Mathematician to Refute Official Theory of WTC Destruction at Upcoming Conference

[Faun]

One slight problem: If he hadn’t been planning the illegal, un-permitted, homicidal demolitions of WTC-7 and the entire World Trade Center complex that took place on September 11th, 2001, there would have been no point to any such design meeting back in April, 2000

No one has ever designed a building to replace an existing building? Really?

They do it all the time.
They're called stadiums
.

Cool gif. Notice the bright flashes from explosives just before it collapses. Too bad for you that didn't occur at the World Trade Center.

 

[rightwinger]

OP

What does a mathematician know about the physics of a building collapse

 

[Rigby5]

OP

What does a mathematician know about the physics of a building collapse

Everything.
Physics is all math.
It may take a physicist to develop the general equations for support, momentum, stress/strain, etc., but once you have them, a mathematician is who you want to operate with them.

 

[Rigby5]

The problem is that the building was required to be fire proof and airplane crash proof.
In theory it was.
So clearly it was not the plane, gravity, or heat that caused the fall.
However, unusual combinations, such as where the crash ripped off the heat shielding, etc., is the current theory.

 

[rightwinger]

OP

What does a mathematician know about the physics of a building collapse

Everything.
Physics is all math.
It may take a physicist to develop the general equations for support, momentum, stress/strain, etc., but once you have them, a mathematician is who you want to operate with them.

A mathematician is not a physicist

They know nothing about architecture

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bremer was not in that video. Also, the video states he WAS at work on 9/11, so how did you fuck that up so badly?.

You never get tired of being wrong, do you ?
The man states that at the time of 9/11, Bremer was employed with Marsh & McLennan.
Pay attention in class from now on Albert.

You said he wasn't at work that day, which the video clearly shows he was! Dumbass!

From your post: "Why wasn't JPaul Bremer at his office that day ?"

Where are these interviews he claimed Bremer gave saying who was likely responsible?

Who was that dipshit on the video and why should I care?

Actually, Angelo is right, that fellow on RT is unclear.

"Bremer and 1,700 of the employees of Marsh & McLennan had offices in the World Trade Center. Bremer's office was in the North Tower. In an interview with CNN after the September 11 attacks, he stated that their office was located "above where the second aircraft hit".[5] On September 11, he was interviewed in Washington on WRC-TV at 12:30pm in-studio."
Paul Bremer - Wikipedia

Bremer should have been at work instead of pushing a false narrative on TEE VEE.


Read the comments in the video at YouTube to learn something.

Bremer made a mistake?!?!?!?!

Well then, clearly it follows that 1000s of people in our government secretly conspired to kill 3000 people on 9/11.

*cuckoo*

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So clearly it was not the plane, gravity, or heat that caused the fall.

Hahahahaha...oh man. Good stuff.

What would it have been then, professor?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Great. They found 2 of the 4 boxes.
Have they disclosed the contents ?

After posting such a stupid lie and being corrected and embarrassed, has it ONCE crossed your mind to look some of this shit up for yourself for fuck's sake?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This was the last person I ever voted for President.

Then you have, essentially, voted for the major candidate you preferred least in every presidential election since. VOTE

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Everything.
Physics is all math.

Such utter bullshit. No, you could not pluck a mathematician and have him explain all physics. You couldn't even pluck a physicist and have him explain engineering.

 

[Rigby5]

Do you REALLY want to know who "they" are?

If you do, don't think nations, don't think nefarious shadowy evil doers. . . just think interest groups. Folks that have money and power to gain.

As always, we need to FOLLOW THE MONEY. It's not a simple and easy answer.

"Published on Sep 11, 2015


TRANSCRIPT, SOURCES AND MP3: https://www.corbettreport.com/?p=16167 Forget for one moment everything you've been told about September 11, 2001. 9/11 was a crime. And as with any crime, there is one overriding imperative that detectives must follow to identify the perpetrators: follow the money. This is an investigation of the 9/11 money trail."

9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money
2,677,117 views

You know I just went back to try to grab a screenshot of what was on the front page on September 10th 2001. My recollection was that it was a story about a missing 10 - 11 trillion dollars from the pentagon's budget.

I don't remember ever hearing about it again.

My recollection was that it was a story about a missing 10 - 11 trillion dollars from the pentagon's budget.

No.

DAVID NORQUIST:
Let me address that, that's a very important one. One of the issues you're talking about related to journal vouchers, which occurs after the money is spent. So when you see in the article it says trillions of dollars and you realize we only receive about $600 billion in a year, there's a mismatch in the story. What this refers to is: we have systems that do not automatically pass data from one to the other. The army [and others] goes in at the end of their financial statements, finds the number from their property book and writes it into their general ledger. That is called a journal voucher entry. Depending on the property it could be hundreds of billions of dollars. Because they don't have adequate support for that journal voucher, the whole entry is considered unsupported. Now from a management point of view this is bad. It's not the same as not being able to account for money that the Congress has given you to spend, but it's still a problem that needs to be fixed. Part of that relates to systems that were built as "stove-pipes", and in private sector they don't talk to each other, you wouldn't let them field a system that wouldn't automatically pass up its data. So we are addressing exactly that type of challenge and one of my concerns is — only by eliminating the types of ones that are just an entry issue can you find underlying issues that are hidden among inaccurate data. So it's important, I wouldn't want the taxpayer to confuse that with something like the loss of trillion of dollars, that wouldn't be accurate. But it's an accounting problem that does need to be solved because it can help hide other underlying issues.

Debunked: Missing $21 Trillion / $6.5 Trillion / $2.3 Trillion - Journal Vouchers

Special Report: The Pentagon's doctored ledgers conceal epic waste
Special Report: The Pentagon's doctored ledgers conceal epic waste - Reuters

How the Pentagon’s payroll quagmire traps America’s soldiers
Reuters Investigates - UNACCOUNTABLE: The Pentagon's bad bookkeeping

Yes, there is waste.

No, trillions aren't "missing".

I get what you are saying. You can't have more missing than was originally budgeted.

Makes sense.

Actually you can, because for example, Bush did not budget the invasion of Iraq, but then demanded trillions in emergency allocations.

 

[Rigby5]

No high rise building has ever survive a direct hit from a jet airline

No lowrise building, either.

The Pentagon survived

No skyscraper in history has ever survived such an impact

That is not true.
It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.
They could not build skyscrapers unless there was no way a plane NORMALLY should bring one down.
Even then, the building stayed up for hours, and if the sprinkler system had worked, there was no way it should have come down.

 

[Faun]

The problem is that the building was required to be fire proof and airplane crash proof.
In theory it was.
So clearly it was not the plane, gravity, or heat that caused the fall.
However, unusual combinations, such as where the crash ripped off the heat shielding, etc., is the current theory.

Umm, no, the buildings were never designed to withstand an impact from planes that large. That they went down is not much of a surpise.

 

[Rigby5]

Everything.
Physics is all math.

Such utter bullshit. No, you could not pluck a mathematician and have him explain all physics. You couldn't even pluck a physicist and have him explain engineering.

Who said anything about explaining?
It take a person like Newton, Kepler, Einstein, etc., in order to develop laws of physics.
But physicists do not develop new laws.
They just run the math.
So mathematician can do it just as well, likely better.
But mathematicians are even more rare and paid even better.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It has been survived many different skyscrapers, MANY times, including a B-24 that hit the Empire State building.

That was different, as the fire was brought under control in 40 minutes. And go ahead and link us to some of those "many" other times. 5 links will do, thanks.

 

[Rigby5]

The problem is that the building was required to be fire proof and airplane crash proof.
In theory it was.
So clearly it was not the plane, gravity, or heat that caused the fall.
However, unusual combinations, such as where the crash ripped off the heat shielding, etc., is the current theory.

Umm, no, the buildings were never designed to withstand an impact from planes that large. That they went down is not much of a surpise.

Total lie.
All skyscrapers have ALWAYS been required to take an impact far greater than twice the largest plane, and survive.
The IMPACT had NOTHING to do with either tower collapse.
In fact, the impacts essentially did no structural damage, at all.

What caused the collapse, according to the accepted theory, is that it was entirely and completely just the prolonged heat from all the combustion.
And THAT is the problem that allows for an argument, because according to physiscs, the fuel should have all pretty much vaporized in less than a minute or so.
Leaving the question of why the fire continued for so long?
Were the offices not up to fire code?
Were there massive filing cabinets of paper?
THAT is what the contention is about.

The one things the impact were claimed to have damaged, was the sprinkler system.

 

[rightwinger]

Everything.
Physics is all math.

Such utter bullshit. No, you could not pluck a mathematician and have him explain all physics. You couldn't even pluck a physicist and have him explain engineering.

A mathematician could tell you there were two towers and then there were none

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It take a person like Newton, Kepler, Einstein, etc., in order to develop laws of physics.

And not one of them knew a thing about engineering or architecture. You do get that, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And THAT is the problem that allows for an argument, because according to physiscs, the fuel should have all pretty much vaporized in less than a minute or so.

False, and i have to think you just made that up.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The IMPACT had NOTHING to do with either tower collapse.
In fact, the impacts essentially did no structural damage, at all.

100% false. As anyone can read for themselves in the report, or on websites like popular mechanics, both impacts removed the lateral supports to the perimeter columns, weakening the structures and contributing to sagging floors.

Are you just kind of making this up as you go?