It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

page: 15
79
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


If NIST explained it like you keep saying, then just freaking post where they explained it!!


We already know how long NIST says it accelerated at free fall, now post an excerpt from their report where they explain how this is possible when there is still structure in the way!!!

[edit on 31-10-2009 by bsbray11]




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
There is nothing to suggest there is any "problem."


Then what specifically is wrong with the question,

"What allowed WTC7 to accelerate at the rate of gravity (free-fall)?"

And why can't you answer it?


It's been addressed by NIST. Why can't you accept it?


Are you denying the fact that there must be specific physical conditions met before an object can accelerate at the rate of gravity? Specifically, are you denying that an object can only free-fall when nothing is in its way?


I am not denying anything. Free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds means there is negligible resistance, correct?

NIST has explained it yet you don't accept the explanation or even show in the NIST report where they are wrong. Instead, you want us to believe that free fall acceleration could not occur without "explosive demolition" and you cannot - or will not - demonstrate why.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
A valid comparison of your 2+2 example would be this:

Bsbray11: The question, "What is 2 + 2", remains unanswered.

Me: It's been shown to be 4

B: No it's not. It's an unanswered question. There is no proof it's 4. What is 2 + 2?

We'll await for bsbray11 to refute NIST.



Or we'll wait for you to clarify what in the HELL you are talking about by posting the relevant excerpt from NIST that explains my question.

If NIST answered it, show me where.

Stop distorting the issue like a propagandist.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
It's been addressed by NIST. Why can't you accept it?


Because you've posted nothing to accept.

You keep SAYING NIST answered my question in their report but you've yet to explain WHERE.

Don't just post a link and tell me to go read or watch a video, either. Post the excerpt where it is explained.

I want to see if YOU even understand what you are talking about, jthomas.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


Still waiting for you to answer question #6, or any of the questions, jthomas.


I presented valid questions about your question and answered it. You refuse to admit it, as always.


All your constant distortions and trying to shift the burden of answering the question are just keeping the OP near the top of the forum.


Nice of you to illustrate my point that you cannot support your claims, bsbray11. They remain on the table, unanswered by you.

So let's review. David Chandler, in his video you use to support your claims, states: "I am a high-school physics teacher and figured I would be excluded (from the NIST technical briefing.)"

- David Chandler did an analysis of NIST's work and challenged NIST on using the 5.4 second measurement in the draft NIST report. Chandler demonstrated, correctly, that within the 5.4 seconds there was a period of about 2 1/2 seconds of free fall acceleration.

- NIST, in the final report, affirmed Chandler's analysis and NIST reported a 2.25 second period of free fall acceleration within the 5.4 second period.

End of subject. NIST validated Chandler's calculation. The correct measurement of 5.4 seconds stands, 40% longer than at free fall acceleration, of which 2.25 seconds was at free fall.

Except Chandler wasn't happy and made a video in which he states:


- "NIST method was not just wrong, it was fraudulent."

- "They had to declare freefall out of bounds and try to cover up the evidence."

- "They (NIST) dutifully conjured up a 5.4 second measurement to match."

- "They found the disappearance time and when out of their way to pick an artificially early start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier. This they compared with free fall time."

- "... if he (John Gross of NIST) wasn't so occupied covering his tracks."

- "The 5.4 second he measured just happens to match exactly the theoretical prediction of computer model. That kind of precision is incredibly rare. This has all the characteristic of drylabbing, manipulating the data to match a predetermined outcome."

- "The irrelevant 5.4 second is still defended in the wording."

- "So free fall is now official dogma. How are they going to handle all the ramifications of that inconvenient fact?"

- "free fall went from an impossibility ... to be consistent with their fire-induced hypothesis."

- "They adopted an alternate bullying tactic, cover it with a lie, and walk away."


Apparently, we are supposed to accept those claims on faith and as those from an "objective" physics teacher.

So there you have it, a series of claims and accusations and no substance or explanations. All David Chanler has actually demonstrated - the free fall period of 2.25 seconds - was acknowledged and re-calculated by NIST and included in the final draft. Nothing changed the 5.4 second time span calculated by NIST nor did Chandler give any reason to change it. He affirmed it yet then declares it "irrelevant" with no reason why it is or should be.

Any rational person immediately sees through Chandler and his attempt to cast NIST as "fraudulent" liars trying desperately to "cover their tracks." We can also see that he has singularly failed to present one iota of evidence that free fall could not occur at all nor had to have explosives to do so. Neither Chandler nor bsbray11 have shown how and where NIST is wrong in the collapse mechanism demonstrating how and why free fall for 2.25 seconds occurred.

Bsbray11 is completely unable to support any of his claims or those of Chandler whom he uses as the basis for his "question." Absent any such evidence form bsbray11, and his refusal to present any to us, NIST's explanation of the collapse sequence and mechanism, including the 2.25 second free fall acceleration, remains valid and stands as affirmed and unrefuted.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:36 PM
link   
All that ranting you are doing and you still haven't posted the excerpt I am asking for.


You keep claiming NIST answered my question already, jthomas. Post me the excerpt. Can you see these words? Hellooooooo?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Well I've been reading and rereading the report since it came out and I really can't find it.

No one is disputing the time. That seems to be generally agreed upon. As for the collapse mechanism, can you point me to the explanation that NIST gives that starts with the collapse mechanism and demonstrates what took place in the intervening 8.65 seconds which resulted in the top of the building having, as Dr. Sunder pointed out, "no...uh... structural components below it."

Can you possibly tell me which of your posts showed where this was at? I may have missed it. I promise to go look at it....

As for your example:

"Me: It's been shown to be 4"

If I was still in school my next question would have been "Where?" and my teacher most likely would have pulled out some apples and said "See two apples here... and two apples there...now if we combine them and count we get .... one...two...three...four... so the answer is four" So if you're putting yourself in the position of the teacher please show me the solution.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
A valid comparison of your 2+2 example would be this:

Bsbray11: The question, "What is 2 + 2", remains unanswered.

Me: It's been shown to be 4

B: No it's not. It's an unanswered question. There is no proof it's 4. What is 2 + 2?

We'll await for bsbray11 to refute NIST.



Or we'll wait for you to clarify what in the HELL you are talking about by posting the relevant excerpt from NIST that explains my question.


Evasion noted - again.


If NIST answered it, show me where.


The entire report, as you well know, so don't keep denying it, explains the entire collapse mechanism and sequence. It includes the 2.25 seconds of free fall within the 5.4 second time frame. The conclusions remain the same.
If you disagree with the conclusions, methodology, evidence, and computer
simulations, please so demonstrate.

You can't keep running away, bsbray11.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



I would like for you to post what NIST had to say as well.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by talisman
I would like for you to post what NIST had to say as well.



Are you reading these posts, jthomas?


You're right. The evasion is being noted.


If NIST answered question #6 in the OP, let's see the excerpt. Let's see their answer.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
All that ranting you are doing and you still haven't posted the excerpt I am asking for.


Evasion duly noted and recorded.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Yes, you have 3 people here asking you to back up your claims with an excerpt from NIST and you are still refusing to do it.

All it takes to see who's evading who is a simple click back to the OP: 20 unanswered questions remain 8 years later.


Still waiting for that excerpt from NIST that you say answers me.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Bsbray, I'm not even so much set on him showing it in the NIST report. If he wants to show it using apples that would be fine with me... as long as he shows it.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


Yes, you have 3 people here asking you to back up your claims with an excerpt from NIST and you are still refusing to do it.

All it takes to see who's evading who is a simple click back to the OP: 20 unanswered questions remain 8 years later.


Still waiting for that excerpt from NIST that you say answers me.


I'm still waiting for you to address the basis for your claims:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Evading them is not getting you anywhere, bsbray11. You can't avoid answering them.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Bsbray, I'm not even so much set on him showing it in the NIST report. If he wants to show it using apples that would be fine with me... as long as he shows it.



Feel free to address bsbray11's claims and refute NIST.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Remember, you have to have a reason why we should question anything about the 2.25 second free fall incorporated in NIST's report.

It's amazing that it's so hard for you all to refute NISTS's conclusions.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


2 more jthomas posts without the NIST excerpt he keeps claiming answers us.



No, your own rants on "David Chandler" (a name I am not even familiar with) don't count as NIST's answer to my question that you keep claiming exists.



Either post the excerpt from the NIST report, that you claim answers my question, or just shut up about it already. Seriously. It's against board rules to lie, or claim things exist that don't exist when you KNOW they don't exist.



Here are some pretty pictures to keep us entertained between jthomas' posts:





[edit on 31-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:37 PM
link   
So bsbray11's evasion continues as he refuses to admit that the NIST report contains the 2.25 second free fall acceleration as part of its analysis, evidence, methodology, and conclusions.

Maybe basbray11 should consider finally reading the NIST report so he has no more excuses not to refute it. Amazing.




posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Maybe you should just post the excerpt from it that answers my question like you've been claiming for so many pages of thread.


Btw I am not refusing to admit that it claims a 2.25-second free-fall time. I am asking where they explain how this is possible while there is still intact building below.

Stop distorting the question!!!!

[edit on 31-10-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Refer to the NIST report. What does NIST say?

The NIST report doesn't state how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate. It fails to answer Question 6.

NIST doesn't explain it and neither do you. The purpose you serve in this thread is to keep bumping it to the top of the forum, with your commendable effort to educate people about what's not present in the NIST report.

Considering your troubles understanding speed vs acceleration and your failure to understand what is present in the NIST report, you're doing a mighty fine job trying to bluff your way out of providing an explanation for the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration that WTC 7 experienced.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

The reason I question the period is because NIST and it's representatives have presented completely contradictory data. It has nothing to do with bsbray or anybody else on this thread.

It is Dr. Sunder who brings up the question when, as the representative of NIST, he stated that "a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."

Then they release their final version and they state the opposite, that there was a free fall period, but during this free fall period there were structural components below, though offering only "negligible" resistance.

Now common sense tells me that both of these statements can not be true. One must be false. Common sense tells me that if a falling object encounters something on the way down it will slow down just a bit. That if a falling object encounters something on its way down the drop is technically not "free fall."

But NIST tells me it didn't slow down just a bit when they say "This acceleration was 32.2 ft/s2 (9.81 m/s2), equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." And then they go on to say "This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories...." then I scratch my head and ask myself "How can they consider this free fall if there was resistance, even if it was "negligible"?" Wouldn't that make it just a "drop", but not a "free fall" one? But then I scratch my head again and ponder "But their figure of 32.2 ft/s2 tells me it is "free fall"?

Thus the question that needs answering.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join