The Physics Community Is A Historical Laughing Stock

wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Schoenfeld wrote:
As you've seen, trying to convince those who claim to be objective -
physicists/engineers/etc - with physics evidence is not going to work.
Why?

I haven't seen that. The physics evidence you have cited was about
WTC-7. The official story now seems to be that WTC-7 was intentionally
demolished. Your physics evidence is fine, though without some
expertise in demolitions, I doubt many people would be entirely
convinced either way. And I can understand your frustration that this
interesting detail has not been in the news to my knowledge.

In fact, in the weeks after the attack, ISTR hearing news articles on them
doing a controlled demo of WTC-7 to avoid its uncontrolled collapse from
damaging other structures in the area (or killing people as the Wall Street
area returned to normal commerce). Perhaps it was on the Nova program that
aired a few months later discussing the science of the collapse of the
towers.


Well, that is a great relief to me. Someone should add that to the
Wikipedia article on conspiracy theories.

He's tilting at windmills, as evidenced by the fact that he has concocted
this whole big conspiracy theory about the entire event, based on the video
of the collapse of one relatively minor building.

Eric Lucas

And I'm not sure he schoenfeld isn't just repeating information he's
heard elsewhere. The sites he has referenced give the idea that his
version of the story is getting around, and that people are falling for
it. Obviously, the first person to put it together was dishonest, but
I could also imagine that fairly intelligent people could fall for it.


In fact, I've seen several fairly intelligent people tell Schoenfeld he
was an idiot, then play right into the conspiracy by saying, (a) no way
that explosives for a controlled explosion could have been set up so
fast, and (b) "pull it" is not industry jargon for controlled
explosion--he was talking about pulling the fire department. Both are
incorrect, and either answer will only throw fuel on the flames of the
conspiracy theorists.

Also, it points to an extraordinary oversight on the part of Ramon
Gilsanz, Edward M. DePaola, Christopher Marrion, and Harold "Bud"
Nelson, who apparently did this report without consulting anybody who
had any idea what actually happened.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf .

I can't necessarily blame the authors though, because in my experience
of working on projects for government agencies, your corporation gets a
large sum of money, and the people who are actually doing the work are
only allowed to communicate with the government through the project
manager who refuses to bring any of your concerns to the government
agency, because of the extraordinary loss of capitol that might
involve.

Of course, after Hurricane Katrina, FEMA became the media's favorite
punching bag, so it should be no surprise to anyone that their report
on WTC-7 missed the single most important detail.

*sigh*

Koobee Wublee wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:

Hey, Doofus, posting crap 3 times just makes it 3 times as crappy! Stop the
damn spam!

Here is one for Doofus.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...gon/index.html

This might be the tip of the iceberg regarding anomalies in the
official story of 911.

This article has the potential of being very interesting, but it is
written in a very bland manner. It would be much more interesting if
it had a list of the mistakes and corrections that were made, as a
matter of public record.

It seems rather logical that if you were covering something up, you
would begin by covering up everything, and then as it became clear that
certain items were being revealed, it would be a simple matter to
revise your reports and point to the incompetence of the original
investigators.

As the flags on our bumpers begin to get covered in road dust, perhaps
more people will be willing to ask the questions they have been
avoiding, and the information they think is interesting.

wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Schoenfeld wrote:
As you've seen, trying to convince those who claim to be objective -
physicists/engineers/etc - with physics evidence is not going to work.
Why?

I haven't seen that. The physics evidence you have cited was about
WTC-7. The official story now seems to be that WTC-7 was intentionally
demolished. Your physics evidence is fine, though without some
expertise in demolitions, I doubt many people would be entirely
convinced either way. And I can understand your frustration that this
interesting detail has not been in the news to my knowledge.

In fact, in the weeks after the attack, ISTR hearing news articles on them
doing a controlled demo of WTC-7 to avoid its uncontrolled collapse from
damaging other structures in the area (or killing people as the Wall Street
area returned to normal commerce). Perhaps it was on the Nova program that
aired a few months later discussing the science of the collapse of the
towers.

You are confused. WTC 7 collapsed on afternoon of 9/11. It was WTC 6
which was demolished weeks later. Ironically, WTC 6 suffered major
fires and burned for a few days (I believe) and it did not collapse.
There is significant evidence suggesting WTC 6 was intentionally set on
fire - mysterious smoke was eminating from this building on 9/11. It
also housed FBI/CIA/etc buildings.

He's tilting at windmills, as evidenced by the fact that he has concocted
this whole big conspiracy theory about the entire event, based on the video
of the collapse of one relatively minor building.

You're trying to find refuge in details irrelevant, comfort in
complexity. Just look at the simple picture - WTC 7 freefell into
itself, 6 hijackers are still alive, pentagon hole too small for
airliner, and on and on..

Check this film out:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...93973848835726






Eric Lucas

"the article was bland?"

the 9/11 Commission Report has a dysclaimer
at the very beginning, that
they were not allowed to interview anyone, or
to interview those who interviewed anyone.

(thanks to Bob Scheer,
who was plugging his latest book).

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...gon/index.html

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...litude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/33...o_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf

nolo contendre?

I rememberd the name of the magazine,
with the totally-apt one-sentence comparison
between controlled & uncontrolled (my sic, or "sik") demolition:
the current *Innovation and Technology*, which I think is published
by MIT, on the remains of the Murrah Federal Building.

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...litude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/33...o_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf

wrote:
"the article was bland?"

In that it did not mention nor address a single question or concern
except that information has been corrected. Considering the level of
evidence that has come to light, suggesting that all three towers were
brought down by explosives, that all fighter jets were removed from the
area of interest, that the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile,
rather than a Boeing 757, in the only area reinforced to withstand such
a hit, that a hundred billion dollars worth of gold was stored under
the WTC towers, of which 200 million dollars worth was recovered after
the mayor had the material sent overseas, that cell phones do not work
in airplanes 3 to 6 miles in the air, etc. I would say the article is
very bland in the face of the concerns of the curious.

One might read it and get the sense that these questions were now
addressed, and it wasn't really that interesting, anyway.


the 9/11 Commission Report has a dysclaimer
at the very beginning, that
they were not allowed to interview anyone, or
to interview those who interviewed anyone.

(thanks to Bob Scheer,
who was plugging his latest book).

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...gon/index.html

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...litude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/33...o_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf

Schoenfeld wrote:
wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message
oups.com...
Schoenfeld wrote:
As you've seen, trying to convince those who claim to be objective -
physicists/engineers/etc - with physics evidence is not going to work.
Why?

I haven't seen that. The physics evidence you have cited was about
WTC-7. The official story now seems to be that WTC-7 was intentionally
demolished. Your physics evidence is fine, though without some
expertise in demolitions, I doubt many people would be entirely
convinced either way. And I can understand your frustration that this
interesting detail has not been in the news to my knowledge.

In fact, in the weeks after the attack, ISTR hearing news articles on them
doing a controlled demo of WTC-7 to avoid its uncontrolled collapse from
damaging other structures in the area (or killing people as the Wall Street
area returned to normal commerce). Perhaps it was on the Nova program that
aired a few months later discussing the science of the collapse of the
towers.

You are confused. WTC 7 collapsed on afternoon of 9/11. It was WTC 6
which was demolished weeks later. Ironically, WTC 6 suffered major
fires and burned for a few days (I believe) and it did not collapse.
There is significant evidence suggesting WTC 6 was intentionally set on
fire - mysterious smoke was eminating from this building on 9/11. It
also housed FBI/CIA/etc buildings.

He's tilting at windmills, as evidenced by the fact that he has concocted
this whole big conspiracy theory about the entire event, based on the video
of the collapse of one relatively minor building.

You're trying to find refuge in details irrelevant, comfort in
complexity. Just look at the simple picture - WTC 7 freefell into
itself, 6 hijackers are still alive, pentagon hole too small for
airliner, and on and on..

Check this film out:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...93973848835726






Eric Lucas

That was a very good film, and I also enjoyed the soundtrack. It may
have a few red herrings, (Just how many of the people on Flight 93 were
using cell phones and how many were using the onboard passenger
phones?) but there are definitely some questions brought up that I
certainly can't answer.

When you really start thinking about reinforced steel girders this does
begin to become a fairly interesting materials problem. I don't have
any idea what they should have done but to be pulverized into segments
that could be easily put into trucks and shipped away is definitely
more than a little suspicious.

And I do feel a little foolish that I could see right through the whole
"ignore the exit polls even though they've been right in every election
that Bush wasn't involved in" but I couldn't see through this one.

in addition to my earlier cite of the Murrah Bldg. demolition,
I just found another, local example:
the hulk of the San Pedro Trade Center was demolished,
after years of languishing with For Lease signs,
reportedly with five pounds of explosives. only five pounds, but
it took all of 8 seconds for this, maybe, ten-story girderwork
(most of the structure was removed around it, except
for the two gigantic concrete cores) to fall,
sort of listing to one side as it went.

the Pentagon is a massively concrete structure,
not the lightwieght (plane-like) stuff of skyscrapers!

never thought about cellphones in planes,
since I don't have one. does "everyone" confirm this
from practical experience -- no surfing in flight?

evidence that has come to light, suggesting that all three towers were
brought down by explosives, that all fighter jets were removed from the
area of interest, that the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile,
rather than a Boeing 757, in the only area reinforced to withstand such
a hit, that a hundred billion dollars worth of gold was stored under
the WTC towers, of which 200 million dollars worth was recovered after
the mayor had the material sent overseas, that cell phones do not work
in airplanes 3 to 6 miles in the air, etc. I would say the article is
very bland in the face of the concerns of the curious.

thus:
actually, I "substituted variables,"
only using the same variable-names,
based on what I always do with these things,
part of which you can get an insight into
by looking at Wilderberger's (sp.?) method
of deploying pythagorean theorems;
he only has the first parts of his book online,
though. that is,
I just did not "interpolate" some extra factors,
only to get "4D" on the left-hand side;
they were reconstructed on a more natural footing,
possibly.

is anyone bothering with this --
guess which circle to use; like,
there're really only three "main" choices, although
the number of neat circles related to the trigon, and
spheres to the tetragon/tetrasteron/tetrahedron, are unlimited.

4D = d(p+q+r),
16D^2 = (p+q+r)pqr;

second-powering the top equation, we can get:

d^2 = pqr/(p+q+r);

so, we ask, what is the name for p+q+r,
which can be treated as one variable,
for some things?... well, there should be one "hint;"
when I say, constructed, I obviously mean in the way
that these things were first proven, using compasses;
that is to say,
what sort of circle(s) do you need to make,
"given a certain trigon?"

--it takes some to jitterbug!
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...litude.W05.pdf
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synerg...s/plate01.html
http://larouchepub.com/other/2006/33...o_science.html
http://www.wlym.com/pdf/iclc/howthenation.pdf

"Schoenfeld" wrote in message
ps.com...

dda1 wrote:
Schoenfeld wrote:


hmm... you're right.. and how could've them arabs snuck in and put all
those explosives in there anyways?



Do you suck arab cock? Daily?

Reality crumbling all around you, crackpot Varney? Don't worry, under
your Patriot Act II are canniving little terrorist, maybe you'll get a
chance to suck some "arab cock" at guantamo bay with your friends at
NIST..


Well, this is getting quite out of hand ... If we try and ignore all the
irrelevent thinsg like party affiliation, Arab Cock, Gitmo ... all that
nonsense, there are still a thousand anamolies like ... the first article
.... the freefall of a ~100 story building in a symetrical fashion ... WTC 1&
2 coming down in around 10 seconds ...

Didn't the buildings have sprinklers .... Also, they were designed to
withstand a 707 impact, this shouldn;t have been that much worse ....

To me, brethern, this couldn't be any simpler ... there is NO way a plane
impact could bring down a building like that ... planes are mostly aluminum
and buildings are steel and concrete ....... Let's stop fighting about
bull****, and just remember that you can't trust big brother
..................

Ace

"AWAIS KHAN" wrote in message
news:gzKCg.85305$Lh4.18715@trnddc02...
| Didn't the buildings have sprinklers ...

Yes.

Also, they were designed to withstand a 707 impact,

Nonsense. Absolutely NOT. Get your head out of your arse.

Androcles