911 WTC Explosions, Flight 175, Creating the Myth

[Rockland]

You talkin' to me, Joey? You're on my ignoramus list, remember?

 

[KokomoJojo]

You talkin' to me, Joey? You're on my ignoramus list, remember?

nope I am talking to everyone else, I could give a fuck less about you and your dick sucking socktard club.

See I even thanked you for your "useful" post, now make sure all your socks and trolls follow suit k!

TIA!

 

[SteadyMercury]

So prove the plane in the video is real.

The burden is on you to prove it wasn't since you are making the claim. I invite you to prove the plane on the dozens of videos are all fake, and no the fact it is possible to create fake videos isn't proof.

However if no one here can point so much as one of the several oversights or errors out then I am most likely wasting my time on this board.

If your goal is to make claims with no proof, then demand others disprove what you've conjured up, yes you are likely wasting your time on this board.

Can you point out one, there is one that is incredibly obvious even to completely computer illiterate laymen.

I'm a software engineer, have been for 20 years. Hardly computer illiterate.

Again I ask, since I must have missed your response... your expertise comes from what exactly?

 

[KokomoJojo]

So prove the plane in the video is real.

The burden is on you to prove it wasn't since you are making the claim. I invite you to prove the plane on the dozens of videos are all fake, and no the fact it is possible to create fake videos isn't proof.

by what legal standard?

However if no one here can point so much as one of the several oversights or errors out then I am most likely wasting my time on this board.

If your goal is to make claims with no proof, then demand others disprove what you've conjured up, yes you are likely wasting your time on this board.

Its the governments responsibility to provide an adequate investigation so these problems do not come up. It is they who have to prove it and anyone who wants to step into the official story as their mantra, that is the starting point not with me as you wish to flip it.

Can you point out one, there is one that is incredibly obvious even to completely computer illiterate laymen.

I'm a software engineer, have been for 20 years. Hardly computer illiterate.

Again I ask, since I must have missed your response... your expertise comes from what exactly?

lets just say I have no need to consult the randi tards

you are a software engineer huh? doing what?

 

[KokomoJojo]

I do all sorts of things, currently working in international logistics industry, mainly related to software that automates export compliance.

So, when will you be backing up your claims that the dozens of videos with the 2nd plane in it are all fake? When will you be answering whether you believe all the people in NYC who saw planes fly into buildings are liars? Where are the people who boarded those planes? What is your expertise regarding buildings and airplanes?

hardware? what platform?

well? you dont know what you do and use now huh.

am I supposed to sit here all night waiting for you to figure it out?

 

[SteadyMercury]

Ha obviously you will do anything you can do avoid answering questions related to your lunatic conspiracy theories. Let me know when you want to do anything more than propose psychotic bullshit and ignore anything that you fear pokes holes in it.

One more time, in case you missed it over and over:

So, when will you be backing up your claims that the dozens of videos with the 2nd plane in it are all fake? When will you be answering whether you believe all the people in NYC who saw planes fly into buildings are liars? Where are the people who boarded those planes? What is your expertise regarding buildings and airplanes?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Ha obviously you will do anything you can do avoid answering questions related to your lunatic conspiracy theories. Let me know when you want to do anything more than propose psychotic bullshit and ignore anything that you fear pokes holes in it.

One more time, in case you missed it over and over:

So, when will you be backing up your claims that the dozens of videos with the 2nd plane in it are all fake? When will you be answering whether you believe all the people in NYC who saw planes fly into buildings are liars? Where are the people who boarded those planes? What is your expertise regarding buildings and airplanes?

I do all sorts of things, currently working in international logistics industry, mainly related to software that automates export compliance.

So, when will you be backing up your claims that the dozens of videos with the 2nd plane in it are all fake? When will you be answering whether you believe all the people in NYC who saw planes fly into buildings are liars? Where are the people who boarded those planes? What is your expertise regarding buildings and airplanes?

hardware? what platform?

well? you dont know what you do and use now huh.

am I supposed to sit here all night waiting for you to figure it out?

Just as I suspected you are a fraud.

and most likely another fucking troll tard.

 

[SteadyMercury]

So I guess that about wraps it up.

Tin hatter makes a claim he cannot prove and demands others do the proving, refuses to address obvious issues that complicate his insane theories, and calls others layman despite being unable to provide any evidence of his own expertise in the field, which likely consists of watching youtube videos produced by other conspiracy nuts.

The 911 truther movement really is scraping along the bottom of the barrel at this point, this thread is nothing more than a sad testament to one man's paranoia and desperate mental instability.

 

[KokomoJojo]

So I guess that about wraps it up.

Tin hatter makes a claim he cannot prove and demands others do the proving, refuses to address obvious issues that complicate his insane theories, and calls others layman despite being unable to provide any evidence of his own expertise in the field, which likely consists of watching youtube videos produced by other conspiracy nuts.

The 911 truther movement really is scraping along the bottom of the barrel at this point, this thread is nothing more than a sad testament to one man's paranoia and desperate mental instability.

For you yeh, shouldnt be so obvious. Your problem is well understood.




Before the CIA memo came out, the Washington Post and New York Times had never used the phrase “conspiracy theorist.” After the CIA memo came out, these two newspapers have used that phrase 1,118 times. Of course, in these uses the phrase is always delivered in a context in which “conspiracy theorists” were made to seem less intelligent and less rationale than people who uncritically accept official explanations for major events.

Barrett: “In short, the Wood Douglas study suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, NOT those who dispute it.”

Hoffman; The label “conspiracy theorist,” aids an irrational mechanism of labeling to avoid having to integrate contrary information that might cause mental or emotional tension for the weaker mind.

Cognitive dissonance; Leon Festinger: There is a powerful motive to be consistent in one’s thoughts. This motive,can be so compelling as to be disregarding of pertinent, even thought-altering information. People experience great anxiety when new information clashes with what they believe. Calling the tension cognitive dissonance.

This cultural phenomenon goes back to 1967. At that time, in response to questions about the Warren Commission Report (which President Ford helped create), the CIA issued a memorandum calling for mainstream media sources to begin countering “conspiracy theorists.”[13] In the 45 years before the CIA memo came out, the phrase “conspiracy theory” appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times only 50 times, or about once per year. In the 45 years after the CIA memo, the phrase appeared 2,630 times, or about once per week.

 

[daws101]

do you think the event looks that way when a plane impacts a solid object?

are you able to point out what is impossible in that video in real life?

They are numerous see if you can find just one.

You think a wall of glass is a solid enough object to deter the impact of a jet plane crashing into it?

In your uneducated and uninformed guesstimation, how "should" it have looked when the jet plane crashed into that wall of glass?

wow you think the wtc was made out of glass? First time I ever heard that one!

fact is the towers and building 7 were mostly air..
they were no solid blocks as you are trying to infer.
that is if you had any idea what the word infer meant!

 

[daws101]

guys! Kaka has already proven he like 7 ,has no fucking clue about cgi or computer graphics.
if you had not noticed any info he's given is regurgitated with no idea of what the words mean..
ok kaka here's another chance to wow us with your cgi skills..what is Ray tracing....

 

[SteadyMercury]

Whoever he is he's got the weakest debating skills I've ever seen. He just ignores responding to anything that leaves him high and dry, over resorts to unrelated gibberish.

A 5 year old could have held up better trying to prove a point.

 

[KokomoJojo]

wow you think the wtc was made out of glass? First time I ever heard that one!

fact is the towers and building 7 were mostly air..
they were no solid blocks as you are trying to infer.
that is if you had any idea what the word infer meant!

This one thinks they were made of air, hell this is getting better by the second!

 

[KokomoJojo]

Whoever he is he's got the weakest debating skills I've ever seen. He just ignores responding to anything that leaves him high and dry, over resorts to unrelated gibberish.

A 5 year old could have held up better trying to prove a point.

I am known for ball busting ass kicking skills, not playing footsie under the table.

As you can see, Liike dawes you too really need to seek some help

So I guess that about wraps it up.

Tin hatter makes a claim he cannot prove and demands others do the proving, refuses to address obvious issues that complicate his insane theories, and calls others layman despite being unable to provide any evidence of his own expertise in the field, which likely consists of watching youtube videos produced by other conspiracy nuts.

The 911 truther movement really is scraping along the bottom of the barrel at this point, this thread is nothing more than a sad testament to one man's paranoia and desperate mental instability.

For you yeh, shouldnt be so obvious. Your problem is well understood.




Before the CIA memo came out, the Washington Post and New York Times had never used the phrase “conspiracy theorist.” After the CIA memo came out, these two newspapers have used that phrase 1,118 times. Of course, in these uses the phrase is always delivered in a context in which “conspiracy theorists” were made to seem less intelligent and less rationale than people who uncritically accept official explanations for major events.

Barrett: “In short, the Wood Douglas study suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, NOT those who dispute it.”

Hoffman; The label “conspiracy theorist,” aids an irrational mechanism of labeling to avoid having to integrate contrary information that might cause mental or emotional tension for the weaker mind.

Cognitive dissonance; Leon Festinger: There is a powerful motive to be consistent in one’s thoughts. This motive,can be so compelling as to be disregarding of pertinent, even thought-altering information. People experience great anxiety when new information clashes with what they believe. Calling the tension cognitive dissonance.

This cultural phenomenon goes back to 1967. At that time, in response to questions about the Warren Commission Report (which President Ford helped create), the CIA issued a memorandum calling for mainstream media sources to begin countering “conspiracy theorists.”[13] In the 45 years before the CIA memo came out, the phrase “conspiracy theory” appeared in the Washington Post and New York Times only 50 times, or about once per year. In the 45 years after the CIA memo, the phrase appeared 2,630 times, or about once per week.

 

[daws101]

wow you think the wtc was made out of glass? First time I ever heard that one!

fact is the towers and building 7 were mostly air..
they were no solid blocks as you are trying to infer.
that is if you had any idea what the word infer meant!

This one thinks they were made of air, hell this is getting better by the second!

no this one just pointed your ignorance!
riddle me this: were the towers and wtc7 mostly empty space or partially empty space or solid structures?

 

[daws101]

Whoever he is he's got the weakest debating skills I've ever seen. He just ignores responding to anything that leaves him high and dry, over resorts to unrelated gibberish.

A 5 year old could have held up better trying to prove a point.

I am known for ball busting ass kicking skills, not playing footsie under the table.

As you can see, Liike dawes you too really need to seek some help

learn to spell... that's daws...

 

[KokomoJojo]

You think a wall of glass is a solid enough object to deter the impact of a jet plane crashing into it?

In your uneducated and uninformed guesstimation, how "should" it have looked when the jet plane crashed into that wall of glass?

wow you think the wtc was made out of glass? First time I ever heard that one!

fact is the towers and building 7 were mostly air..
they were no solid blocks as you are trying to infer.
that is if you had any idea what the word infer meant!

so now we go from towers built out of glass to towers built out of air!



you kids are on a real roll here! Keep it comin!

I never said anything about "solid blocks", you make no fucking sense what so ever.

 

[daws101]

wow you think the wtc was made out of glass? First time I ever heard that one!

fact is the towers and building 7 were mostly air..
they were no solid blocks as you are trying to infer.
that is if you had any idea what the word infer meant!

so now we go from towers built out of glass to towers built out of air!



you kids are on a real roll here! Keep it comin!

I never said anything about "solid blocks", you make no fucking sense what so ever.

DODGE!
AGAIN I just pointed up your ignorance!

WRONG AGAIN FUCK HEAD, IT WAS ME WHO NEVER SAID" SOLID BLOCKS"
YOU were and still are confused.
why are you dodging this simple question:riddle me this: were the towers and wtc7 mostly empty space or partially empty space or solid structures?

 

[KokomoJojo]

fact is the towers and building 7 were mostly air..
they were no solid blocks as you are trying to infer.
that is if you had any idea what the word infer meant!

so now we go from towers built out of glass to towers built out of air!



you kids are on a real roll here! Keep it comin!

I never said anything about "solid blocks", you make no fucking sense what so ever.

DODGE!
AGAIN I just pointed up your ignorance!

WRONG AGAIN FUCK HEAD, IT WAS ME WHO NEVER SAID" SOLID BLOCKS"
YOU were and still are confused.
why are you dodging this simple question:riddle me this: were the towers and wtc7 mostly empty space or partially empty space or solid structures?

No you are confused I never said ANYTHING about blocks dumb ass! Quote it or own it.

if you hollow out a mountain its mostly empty space too, so is there a hidden point to your unrationalization somewhere in there?

 

[Gamolon]

fact is the towers and building 7 were mostly air..

Agreed daws.

Below is a quote from a member of another forum with a link to the PDF which contained the calculations done bu Gregory Urich:

To put some numbers and calc to it:

Back in 2007 Gregory Urich meticulously tallied the mass of steel, concrete and other materials in WTC1:
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2 ... dPeWtc.pdf

He calculated the total mass of the towers, including basement levels, foundation and antenna, to be 288,000 metric tons. Personally, my intuition tells me that Urich's method tends to slightly underestimate the values, but not by much, less than 10%. Urich is my standard reference when talking about mass and potential energy of the towers.

The paper contains, in Section 5.2, links to a table with per-floor calculation of everything. From this I gather that the total mass of the towers above ground (floors 1-110 plus roof and antenna) was 248,000 metric tons. These break down to
Steel:
- Column steel: 51,680
- Structural steel core floors: 6,637
- Rebar + decking, core: 1,323
- Structural steel office floors: 21,975
- Rebar + decking, offices: 5,675
Sum steel: 87,290

Concrete (i.e. Non-steel dead load):
- Core: 19,331
- Office floors: 55,746

Superimposed dead loads (partitions, ceilings, floor finishes, fireproofing, plumbing, ...):
- Core: 25,336
- Offices: 28,887
Sum SDL: 54,223

Sum all deads loads: 216,589 metric tons
(Add to that Live Loads, i.e. office contents such as furniture and people, of 7,036 (core) and 24,340 (offices), and we arrive at the full mass of 247,965 tons)

Now lets devide these amounts by reasonable estimates for density to get volume:
Steel: 87,290 tons / 7.87 tons/m3 = 11,091m3
Concrete, core (normal and light weight): 19,331tons / 2.25 tons/m3 = 8592m3
Concrete, offices (light weight): 28,887 tons / 1,75 tons/m3 = 16,507m3
SDL (taking Gypsum and Aluminium as typical): 54,223 tons / 2.5 tons/m3 = 21,689m3
Sum of all dead loads: 57,879m3


The tower's outer dimensions above ground were 417m x 63.15m x 63.15m = 1,663,000m3 (rounded)


It follows that only 57,879m3 / 1,663,000m3 = 3.5% of the tower's volume was occupied by building material. Live loads (building contents) may have used another 1.5-1.8% of the space, so indeed that 95% air is a very good estimate.
Some of that air is inside box columns, which kinda "inflates" the steel, maybe you don't want to count that; then open air content of dead loads alone comes near 95%.