posted 02-06-2004 02:48 PM            

Some interesting reading.

http://www.gostructural.com/V3N7/WTC.pdf
http://www.politrix.org/foia/wtc/wtc-collapse-rc.htm

here is an interesting discussion from shortly after the fact. Be sure to read all of the comments for a variety of viewpoints. The comment about the failure of the visceoelastic dampers is particularly interesting.
http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/7184.html

posted 02-06-2004 02:53 PM            

SAYS YOU.

Not all of them agree with you.

The whole entire event is one big coverup as far as im concerned.

posted 02-06-2004 03:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
LARSON: [b]Hey, Mech, you can believe whatever version you want. However, just every structural engineer and architect has already figured it out already.

SAYS YOU.

Not all of them agree with you.

The whole entire event is one big coverup as far as im concerned.

The government WAS involved.[/B]

---

Yeah, that is right, in every group of a milion pluss people (engineers, architects, etc.) There is bound to be a few kooks.

posted 02-06-2004 04:27 PM            

Don't you know how to place quotes correctly?

Sounds to me like you're getting real close to baiting a moderator.

Have you spoke to Every building engineer in the world?

Didn't think so.

All I see you doing is here is apologizing for BushLaden Productions, and you are a one-trick pony as far as I'm concerned.

posted 02-06-2004 04:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by JerseyBluEyz:
Wolf: There is a lot of suspicious and coincidental events surrounding 9/11. Even you should be able to admit that much!

---

No, I don't think so.

quote:

---

BTW, did you ever find an answer to why there was molten steel in the basement?

---

To begin with. I dispute the claim that there was molten steel at the bottom of the shaft. The only evidence to this is one unsubstantiated claim.

Now, it is entirely possible that there was something that melted and pooled in the elevator, but I have not seen any metallurgical reports confirming that it was in fact steel.

Furthermore, even if it was in fact a melted metal, I don’t see anything unusual about that. Consider that the heat of the fire was likely intensified by the “blast furnace” effect as the top of the building drove down like a huge piston.

Here is an interesting bit of info:
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

One thing that the article fails to mention is that sulfur is a common component in drywall, rubber and plastics.

posted 02-06-2004 04:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by swamp gas:
Larson,

Don't you know how to place quotes correctly?

Sounds to me like you're getting real close to baiting a moderator.

Have you spoke to Every building engineer in the world?

Didn't think so.

All I see you doing is here is apologizing for BushLaden Productions, and you are a one-trick pony as far as I'm concerned.

That is why you will NEVER see the big picture, and NEVER take into account every anomaly that has been intelligently and logically demonstrated by the skeptics of the "official" NBCIABCBSCNNFOX media and BushCo brainwashers.

---

You are the one who is baiting now

And in the FWIW department, a “Building Engineer” (or Stationary Engineer) is not the same as a Structural Engineer. A building engineer’s job is to operate a building’s boilers and HVAC systems. A structural Engineer’s job is to design buildings using known and proven science and engineering principles.

So, Swamp, find me a structural engineer within 100 miles of where you live who believes in the explosive demolition theory.

posted 02-06-2004 06:31 PM            

Responding to the complaints about the MIT professor wishing to remain anonymous, I'd first like to say that I knew that would be an issue that'd be brought up by critics here. I did not ask him for his reasons for wishing to remain anonymous, I simply respected his wishes. The man has gone very publically on-record saying the same things as he told me, so it's not that he's unwilling to stand behind his statements. Many of his documents supporting the same explanation have been widely published. My guess is that he simply does not want to get personally entangled in a conspiracy debate or have his name associated with it. There are many people in academia who, rightly or wrongly, find conspiracy theories folly and a waste of time. It's not surprising that a distinguished engineering professor would want to distance himself from such associations. He did invite me to cite him in the works he has published but I chose to use his email since I felt it more concisely explained the scenario. The fact that he prefers to remain anonymous does not detract from the usefulness of his words. They're certainly more useful than our words here.

Those who would use this man's anonymity as an excuse to reject his learned input or who would like to see fancy physics calculations (regardless of whether or not you actually understand them) would be well-off refering to the paper I cited in my original post, Bazant and Yong Zhou. This paper says everything that the MIT professor said, but makes the case mathematically and the authors are not anonymous. In this case, I thank the MIT professor for simply putting Bazant's work in every-day English since Bazant's work is very numerical--but you may simply take the professor's input as a physics-to-English translation of Bazant's work.

Regarding the accusation of MIT not being credible, I won't even touch that other than to say that Bazant (resume) is a Civil Engineer with a PhD in Structural Mechanics and does not work for MIT. He teaches the classes "Inelastic Analysis of Structures", "Stability of Structures", and "Fracture of Concrete" at Northwestern. His resume indicates that "The current investigations include some rather fundamental problems in the field of quasibrittle fracture and damage mechanics, interfaces with chemo-mechanics, chemical reaction kinetics, diffusion, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, problems of scaling and asymptotic properties of all these phenomena, and structural reliability." I'd be hard-pressed to find someone better-suited for the analysis of a building collapse. Certainly Bazant is a more-appropriate source on building collapses than Derrick Grimmer, who may have a PhD but it appears that he works in the Microelectronics Research Center--which has nothing to do with physics or building structures.

The suggestion that the simple fact of working with the Defense Department automatically taints the credibility of an individual or association is absurd and paranoid. Obviously the conclusion one draws is that any source that supports the publically-accepted version of events will eventually be found to have some tie, past or present, to someone or some organization which someone here deems suspect. Then all we'll have left is conspiracy sources and PhDs like LeBreton from the Star*School Technological University. But at least they'll all agree with the conspiracy theory.

posted 02-06-2004 07:21 PM            

BULL$#!+.

I guess those NASA THERMAL IMAGES of the WTC site showed a pool of freaking cold jello...eh Wolfie?

posted 02-06-2004 07:26 PM            

I dont see it that way LEX.

I consider it just another possiblity of HOW the buildings were INTENTIONALLY demolished.

Certainly 2 hijacked planes didnt take them down. If some engineers want to turn engineering on its head to defend LORD BUSH and our corrupt govt.that's their perogative. I'm not buying it.

posted 02-06-2004 07:57 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
Lexta2000: "No one has acknowledged the fact that the initial post by Mech has been discredited."

Mech: I dont see it that way LEX. I consider it just another possiblity of HOW the buildings were INTENTIONALLY demolished.

---

Heheh, well, I guess that really says it all. In other words, it doesn't matter whether or not anything is true or completely made up. As long as it offers something besides reality to consider.

quote:

---

Certainly 2 hijacked planes didnt take them down. If some engineers want to turn engineering on its head to defend LORD BUSH and our corrupt govt.that's their perogative. I'm not buying it.

---

"Some engineers?" Basically all of them. A few turn engineering on its head to fuel conspiracy theories. Others write false articles like the one I discredited with a simple phone call. Others come up with far-flung conclusions about NEXRAD radars picking up HAARP transmissions rather than simple radar anomalies.

The common thead is that none of it is based in reality and the slightest amount of real investigation will reveal this to the person interested in purusing it. But like you said above, that doesn't matter. All you really are looking for is some "other possibility." That's not reality, that's an escape from reality.

quote:

---

I certainly WON'T give up MY Constitutional rights that I swore to protect.

---

posted 02-06-2004 08:44 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mech:
LARSON: [b]"To begin with. I dispute the claim that there was molten steel at the bottom of the shaft. The only evidence to this is one unsubstantiated claim."

BULL$#!+.

I guess those NASA THERMAL IMAGES of the WTC site showed a pool of freaking cold jello...eh Wolfie?

I suppose you ALSO believe there are WMD in Iraq?

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 02-06-2004] [/B]

---

posted 02-06-2004 10:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:
You are the one who is baiting now

---

Poor Wolfie, can't take what he puts out. Awwwwww! Instant Karma, as the Man said.

Don't call anybody "kooks". "idiots", and "paranoid" (Lexie), and nobody will Donkey Kick you back.

What don't you Neo-Con Supporters understand? This is all OPINION. Wolfie's opinion, Lexie's opinion, Boomer's opinion, Shatoga's opinion.

To address Lexie's, we are "paranoid" claim about the Military-Industrial Complex, how could a military contractor have an unbiased opinion of structural damage, if their bread and butter is dependant on towing the line of the pentagon? This is one of the most gullible, little boy fantasies I've ever heard.

Would either of you two "Coincidence Theorists" like to address every other bizarre event connected with 9/11, since the structural argument is going nowhere, with both sides at a standstill.

1) Pristine Passport of Atta on WTC ground.

2) Identification less than 1 week after 9/11of 19 highjackers, with 1 horrible picture, and no real names used. Both the British and U.S. media reported that several of the individuals, identified as hijackers by the FBI, have been found alive. Thierry Meyssan noted that “Prince Saud Al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, declared to the press that, 'It has been proven that five of the persons named in the FBI's list had no connection with what happened'” (2002, pp. 54-55, italics in the original). Indeed, how was it possible for the FBI to be caught by surprise and then produce the names of the alleged hijackers within twenty-four hours following the attacks? There are two possibilities: the FBI made up the names or assisted the hijackers in boarding the planes. Either way, complicity is implied. Questions about who were on the planes are prime examples of the kind of information that is easily verified or refuted but neither has been done officially.

3) Osama bin Laden was unofficially convicted of the attacks within a time frame that could not possibly have allowed any intelligence to have been gathered which supported the accusation. That is, it would be impossible if they did not already have that information. It is impossible for the Bush Administration to have had no warning of an operation that must have been very difficult to keep secret, but then be able to name the culprit in less than a day. Either the charges are contrived, or the government agencies had some forewarning of the attacks, even if it was not specific, and either way, it raises more questions about government agencies' complicity. It is nearly impossible that bin Laden was involved except in the capacity of complicity with U.S. authorities or at best, in the context of the current Administration knowing all along his plans and deliberately allowing him to carry them out. From the beginning no convincing evidence against bin Laden has been made public. Up until mid-December, there was nothing but the continued repetition of his name. Steve Grey reports that an official document from the U.K. government detailing allegations against bin Laden provides no convincing evidence. Of the sixty-nine points of “evidence” cited, ten relate to background information about the relationship between bin Laden and the Taliban. Fifteen relate to background information regarding the general philosophies of al-Qaeda, and its relationship to bin Laden. None give any facts concerning the events of 9/11. Most do not even attempt to directly relate anything mentioned to the events of that day. Twenty-six list allegations relating to previous terrorist attacks. Even if bin Laden were convicted of previous terrorist attacks, it is well known that this fact alone would not stand up in a court of law as evidence for involvement of September 11th. Within less than four hours of the attacks, the media were fed comments that assumed bin Laden's guilt and were made on the basis of events that could not possibly have occurred. The Pentagon and the Department of Defense used dialogue attributed to bin Laden, in an effort to incriminate him, while refusing to release all of the dialogue and refusing to issue a verbatim, literal translation. On December 13, 2001 the Bush Administration offered an alleged “confession” tape as the only evidence, and this has simply been accepted by many in the media and in the general population as sufficient to declare guilt. But a fake tape is easily produced with today's technology. The Fake Bin Laden Video, with the analog edit scan lines gone, and replaced with digital edits. Sound in room was analog, but placed on digital tape. Unlikely this was Bin Laden. Nose and cheekbones absolutely did not match.Thus, against the backdrop of the many reported denials by bin Laden that he was involved in the attacks, there are few reasons to accept this “evidence” as convincing.

4) Hussein was not involved in 9/11, contrary to media and White House propaganda to the contrary.

5) No WMD found

6) Niger uranium fabrication

7) Planting of Koran and Video in Boston

8) Several weeks prior to September 11th, all internal U.S. security agencies were warned of the impending al-Qaeda attacks. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was warned of the possible attack but did nothing to beef up security. At least two weeks prior to September 11th the FBI agents again confirmed that an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent. Some field agents predicted, almost precisely, what happened on September 11th.

9) A significant number of other selected people were also warned about flying or reporting for work at the WTC. These people include San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, who received a phone call eight hours before the hijacking warning him not to travel by air. Salman Rushdie is under a 24-hour protection of U.K. Scotland Yard; he was also prevented from flying that day. Ariel Sharon canceled his address to Israeli support groups in New York City just the day before his scheduled September 11th address. John Ashcroft stopped flying on public airplanes in July of 2001.

10) Only three trading days before September 11th, an inordinate number of “put” options – bets that a stock will go down – were placed on the stocks of American and United Airlines, the companies whose planes were hijacked in the attacks of 9/11. No such speculation was made on any other airlines. Moreover, similar speculation occurred on other companies housed in the World Trade Towers, including Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. It is noteworthy that some of the put options were purchased through Deutsche Bank/Alex Brown, a firm managed until 1998 by the current executive director of the CIA, A.B. “Buzzy” Krongard. The New York Times reported that Mayo Shattuck III resigned as head of the Alex Brown unit of Deutsche Bank on September 15, 2001.

11) Within thirty-five minutes after American Airline Flight 11 departed from Boston's Logan Airport it quit responding to ground control, and radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned flight-path. Two airline attendants on Flight 11 had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point there was an undeniable emergency. Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until twenty minutes later at 8:40a.m. The fighter jets may not have been deployed until a full thirty-two minutes after the loss of contact with Flight 11.

12) The Wars on Afghanistan and Iraq Were Planned, Prior to 9/11

13) In spite of the unprecedented magnitude of death and destruction in New York City on 9/11/01, the U.S. Government spent only $600,000 for its single study of the causes for the WTC Buildings' collapses. Compare this to the $40 million that was spent for investigation of Bill Clinton's activities with Monica Lewinksy in 1988-1999 and the only rational conclusion is that there is no desire on the part of the Bush Administration for the public to know the truth about 9/11.

posted 02-06-2004 11:45 PM            

OMG! I read the Bazant paper and found it most confusing. But that's probably because I'm not a math major or physics engineer. However I disagreed with some basic premises.
Please note the following before I list my disagreements and why:

Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, in press
9/13/01, Expanded 9/22/01, Appendices 9/28/01)

posted 02-07-2004 12:09 AM            

is in adobe acrobat and the text highlighting tool is unusable. Hmmm! Also, a detailed explanation is given as to the collapse of WTC 7 as legitimate and totally due to fire and guess what? It was pulled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It makes the whole piece, which was written under FEMA, look foolish and just one big sham. Also, their language is cloaked in such terms as "likely," "it looks like", and other such non-commital terms!

It's too late to read any more, but don't worry , I'll read your links!

bc

posted 02-07-2004 12:31 AM            

GAITHERSBURG, Md., Dec. 2 — Federal investigators said here Tuesday that new evidence supported earlier suggestions that the floor supports in the World Trade Center began failing in the minutes before the towers fell and might have played a major role in their collapse.

The investigators, who are carrying out a two-year, $16 million analysis of the collapses, made it clear that they had not yet settled on a final explanation. They said, though, that their findings gave new weight to a theory that the failure of the floors weakened the towers' internal structure to the point that the entire buildings came down.
Advertisement

S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department, said, "We are seeing evidence of floors appearing to be sagging — or that had been damaged — prior to collapse." Still, Dr. Sunder said, "The relative role of the floors and the columns still remain to be determined in the collapse."

According to an alternative theory of the collapse, the planes that smashed into the towers damaged the towers' vertical structural columns so severely that the buildings were virtually certain to fall. In that view, none of the buildings' many structural novelties — the towers were daring engineering innovations in their day — would have played a significant role in the collapses.

Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.

In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.

Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.

"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."

The investigators also said that newly disclosed Port Authority documents suggested that the towers were designed to withstand the kind of airplane strike that they suffered on Sept. 11.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour. The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. Sunder said.

The towers did withstand the plane strikes at first, allowing thousands of people to escape, but then the fires, stoked by burning jet fuel, softened the steel of the towers. Potentially challenging other statements by Port Authority engineers, Dr. Sunder said it was now uncertain whether the authority fully considered the fuel and its effects when it studied the towers' safety during the design phase.

"Whether the fuel was taken into account or not is an open question," Dr. Sunder said. It is also unclear, he said, "whether the extent of the loss of human life as a result of that" was taken into account.

The studies of the floor trusses and the design of the towers are just two elements of the investigation, which is carrying out computer calculations of the collapses, rebuilding pieces of the towers in order to test them in real fires, and piecing together a highly detailed chronology of the response to the attack.

In one set of laboratory tests concerning the floor trusses, researchers used earthquake simulators to violently shake assemblages much like the ceilings in the twin towers. The shaking was meant to simulate the impact of the aircraft.

posted 02-07-2004 12:45 AM            

How do you know that they weren't talking about pulling off the fire?

At least that is what it sounds like to me.

Do you think that the NYFD would have sent men into a burning building to set explosives?

If you contend that the explosives were already there, then would the NYFD ever send men into a burning building containing explosives?

posted 02-07-2004 01:12 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
I find scribbling on envelopes, however, not as accurate as the well thought-out piece by Grimmer, and indeed, Grimmer gave you mathematics and common sense explanations as well.

---

First, the "scribbling on an envelope" was something the MIT professor did in an oral question and answer session that was later used by PBS/Nova and Scientific American and later used by Grimmer. He never intended it to be a reference for future work. It's like if someone asked you "How much does your car weigh?" and, on the spur of the moment, you answered "Oh, about 2000 pounds." You might be close, but it's just an educated guess. The MIT professor specifically said that the 30% figure was nothing but "scribbling on an envelop"--but Grimmer proceeded to use that figure in his argument.

quote:

---

He didn't resort to conspiracy theory, however, he did remind you of some unanswered questions and some motivational aspects of the case.

---

Totally irrelevant. I didn't ask Grimmer about other unanswered questions. I asked him a specific question about his theory. He never answer my specific question (as to whether or not he really thinks the full 30% of the energy was used to destroy the building during the collapse).

quote:

---

I don't blame the guy at MIT for not telling you his name -- because he won't stand behind it, that's why!

---

What? Of course he told me his name. By searching on Google I found his name, specifically searched him out, wrote him an email, and he replied. I know his name. He just asked me not to drop his name in the conspiracy debate. At least not at this time.

quote:

---

Grimmer does! This is commendable!

---

I didn't ask him, I simply assumed that he was already knee-deep in the conspiracy debate and it wouldn't matter.

quote:

---

OMG! I read the Bazant paper and found it most confusing. But that's probably because I'm not a math major or physics engineer. However I disagreed with some basic premises.

---

Well, those are the numbers that the MIT professor didn't include in his email. His email says the same thing as the Bazant paper and, yes, the Bazant paper is harder to understand. But if you want to argue numbers, the Bazant paper has even more physics and numbers than Grimmer's piece.

quote:

---

First of all, this was written way too soon to have had advantage of various footages, witness accounts, knowledge of the melted steel at the bottom, and other evidences. His premise is based on: "The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed." I disagree with this premise as people from the above floors were able to escape through stairways. It has never been proven that any floor was heated (especially in the South tower, which was the first to collapse, and the damage was done to only a corner) evenly to provide for the plasticity this article claims. The whole article and the math, then, is inaccurate as the plausibility of the premise of equal heating of even one floor is unlikely,

---

Apparently you missed the paragraph in Bazant that reads: "For our purpose, we may assume that all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally. Unlikely though such a distribution may be, it is nevertheless the most optimistic hypothesis to make because the resistance of the building to the impact is, for such a distribution, the highest. If the building is found to fail under a uniform distribution of the impact forces, it would fail under any other distribution."

In other words, uniform heating is the BEST scenario. Unequal heating would have been even worse.

quote:

---

Another point? This article was written too early. I might e-mail this person, Bazant, and ask if he has rewritten another explanation based on more prudent and up-to-date information.

---

posted 02-07-2004 12:45 PM            

Dear young man, I also noticed you whined to the MIT professor in one of your e-mails, which I found unusually odd and something we would never do. What does he care? As you've said yourself, debate and argument are the best ways to get to the truth, so why would you personalize it all? When you direct your opinions to the posters themselves and not the issues, you should expect a response. Do you see how you set that up? You set yourself up to be argued with and beyond that you set yourself up to be disrespected on a personal level because you express a disregard for the feelings of the intelligent people on this board. You can go for quite awhile without personalizing, and then suddenly you're back on the offense.

You continued to question me when I reminded you to concentrate on Grimmer and argue with him! And while you posted your e-mails to these people, you prefaced the whole thing with a rousing display of egoism and judgmentalism setting you up to be personally irritating while at the same time showing your great abilities to investigate! The message from you is: you posters don't know how to find the truth, you're hostile to me, you have no reason to be hostile to me, and I'm perfect in every way! " You may not feel that way, but you certainly come across that way. So, I would suggest that in your continuing board dialogue, you only stick to your investigating skills and argue points expressed in various expert letters or various board views and opinions -- not abilities, intelligences, etc. etc. on a personal level. If someone overtly offends adn personally attacks you and says this or that -- ignore them or report them.

You did fabulously in the radarmatrix project and I commend you! You also refrained, in that wonderful work, to personalize anything and that's the best way to go about it. When I contacted various experts in my research on Planet X, I never once alluded to being on a debate board of any kind as it's not necessary. Remember, the very reason those of us on this board are here, is because we are skeptics and thinkers who think ====> "out of the box" as well as intelligent, educated, open-minded folk.

When I disagree with you, or express irritation with you, THAT is the time to step back and look at yourself. No one is perfect, but your continuing to bring your personal ego views of the posters on this board, continues to irritate and it simply is not necessary and does disrupt. Your asking me questions was also not necessary and I already posted you on that.

Letxa:

" They're certainly more useful than our words here." ---discrediting opinionism

"My hopes are fading though." --- baiting judgmentalism

"But like you said above, that doesn't matter. All you really are looking for is some "other possibility." That's not reality, that's an escape from reality."
--- more opinionated judgmentalism

Investigators of crimes never overlook other plausible explanations for events. Never! It's folly to call it "escap[ing] from reality." Please! Letxa! Use some common sense!

"I'm talking about each persons' commitment to the truth and honest study and investigation."

Who do you think you are? -- my mother would have said!

quote:

---

It seems people here are fond of telling skeptics, such as me, to go read a bunch of links. They are fond of (and very good at) copying entire articles written by someone else and inserting them in the thread as if that were their valuable contribution to the debate or their answer, rather than debating the points and using links to support their independent thoughts. They demand the skeptic do a bunch of research in order to "debunk" them even though it's everyone's responsibility to search for the truth. This debate isn't about who's right or who can provide more links. It's about finding the truth. It seems that many people here have lost sight of that fact and have made "finding the truth" the responsibility of only the skeptic. It's everyone's responsibility and it's a neverending effort. Just because something has been discussed in the past does NOT mean it shouldn't be discussed again or that it is written in stone.

---

WE'RE ALL SKEPTICS HERE !!!! Not just you! I find this whole above paragraph totally not true. All of us, if you reviewed the demolition link from before and now, have stated our personal views, our arguments, and supported them with links and sometimes not supported them. When we present an article, we have the choice of whether or not to comment on it or just to post it. Whoever decides to comment -- comments in various ways. That's it! If they just want to say "I disagree" with no explanation or supporting expert then of course that response does not hold as much weight on the truthometer! So often, someone says "prove it!" You are still trying to make everyone play your game -- don't you see? You're upset that I wouldn't play your game and now you chastize the whole board! It's a control issue, don't you think? We ARE discussing this (demolition) again! Many have given you their opinions with supporting links! Many have answered your questions! So what are you griping about?

quote:

---

Anyone that claims to read most of the stuff we're talking about here and not have any questions is either not being honest, is simply accepting the material without giving it any critical thought, or hasn't truly understood the material. This is advanced stuff we're talking about and if we don't have questions something is very wrong.

---

I agree! But I also see "either or" and "black and white" thinking here. There are gray areas and your assuming that many "accept without critical thought" or don't understand the material is quite a far-fetched assumption not based on anything valid. I see that you attempted to find out the understanding level in your questions to me, Letxa. It wasn't enough for you to accept that I could understand without knowing the math. In the written explanation, the logic made sense to me -- that's all I have and it's been great. And I also looked for opposing views and I have read opposing views. Some of it is advanced, but a lot of it is common sense, too, and a only takes a logical mind, an open mind. It's not so cut and dried as you seem to think. And how do you know we're not asking questions when we read? Do you have a crystal ball?

quote:

---

In this whole thread I honestly have not seen any of my opponents demonstrate any critical thinking or do any real research and investigation whatsoever. I've seen BoomerChick posting links and/or copy/pasting articles that she doesn't seem to fully understand (explanation to follow). Shatago seems to have offered as much "opinion" as I have and, as far as I can see, hasn't provided a single link. And Know-This has accused me of not caring about my country. I know BoomerChick will be ticked at my observation of her, but it seems my observation is accurate considering her message posted 2/4/2004 10:48pm in this thread said "I cannot verify the math with my own knowledge of math. I trust that a PhD engineer would not publish something that would invite those with math knowledge to refute his numbers." This kind of trust is completely inappropriate for an honest investigation searching for the truth and ignores the fact that scientists often publish their material for "peer review" precisely so others may find errors and correct it. If you don't understand something then you need to pause, leave the conspiracy investigation for a few minutes, do some Googling, and focus on what you don't understand until you do understand. Because the fact of the matter is that people with mathematical and civil engineering knowledge do refute his work.

---

So, we're trusting and simply cutting and pasting, heh? Again, you're stuck in judgment! Your investigating could be objective and contributive rather than including personal judgments, don't you think? When I researched Grimmer I looked for refutations and couldn't find any. There were even boards that responded to his article and there were no refutations. If you say there are, then please present them. You can't broad brushstroke all of us and call us somehow dysfunctional when you were asked to simply refute Grimmer because you said he was "wrong." The only way I could refute Grimmer's math would be to go back to school and take a trig or advanced Algebra class -- give me a break! Much of this, Letxa, is common sense.

Our asking the questions and being skeptical of the given FEMA explanation is the very thing you're accusing us of not possessing -- an investigative nature, skepticism, and intelligence to back it up! Would I dare mention the psychological behavior called "projection" at this point? If I don't understand something, I certainly ask questions, but again, it's your opinion that many of us do not understand or ask!

Validate things for yourself as you have done with asking these engineers' questions and articles -- that's a good thing. Contribute them to the board -- that's a good thing, but don't slam everyone's ability to think reasonably before you do it. It's not necessary! It draws enmity to yourself personally and it's not wise.

Stick to the topics, do what you feel is right, and go from there. The politics and motivations concerning the event of 9/11 ARE important and ARE a part of the picture here. When anyone disregards that and claims to be somehow more superior or righteous is simply not seeing the whole picture.

Control issues on a debate board just do not facilitate truth-getting, Letxa!

Grimmer:

quote:

---

My arguments appeal to the conservation of energy, one of the laws of physics that no one will give up even (or should I say, especially) in this age of dark matter and energy: the energy has to be accounted for in the conversion of potential to kinetic. The facts that buildings are pulverized to fines and that the buildings collapsed in near free fall times is indisputable evidence that energies in addition to gravitational were involved. There is no other possible explanation. To a physicist this is the real smoking gun of 911.

---

Obviously he stands by his dissertation. He was refuting the 30% given by the MIT person in his article which I felt you never understood. He went beyond this point, also.

quote:

---

The MIT professor requested that he remain anonymous (at least for now) as he does not have the inclination to participate or get pulled into a conspiracy debate.

---

So why did you tell him this? And why would he be concerned whether his figures were on a debate board on the internet? Grimmer wasn't concerned. Why?

MIT

quote:

---

pp. of conservation of linear momentum", it can be shown that part of the kinetic (motion) energy of the falling masses is dissipated as these collisions take place. This energy is consumed in pulverizing, heating, and thoroughly destroying the building materials and contents along the collapse front (witness the enormous clouds of debris). Again, back of the envelope calculations indicate that this energy may have been on the order of 30% of the total potential energy of the tower, but this is only a guess. The crucial point to understand here is that this percentage has nothing to do with the energy needed to cause material or structural failure in each floor. As I stated previously, only a tiny fraction is needed to cause the structural members to fail, while the bulk of the potential energy lost is consumed by the myriad collisions between particles in the falling debris. The remaining energy is transformed into kinetic (motion) energy, which upon impact with the ground generated a small earthquake. Thus, the allegation that one needs extraordinarily large amounts of energy to cause the building to fail (i.e. that explosives would have been required for that purpose) is utterly false.

---

Grimmer goes beyond this and uses the same kind of math which was referred to as "conservation..." The amount of particulate debris and complete destruction of steel and concrete were also addressed in Grimmer's piece, unlike this simplified explanation. The speed of fall was not addressed here either, why? And there was no mention of fire in this MIT's explanation as well. And these questions must be answered! This MIT guy created more questions in my mind than Grimmer did. Therefore I accept Grimmer's piece at this point.

Letxa:

quote:

---

As such, it is entirely reasonable to expect the building to collapse at essentially "free fall" speeds. 30% of the energy may have been consumed in the pulverization of the building, but there was very little resistance during the collapse itself to slow it down. As a result there is nothing inherently suspicious about the time it took for the towers to collapse.

---

You are entitled to your view. But I do not accept the MIT's explanation in comparison to Grimmer's more conclusive, IMHO, one. Again, no mention of fire, no mention of plasticity, no mention of such complete and utter destruction and just because you say, Letxa, it was "freefall" naturally and due to pancaking/gravity does not make it so. As has been expressed by many -- it's all opinion at this point and we are all searching for confirmation of theories!

What you have here are two conflicting expert analysies and you are choosing one. I choose the other. So be it.

Grimmer is actually opposing the MIT view, however, the MIT view is not actively (as in an article directly refuting Grimmer) opposing Grimmer. In fact, you Letxa say that there are expert refutations of Grimmer, but I as yet have to see them posted. I looked for them and couldn't find them.

Grimmer:

quote:

---

Skepticism is good. For example, one reason I got into this 911 thing was because of the siesmic spike discussion. I felt it was something that physics could address. My analysis of the energies involved indicated that the spike signal could be accounted for by the gravitational energy only, and was not necessarily evidence of an explosion. So I am skeptical of claims otherwise, unless additional evidence appears.

However, the conservation of energy and the fact that the buildings exhibited free fall times points unequivocally to a real anomaly. If the 30% figure bothers you, take half of that, 15% (actually, if read through my references -- a real education process--you will understand the 30% estimate is low: go to Jim Hoffman's article on the pyroclastic cloud energy, he has pulverization energies). Substituting 15% yields a collapse time from a nominal 10s to 10s x [1/SQRT(0.85)] = 10.85s. If a second is "onethousandandone" 0.85s is like "onethousandand" -- noticeable, eh?

Perhaps the best thing for you to do is to read through the literature critically and find those things that you have trouble reconciling. Actually, for the non-physicist me and most people -- certainly the 911 Widows -- the interceptor stand down is the most inexplicable. But it''s difficult to put numbers on that other than interceptions in the 10 months from Sept.2000 to June 2001 averaged 6.7/month, I believe. NORAD missed 4 glaring ones in one day. Hmmm!

---

Quite an excellent response to you, Letxa! He included his science position and added to it! He also related to you in a compassionate way! Did you go to Hoffman's article? He even gave you advice!

But then you pressed on and he responded:

Grimmer:

quote:

---

I think stuttering in the initial stages of collapse, without demolition charges, would be noticeable. You either think what happened is suspicious or you don't. Feel free to research what you think happened and put it on physics911 or another site.

---

quote:

---

No steel building has ever collapsed solely due to fire. On 911, three did. And they fell in a manner that resembled closely a controlled demolition. Re: MIT: like Romero of NM Tech, these folks are funded by work with the government. They are not exactly impartial.

---

quote:

---

If you haven't looked at the references, do so. Some of them present and then critique the official position. Obviously, I can't say whether they all did so accurately, but they have convinced me there are serious flaws in the official position. Since the government has removed the evidence and even tower plans are unavailable, as I say in the thermite paper, we will never know.

---

The rest is confirming his position, bringing up others concerns and arguments about building behavior and reminding you of the political climate. Now if you can't accept that politics comes into play here, that human beings and their plans which might cover the motivations of greed and other political/social implications are not at work here -- I cannot help you. Thinking "outside of the box" is necessary here!

Your insistence on your own superiority needs your examination. We're all on the same page -- trying to find truth. We all do it slightly differently, but without respect, without boundaries, in-fighting only disrupts. You had no right to preface your contribution with your judgmentalism and until you see this in yourself, you will feel the sting of various responses in kind. It is human nature and you are still young and learning, as we all are. But, come on Letxa, let's get over our wanting others to play by "our" rules and play by the rules of common respect and the golden rule, OK?

Grimmer was the most communicative and compassionate with you between your two e-mail communications and he gave you advice too, and applauded your skepticism. He didn't resort to anything underhanded or smarmie -- he's genuinely himself and an intelligent and honorable man. Take a break and try to be objective here.

Thanks for your contribution and your e-mail investigation, but again, the personal preface on the board's posters was unnecessary and will only produce the opposite effect that the ego so desperately wants -- respect.

There's always room for change! Just let the judgmentalism go and contribute in your own way! This is what is necessary. We don't need to play your game, we don't need to follow your rules -- do you see? It's a control issue and you have to let go! I can't control others, I can't judge others, and I am therefore only responsible for myself. When others impinge upon my space I let them know. I don't hold grudges and I allow time for all people to learn and grow! But I issue warnings as a wake up call! We all need them at times! But it was done in defense mode -- not offense!

Thanks for the radarmatrix work and your work on this thread!

bc

posted 02-07-2004 01:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolf_Larson:
Oh, and as for the so-called admission from silverstein that the the building was "pulled,"
http://vestigialconscience.com/PullIt.mp3

How do you know that they weren't talking about pulling off the fire?

At least that is what it sounds like to me.

Do you think that the NYFD would have sent men into a burning building to set explosives?

If you contend that the explosives were already there, then would the NYFD ever send men into a burning building containing explosives?

---

Can't explosives be fireproofed externally and then just detonated when needed? It seems that sufficient detonation would be required and that the explosives themselves would NOT be subject to heat as their detonating process. "Pull" is a common term used in demolition, not in firefighting!

posted 02-07-2004 02:04 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boomer Chick:
Dear young man, I also noticed you whined to the MIT professor in one of your e-mails, which I found unusually odd and something we would never do. What does he care?

---

I whined to the MIT professor? What are you talking about?

quote:

---

You continued to question me when I reminded you to concentrate on Grimmer and argue with him! And while you posted your e-mails to these people, you prefaced the whole thing with a rousing display of egoism and judgmentalism setting you up to be personally irritating while at the same time showing your great abilities to investigate!

---

Not my "great" abilities to investigate. My simple willingness to do so.

quote:

---

When I disagree with you, or express irritation with you, THAT is the time to step back and look at yourself.

---

Point taken. And vice versa.

quote:

---

If they just want to say "I disagree" with no explanation or supporting expert then of course that response does not hold as much weight on the truthometer! So often, someone says "prove it!" You are still trying to make everyone play your game -- don't you see?

---

And don't you see I'm not the only one playing that game? You yourself basically told me to "prove" you wrong by arguing with Grimmer. Which I did. I'll accept your criticisms, but don't forget to hold the mirror up to yourself.

quote:

---

Obviously he stands by his dissertation. He was refuting the 30% given by the MIT person in his article which I felt you never understood. He went beyond this point, also.

---

Actually, he didn't refute it. He used the 30% figure in his work. Then he said if I wasn't happy with the 30% figure, use 15%. But he never onced answered my question as to whether or not it was his position that the entire energy (be it 30%, 15%, 5%, etc.) was used as the building fell. Because his conclusion about the speed of the fall only makes sense if the entire amount of energy was needed as it fell. If it wasn't then the speed of the fall would not be seriously affected. He never answered that point and Bazant's work basically shows that the entire enery was not used "on the way down."

quote:

---

Grimmer goes beyond this and uses the same kind of math which was referred to as "conservation..." The amount of particulate debris and complete destruction of steel and concrete were also addressed in Grimmer's piece, unlike this simplified explanation. The speed of fall was not addressed here either, why? And there was no mention of fire in this MIT's explanation as well. And these questions must be answered!

---

posted 02-07-2004 02:04 PM            

"Oh, and as for the so-called admission from silverstein that the the building was "pulled,"
http://vestigialconscience.com/PullIt.mp3

How do you know that they weren't talking about pulling off the fire?

Uh...Wolfie...EARTH TO WOLFIE.

The DEMOLITION CREW speaking on Walkie Talkies on the other buildings damage at the WTC site SAID "We are getting ready to PULL building 6". Somehow you CONVENIENTLY forgot to hear that tape.

ANYTHING to defend the status quo.

posted 02-07-2004 03:45 PM            

quote:

---

And don't you see I'm not the only one playing that game? You yourself basically told me to "prove" you wrong by arguing with Grimmer. Which I did. I'll accept your criticisms, but don't forget to hold the mirror up to yourself.

---

The game is ALWAYS on a board is the given: prove your point! You said Grimmer was wrong, I asked you to prove it. I said Grimmer was right and you feel that you asked ME to prove it, right? Well, you first avoided proving Grimmer wrong and then asked me (in your question-asking) to "prove" Grimmer right -- you went into questions which I did answer and honestly so. I happen to agree that the building fell faster than gravity, there could have been thermit demolitions, the lack of rubble, the excessive heat causing molten steel, and yes because no one has yet proven him wrong, I agreed with his math, and yes, I agreed with his other points having had a logical affinity with his line of reasoning. But you shirked your duty first and then aimed questions at me. Don't you see that game? That's the game I'm talking about, not the game of proving yourself, but the game of avoiding your responsiblity to prove yourself FIRST and then asking me to prove my agreement with Grimmer. You were the one who said this person was "wrong." And, you've done the same thing a lot of us do, you quoted another article (finally) in opposition to his and you DIDN'T use your own words like you insisted I use. That was the point of irritation -- avoiding then demanding I play your game which not worded as simply -- prove it! Your not going step by step and skipping a step and then turning it on me with your own questions to ascertain my knowledge was the crux. I answered, but by then I was irritated with your stalling and your irresponsibility and beyond that my sense that you thought I was incapable somehow of understanding Grimmer like I was reading it blindly, thoughtlessly, like a little sheeple believing anything she reads--was offensive. Then you confirmed that with your pompous rendition of how we don't research up to your expectations, here!

I hope what I said in the post above ( and there was a lot) sunk in, Letxa! Because you are an intelligent person.

If you persist in your personal judgmentalism and game-playing beyond reasonableness -- you will be asked to leave, but I don't want to see that happen!

bc

posted 02-07-2004 04:56 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by letxa2000:
First of all, addressing JBE's concerns about me attacking LeBreton's qualifications. I'm not going to get into a debate regarding whether or not I am open or close-minded regarding New Age or ET lifeforms. Those are other topics and independent of my opinion of LeBreton and completely unrelated to 9/11. But the fact of the matter is, on balance, nothing in LeBreton's resume and other writings appears to be credible to an educated person when taken in context with the rest of the resume. If it were a professional resume with an eyebrow-raising claim then perhaps one would be wise to give him the benefit of the doubt. However, given the sum total of his resume, writings and the non-verifiability of any of his high-profile claims (presidential advisor? inventor of devices in violation of the laws of physics), it would appear, quite frankly, that the person is delusional. It's irrelevant anyway since the entire article was effectively discredited when I called Parish's supposed former employer and discovered no such person had worked for them. In fact, that further discredits LeBreton.

---

I do not feel an open or closed mind is unrelated to this topic. An open or closed mind has a BIG impact in every debate! NO ONE approaches a subject without preconceived notions! I am not only referring to awareness of alternate realities or beings here. You showed an incorrect understanding of some points LeBreton made on his resume and his website. In my opinion, you have not discredit his resume or proven him to be a liar. Haven’t you ever heard of confidential information? You do know that not everything you want to find is available on the Internet right?

We have all researched the 9/11 phenomena, and believe that many coincidental instances occurred. In the past, you mentioned debating on many 9/11 threads - so your mind is made up as well. In order for either of us to change the other’s mind, it would take MUCH MORE than just proving one little aspect, such as the "possibility" of demolition, to be true or false. You would have to change more than 50% of an OVERALL belief system. So what’s the point in all this trashing and debating? Is it fun? I guess for some it is – I prefer to stay away from it especially when there is degradation of character involved! I pray that the truth will be revealed and all those suspicious, open-ended questions will one day be answered.

As Carl Sagan once said about a skeptical nature:
So the way you avoid the mistakes, or at least reduce the chance that you'll make one, is to be skeptical. You test the ideas. You check them out by rigorous standards of evidence. I don't think there is such a thing as a received truth. But when you let the different opinions debate, when any skeptic can perform his or her own experiment to check some contention out, then the truth tends to emerge. That's the experience of the whole history of science. It isn't a perfect approach, but it's the only one that seems to work."

On the possibility of changing one’s mind, Carl Sagan also said:
When permitted to listen to alternative opinions and engage in substantive debate, people have been known to change their minds. It can happen. For example, Hugo Black, in his youth, was a member of the Ku Klux Klan; he later became a Supreme Court justice and was one of the leaders in the historic Supreme Court decisions, partly based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, that affirmed the civil rights of all Americans: It was said that when he was a young man he dressed up in white robes and scared black folks; when he got older, he dressed up in black robes and scared white folks."

Talk about doing a 50/50? I threw that in for some humor here! ha, ha.

You mentioned above, and in various other posts, that an internal combustion engine run with perpetual magnets is impossible and against the laws of physics. Well, I emailed your accusation to my inventor friend, the one that works in the quantum electro-gravitics field, he said the following:

The magnetic motor is entirely possible provided the inventor has set the system up in a pull me push me fashion or vice-versa, i.e. if the magnets are positioned just right so as to cause rotation on the crankshaft for e.g. the number one piston is set up to pull and depending on the firing order the next piston in the sequence is set to push and so on through the firing order thus causing rotation of the crankshaft.

posted 02-07-2004 07:49 PM            

I really don't want to get stuck on the history of what happened between us. Let me close the useless argument between us (at least on my part) by saying that I do regret some of the things I said in my previous post--I could have edited the message and removed them, but once people had read my message and started replying I didn't feel that was appropriate either. I said some things and everyone had a right to read what some people had already read and I wasn't going to try to hide it. Please understand that I felt provoked and offended by things such as people saying I didn't care for my country and what I perceived (perhaps incorrectly) as your refusal to answer my questions. My questions weren't asking you to prove Grimmer, I was simply trying to understand your position on each of the questions so I would know where to spend my time on the debate. I also thought the numerous threats of "reporting me" (which for some reason continue even today) were as uncalled for as my repetition of my questions. In any case, I was not in a very civil mood when I wrote the intro to my long post Thursday evening. Some of that may be because of my personality although most people find me exceedingly patient. So while I certainly apologize for whatever part I had in our disagreement I hope you will at least consider some of the messages that led up to it and realize that I am not perfect, I am human, and some of the messages that get thrown my way do bother me.

One other thing I'd like to mention and which I think has been (and may continue to be) a source of contention. I am of the belief that a debate in a forum isn't just about providing links and/or posting them. It's about discussing those links ourselves. Our discussion then becomes a useful component of the collective knowledge available to anyone else that may be reading up on this. If all you do is post a link to Grimmer and all I do is cite Bazant then neither you nor I have contributed anything ourselves--we're just echoing Grimmer and Bazant but aren't doing anything useful ourselves. When I debate, I like to contribute my own comments, logic, and viewpoints and have the sincere desire that others will do the same. If all I want is a bunch of links to conspiracy theories, I can find those with Google. If I want to debate Grimmer, I'll debate Grimmer (I sort of did). My participation in any forum is in the hopes that there will be active discussion among participants. Obviously if one of us says something that might not be readily accepted we should cite a link or two as sources--but I think things will be much more interesting if we use links to back up our opinions rather than making the link the entire response. This is, of course, just my opinion.

Now... on to the topic at hand.

You've referenced Grimmer. I've referenced an anonymous MIT professor that basically puts in English the work of Bazant. You agree with Grimmer, I agree with Bazant. Now, if you're interested I'd very much enjoy discussing with you the virtues of Grimmer's and Bazant's conclusions. I'd like you to try to convince me that Grimmer is right and Bazant is wrong, and I'd like the opportunity to convince you that Bazant is right and Grimmer is wrong. If you'd like to do that, please read on. Otherwise, feel free to ignore the rest of my message as it is an effort to try to show you where, in my estimation and following the logic of Bazant, Grimmer is wrong.

quote:

---

I happen to agree that the building fell faster than gravity, there could have been thermit demolitions, the lack of rubble, the excessive heat causing molten steel, and yes because no one has yet proven him wrong,

---

Bazant's work is in direct contradiction to Grimmer's work. Bazant may not have taken Grimmer's work and refuted it line by line, but Bazant's work is in direct opposition to Grimmer's. And again, Bazant has a PhD in Structural Mechanics while Grimmer works in the Microelectronics Research Center which would suggest his PhD isn't in anything related to civil engineering.

Additionally, the building most definitely didn't fall faster than gravity. Not even Grimmer says that. He says "collapse times close to free fall." The free fall time from 1368 feet (417m) is d = 0.5 * g * t^2. Substituting values that is 417 = 0.5 * 9.8 * t^2, which is 85.102 = t^2, which is t = sqrt(85.102) = 9.22 seconds. Even Grimmer says that the observed collapse time was 10 seconds. I don't know of anyone that has said that the building fell faster than gravity--even demolition doesn't cause a building to fall faster than gravity.

Let me try again to articulate the difference between the Grimmer and Bazant papers.

Grimmer states that a certain amount of the collapse energy was consumed to destroy and pulverize the building--he uses an arbitrary amount of 30%. He then basically says that if free-fall is 9.22 seconds (calculation of free-fall as mine, not Grimmer's) and 30% of the energy was used to destroy the building that it should have taken at least 12 seconds to fall and he uses calculations to back this up. The problem with such a simple approach is the obvious fact that not all of the energy consumed was on the way down--a large amount of it was consumed when there was a big seismic spike when the mass hit the ground (which wouldn't have slowed the collapse since this happened near the very end of the collapse). And of the energy that was consumed on the way down, not nearly all of it was in direct opposition to gravity and, thus, wouldn't slow down the collapse to that degree.

What Bazant says is that when the mass hit even the second floor below the collapsing mass, less than 1% of the energy was used to cause that floor to collapse and he provides numbers to back that up--and the amount of energy to collapse each additional floor was even less as the speed and weight of the collapsing portion of the building increased. Logically, each floor wasn't entirely pulverized at the moment the collapse hit it. It certainly was fragmented severely, but the only energy required to keep the collapse going was the energy to overwhelm the angle clips which are what keep each floor from falling in the first place.

That Bazant is correct is apparent in video by looking at the dust cloud formed as the building went down. There was a dust cloud forming from the beginning, but where it really "mushroomed" was at ground level. A few seconds after the collapse you had a huge cloud expanding outward from "ground zero" at ground level, not at 100 stories in height. That's because most of the pulverization ocurred at ground level, not at 100 stories in height. Likewise, most of the energy used to destroy the concrete would have been consumed when the mass hit the ground, not at 100 stories in height.

quote:

---

JerseyBluEyz wrote:
In my opinion, you have not discredit his resume or proven him to be a liar. Haven’t you ever heard of confidential information?

---

Yes. I've also heard of "trade secrets" and "non-disclosure agreements" which are far less sensitive than "confidential information" and even trade secrets and work-in-progress that is covered under an NDA is not placed on your public resume. If any of the things he is working on are, in fact, confidential, you wouldn't see them on his resume at all.

quote:

---

in order for either of us to change the other’s mind, it would take MUCH MORE than just proving one little aspect, such as the "possibility" of demolition, to be true or false. You would have to change more than 50% of an OVERALL belief system.

---

I understand that. I'm not expecting anyone to change their belief system overnight. I am, however, interested in taking individual points that don't agree with reality to task such that, over time, perhaps some people will at least consider the possibility that there wasn't a conspiracy. Either that or, over time, people will convince me that there was.

quote:

---

Well, I emailed your accusation to my inventor friend, the one that works in the quantum electro-gravitics field, he said the following:

The magnetic motor is entirely possible provided the inventor has set the system up in a pull me push me fashion or vice-versa, i.e. if the magnets are positioned just right so as to cause rotation on the crankshaft for e.g. the number one piston is set up to pull and depending on the firing order the next piston in the sequence is set to push and so on through the firing order thus causing rotation of the crankshaft.

What you claimed to be impossible, IS possible. Maybe you are wrong about other points you’ve convinced yourself to be true too?

---

I think you (and maybe your quantum electro-gravitics friend) misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't commenting on whether or not such a device is possible--I don't claim to be a physicist.