20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

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

It's your problem if you refuse to accept my answer a few posts back, to wit:

"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."

If you won't read the NIST report, no one can do anything more for you.

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.

You continue to amaze me that you would admit to everyone here that you don't know who David Chandler is. You "question" is based on the presentation of Chandler's video in your OP. I excerpted what he said in that video and showed that he presented absolutely nothing that demonstrates why we should be surprised with the free fall acceleration period of 2.25 seconds during the collapse sequence of WTC 7.

And you come here claiming that you are not familiar with David Chandler's name? We can only conclude that you have not even bothered to view the video you presented in the OP to support your claims. It's right there in front of you:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ed4f56387fc2.jpg[/atsimg]

So we will just continue to watch you evade refuting the collapse mechanism presented by NIST that includes the 2.25 seconds of free fall as part of that mechanism.

Originally posted by NIcon
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.

Feel free to demonstrate any contradiction in the final NIST report on WTC 7.

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."

What confuses you that during 2.25 second there was no or little resistance. There is no contradiction and the NIST collapse mechanism from before incorporating the 2.25 seconds within the 5.4 seconds remains exactly the same.

Again, read the NIST report, which is the operating document.

reply to post by jthomas

What confuses me is: the the way I view the definition of "free fall" means the object falling is only being affected by the force of gravity, thus it's "free" from the influence of any other force. That all other forces, besides gravity, exerts 0, zero, zilch, nada influence on the object. They do not exert 0.0001 effect, or 0.000000000001 effect (for which ever measuring system is being used).

So NIST is telling me that the building was being worked upon by nothing other than gravity, but also that it was facing a "negligible" resistance. They can not both be true.

What's your definition of "free fall," jthomas?

Edited: "They both can not be true." to "They can not both be true." Words and phrases have meaning so I'm just trying to be as precise as I can.


[edit on 1-11-2009 by NIcon]

reply to post by jthomas

To clarify I'll show the pertinent part in the NIST report from page 45:

"In stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face."

Here they're arguing pretty much both sides, but the sentence over all says that the top of the building was being influenced by the force of gravity and by the support of the lower building.

"This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s."

In this sentence when they use the term "free fall drop" they are saying that the top of the building was being influenced by nothing other than the force of gravity.

These can not both be true. Now if they were to change the word "negligible" to none, zip, nada I think this would bring these two sentences into agreement.

Edited: for the same reason as my previous post



[edit on 1-11-2009 by NIcon]

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you want to believe the wind can carry books and bones and "briefcase-sized" debris for miles away from a crash site, more power to you.

Your guy in the quote didn't say that briefcase sized debris was found miles away.

He said:

1- debris was no bigger than a briefcase
2- the debris field was for several mies.

You've constructed a strawman.

Typical for a 9/11 Fact Denier.

Originally posted by NIcon

So NIST is telling me that the building was being worked upon by nothing other than gravity, but also that it was facing a "negligible" resistance. They both can not be true.

Not really.

"Negligible resistance" can be so slight that it isn't picked up by a standard tv camera.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

Here's the definition of "negligible" from dictionary.com:

so small, trifling, or unimportant that it may safely be neglected or disregarded: The extra expenses were negligible.

Now let's break this down:

"so small" - to be small it still must be there

"trifling" - to be trifling it still must be there

"unimportant that it may safely be neglected or disregarded" - to be unimportant it still must be there otherwise we're saying "nothing" is unimportant, to be neglected it still must be there otherwise we're saying "nothing" is neglected, to be disregarded it still must be there otherwise we're saying "nothing" is disregarded.

Why didn't they just say it wasn't there?

Or why didn't they just say "drop" rather than "free fall drop"? (I think we know the answer to this one as they found gravitational acceleration which is a "free fall drop")

What's your definition of "free fall" Joey?

Edited to add: Also I'd like to point out the "negligible resistance" was not capture on any TV camera as the collapse zone of the building was obscured by other buildings. So if it wasn't captured on TV why would we assume it's there? How was it determined there was "negligible resistance"?


[edit on 1-11-2009 by NIcon]

[edit on 1-11-2009 by NIcon]

Originally posted by NIcon

so small, trifling, or unimportant that it may safely be neglected or disregarded: The extra expenses were negligible.

Why didn't they just say it wasn't there?

Unbelieveable.

Because there was resistance, it's just that it was so negligible that it that it could be disregarded - as in, it had zero discernable effect on the drop acceleration.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

If the resistance had "zero discernible effect" how do they know it was there Joey?

I'm under the impression that if it had .0000001 discernible effect then they would know it was there.

But if it had zero how would they know it was there?

Edited to expound: We know they couldn't discern it from the TV clips. We know they didn't discern it from their calculation of 32.2 ft/s2. So where did they discern it from?

Edited to add "resistance"...trying to be as precise as possible

Edited to add: Also what's your definition of "free fall" Joey?



[edit on 1-11-2009 by NIcon]

[edit on 1-11-2009 by NIcon]

[edit on 1-11-2009 by NIcon]

reply to post by jthomas


I see you still haven't bothered to show where NIST already answered question #6.


Evasion duly noted.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

If you want to believe the wind can carry books and bones and "briefcase-sized" debris for miles away from a crash site, more power to you.

Your guy in the quote didn't say that briefcase sized debris was found miles away.

He said:

1- debris was no bigger than a briefcase
2- the debris field was for several mies.

You've constructed a strawman.

Typical for a 9/11 Fact Denier.

Why would he say there was no debris bigger than a briefcase if there wasn't even briefcase-sized debris? Then shouldn't he have said ALL debris was smaller than a briefcase?

Your arguments are already getting weaker and weaker, without you having to resort to calling names.

Originally posted by jthomas
You continue to amaze me that you would admit to everyone here that you don't know who David Chandler is.

Well be amazed.

I have a feeling you get way too much into this "truther" crap.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Why would he say there was no debris bigger than a briefcase if there wasn't even briefcase-sized debris?

So you admit you constructed a strawman. Nice of you to admit it by not defending it.

And I guess you forgot about the other quote you provided? You know, the one that said that the biggest piece he saw was the 6-7 ft fuselage piece? BTW, 6-7 ft is bigger than a briefcase, right?

Therefore, the "briefcase guy" was correct.

And you have lied by stating that there wasn't even briefcase sized debris.

Again, typical.

Originally posted by NIcon

If the resistance had "zero discernible effect" how do they know it was there Joey?

Because they're rational. Something that is in short supply in the 9/11 fact denial crowd.

They reaize that there must be some resistance. But they also realize that after the interior columns buckled, as evidenced by the mechanical penthouses falling into the structure, that a major portion of the structure had already stopped providing support.

It therefore can be classified as negligible.

And now that you have looked up the definition of negligible, you know what that means, and have no more basis for asking this question any more.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
So you admit you constructed a strawman. Nice of you to admit it by not defending it.

Going by what the man said verbatim, and the implications of his verbatim words, is not a strawman. You need to go back and re-read your notes or something.

And I guess you forgot about the other quote you provided? You know, the one that said that the biggest piece he saw was the 6-7 ft fuselage piece? BTW, 6-7 ft is bigger than a briefcase, right?

So now you're going to contradict both yourself and this one guy's testimony to say there was even bigger debris scattered abroad? Why don't you get your arguments straight before you post, so that they can make more sense?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Going by what the man said verbatim, and the implications of his verbatim words, is not a strawman.

The strawman is challenging other to show how briefcase sized debris can be blown miles away.

Nobody ever said that. To reitierate:

1- he said there was briefcase sized debris
2- he said that the debris field was miles.

No where does he say that there is briefcase sized debris miles away from the crash site.

Your failure to admit your error and the strawman you constructed is duly noted.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Then you're making your entire argument rely on the assumption that such debris WASN'T scattered for miles when you have nothing to support that, either.

Again, we have a huge engine thrown hundreds of feet away into dense woods, which obviously happened from the air, and we have instances of books, bones, and other debris scattered for miles. You can't even prove that one of those things could be carried for even a single mile by wind.

And if the only thing scattered for miles was just paper, like that other crash you posted, don't you think the sources would have noted that, just like they did for the crash you posted? Your case doesn't make any sense, Joey.

Originally posted by bsbray11

So now you're going to contradict both yourself and this one guy's testimony to say there was even bigger debris scattered abroad?

Where's the contradiction?

He saw large debris too.

Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."

"It appears to be the whole engine," he added.

Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase."

Originally posted by bsbray11

Why would he say there was no debris bigger than a briefcase if there wasn't even briefcase-sized debris? Then shouldn't he have said ALL debris was smaller than a briefcase?

See?

YOU'RE the one asking the question - Then shouldn't he have said ALL debris was smaller than a briefcase?

When earlier, you quoted him saying that there was a complete engine, etc.

You're the one that's either mixed up or constructing strawmen by asking questions about why he would say this, when it's already clarified in earlier statements.

typical.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a "briefcase."

Ok, so are you going to prove any of that debris could have been blown by the wind, or where are you going with this? Anywhere? Maybe just turn it into a personal attack so you don't have to think too hard about it?


Here is a chart showing how the force of wind changes by wind speed:




We know what the wind conditions were there. We know the force gravity would simultaneously be applying to all debris in the air.

Do you want to show how far any debris, of a single pound or even half a pound, could blow in the wind before hitting the ground? Not very damned far. You can make this into a free-body diagram very easily to illustrate.