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: 17
79
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

So you're telling me that they realized there was a "problem" with this 32.2 ft/s2 number so they had to assume there was resistance however negligible?

So you're telling me they found a number that said there was no resistance (even from air, I might add) but they went ahead and just assumed resistance from another source?

I'm wondering why they didn't try to accommodate for this resistance and be more precise in their 32.2 ft/s2 and with enough work and sweat maybe find 32.19 ft/s2?

But most shocking of all: Are you telling me that their notions of what should have taken place takes precedence over what they actually found?




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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.


Only you can pay attention for yourself, Joey. I can't make you pay attention.

First you were talking about the one guy's testimony of various debris no bigger than a briefcase scattered for miles. And trying to extrapolate data from it that was not there.

The same witness never mentioned anything about the engine. Obviously that doesn't mean the engine wasn't there or was never found, because it obviously was. But that still doesn't change ANYTHING about this guy's testimony.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

First you were talking about the one guy's testimony of various debris no bigger than a briefcase scattered for miles.


No.

You're intentionally twisting his statement to fit a conspiracy theory about 9/11.

Again, typical.

He said:
1-there was a debris field that went for miles
2- he said that "the rest" of the debris - as in the debris other than the large engine debris that he saw - was no larger than a briefcase.

You asked to explain HOW briefcase sized debris could be blown for miles. Where do you find the substantiation for that question? Why is it a valid question, when as jthomas has asked several times already, you can't prove that to be true?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

So you're telling me they found a number that said there was no resistance (even from air, I might add) but they went ahead and just assumed resistance from another source?



The resistance from the remaining, buckling columns offered negligible resistance. There's no assumptions there. EVery rational person realizes this to be true. 9/11 fact deniers will not.

And resistance from air?

What kind of hogwash is that?

The building didn't fall through the air - as in there is no leading edge to encounter air resistance, like is seen for the ext panels from the towers outpacing the collapse front. THOSE panels could be said to be encountering air resistance. It doesn't apply to 7.

If you don't understand that simple point, then there's zero hope for you to understand anything about what happened on 9/11.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

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?




Again, here is your statement.

His quote says that he saw engine debris, which is larger than a briefcase. He said "the rest" of the debris was no bigger than a briefcase. He also said that debris - with zero specifier as to the size - was found for several miles.

Nowhere does he, nor anyone else, say that briefcase sized debris was found miles away.

So, now you need to prove the validiy of your question - namely to prove how briefcase sized debris can be blown for miles, when nobody said it did.

We'll be waiting....



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Joey you said "They reaize that there must be some resistance." but their gravitational acceleration was telling them that there was none. How other than an assumption would they realize there must be some resistance from the lower part of the building? Unless they measured this resistance I always thought a scientist was not to assume it was there, especially when they found data that was saying it was not there. Why did their "realization" take precedence over their real world data?

Also are you saying the building had no air in it which had to be displaced for the building to fall????? Are you the one being serious now? There's a reason the word "vacuum" is in question #6.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
You're intentionally twisting his statement to fit a conspiracy theory about 9/11.

Again, typical.

He said:
1-there was a debris field that went for miles
2- he said that "the rest" of the debris - as in the debris other than the large engine debris that he saw - was no larger than a briefcase.



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."


That's the whole excerpt right there.


Does he say the briefcase-sized debris was only close to the crater? No.


(Btw, if assuming there were pieces the size of a briefcase scattered for miles is "fact" [sic] denying, then what do you call baselessly assuming there weren't???)



You asked to explain HOW briefcase sized debris could be blown for miles.


Yeah, I also asked how ANY debris bigger than a piece of paper, a pound, a half-pound in weight, could be blown for even a SINGLE mile.


Are you going to get back to me about that, or ignore the question? This is very basic. If the wind blew all this debris around, prove it.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
The resistance from the remaining, buckling columns offered negligible resistance. There's no assumptions there.


Right, it's based on measured data.

What isn't based on measured data is why the columns and all the remaining structure offered "negligible" (read: "no") resistance. I want to see where in the NIST report they address that assumption, that it's a normal occurrence or even possible for a building to accelerate into itself at the rate of free-fall, as if nothing is in the way.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Ok, so are you going to prove any of that debris could have been blown by the wind?


It's not without precedent.

www.ntsb.gov...

Several light-weight items (for example, pieces of interior insulation and a passenger
business card) were discovered as far as 2½ miles east-northeast of the main wreckage;
these items exhibited soot and smoke damage. One witness stated that he heard the sound
of the crash while he was playing golf about 2 miles east-northeast of the accident site;
about 2 minutes later, he observed blackened insulation falling onto the golf course.



When will the TM understand that while they believe they have found some "smoking gun" by using their personal incredulity about lightweight debris being found miles away after a plane crash...... that has no validity, and has happened before?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   

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 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]


This is what NIST said:


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

NIST NCSTAR 1A, P. 45


Let us know what still confuses you.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
It's not without precedent.

www.ntsb.gov...

Several light-weight items (for example, pieces of interior insulation and a passenger
business card) were discovered as far as 2½ miles east-northeast of the main wreckage


Can you tell me the difference between those items, and an engine landing hundreds of feet away in the woods, or human remains being scattered for miles?

Come on, Joey. I want to see you say that human remains blow for miles in the wind.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Feel free to demonstrate any contradiction in the final NIST report on WTC 7.

Feel free to try and use the NIST report to explain how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds.

So far you have avoided doing so, jthomas.


Originally posted by jthomas
Again, read the NIST report, which is the operating document.

I've read it, jthomas and there is no explanation provided for how WTC 7 experienced 2.25 seconds of free fall.

Considering your documented failure to understand the difference between speed and acceleration, and your failure to comprehend what the NIST report avoids to explain, 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.

You serve a very important purpose in this thread by bumping it to the top of the forum, allowing lots of other people to realise the ommissions in the NIST report. Nice job, jthomas - keep it up!



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

This is what NIST said:


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

NIST NCSTAR 1A, P. 45



Well thank god you are finally making some attempt, but I don't see the explanation here as to why all the remaining support provided "negligible" resistance. I only see the assertion made.


Is a a simple assertion "proof" now, or are you leaving something out?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

Joey you said "They reaize that there must be some resistance." but their gravitational acceleration was telling them that there was none.


It was negligible. You still haven't gotten it yet, have you, even after looking up the definition of negligible?


Also are you saying the building had no air in it which had to be displaced for the building to fall????? Are you the one being serious now? There's a reason the word "vacuum" is in question #6.


Vacuum?


Clearly, that's NOT the reason why it was included in the OP.

Sure, there's air that needs to be displaced.

How much resistance can it give when there's holes in the side from 1's collapse, and windows broken from the fires?

Answer: negligible



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.


So you conveniently ignored the first part of the collapse, where gravity and resistance were in play:


p.45 NIST NCSTAR 1A, P. 45 "In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 2.2 m (7 ft)."



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

Keep up JThomas I all ready did in the very next post after the one you quoted. I even broke it down into the separate sentences.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

Joey, what I'm saying is when they found the data point of gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s2) that this data point shows there was no resistance as this is equal to an object falling in a vacuum, thus "free" fall.

What I can not find in the report is their data point which contradicts this point and tells them there was some resistance, even if it was negligible, small, trifling, unimportant, able to be disregarded, able to be neglected. If you know where it is please point to it.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Does he say the briefcase-sized debris was only close to the crater? No.


Does he say that briefcase sized debris was found miles from the crash site?

No.

Again, typical. You've taken a statement and twisted it to fit some 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Every rational person realizes that this is what the TM does. This is why you've gone no farther than complaining on a message board about needing a new investigation.



Yeah, I also asked how ANY debris bigger than a piece of paper, a pound, a half-pound in weight, could be blown for even a SINGLE mile.



Why would you ask that?

You have zero evidence that I can see to prove its validity.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

Jthomas no I didn't ignore the first part of the collapse but I don't see in that paragraph where it says something like "The collapse was doing so much work that the next period experienced negligible resistance, even though our calculation for the next period is that of an object encountering no resistance." That to me would be an explanation.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

Joey, what I'm saying is when they found the data point of gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s2) that this data point shows there was no resistance as this is equal to an object falling in a vacuum, thus "free" fall.


Wait, before we go any farther let's clear something up.

1- first you said that the building would need to displace air from inside it, hence the inclusion of the word vacuum in the OP.

2- now you're going back to saying that vacuum was included to infer that it was not encountering air resistance, as any object falling through the air would.

Which way are you gonna stick to?


What I can not find in the report is their data point which contradicts this point and tells them there was some resistance, even if it was negligible, small, trifling, unimportant, able to be disregarded, able to be neglected. If you know where it is please point to it.


Again, it's because they're rational. They know that there was not zero resistance given by the buckling columns. It would be insane to say that. But negligible resistance contains the rational statement that there's not enough to be discernable on a tv camera's resolution.




top topics



 
79
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join