

//

//        t = - 2*v/g + sqrt(v^2/g^2 + 2*h/g)

//
 

class Collapse1 {

                                // floors

  int numberFloors = 110;        // number of floors

  int startFloor;                // floor at which collapse begins

  int stopFloor;                // floor to collapse to

  int currentFloor;                // current topmost floor of intact portion

                                // constants

  static double g = 32;                // gravitational acceleration in feet/sec^2

  double h = 12.4;                // distance between floors

  //

  //        utility functions

  //

  public static double sqr(double x) {

    return x*x;

  }

  public static double sqrt(double x) {

    return Math.pow(x,0.5);

  }

  //

  //        compute time of one-story fall

  //        given initial velocity v, and height of story h

  //

  static double timeFall(double v, double h) {

    return - v/g + sqrt(sqr(v)/sqr(g) + 2*h/g);

  }

  //

  //        compute velocity at end of one-story fall

  //        given initial velocity v, and elapsed time of fall t

  //

  static double velocFall(double v, double t) {

    return v + t*g;

  }

  //

  //

  static double timeIntercept(double v1, double v2) {

    return 0.0;

  }

  //

  //        constructor creates an instance

  //        given the floor at which the collapse start

  //

  Collapse1(int b) {

    startFloor = b;

  }

  Collapse1(int b,int e) {

    startFloor = b;

    stopFloor = e;

  }

  //

  //        timeCollapse returns the time that it takes the roof

  //        to reach the ground.

  //

  double timeCollapse() {        // time from start until roof reaches ground

    double v = 0d;                // set initial velocity to zero

    double m;                        // mass of falling portion

    double ts = 0d;                // set elapsed time to zero

    double t;                        // time

    m = numberFloors - startFloor; // set mass to number of stories above

    for (currentFloor = startFloor;

         currentFloor > stopFloor;

         currentFloor--) {

      t = timeFall(v,h);        // time to fall story

      v = velocFall(v,t);        // velocity after falling story

      v = v*m/(m + 1);                // velocity after inelastic impact

      ts += t;                        // update total elapsed time.

      m++;                        // increment falling mass to include story

    }

    if (stopFloor != 0) {

      System.out.println("crash zone to floor "+ stopFloor +": "+ ts);

      return ts;

    }

                                // time for bottom of falling portion of

                                // building to reach the ground

    System.out.println("crash zone to ground: "+ ts);
 

    t = timeFall(v,h*(numberFloors - startFloor));

    ts += t;

                                // time for roof to reach ground

    System.out.println("roof to ground: "+ ts);
 

    return ts;

  }

  //

  //

  //

  public static void main(String[] argv) {

    if (argv.length < 1) {

      System.out.println("syntax: \n"+

        "\tjava Collapse -a <height> <velocity>\n"+

        "\tjava Collapse -p <start-floor>\n"+

        "\tjava Collapse -t <start-floor> <stop-floor>\n");

      System.out.println("\ndescription: \n"+

        "-a: prints time an object in freefall takes to reach the ground\n"+

        "\t<height>: height in feet at start\n"+

        "\t<velocity>: velocity in feet/second at start\n"+

        "-p: prints time to total collapse of a WTC tower\n"+

        "\tfirst prints time bottom of falling top hits ground\n"+

        "\tnext prints time roof hits ground\n"+

        "\t<start-floor>: floor at which collapse starts, eg: 82, 96\n"+

        "-t: prints time to collapse to given floor for WTC tower\n"+

        "\t<start-floor>: floor at which collapse starts, eg: 82, 96\n"+

        "\t<stop-floor>: floor at which to list time, eg: 96 - 24 = 72\n");

    } else {

      Collapse1 that;

      char c;

      c = argv[0].charAt(1);

      switch (c) {

      case 'a':

        double h = Double.valueOf(argv[1]).doubleValue();

        double v = Double.valueOf(argv[2]).doubleValue();

        System.out.println(

          "time "+ timeFall(v,h) +" for height "+ h +" starting "+ v);

      break;

      case 'p':

        int start1 = Integer.valueOf(argv[1]).intValue();

        that = new Collapse1(start1);

        that.timeCollapse();

      break;

      case 't':

        int start = Integer.valueOf(argv[1]).intValue();

        int stop  = Integer.valueOf(argv[2]).intValue();

        that = new Collapse1(start,stop);

        that.timeCollapse();

      break;

      }

    }

  }

}

and another....

Code:

//

//        Collapse2.java:

//

//        Simulation of Twin Tower collapse times using a model that embodies

//        the "pile driver" concept embraced by Bazant and Zhou

//        (despite the clear evidence the tops disintegrated)

//

//        This simulation generalizes the earlier simulation, Collapse1.java,

//        by adding parameters to model the following:

//

//        * A specified fraction of the mass falling within the Tower's

//          profile moves to outside the profile during each story collapse,

//          and thereafter does not participate in accelerating mass downward.

//        * The increasing mass of stories lower in the Tower can be specified.

//

//        With those generatlizations, Collapse2.java retains the

//        following assumptions of Collapse1.java

//

//        * Each floor is an infinately thin slab, and all the mass

//          of a story is concentrated in the slab.

//        * Mass is uniformally distributed among the stories.

//        * The overhanging portion (eg: 14 floors in the North Tower)

//          falls as a block, with its bottom floor accumulating pancaked slabs

//          of the once-intact floors as it encounters them.

//        * Once the bottom of the block reaches the ground, the floors in it

//          start to pancake from bottom to top, the roof of the tower

//          falling at freefall at that point.

//        * The falling block remains perfectly centered over he intact portion.

//        * The accumulation of floors is inelastic.

//        * Each floor's support vanishes when touched by the falling block.

//        * Momentum is conserved.

//        * None of the kinetic energy of the falling mass is diverted to other

//          sinks (concrete pulverization, steel bending, etc.)

//

//

//        Equation for elapsed time, given initial velocity v, height h,

//        and gravitational acceleration g:

//

//        t = - 2*v/g + sqrt(v^2/g^2 + 2*h/g)

//
 

class Collapse2 {

                                // floors

  int numberFloors = 110;        // number of floors

  int startFloor;                // floor at which collapse begins

  int stopFloor;                // floor to collapse to

  int currentFloor;                // current topmost floor of intact portion

  double thicken = 0d;                // mass of top floor as fraction of bottom

  double dispersion = 0d;        // fraction of mass dispersed per floor

                                // constants

  static double g = 32;                // gravitational acceleration in feet/sec^2

  double h = 12.4;                // distance between floors

  //

  //        utility functions

  //

  public static double sqr(double x) {

    return x*x;

  }

  public static double sqrt(double x) {

    return Math.pow(x,0.5);

  }

  //

  //        compute time of one-story fall

  //        given initial velocity v, and height of story h

  //

  static double timeFall(double v, double h) {

    return - v/g + sqrt(sqr(v)/sqr(g) + 2*h/g);

  }

  //

  //        compute velocity at end of fall

  //        given initial velocity v, and elapsed time of fall t

  //

  static double velocFall(double v, double t) {

    return v + t*g;

  }

  //

  //        compute distance of fall

  //        given an elapsed time t

  //

  static double distanceFall(double t) {

    return 0.5*sqr(t)*g;

  }

  //

  //        constructor creates an instance

  //        given the floor at which the collapse starts

  //

  Collapse2(int start) {

    startFloor = start;

  }

  //

  //

  //

  double floorPosition(int floor) {

    return (double)floor/(double)numberFloors;

  }

  double floorMass(int floor) {

    return 1d + thicken * (1 - floorPosition(floor));

  }

  double floorsMass(int top, int bottom) {

    double m = 0d;

    for (int i = top; i >= bottom; i--)

      m += floorMass(i);

    return m;

  }

  //

  //        timeCollapse returns the time that it takes the roof

  //        to reach the ground.

  //

  double timeCollapse() {        // time from start until roof reaches ground

    double v = 0d;                // set initial velocity to zero

    double m;                        // mass of falling portion over footprint

    double e = 0d;                // mass of rubble outside footprint

    double ts = 0d;                // set elapsed time to zero

    double t;                        // time

    double mc;
 

    m = floorsMass(numberFloors,startFloor); // mass of block

    for (currentFloor = startFloor;

         currentFloor >= stopFloor;

         currentFloor--) {

      t = timeFall(v,h);        // time to fall story

      v = velocFall(v,t);        // velocity after falling story

      mc = floorMass(currentFloor); // mass of current story

      v = v*m/(m + mc);                // velocity after inelastic impact

      ts += t;                        // update total elapsed time.

      m *= 1d - dispersion;        // remove mass dispersed from pile-driver

      e += m*dispersion;        // add to dispersed mass

      m += mc;                        // increment falling mass to include story

    }

    if (stopFloor != 0) {

      System.out.println("crash zone to floor "+ stopFloor +": "+ ts);

      return ts;

    }

                                // time for bottom of falling portion of

                                // building to reach the ground

    System.out.println("crash zone to ground: "+ ts);
 

    t = timeFall(v,h*(numberFloors - startFloor));

    ts += t;

                                // time for roof to reach ground

    System.out.println("roof to ground: "+ ts);
 

    System.out.println("mass dispersion ratio: "+ e/(e + m));
 

    return ts;

  }

  //

  //

  void readArgs(String[] argv) {

    int narg = argv.length;

    for (int iarg = 2; iarg < narg; iarg += 2) {

        String flag = argv[iarg];

        String val = argv[iarg + 1];

        if        (flag.equals("--stop")) {

          stopFloor = Integer.valueOf(val).intValue();

        } else if (flag.equals("--thicken")) {

          thicken = Double.valueOf(val).doubleValue();

        } else if (flag.equals("--dispersion")) {

          dispersion = Double.valueOf(val).doubleValue();

        }

    }

  }

  //

  //

  public static void main(String[] argv) {

    if (argv.length < 1) {

      System.out.println("syntax: \n"+

        "\t java Collapse2 -t <height> <velocity>\n"+

        "\t\t prints time an object in freefall takes to reach the ground\n"+

        "\t\t <height>: height in feet at start\n"+

        "\t\t <velocity>: velocity in feet/second at start\n"+

        "\t java Collapse2 -d <time>\n"+

        "\t\t prints distance an object in freefall drops in a time interval\n"+

        "\t\t <time>: time interval in seconds\n"+

        "\t java Collapse2 -c <start-floor> <options>\n"+

        "\t\t prints time to total collapse of a WTC tower\n"+

        "\t\t first prints time bottom of falling top hits ground\n"+

        "\t\t next prints time roof hits ground\n"+

        "");

      System.out.println("\noptions: \n"+

        "\t --start <start-floor>\n"+

        "\t\t floor at which collapse starts, eg: 82, 96\n"+

        "\t --stop <stop-floor>\n"+

        "\t\t floor at which collapse stops, eg: 0\n"+

        "\t --thicken <mass-thicken>\n"+

        "\t\t fractional mass of bottom floor beyond top, eg: 0.5\n"+

        "\t --dispersion <mass-dispersion>\n"+

        "\t\t fractional dispersion of mass outside footprint, eg: 0.1\n"+

        "");

    } else {

      Collapse2 that;

      char c;

      c = argv[0].charAt(1);

      switch (c) {

       case 't':

        double h = Double.valueOf(argv[1]).doubleValue();

        double v = Double.valueOf(argv[2]).doubleValue();

        System.out.println(

          "time "+ timeFall(v,h) +" for height "+ h +" starting "+ v);

       break;

       case 'd':

        double t = Double.valueOf(argv[1]).doubleValue();

        System.out.println(

          "distance "+ distanceFall(t) +" for time "+ t);

       break;

       case 'c':

        int start = Integer.valueOf(argv[1]).intValue();

        that = new Collapse2(start);

        that.readArgs(argv);

        that.timeCollapse();

       break;

       default:

        System.out.println(

          "invalid option: "+ c);

      }

    }

  }

}

I am so fucking stupid. Here I'm telling people to use a finite element analysis program like LS-DYNA, and spend hundreds of hours inputting data on the WTC towers, the materials they are made of, specific dimensions of all construction materials used, and then spend several hundred hours more to model a 757 so you could crash it and see what happens.

All this time I should have just written a short 2 page JAVA applet to do the simulation for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dangonay (Post 7296495)

I never said anything about eyewitness accounts regarding Flight 77 - clearly someone is mixing up my posts with somebody else's.

My bad, somebody did.

JD13, you seem to be coming off as a a moderate truther - not like the hardcore loonies out there. So I wonder, where are you getting your 9/11 information from? I've never seen a moderate truther site, but if one exists I'd definitely go and visit it. And if there are no "moderate" truther sites that accept new evidence with an open mind, then what does that say about where you're getting your information from? Are you going to believe what some "fundamentalist" tells you?

I don't get my information from any specific websites. I've seen a lot of evidence presented from both sides in various forms from video to commissioned reports to diehard websites. I've taken from both sides what I think is credible and formed my own opinions from there in collusion with my own common sense. As stuff gets debunked on both sides only to be re-debunked well.... eventually one side comes out on top.

EDIT - Not going to continue to make arguments. We'll just agree to disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by penner2k (Post 7295786)

While the Pentagon thing doesnt make much sense to me I'm not gonna get into that since the way the building was designed is totally classified.

Not really..

edit:

Attachment 4401

etc..

Quote:

Originally Posted by goo3 (Post 7297077)

Not really..

Hey Troll, intelligent people are having a discussion so this might not be the place for you. Contribute something meaningful or GTFO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo (Post 7275618)

Regardless, there are over 1,400 Professional Civil Engineers and Architects that agree something was fishy over the official statement of what happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo (Post 7295250)

dangonay, no offense, but your appeal to authority fallacies are getting tiresome. Just because you have a degree in engineering doesn't really mean that helps your arguments.

What's the difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiquidTurbo (Post 7295250)

"Show me an equation that it should have fallen over", could easily be turned around to "show me an equation that shows it conclusively would've free fallen!"

I believe I just did. Those equations are software simulation programs like LS-DYNA. I'd love to see a truther put together a simulation that shows how explosives were used to bring the towers down. Too bad they're busy spending all their money on usless propaganda and making stupid movies (like Loose Change) instead of actually conducting their own tests and investigations.

Please, oh please, answer this one question for me:

How come no truthers have ever done a full-blown simulation of the WTC collapse? Where are all their engineers who would have the expertise and ability to do so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³ (Post 7297230)

Hey Troll, intelligent people are having a discussion so this might not be the place for you. Contribute something meaningful or GTFO.

it's a total waste of time and effort

but ur right, i'm out.. not my place to be in your discussion.

omg what has this thread become @_@

I actually spent time last night visiting many of the popular 9/11 websites. After looking them over I noticed two things that stood out:

1. Most of them are read-only. That is, they don't have forums. The few that do are heavily moderated. A small number are open format and promote free discussions. Why is this?

ae911truth.org is the site with the petition that 1,400 architects and engineers (hence the name "aetruth.org"). Why don't they have a forum where all these architects and engineers can share their ideas? Why not pool all that talent into a combined investigation and actually get something done instead of re-posting all the same articles that all the truther sites have?

2. The popular sites accept donations and sell merchandise to make money, supposedly to cover operating costs. Where are the records of donations? Many are registered non-profit corporations.

Why don't all the sites get together and start up an investigation fund? They could form another non-profit corporation and have people donate funds directly there. With all the truthers out there it should be very easy to quickly raise millions of dollars and start their own independent investigation.

Or are these sites just another form of televangelism? Spread the word to the believers, accept donations and profit.

I wrote to several of them politely asking if I can see a balance sheet or something to show where the money goes, as I wanted to make a donation. Anxiously awaiting their responses back.

Update:

None of the 9/11 truther sites I contacted have bothered to answer back after I requested to see their expenses before I make a donation. I did a search of the IRS and sure enough many of them are registered as a non-profit corporation and can issue tax receipts (if you specifically request it - another odd item as I would expect they'd operate like most non-profit groups and issue receipts for any donations above a fixed amount, usually $10 or $20).

According to the IRS, the rules have changed and you are no longer required to physically send a letter to the groups head office to make a request to see their tax returns (and a summary of their income/expenses). Now they are required to respond to e-mail requests, but I guess none of them got my e-mails (or maybe they all got filtered). So now I'm going to physically write them and request to see their tax returns and see what they say.

I did a search for Form 990 at the IRS (which also makes records available online for anyone to see) and none of the truther sites I visited that are also registered non-profit corporations have ever filed a tax return. Maybe they have all incorporated in the last year, and the first filing will be coming up.

Or maybe they make so little money that they are exempt (organizations receiving less than $25,000 per year don't have to file).

Which brings me back to the main site I looked at ae911truth.org, the one with 1,400 architects & engineers who signed their petition.

They claim they have a staff of around 12 who spend most of their time keeping the site operating (it's sort of their full-time job). They also claim it costs thousands of dollars per month to pay for expenses related to keeping their site going. This is why they encourage people to commit to making a monthly donation to help sustain their site. This makes sense, as a lot of charities like regular monthly donations.

However, they also allow people to make anonymous donations of cash or money orders. This is supposedly to help people who are scared of the government finding out they're making donations to a "controversial cause". How convenient - getting money orders and cash in the mail anonymously.

So if it costs so much money to keep ae911truth.org going (and they have been around for 4 years now), then how come they have never filed a Form 990? Their own admission to expenses (plus a stipend to their staff) puts them way above the $25,000 limit required by Form 990.

Well, I guess I'll just have to wait and see their response to my mailed in requests.

I also encourage others to e-mail truther sites that accept donations and politely ask to see how their money is spent. You can do as I did and say you're trying to find someone who is being responsible with the money they receive. Perhaps I was just unlucky with my e-mails. It would be interesting to see if anyone else gets a response to their request, and what that repsonse actually says.

jet fuel doesnt melt steel

there were explosions heard in the buildings before the planes hit

there were no bodies found or big plane parts found at the pentagon

no planes were intercepted

doesnt get more suspicious than that