quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa

Just for your curiosity because I know you'll be looking on the internet for ages try to match that equation shown earlier.

It's the stress block for a reinforced concrete section derived via similar triangles.

The aim is to limit the neutral axis depth 'x' to a fraction of d (the effective depth of the section) and in so doing ensure Ecc is equal to Est.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

SohCahToa, you are fighting a losing battle, if GOD told real that his was wrong he would call god a liar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

No real, I am talking about you. Only you can be right, everyone else is wrong. Therefore God would be wrong if he told you that you were wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

Thompsonx I can't pick out all the quotes within quotes, but you are comparing completely different materials. It's not that difficult to get precision with manageable materials like lumber and sheet metal.  We're talking about blocks of stone that weighed many tons each.  Is there anyone out there building precision buildings with huge blocks of stone that we can compare?  I don't know. 

My listing of different degrees of precision was ment to give you scale and not to compare styles of construction.

No I do  not consider the Egyptians to be hunters and gatherers.  I was considering cites like Stonehenge and some of those in South America and such.  Most ancient cites are in areas in which we have little knowledge of "civilization" having existed and no modern descendant. But where did the Egyptian civilization come from?  We have a little bit of history of northern and southern people who fought with each other until one of them won and suddenly we have amazing monumental artifacts being built.

It is not sudenly unless you are speaking of geologic time

In terms of human evolution is was quite fast.  AND where were the predecessors of the Sumerian civilization? 

Sure, maybe it was chisels, and maybe it wasn't. Is anyone out there chiseling out huge blocks of stone to make buildings inside them.  Has anyone tried to see if it can be done?  I know this site is later, but Ethiopia has a history that alludes to the possibility that some ancient knowledge made it's way there. 

You're absolutely right on the math, my bad, I got it wrong.  It is actually every nine MINUTES, not nine seconds. I guess it's completely plausible that a 2 to 2.5 TON block of stone can be cute, dressed and hauled into place every nine minutes, 24 hours a day for 20 years.  So sorry.

A two ton block of .stone is cube about three feet on a side.
A 40' seagoing shipping container empty is 5 tons and is 8'x8'x40' and I move them with nothing more than rollers, a pinch bar and a little screw jack no special modern equipment. I pick them up and put them on flat bed trailers and I stack them five high. It is not rocket science

I've read both history and Von Daniken and many other writers and I keep an open mind to both.  I believe there is extensive reason to think there was some kind of earlier civilization and that they had some technology that we are not yet aware of.  A lot of knowledge was lost and then found again.  Whose to say there isn't still more out there waiting to be found? 

All I'm saying is keep an open mind and a critical eye. Somewhere between complete outlandish hogwash, and strict dogmatic teaching is the truth. 

I agree...
There is a fellow named Davidovits who makes a pretty convincing case for the pyramids being made out of concrete.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
No real, I am talking about you. Only you can be right, everyone else is wrong. Therefore God would be wrong if he told you that you were wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa
Your recollection of events seems to be wrong as most people saw a fire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SohCahToa

It's irrelevant which one I show because if it were a government conspiracy they'd not be a fire in this one:

Ok Mr government mouth piece nice to know we have someone in this group who can speak for what the gov or rogue agents would or would not do.  YOu gotta be a deep insider huh?

if you are suggesting the lack of fire in the other one proves a demolition explosion then there shouldn't be a fire in this one either, no?

Nah its just minor, you know how it is buildings always go down from fire when there isnt any.  Dont worry about it.

Unless perhaps you are suggesting that the government lit a fire in this one to allay suspicion, in which case why no visible fire to allay suspicion in the other?

Why would I go off on that tangent its your conspiracy theory?
There is no logic to what you are saying because if the mechanism of failure (government orchestrated) is clear in one it should be equally clear in the other.

yeh well you know how it is some people just seem to have the fucked up idea that that if a building comes down from fire the least they could have done was had some fucking fire.

I realize that the expectation of some fire is  unreasonable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

Considering that the news feeds clearly show the buildings collapsing from the top down, as floors pancaked down on one another.

Well from what I saw and have reviewed since, bldg. designers agreed but if they had in fact done as implied, then one would find those floors (at least most of their steel frames) 'pancaked' on or near the ground. They were not...almost every floor was completely destroyed.

WTC 7 is one very large key here. If what it suffered is typical because those fires were, than why haven't more bldgs. fall from fire alone...alone and then fall in on itself like the videos have shown 7 did.

Also, the owner of the WTC Center Silverstein, is on tape actually saying 'the decision was made to pull bldg. 7'

Pull is a demolition industry term meaning to demolish and WTC 7 was 'pulled.' That obviously visible occurrence since shown all over...had to have been prepared over some time and before 9/11.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apocalypso

The issue is that, if you're looking at covert operations, by definition you're going to be reliant on a fair bit of supposition and speculation.

Only if you have no conception of the telltale footprints these ops leave behind I would agree and since the greater majority like 99% have no clu its easy to pull crap off.

Because, quite obviously, we're talking about organisations and individuals that are trying to keep their activities secret. The fact that something is a conspiracy theory doesn't de facto make it incorrect. Watergate is in the realms of conspiracy theory. So is Cointelpro. They just happen to be true.

Secret activities are not a conspiracy.  Some violation of law planned by more than one is a conspiracy.

The problem with most conspiracy theorists (and it's handy that RO is posting in this thread, as a good case study of most of the factors I'm about to outline) is more one of methodology than it is one of focus.

OK?

Starting your research into an issue with a particular theory in mind is one thing.

You mean like GW proclaiming that you should only listen to his conspiracy theory that 19 hijackers and all the rest are bs?  You mean starting like that?

But a lot of conspiracy theorists extend that to sticking to that theory, even where there are available facts to contradict it. Whereas the proper thing to do if that happens is to abandon a theory you no longer believe you can legitimately support.

Yeh I had to laugh to this day they want us to believe OBL was the culprit of all evil when we know he was dead.

That's compounded by the fact that most conspiracy theorists only use supportive sources for their theories and refuse to seriously address critical sources at all.

Yeh they use nist and the omission commission!

So you have (and the 9/11 troofers are a perfect example of this) a group of people who largely use each others' work and nothing else, which means they're only looking at a tiny amount of the work available. Which is, quite obviously, a recipe for ridiculous levels of confirmation bias to creep in.

Again just like the liars, that constantly use the 1/2 truth nist and the omission commission reports ignoring all else because in their mind the guv ALWAYS TELLS THE TRUTH!  (and thats a fact!)

They also overly focus on unanswered questions. Looking at questions that are unanswered is entirely legitimate. But what you can't do is extrapolate conclusions from that. Unanswered questions are just that. At best, they can disprove certain explanations. They can't prove anything by themselves, despite what some would have us believe.

Faulty thinking, false premise.
If a man is claimed to have died by heart attack and people ask why he has a hole in his chest from a 20 mm round suffice to say his heart stopped alright but not through natural causes as the claim would suggest but from a 20 mm blasting a hole in his chest.

From that we can extrapolate that the cause of death was a big assed hole in the chest not natural causes.

And partly because of that, they're so desperate to grasp onto any argument that might give them some backing for their pet theory, they end up uncritically accepting any old dross, no matter how laughable.

I have no idea who you are talking about but if you want to put that to the test since you mentioned me as target for this foolish post feel free to take your best shot at make this bullshit case of yours.

The real irony of all this is that people like RO actually end up providing cover for the kind of goverment skullduggery they think they're against. Because they raise the noise to signal ratio so much that all issues in this area end up being lumped into one big 'conspiracy theory' mass.

Another screwed up application of foolishness.  I am not the conspiracy theorist GW bush is and the guv et al has not provided conclusive evidence that there story is even viable much less true.

And discussions of whether elements in MI5 worked to undermine the Wilson government end up being treated the same as David Icke claiming that the Queen is a reptilian alien.

oh yeh lets throw in the quackpots to really drive the point home and we can talk about jocelyn elders and that psycophant gonzales who top the charts in lunacy and get paid by the guv on top of it!

Particuarly as the focus on the more outlandish theories seems to happen at the expense of the less glamorous, but more significant ones. To take 9/11 as an example again, the troofers concentrate on the whole 'controlled demolition' argument, despite the fact there was never any real evidence for it

Really? that news! 

smoke trails all the way to the ground!
You can, no wait that would give you more credit than you deserve,  "I" CAN  see the flash progression of explosions.

quote:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb9nd8H2IVw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfA_lawr8Zc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdjvNeZMr-A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx1djmkFIFw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBb-sbGwQu8

and it's been shot down in flames now,

the only one going down in flames is you!

by qualified engineers with no motivation to obfuscate.

fuck man thats such a huge load of bullshit it qualifies for a lie.

And yet they almost entirely ignore the question of Operation Cyclone and specifically the possibility that money was funnelled from the CIA to Bin Laden (possibly using Hekmatyar as a conduit).

Whatever thats your conspiracy theory and has nothing to do with the forensic evidence.

That's actually, in my view, a far more serious question and one with a lot more to recommend looking at it carefully. But looking at issues of pragmatic geopolitical policy is a lot less exciting then running round claiming that 9/11 was done by remote control/holograms/Godzilla and the troofers are more interested in making themselves feel special then putting in the hard slog of genuine research.

yeh yeh always pick the weakest link and talk about the idjits who think aliens and moon beams did it rather than look at the hard forensic evidence.

All of that is why some of us who are interested in these issues, but try to approach it in a sober method have taken to refering to what we do as "parapolitical research". It's a way of differentiating ourselves from the conspiracist swamp. Because while we freely admit our interests are fringe, that doesn't mean our methodology should be.