Is the 9/11 Forum Dying?

originally posted by: JuniorDisco
a reply to: Sremmos80

Yes, but that doesn't surprise me. All kinds of bad things were done in the wake of 9/11 in the name of 'security'. The other poster is implying that Bush purposely created a ay for NIST to withhold information because - presumably - he was worried that people were getting close to the truth about Building Seven. That would imply a conspiracy, and would go some way to endorsing his views. But as expected he can't actually prove it in any meaningful way.

Well done!

a reply to: JuniorDisco

The other poster is implying that Bush purposely created a ay for NIST to withhold information

not only NIST but ANY Gov. agency concerning anything pertaining to 9-11....a nice comfy blanket over all!


Presidential Executive Orders Archive

because - presumably - he was worried that people were getting close to the truth about Building Seven

if the shoe fits.....why did the 2008 NIST wait so long, 3 years, to professor this BRAND NEW NEVER BEFORE SEEN physics phenomenon....

that REMOVED 105 vertical feet of structural resistance in WTC7 to allow global unified acceleration EQUAL to g. for 1/3 of it's 6.5 second collapse, as found by the 2005 NIST...

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

NCSTAR1A p.39/130
"the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7."

That would imply a conspiracy, and would go some way to endorsing his views. But as expected he can't actually prove it in any meaningful way.

I don't have to...what I post does!

a reply to: hgfbob

Building 7 didn't take 6.5 seconds to collapse.

Why would anyone believe anything you say when falsehoods like that stick out so obviously? It's not 2006 any more, people looked at this stuff, saw it was being peddled by whack jobs and liars, and moved on.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

Building 7 didn't take 6.5 seconds to collapse.

Why would anyone believe anything you say when falsehoods like that stick out so obviously?

because the 2005 NIST scientific investigation found it to be so.....

NCSTAR 1A 3.6] "This free fall drop continues for approximately 8 stories, the distance traveled between t=1.75s and t=4.0s...constant, downward acceleration during this time interval. This acceleration was *9.8m/s^2*, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity."

NICSTAR 1A 4.3.4] Global Collapse..."The entire building above the buckled column region moved downward in a single unit, as observed, completing the global collapse"

starting at 1.75 seconds, when the kink forms, WE SEE GLOBAL, UNIFIED descent at a rate EQUAL to g.

and this goes on till 4.0 seconds, then 2.5 seconds later, it's ALL DONE!!!

a 6.5 second steel frame building collapse with 1/3 of it, globally and unified, equal to g.

DO THE MATH!!!

YOU want to attach the east penthouse and start the timer there......PROVE THE NEW science that is suppose to make it so

tell me how fire we can't see created conditions for this global unified event within 1.74 seconds.......because the building is NOT assisting after that till 4.0s.

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

Shyam Sunder at 2008 NIST technical briefing

a reply to: hgfbob

Since the collapse of the penthouse was the start of, er, the collapse I would indeed start the timer there. But even if one doesn't it still took longer than you say.

a reply to: hgfbob

Actually the timing for the stage of collapse you are describing was 5.4 secs, but this was only for 18 visible floors.

And BTW, this was 40% longer than FFA.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Everyone pretty much knows this was a conspiracy and an inside job to some degree or another.

What more is there to discuss?

On ATS we can't really talk about what we plan on doing about it, so...

Yeah, 911 was an inside job.

Great work everyone.

Forum over.

a reply to: cantonear1968

Actually the timing for the stage of collapse you are describing was 5.4 secs, but this was only for 18 visible floors.

And BTW, this was 40% longer than FFA.

uhm...as SCIENCE already said....free fall acceleration of a steel framed building is an EVENT, NOT a phase one can ADD time to ON PAPER so it doesn't exist....WE SEE it.

I already SHOWED the science from the 2005 NIST supporting it occurred.....deal with it.

I also showed you the pathetic excuse of NEW physics as a reason for this never before seen event given by the 2008 NIST...their OWN WORDS!

ABSOLUTE complicity within a Gov. organization to DELIBERATELY hide, lie and misdirect the results of the scientific findings we see occur on 9-11......to keep the agenda alive....and keep people out of JAIL.

a reply to: JuniorDisco

Since the collapse of the penthouse was the start of, er, the collapse I would indeed start the timer there

of course you would.....

but to bad for you there is NOTHING else collapsing........we can tell because when the vertical support RELEASES the massive load it is supporting, it is REFLECTED on the exterior....roof......


funny that you 'people' will have the EPH fall with ONE loss of a column......but in the SAME BREATH, you want ALL columns to disappear inside, WHILE that massive weight just magically FLOATS till yer pathetic little scenario completes.........all just to give us the ...'IMPRESSION' of global unified acceleration equal to g.....another

a reply to: hgfbob

Bob, I don't think you comprehended what I was referring to because your reply had nothing to do with what I quoted. I pointed out that that the collapse as timed in the NIST report was 5.4 secs, not the 6.5 you claimed, and was only for 18 visible floors. Not the total building of 47 stories.

Why you responded about the brief, 2.25 secs of FFA is beyond me.

NEW physics

Thermal expansion is not new physics...or a new phenomenon...or new science. No one claims this but you.

ABSOLUTE complicity within a Gov. organization to DELIBERATELY hide

Finally!!
Your bias is showing!

a reply to: cantonear1968

Thermal expansion is not new physics...or a new phenomenon...or new science. No one claims this but you.

too bad for YOU, that is NOT the claim....

LOW TEMP thermal expansion is the official claim that caused the collapses we see on 9-11.

but seem you keep forgetting that part....

a reply to: hgfbob

I don't know why this is "too bad for me" when I do not deny that thermal expansion was the initiating factor for collapse.

However, thermal expansion, even at LOW TEMPS is not a new phenomenon.

No one thinks this except you.

a reply to: cantonear1968

I do not deny that thermal expansion was the initiating factor for collapse.

then PROVE IT!....and AGAIN, the OFFICIAL STORY pusher whom FORGETS the FIRST TWO words when replying back....."LOW TEMP thermal expansion"

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

the authors holding the pushed official claims REFUSE to.

tell us ALL HOW this new phenomenon REMOVED the necessary RESISTANCE BEFORE 1.74 seconds INCLUDING..

105 vertical feet of LOAD BEARING continuous vertical support....
8 floors of truss assemblies with carrier beams...
lateral, cross, and diagonal bracing throughout...
tens of thousands of bolts and welds...
office contents...
utilities....

all MUST be removed in which to ACCELERATE equal go g., GLOBALLY and UNIFIED.

but oh yea...WARM STEEL from one end of the building did all this work.....

and when asked to PROVE this new science through science...

"NIST is withholding 68,246 files. These records are currently exempt from disclosure. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16 story and the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse."

like SO MANY if Gov. these days...they plead the fifth!

a reply to: hgfbob

then PROVE IT!

Structural Analysis Of The Initial Failure Event Using ANSYS
NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Section
pg 35
pdf 77

tell us ALL HOW this new phenomenon REMOVED the necessary RESISTANCE BEFORE 1.74 seconds INCLUDING

First off, thermal expansion even at LOW TEMPS is not a new phenomenon. No one believes this but you. Secondly, thermal expansion did not cause the final global release of WTC 7 causing a brief period of FFA. No report states this. What DID cause the conditions which lead to the final global release resulting in a brief period of FFA has been explained to you many, many times. You've never responded to this nor offered any countering data to refute this.

"NIST is withholding 68,246 files....

How is your FEA analysis coming?

Why will you not answer this question?

a reply to: cantonear1968

"NIST is withholding 68,246 files....

How is your FEA analysis coming?

Why will you not answer this question?

...agin.......as soon as they release the data variables so we can perform a PEER REVIEW...I will let ya know.....

unless YOU know of a NEW peer review system in place?

but till then, peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication.

uhm.....there's NOT a problem with 'providing credibility'?....is there?

originally posted by: hgfbob

and AGAIN, the OFFICIAL STORY pusher whom FORGETS the FIRST TWO words when replying back....."LOW TEMP thermal expansion"

"the phenomenon that we saw on 9/11 that brought this particular building down was really thermal expansion, which occurs at lower temperatures."

They aren't the first two words, as you show by repeating the quote immediately. They are the last two. He isn't naming a new phenomenon called "low temperature thermal expansion". He is saying that the well-understood phenomenon of thermal expansion takes place at relatively low temperature.

This is only new to you. Either because you don't understand very basic physics, or how to read wikipedia, or because syntax is beyond you.

Either because you don't understand very basic physics, or how to read wikipedia, or because syntax is beyond you.

I think it goes beyond that.

There are a percentage (high) of people who feel the world happens TO them.
Not that THEY control their destiny.
Someone , usually the government, prevents them from achieving their potential.
To them someone else is pulling the strings behind closed doors.
Simple explations are never enough.

They crashed their car.
The brakes must have been faulty.

WHen it comes to 911 it can't be as simple as plane crash/fires.
It must be something much more complex.
But they are never able to explain how the man behind the curtain can pull off the event without leaving a trace of tangable proof.
Somehow the same people thought Hussain had WMDs.
Somehow the same people thought they could convert Sunnis and Sheites to democracy.

Humans are loose ends in conspiracies.
How many loose ends had to be involved in 911?

Conspiracy believers can never explain each aspect that must happen to its completeion.
They usually stop at 'somebody hidden did it'.

a reply to: samkent

Well said!

a reply to: samkent

Absolutely. Although I was analysing the specific reasons for his inability to understand Sunder's statement. It strikes me that either he literally cannot parse the meaning of the phrase, despite how obvious it is, or he's just lying about what he thinks Sunder is saying. Either way it results in a pointless complaint.

The reasons why people hold wider conspiracy-type views on 9/11 is really complex I think. A mixture of lots of different factors which are present in different measures in different people I guess. There's a good book waiting to be written about it.