According to Top Russian General, 9/11 was a Globalist Inside Job

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by hooper

 

Glad you think that you have an "understanding" of physics. Unfortunately it takes a lot more than that to understand a complex event like a massive building collapse.

Things like false flags, espionage, politics, corruption, apartheid, military industry complex, global banking, neo conservationism, zionism, new world order, media consolidation, psychological operations and information warfare also help.

True, they may help.

But in reality they are only foolish desperate concepts that build foundation which could never last.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

The NIST couldn't do that in 10,000 pages.

How would you know? You freely admit that you haven't read the report.

So you can't figure out that computers can do efficient searching.

The NCSTAR1 report mentions the total amount of steel in three places.

But it does not specify the total amount of concrete anywhere.

There is no need to read 10,000 pages of 90% garbage learn that.

psik

psikeyhackr

Some people don't get it because they don't want to get it because they are unable to come to terms with the implications.

Logic, maths, physics will not help with these people and many still argue that the earth is only 2000 years old.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Any mention of the concrete in terms of psf? And you realize that not all of the report is searchable, correct? The images are not searchable.

reply to post by Master_007

Maybe you would like to enlighten us and you might also like to inform NIST with it's perfetic computer simulation that did not stand up to public peer review.

Public peer review???? What the hell is that? Since when is everyone in the "public" the professional peers of the persons who prepared the report? Or did you just mean the tiny sub cult of conspiracists that haunt the internet?

Originally posted by kwakakev
It is reassuring to hear more and more of the international community speak out about this. To Bush and the war criminals, you better get a lawyer son, you are going to need a real good one to get out of this one.

My fear is that bush, cheney, rumsfeld and indeed all the other
major players (and there had to be many) in the 9/11 extravaganza
will answer you in like fashion. Something along the lines of
'We're way ahead of you boyo' springs to mind.

They have had years to plot and are so many steps ahead of
what appears to be coming out now, that i am lead to believe that these
high profile revelations are likely a part of the perpetrators devious scheme-ing.
In 10 years of silence, Why shout now?
I remember writing in a post months ago to beware of a time when
serious testimony and evidence is divulged regarding the 9/11 conspiracy.
I think i viewed it as being a possible clearing house manouvre in anticipation of an
upcoming tumultuous storm. I retain those fears. I will try to dig it out.

No plot or plot devisor hasn't at least a few outs or contingencies in place,
for himself and his band of merry men.

We still obsess over the truth behind events of 50 years ago(JFK) and 10 years ago(9/11).
They have known these truths for 50 and 10 years respectively.
That's how far ahead the NAZIS really are.

reply to post by hooper

Public peer review???? What the hell is that?

It is what provides integrity to the scientific method. I can see why you have a problem with it.

reply to post by pshea38

No plot or plot devisor hasn't at least a few outs or contingencies in place, for himself and his band of merry men.

My main concern is a system of governance I can have faith and trust in. If all these cronies want to live in a deep underground bunker or some desert island, fine. As long as their hidden hand influence is taken away and informed reason is once again allowed to enter the political debate it will be a win.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by hooper

 

Public peer review???? What the hell is that?

It is what provides integrity to the scientific method. I can see why you have a problem with it.

Yeah I have a big problem with that. What else do you feel the general public is qualified to comment on? Maybe you want to pipe in on Appropriateness of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or how about a couple of words with regard to Electrocatalytic reduction of hydrogen peroxide at Prussian blue modified electrode: An in situ Raman spectroelectrochemical study?

I have no problem with public comments or peer review but don't try and conflate the two. There is a big difference.

Originally posted by hooper
Public peer review???? What the hell is that? Since when is everyone in the "public" the professional peers of the persons who prepared the report? Or did you just mean the tiny sub cult of conspiracists that haunt the internet?

Yes public peer review and not paid puppets on some goverment agency list like the ones that gave all the banks tripple 'A' ratings back in 2008 and just weeks before half of them went bust.

E=M C 2 has gone throught this review but the offical 9/11 story would not pass a first year science review

Germans are known for engineering and 80% of Germans don't buy the offical story so when you say " tiny sub cult of conspiracists" may i sugest you research the subject and then consider your statement.

Yeah I have a big problem with that. What else do you feel the general public is qualified to comment on?

The public (So they say) are able to sit as the jury in complicated court cases and whilst they won't all understand everything they are truted to return a result however i can see you having trouble with that or understanding that many people from the general public have ten times more understanding collectivly on a subject than any money could buy and it is they who have blown the offical story to bits and these people have needed to work when much of the details have been blocked by the goverment such as building plans for building that no longer exist because they fell over.

Maybe they think bin-laden will rise from the dead and 'Pull the building' again in a virtual simulator to give himself pleasure.

reply to post by hooper

Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results. Unfortunately, NIST’s only empirical data to explain the eight story buckling, the data their computer model is based on, is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”. So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based. Since NIST’s theory does not explain fundamental facts of the WTC 7 incident and other important facts are so far unreplicated, we can categorically state that NIST’s theory is in no way scientific. At best, it could be referred to as faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST theory is in no way scientific, competent conscientious scientists must reject it in favor of a science-based theory.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

So in the words from NIST "might jeopardize public safety", either means that their convoluted and complex research is so out their that that brain would turn to jelly if another professional could actually understand it or else the public would finally take the wool out of their eyes and put the people behind the attack in their proper place. Maybe it also means both of these consequences.

reply to post by Master_007

Yes public peer review....

No such thing.

....and not paid puppets on some goverment agency list like the ones that gave all the banks tripple 'A' ratings back in 2008 and just weeks before half of them went bust.

So subject to "public" peer review as long as the "public" includes only the right people, huh?

E=M C 2 has gone throught this review but the offical 9/11 story would not pass a first year science review

So have at it, Mr. First Year Science. Where's your review? And "I don't believe it" is not a review.

Germans are known for engineering and 80% of Germans don't buy the offical story so when you say " tiny sub cult of conspiracists" may i sugest you research the subject and then consider your statement.

Uh, sure. 80% of Germans believe that secret government super agents snuck into the WTC and planted explosives and then remoted controlled airplanes.....etc.

The public (So they say) are able to sit as the jury in complicated court cases and whilst they won't all understand everything they are truted to return a result however i can see you having trouble with that or understanding that many people from the general public have ten times more understanding collectivly on a subject than any money could buy and it is they who have blown the offical story to bits and these people have needed to work when much of the details have been blocked by the goverment such as building plans for building that no longer exist because they fell over.

So? The report has been out there for years. Anyone can download it on the iternet. Not only that, anyone is invited to do their own investigation and prepare their "peer review" and publish. Let the public that you trust so much be the judge. Well, I don't know if you noticed but the public has decided and it doesn't look good for the "inside job" side.

Maybe they think bin-laden will rise from the dead and 'Pull the building' again in a virtual simulator to give himself pleasure.

Or maybe they don't suffer from paranoid delusions.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by hooper

 

Another requisite for a scientific theory is that the empirical data the theory is based on must be reproducible by others. Other scientists must be able to perform the exact same experiments and obtain the exact same results. Unfortunately, NIST’s only empirical data to explain the eight story buckling, the data their computer model is based on, is unavailable to independent researchers. It is unavailable because NIST refuses to release it. NIST has stated that releasing the data “might jeopardize public safety”. So because the NIST model cannot be verified, it is meant to be taken on faith. The NIST model, then, is faith-based, not science-based. Since NIST’s theory does not explain fundamental facts of the WTC 7 incident and other important facts are so far unreplicated, we can categorically state that NIST’s theory is in no way scientific. At best, it could be referred to as faith-based pseudo-science. Since the NIST theory is in no way scientific, competent conscientious scientists must reject it in favor of a science-based theory.

www.foreignpolicyjournal.com...

So in the words from NIST "might jeopardize public safety", either means that their convoluted and complex research is so out their that that brain would turn to jelly if another professional could actually understand it or else the public would finally take the wool out of their eyes and put the people behind the attack in their proper place. Maybe it also means both of these consequences.

Don't get it - what with the army of engineers and other professionals all so indignant about the NIST reports why they don't they prepare their own report? What do they need NIST data for? Sounds like a lame and lazy excuse to me.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Any mention of the concrete in terms of psf? And you realize that not all of the report is searchable, correct? The images are not searchable.

Are you saying the pressure in pounds per square foot says something about the quantity of concrete.

The text in the photographs is usually repeated in the text in the vicinity of the photograph because it explains more about what is in the photograph. How is it I could find three instances of the quantity of steel if the photographs are so informative. What kind of photograph would be relevant to the total of the concrete?

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Any mention of the concrete in terms of psf? And you realize that not all of the report is searchable, correct? The images are not searchable.

Are you saying the pressure in pounds per square foot says something about the quantity of concrete.

The text in the photographs is usually repeated in the text in the vicinity of the photograph because it explains more about what is in the photograph. How is it I could find three instances of the quantity of steel if the photographs are so informative. What kind of photograph would be relevant to the total of the concrete?

psik

PSF - pounds per square foot is a measure of weight, not pressure. Engineers think in terms of sqare feet. Not photographs. Images.

Originally posted by hooper
PSF - pounds per square foot is a measure of weight, not pressure....

Wrong again hooper...

pound per square foot
McGraw-Hill Science & Technology Dictionary:
pound per square foot
Home > Library > Science > Sci-Tech Dictionary
(′pau̇nd pər ¦skwer ′fu̇t)

(mechanics) A unit of pressure equal to the pressure resulting from a force of 1 pound applied uniformly over an area of 1 square foot. Abbreviated psf.

reply to post by ANOK


Wrong again - (mechanics). Not talking about mechanics.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Any mention of the concrete in terms of psf? And you realize that not all of the report is searchable, correct? The images are not searchable.

Are you saying the pressure in pounds per square foot says something about the quantity of concrete.

The text in the photographs is usually repeated in the text in the vicinity of the photograph because it explains more about what is in the photograph. How is it I could find three instances of the quantity of steel if the photographs are so informative. What kind of photograph would be relevant to the total of the concrete?

psik

PSF - pounds per square foot is a measure of weight, not pressure. Engineers think in terms of sqare feet. Not photographs. Images.

ROFLMAO What a GENIUS!

Pounds is WEIGHT. Weight spread over an area, as in square feet, is PRESSURE.

You evidently KNOW so much about how engineers think. Unfortunately some actually operate on your level.

Thank you for such an obvious demonstration of ignorance. I will link to it often.

psik

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Any mention of the concrete in terms of psf? And you realize that not all of the report is searchable, correct? The images are not searchable.

Are you saying the pressure in pounds per square foot says something about the quantity of concrete.

The text in the photographs is usually repeated in the text in the vicinity of the photograph because it explains more about what is in the photograph. How is it I could find three instances of the quantity of steel if the photographs are so informative. What kind of photograph would be relevant to the total of the concrete?

psik

PSF - pounds per square foot is a measure of weight, not pressure. Engineers think in terms of sqare feet. Not photographs. Images.

ROFLMAO What a GENIUS!

Pounds is WEIGHT. Weight spread over an area, as in square feet, is PRESSURE.

You evidently KNOW so much about how engineers think. Unfortunately some actually operate on your level.

Thank you for such an obvious demonstration of ignorance. I will link to it often.

psik

Really? Don't you get it? Pounds per square feet? Building materials? Not pressure - that's mechnical, think about building designers. Good Lord - do you need a map? Think weight of materials within the context of a specific design. Please, please link this. You've been asking the same stupid question for God knows how long, you refuse to read the reports about the buildings, and you can't understand a simple concept like so many pounds per square foot of certain building materials per level or floor.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Any mention of the concrete in terms of psf? And you realize that not all of the report is searchable, correct? The images are not searchable.

Are you saying the pressure in pounds per square foot says something about the quantity of concrete.

The text in the photographs is usually repeated in the text in the vicinity of the photograph because it explains more about what is in the photograph. How is it I could find three instances of the quantity of steel if the photographs are so informative. What kind of photograph would be relevant to the total of the concrete?

psik

PSF - pounds per square foot is a measure of weight, not pressure. Engineers think in terms of sqare feet. Not photographs. Images.

ROFLMAO What a GENIUS!

Pounds is WEIGHT. Weight spread over an area, as in square feet, is PRESSURE.

You evidently KNOW so much about how engineers think. Unfortunately some actually operate on your level.

Thank you for such an obvious demonstration of ignorance. I will link to it often.

psik

Really? Don't you get it? Pounds per square feet? Building materials? Not pressure - that's mechnical, think about building designers. Good Lord - do you need a map? Think weight of materials within the context of a specific design. Please, please link this. You've been asking the same stupid question for God knows how long, you refuse to read the reports about the buildings, and you can't understand a simple concept like so many pounds per square foot of certain building materials per level or floor.

But the floors were steel pans and trusses so it was not just the weight of concrete. So you still don't have the weight of the concrete in the towers. We know they used 110 lb per cu ft and 150 lb per cu ft. But the total weight in the towers is still not specified.

psik

psik