>> ^AdrianBlack:

dead


FIxed and thanks.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by dotdude.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Using-a-barrier-of-light-to-repel-mosquitos

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Szabolcs Marka, columbia university, mosquitoe, forcefield, laser' to 'Szabolcs Marka, columbia university, mosquito, forcefield, laser' - edited by calvados

Cool. Now poor Africans can toss their hand-me-down mosquito nets and adopt these high-tech laser cones instead.

That's the biggest, loudest, gas powered mosquito I've ever seen.

Reminds me of the old Discovery channel commercials... Hello mosquito.

I really really hate black flies, due to a couple incidents as a kid where I tried to suffer politely through being eaten alive by them. People who haven't experienced black flies don't understand: it's not like mosquitoes.... mosquitoes bite you and go away or you slap them and they're dead. Black flies just nip at you over and over and over every few seconds relentlessly and it's more painful than a mosquito bite.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

Just watching that made me itchy.


Dang draculas!

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm...
As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.

He says the speed was by far the biggest difference, not the fuel. His tests, understandably, were based on the landing speed of a jet, not one trying to hit with as much speed as it's pilot could muster.
But let me get your take on Leslie E. Robertson. Is he part of a conspiracy to hide the truth?
You seem to accept the quotes of engineers who certified the buildings before the attacks. Is that because you accept them as honest and professional, or because their results are convenient to your view? As I asked before, you are aware that NONE of those engineers today disagree with the official story and accept that the planes caused the collapse. Leslie Robertson isn't alone, it's every engineer that had any involvement with the prior studies that are all with him in accepting the planes as causing the collapse.
Again, if you disagree please provide an example. The only two you've given either died on that day, or agree with me and you just reject him as unreliable. Call him unreliable if you like, but please don't quote his prior work to me as evidence at the same time. I'm not in kindergarten anymore and it's a little insulting.


Why would he go on record stating one thing then suddenly change his mind years later? Why state tests were done considering a full fuel load, then all of a sudden he says "...then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered."

And why would you say they only tested at landing speeds (180MPH) when the quote I posted clearly states 600MPH. Which is it? Was it landing speed 180MPH, or what he said years earlier 600MPH? It certainly can't be both. Why would he also state the the difference between 12,000 gallons of gas and 12,980 gallons of gas enormous? That's far from enormous.

You are right. Now everything he has said is suspect and not to be believed. Disregard every post I have posted with his quotes in them now. And I'll do the same with yours. Thanks.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm...
As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.


He says the speed was by far the biggest difference, not the fuel. His tests, understandably, were based on the landing speed of a jet, not one trying to hit with as much speed as it's pilot could muster.

But let me get your take on Leslie E. Robertson. Is he part of a conspiracy to hide the truth?

You seem to accept the quotes of engineers who certified the buildings before the attacks. Is that because you accept them as honest and professional, or because their results are convenient to your view? As I asked before, you are aware that NONE of those engineers today disagree with the official story and accept that the planes caused the collapse. Leslie Robertson isn't alone, it's every engineer that had any involvement with the prior studies that are all with him in accepting the planes as causing the collapse.

Again, if you disagree please provide an example. The only two you've given either died on that day, or agree with me and you just reject him as unreliable. Call him unreliable if you like, but please don't quote his prior work to me as evidence at the same time. I'm not in kindergarten anymore and it's a little insulting.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.

Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:
We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.
And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.
So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.


And I stand by what I said. The quotes I provided clearly show they DID in fact consider the jet fuel in their tests. Then he contradicts himself years later? So I guess we will both claim to be right. [Edit] What I find strange is he considers the difference between 12,000 gallons and 12,980 gallons enormous? Hmmm... Also how did Demartini say ANYTHING after the attacks He's DEAD! He DIED in 9/11!!

As I already know, whatever information you provide is gospel 100% accurate and truthful in every way shape and form. Good for you.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^bcglorf:
I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?


Really? Again:
Statements by Engineers
"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."
Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?
Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.


Go read for yourself what Leslie E. Robertson, the engineer who designed the towers and hired Demartini had to say afterwards. The full source is here but here's a quote:

We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707. The 767 that actually hit the WTC was quite another matter again. First of all it was a bit heavier than the 707, not very much heavier, but a bit heavier. But mostly it was flying a lot faster. And the energy that it put into the building is proportional to its square of the velocity, as you double the velocity, four times the energy. Triple the velocity, eight times the energy and so forth.

And then of course with the 707 to the best of my knowledge the fuel load was not considered in the design, and indeed I don't know how it could have been considered. But, and with the 767 the fuel load was enormous compared to that of the 707, it was a fully fuelled airplane compared to the 707 which was a landing aircraft. Just absolutely no comparison between the two.

So I stand by what I said. The engineers that certified the towers would survive such a disaster have considered current evidence and accept the "official story". Provide an example if you want to continue to claim otherwise.

>> ^bcglorf:

I'm saying they tested for scenarios such as jets with full fuel loads smashing into the towers when they designed them. And provided quotes from the actual engineers stating that fact.
Do you realize that your quotes from those engineers are from long BEFORE the attacks on the towers?
Do you realize that NONE of those engineers have come forward to condemn or rebuke the official story of the collapse?



Really? Again:

Statements by Engineers

"Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires."

Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Wow a few months before. Yup that discredits his entire statement. I better disregard it entirely. And perhaps since he's dead it would be kind of hard to make any further statements on the subject.

Are you now saying that their testing (and the resulting 1200 page report) was not good enough or incorrect as well? I suppose you have facts to back this up?

Also, I love the way you guys gloss over the fact that everyone keeps talking about how much smaller, slower, and how much less fuel the jets they used for testing were compared to the jets that hit WTC 1&2 is not factually correct.