It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC Challenge

page: 29
4
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

It looks like a lot of windows were broken out in a short period of time, after the planes impacted.


The early, quick-burning bursts of flame feeding off the large amounts of spilled jet fuel probably knocked down some windows, yes. But do you have any evidence showing that the steady, long-term fires that then set in caused any window shatterings? That is, after all, what determines whether or not those fires actually stayed above 600 degrees Celsius, and therefore had the possibility of weakening the steel sufficiently. The actual shattering is also important, because the glass itself is what's being observed.


So, has anyone here bothered to prepare and submit a comment?


Yes Howard, and you are apparently blind. Stop playing your misinfo bit. Your challenge has been met a few times, despite your refusal to recognize it. You're a stubborn old man. The evidence is throughout this thread.


Well, since you are an expert on sylips, chemtrails, ufos and other bullcrap, Why don't you submit a comment to NIST based on your vast knowlege.


Another attempt to discredit opposition...

And on and on...


For God's sake, Howard, the majority of people around here know the truth
Only the witless dupes are willing to engage your arguments anymore


I have to agree with this. Your tactics have lost their effect, Howard, and it's just getting old, really. You used your tactics a bit too frequently, with actual scientific rebuttals too infrequently. You're just starting to look silly with your one- and two-line rebuttals that just consist of a mocking sentence and a
or two, and a a few
's for good measure.



My mission is to deny ignorance, As long as people like you espouse it, I will fight it.


Have you even once considered that you are wrong, or that the official explanation may have errors? Maybe you actually know WTC 1, 2, and 7 were all demolished, but can't agree with us for reasons that have to do with your paycheck?


It's like the Catholic Church arguing to the very last that the Earth is flat, and the center of the universe. Sad.




posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Here is an interesting sequence of photographs that show what appears to be molten aluminum pouring out of WTC 2 (from the general location of where much of the aircraft debris would have wound up.)



Aluminium has a melting point of only 660.32 °C, Construction Steel has melting point of 1535° C, bit of a difference there. Oh but i'm sure the plastic office furniture raised that tempurature because NIST did a test and said so right Howard? They must of missed the office fire in '75 which spread over 6 floors but did nothing but singe some firefighters hair.

What's your point with those pretty NIST pictures? To show us that Aluminium and Steel, although both metals and both used in entirely different ways in the construction of the WTC melt at totally different tempuratures?

Oh wait, i know what your point is.... circular logic.

There's better molten metal to talk about, like the pools found at the Cores base, what did NIST say about those?? I know the head honcho at Controlled Demolition said that's where he'd place explosives to bring the building down but i guess no one at NIST bothered to look into that.




posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Here is an interesting sequence of photographs that show what appears to be molten aluminum pouring out of WTC 2 (from the general location of where much of the aircraft debris would have wound up.)



Aluminium has a melting point of only 660.32 °C, Construction Steel has melting point of 1535° C, bit of a difference there.


steel looses almost half its strength at 600 C. Did you know that?







There's better molten metal to talk about, like the pools found at the Cores base, what did NIST say about those??


And you have proof that they were not aluminum?



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
steel looses almost half its strength at 600 C. Did you know that?

Seriously, how many times has this been addressed in the last 30 pages?


Here's some extra info that might have some bearing on the topic at this late stage.


Seven Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.


See also 25 Ways To Suppress Truth



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
steel looses almost half its strength at 600 C. Did you know that?


It also regains it's strength as it cools down but anyway....



In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900º C (1,500-1,700º F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600º C (1,100º F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments).
- Appendix A of FEMA's World Trade Center Building Performance Study.


So AGAIN you have NOTHING Howard but a circular logic which is designed to put people off the trail rather than giving them anything real to think about.



There's better molten metal to talk about, like the pools found at the Cores base, what did NIST say about those??

And you have proof that they were not aluminum?


Considering you can't prove they were aluminium, we'll have to take the word of someone who was there:

"This is where clean-up crew discovered hot spots of "literally molten steel" more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, required the help of a professional.

A call was placed to Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) who arrived on the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation

American Free Press asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon."
www.letsroll911.org...

Here's a government link on the thermal hot spots:
pubs.usgs.gov...

That's it from me to you Howard, i'm getting dizzy going around in circles with you.
Keep it real.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
the metal in the sublevels was reportedly steel. hardly anything can be proven except that there is a criminal removal of evidence from a crime scene.

where's the report on the molten metal in the basement, howard? we can't 'prove' anything without a report from FEMA or NIST( femanist? lol). luckily, it is already in an official FEMA report, as you know. why are you pretending you don't know?

gigo, eh? cool word.

howard, this building had multiple load distrubution features designed into it. the 'mosquito net' analogy should not be completely ignored. if one corner was experiencing rather intense heat, (whether from jet fuel or slow thermite reactions), then the building should lean towards the weakened spot. for the building to just start into near freefall, with no perceptible acceleration curve, then we must assume that all support on one floor gave out at exactly the same time. and then we must make another huge list of assumptions, based on assumptions.
the negligible damage to the outside walls(10 to 15 per cent), and the hottest areas of the 'inferno' do not account for an even distiburtion of heat throughout an entire floor, which is the necessary condition for any kind of momentum gaining sudden movement as surmised by the official load of manure.

and lose the 'nobody heard explosions' argument, because MANY witnesses reported hearing explosions. you have a bad memory for facts that don't fit your version of reality.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

It is most likely that these are environment control airflow ducts.



That is my point exactly.

And what are these HVAC ducts connected to?

Fans units located on the mechanical floors

What are the fan units connected to?

Outside air vents.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

It looks like a lot of windows were broken out in a short period of time, after the planes impacted.


The early, quick-burning bursts of flame feeding off the large amounts of spilled jet fuel probably knocked down some windows, yes. But do you have any evidence showing that the steady, long-term fires that then set in caused any window shatterings? That is, after all, what determines whether or not those fires actually stayed above 600 degrees Celsius, and therefore had the possibility of weakening the steel sufficiently. The actual shattering is also important, because the glass itself is what's being observed.



How is it that the flames from the 99th and 100th floor are outside the building if the windows are still intact?



So are you trying to claim that those fires in the above photo were not hot enough to break the glass?


The following charts illustrate the open windows over time



and



Black indicates that the window is open, blue that it is not visible (or undetermined)

Clearly, the fires burned through the windows over time.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Nice defence HR....

There could be two explanations for this though, either the Windows were broken from plane impact, of the fireball expanding outwards broke some of the windows.

I personally think those fires were below 600 C.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   
I believe that the assessment of the windows after the impact means after the fireballs as well, since the intent of the ilustration is to show the extent of the window damage due to fire alone.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Black indicates that the window is open, blue that it is not visible (or undetermined)

Clearly, the fires burned through the windows over time.


Howard, what's important here is not how the fires "opened" windows. That could have happened from any number of things fire does to a window panel when it's burning right up next to it. What is important is how the fires shattered the glass, or that they didn't. Two very distinct and different things.

If that is truly molten aluminum, then that is the first piece of evidence I have seen suggesting that the fires at any point were above 600 degrees Celsius. It's unfortunate that that was an isolated incident, and that the fires began dying down substantially after the jet fuel burned away. During this time, it wouldn't surprise me if some windows had their glass shattered in that corner of the building. Then again, that region was awfully close to the impact, so actually that may not even be true, lol.



I believe that the assessment of the windows after the impact means after the fireballs as well, since the intent of the ilustration is to show the extent of the window damage due to fire alone.


Yeah, it was after the fireballs. But you're missing the point. Think about this: Jets crash into both buildings. Giant fireballs roar out of them both. Then fires get right up next to the windows in some parts of the building, only in the same region that both the jet impacts and fireballs have already affected. Now how many ways can those three things "open" windows without actually shattering the glass from heat? Quite a lot I would imagine. The point of the heat actually shattering the glass itself? Totally missed.

I don't doubt that some windows indeed had their glass shattered by the fire itself, but not very many. That's why I've been saying that there was no widespread shattering of glass from heat. If you look at other famous building fires, this exact thing happens: windows shattering in a widespread fashion from heat. That doesn't mean the window panel fails from heat. It means glass.

And what have you to say to these?


800º C is near the maximum flame temperature of hydrocarbons burning in air without pre-heating or pressurization of the air. Even those temperatures are usually reached only with premixed (blue) flames, such as in gas stoves and blowtorches. Diffuse flames, of the type in the WTC, tend to be far cooler.


I can guess you'll say that there was pressure? Remember that this is before any collapse, so if you say pressure you're going to have to account for where this pressure would have come from. We know the air wasn't pre-heated. The WTC wasn't being used as an oven on 9/11.



Fires would have to be very extensive to raise the temperatures of columns to near the fire temperatures, given the thermal sinks of the steel structures. Columns of the perimeter walls and of the core structures were well coupled thermally. In order to soften columns, fires would have to exceed the capacity of the 100,000 tons of steel in each building to draw away the heat. In fact the fires did not even consume entire floors of either tower.


But I suppose that's nothing new, considering there were no glowing steel beams of any color at the WTC that day. Well, any color besides cold, hard gray, that is.


Heating the external columns would be especially difficult because the columns were situated outside the interior volume, with only one of the four sides adjacent to the building's interior.


Oh, but you're going to say that the fires damaged the core columns mainly. Ok.


Heating of core columns would be especially difficult given the apparently poor ventilation of the core regions, being further from any air supply.


But wait, this directly contradicts that whole mess about the elevator shafts causing those demolition squibs! So wait... what evidence is there then that those shafts could have effectively carried air around the building, let alone cause magical beams of pressurized air to blow out windows?


As the jet fuel burned off and the fires became less severe, the columns would have cooled and regained most strength lost to elevated temperatures.


And that's been covered here as well. The fires, judging by the smoke output, cooled over time. Jet fuel burns quickly.



High-rise buildings are over-engineered to have strength many times greater than would needed to survive the most extreme conditions anticipated. It may take well over a ten-fold reduction in strength to cause a structural failure.

If a steel structure does experience a collapse due to extreme temperatures, the collapse remains localized to the area that experienced the high temperatures.

The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromised by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, conceivably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. But it will not crumble into pieces.


Yet what did we see at Ground Zero but cleanly cut shards and beams of steel? How were they cut into pieces so cleanly? It's well known that this type of steel bends, and only then at high temperatures, but won't shatter unless there's some real directed force behind the cut being made. And again, why were the cuts so clean?


One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the remaining columns.


But how many columns actually failed? Not even a majority. Less than 15% of either building's section of perimeter columns, and the South Tower lost a obvious minority of core columns as well since the plane that impacted into it came out of another side diagonally, totally failing to hit the building head-on! Based on those facts, that less than 15% of either building's perimeter columns were down and a clear minority of the South Tower's core columns, we can say that nowhere near 9/10ths of the columns were out. Even considering we don't know how many core columns were knocked out of the North Tower, the South Tower fell just as easily with almost all of its core columns, so why should we think that either the perimeter columns or core columns had anything to do with the collapse?

Hmm..


[edit on 16-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I’m sure this has been posted before but I think it needs to remembered it’s not just us here at ATS that feel the FEMA is a load of bull

Fire Engineers Call WTC Probe ‘Half-Baked Farce


Snip~~
Fire Engineering magazine, the 125-year old journal of record among America’s fire engineers and firefighters, recently blasted the investigation being conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) of the collapsed World Trade Center as a “a half-baked farce.”

Fire Engineering’s editor, William Manning, issued a “call to action” to America’s firefighters and fire engineers in the January issue asking them to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to demand a blue ribbon panel to thoroughly investigate the collapse of the World Trade Center structures Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires, saying,

“Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”

Manning visited the site shortly after the collapse and his photographs appeared in the October issue of Fire Engineering. None of the photos show the load-bearing central steel support columns standing or fallen, which raises the question, what caused these columns to disintegrate?

“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China,” Manning said, “perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.”

“Such destruction of evidence,” Manning wrote, “shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history.”
Link




[edit on 16/7/2005 by Sauron]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Let's take a friendly look at our buddy Howard's posts on this thread alone in regards to their disinfo tactic use. This isn't meant as a personal attack, but just a simple comparison.

These are the tactics that WeComeInPeace just posted.


1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.


On page 27, TheShroudOfMemphis posts these images showing an anomaly in the collapse of a WTC building:



Howard responds to these images by posting the following:

"Prove it. Offer conclusive proof that these so called blasts occured before the collapses started."

The above quote was from page 27 of this thread; post number: 1534450 (post id: 1556343).

Howard thereby implies that for the graphics to be valid, the explosion would have had to have taken place before the start of the collapse (with "before" in bold in his original post).

In fact, the very video SoM linked to shows that the explosion takes place at the very start of the collapse, not before it. With his remark, Howard avoids addressing this graphic/video directly by simply suggesting it's invalid because it happened while the collapse was starting. SoM never once suggested the blast happened before the collapse starting.


2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.


After being absent from the thread for over 45 posts in which much evidence against the official story was successfully argued (extraordinarily fast collapse speeds, little resistance from steel, cool fires, few destroyed columns, and a beginning into exploring the demolition squibs), Howard jumps back onto the thread with a single rebuttal attempt, and doesn't look back to address any of the other information that had been presented since his last visit, despite his old habit of showing up and making several consecutive posts doing just that.

The single rebuttal to the vast amount of into covered in the 45 posts he missed was directed towards a remark Misfit made regarding half of a floor appearing to blow out. Howard's attempt to explain them:

"Easy, that is the mechcanical floor. That is the air being blown outward through the building HVAC intakes. The air is bing forced down and out through the shafts in the core as the building collaspes."

The above quote was from page 27 of this thread; post number: 1534273 (post id: 1556166).

Howard then returns an hour later and produces the post you see under disinfo tacitc #1. Unlike earlier exhibited behavior, Howard does not go back to address the unusual collapse times or the apparent lack of resistance from the steel frames of the buildings. Neither does he address the small number of downed columns.

He is selective in his addressing of the evidence of cool fires.

The evidence posted regarding the cool nature of the fires was as follows:


A) There was never a widespread shattering of windows from heat as other skyscraper fires have seen. This specifically puts the fires around or below 600 degrees Celsius.

B) The fires did not spread to other floors on their own account (ie, after the initial impact, and the elevator shaft doesn't count). Looking at other skyscraper fires that did reach such temperatures, the fires began feeding on various materials and spread throughout the buildings.

C) There was not a single piece of steel photographed or taped at the WTC that day that was glowing even a dull red, either inside either building during the fires, or during collapse, or after collapse, or at any other point on that day. I've already posted a chart showing what colors steel will glow when placed at certain temperatures. They certainly did not reach the alleged temperatures according to that chart.


In responding to this (only after it was posted several times), Howard addresses only point A, posting diagrams showing windows that had been "opened" over time at the WTC on 9/11 (page 28; post number: 1537063; post id: 1558956). He failed to show how many failed windows were "opened" by heat-shattered glass, and wholly failed to address the other two points.

Howard was similarly selective in his address of WeComeInPeace's post regarding the demolition squibs and Howard's alleged paths of air in the WTC. In fact (and this may fall more under tactic #5), Howard takes a response from WeComeInPeace and makes it his signature, supposedly ridiculing WCIP for something he himself suggested! Not only hypocritical but an attempt to mock and discredit WCIP.


3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.


In terms of this thread, Howard was the very person to make the thread, which is in itself an attempt to intimidate and discredit those who do not buy the government's official story regarding 9/11. Being a newer member here, I don't know Howard's history with the forums prior to this thread, especially in regards to this topic. Maybe someone else can fill this section in with a little more detail.


4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.


I'll give two examples, both by Sven. First, from page 21, post number 1523461, post id: 1545354:

"(psst.....Howard.....y'r the man, great pic's man )"

Second, from page 22, post number 1527662, post id: 1549555:

"The pictures are GREAT [referring to pictures posted as part of counter-arguments to arguments made by those supporting the demo theory]

Must say get great pictures on this thread
[Howard still d'a man...(the cat guy good 2) ] "


As stated, this will occur naturally on forums, but it also naturally aids the disinfo process.



5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.


Here, we have as an example Howard posting the following:

"Well, since you are an expert on sylips, chemtrails, ufos and other bullcrap, Why don't you submit a comment to NIST based on your vast knowlege."

The above quote was from page 28 of this thread; post Number: 1537113 (post id: 1559006).


6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.


Here's a good example of this, posted not too long ago by our HowardRoark:

"My mission is to deny ignorance, As long as people like you espouse it, I will fight it."

The above quote was from page 28 of this thread; post Number: 1537226 (post id: 1559119).


7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.


I'm not going to dig for any examples of the above, though if anyone has any feel free to share. I would expect that Howard has done this before, but from his great preference for being selective (tactic #2), he doesn't do it often.


Again, not meant as a personal attack or anything. Just making simple, honest comparisons.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Speaking with some expertise as I have been involved with highrise mechanical systems for 21 some odd years both new installations/start-up and operating/ maintaining existing systems.

SOME HERE KNOW ABSOLUTE DIDDLEY ABOUT HOW AIR ACTS WITH-IN A BUILDING WHEN IT IS PRESSURIZED

Are any of you demo/squib people degreed mechanical engineers or for that matter operating engineers?

I only ask because some of the theory put forward is absolute quackery.

If you are - your licensure should be in question.

The rest of you (no professional experience) should not guess about things you know nothing about - its getting laughable.



[edit on 16-7-2005 by Phoenix]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Wow, Phoenix. Thanks for that total and absolute rebuttal. I feel so much more informed. x.x



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Wow, Phoenix. Thanks for that total and absolute rebuttal. I feel so much more informed. x.x


Not my job to educate you on what should be easily obtainable information out on the web - why don't you do some research before making unsupportable claims about air movement under pressure with-in an enclosed space including shaftways.

ASME (search word) is a good place to start. "Static Pressure" is another search term that should help you understand.

Good day

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Phoenix]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Just for the sake of argument, I did a search and read up but can't figure out why this happened:



Any suggestions?



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Just for the sake of argument, I did a search and read up but can't figure out why this happened:



Any suggestions?


Yes look up "static pressure" and do the math using the cubic volume of a
WTC floor (not area) x compression velocity and you will begin to understand the forces generated.















9



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Excellent research and comments to counter Howard's and the others lame arguments. In the post by "We comein peace"...where the building begins to explode ( comtrolled demo ) and you can clearly see the antenna on top, there is an enormous amount of debris going straight up above the antenna.....Hmmmm.
Thanks for the disinfo list and the comments. You done good.

Larry



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phoenix

The rest of you (no professional experience) should not guess about things you know nothing about - its getting laughable.

[edit on 16-7-2005 by Phoenix]


That's great. Now show us what's laughable and what's not.

I'd like to see your explanation of how compressed gases exploded windows far below the point of collapse.

Doubting Thomases abound here. If you want to ridicule something, stop blabbing about expertise and waving your hands and show proofs or some theories.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join