20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas

 

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

Your evasions are becoming more frequent and intellectually dishonest, bsbray11. You've effectively flunked out of class and removed yourself from the conversation.

You've been given the facts, your "question" addressed repeatedly. You've been asked repeatedly to refute NIST if you believe there is something wrong with the evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions that include the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration, which as you well know but refuse to acknowledge neither changes the 5.4 seconds nor the conclusions.

I have personally given you the opportunity to step up to the plate and either refute the evidence, demonstrate that free fall acceleration for a period of 2.25 is meaningful in some way or invalidates the investigation and its conclusions. And in every case you fail to step up to the plate.

You use a video by David Chandler in your OP as illustration of your "case" then refuse to acknowledge his claims are unsupported. Then you pretend you don't know who David Chandler is.

I think you have adequately demonstrated your intellectual dishonesty. As you well know this is the same behavior that got you put on ignore in the first place. It's also why the 9/11 "Truth" Movement has never gone anywhere.





[edit on 1-11-2009 by jthomas]

Originally posted by NIcon
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...

Then you agree there is no problem. Why the fuss?

Originally posted by bsbray11

What isn't based on measured data is why the columns and all the remaining structure offered "negligible" (read: "no") resistance.

Your buddy provided an explanation what negligible means.

It doesn't mean "no" or "zero".

It means it's there, but has zero overall effect on the outcome.

Again, if you are unable to understand the difference, then there is zero - as in none, not negligible - hope of you understanding the events of 9/11.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

So you are admitting after all that you didn't read the NIST.

Amazing.

Originally posted by jthomas

You use a video by David Chandler in your OP as illustration of your "case" ...... Then you pretend you don't know who David Chandler is.

Really?

OMFG....

Well, I guess that's typical too of the TM.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

What isn't based on measured data is why the columns and all the remaining structure offered "negligible" (read: "no") resistance.

Your buddy provided an explanation what negligible means.

It doesn't mean "no" or "zero".

It means it's there, but has zero overall effect on the outcome.

Again, if you are unable to understand the difference, then there is zero - as in none, not negligible

- hope of you understanding the events of 9/11.

Now we've got TWO "Truthers" who've demonstrated they haven't read the NIST Report and cannot for the life of them demonstrate anything meaningful in 2.25 of "negligible resistance."

And they're surprised why one can never underestimate the intelligence of 9/11 "Truthers."

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by jthomas

You use a video by David Chandler in your OP as illustration of your "case" ...... Then you pretend you don't know who David Chandler is.

Really?

Yup, amazing isn't it. The squirming of our TM guys is becoming palpable.

OMFG....

Well, I guess that's typical too of the TM.

It only illustrates why "Truthers" will never answer ANY questions inconvenient to their desired conclusions.

reply to post by jthomas

Didn't you read the post???? Here's the part that demonstrates the problem:
"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."

To rephrase it how can the first sentence say the top of the building experienced the force of gravity AND the resistance from the bottom of the building, and then the second sentence say the top of the building experienced just the force of gravity.

Again I'll ask what's your definition of "free fall"?

reply to post by Joey Canoli

How do we see resistance other than through it's effects? If there is zero effects how would we know its there as it's not effecting anything, Joey?

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas

 

Didn't you read the post???? Here's the part that demonstrates the problem:
"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."

To rephrase it how can the first sentence say the top of the building experienced the force of gravity AND the resistance from the bottom of the building, and then the second sentence say the top of the building experienced just the force of gravity.

Again I'll ask what's your definition of "free fall"?

I've already addressed your question. Please go read the NIST report.

reply to post by Joey Canoli

Oops missed this post, then I must go. What I'm saying joey is that they found the the top of the building acted AS IF it were an object falling in a vacuum. This is what there real world observation told them. Since nobody has demonstrated that a vacuum was present yet, it just make question six that much harder to answer.


As for "They know that there was not zero resistance given by the buckling columns." Again how do they know this if their calculation of a "free fall drop" shows them that resistance equaled zero?

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

reply to post by jthomas

Jthomas, I must most respectfully disagree. You have not demonstrated to me how both of those sentences can be true.

You could, however, demonstrate it if you would share with me your definition of "free fall."

But now I must go.

Originally posted by jthomas
I've already addressed your question. Please go read the NIST report.

So far, jthomas neither you or NIST (or Joey) have explained how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds.

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

reply to post by jthomas


I already explained once that what you posted didn't answer my question.

I asked how WTC7 was able to collapse into itself as if nothing was underneath it, and you just posted a short paragraph from NIST where they made the simple assertion that that's apparently what happened.

I already know it accelerated at free-fall. I want to know HOW. Conservation of energy says if there are structural connections still to be failed, well, that takes energy, and that means you can't simultaneously accelerate at free-fall. You've made it abundantly clear that you don't understand this.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm not here to tell anyone how it is even possible for a building to accelerate into itself without so much as air resistance, because I honestly do not know the answer to that.

Clearly. Given the mass of the building, how much of a reduction in acceleration due to air resistance would you as an expert expect? What sort of event duration dissonance would you expect?

Originally posted by bsbray11
All I am here to say, is that's what the data shows, and it is a very obvious and simple proof that the buildings own PE/KE was not being converted to other forms of energy, as per very, very basic laws of conservation of energy.

Given the design of that particular building, why is it that you find this one short span of gravity-fed acceleration problematic and unexpected?

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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.

Once again (we can repeat this infinitely, if you really want to), you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing, if you try to twist his words into a statement that briefcase-sized debris was only near the crater and not miles out.

And also once again, you completely ignore all the things that were obviously bigger than a briefcase winding up miles out.

And... also once again.... you completely ignore my simple request to prove the wind could blow human remains or anything else weighing even a half of a pound for even a single mile.


I know you aren't planning to think about any of that before you knee-jerk out your next response, and decorate it with name-calling and the like (all logical fallacies of course). But it could save us both the trouble of repeating ourselves indefinitely if you do.

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by bsbray11
I'm not here to tell anyone how it is even possible for a building to accelerate into itself without so much as air resistance, because I honestly do not know the answer to that.

Clearly. Given the mass of the building, how much of a reduction in acceleration due to air resistance would you as an expert expect? What sort of event duration dissonance would you expect?

Don't you think the structure of the building itself should provide a significantly greater amount of "resistance" than either air or a vacuum?

And do you have a link to the part of the NIST report where they explain how so much remaining structure could amount to no change in acceleration than if there was absolutely nothing under the building?

Given the design of that particular building, why is it that you find this one short span of gravity-fed acceleration problematic and unexpected?

The whole collapse was ultimately driven by gravity, no matter what knocked the support out. The problem is that it accelerated at 32 ft/s^2, as if nothing was underneath it. That's what happens when you demolish buildings, historically (and thus scientifically) speaking. NIST even admitted what happened to WTC7 was "new" and had never been seen before. Why do you think it's normal for a building to drop into itself at the rate of free-fall, as if nothing is under it? If I were you, and really believed that, that buildings are so flimsy, I would never step into a skyscraper again.

Originally posted by SPreston
Unofficially it seems, State police Major Lyle Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft "at a considerable distance from the crash site."

And the official, irrevocable definition of "a considerable distance" is.....? 100 yards? 300 yards? A mile? 6 miles?

Originally posted by SPreston
and "It appears to be the whole engine".

And State police majors are infallible sources about aircraft bits and whether they're there in their totality?

Originally posted by SPreston
Does several hundred yards in the pond sound the same to you as "at a considerable distance from the crash site."?

Depends on the circumstance. In a football game, inches can be a considerable distance.

Originally posted by SPreston
Was State police Major Lyle Szupinka just confused and mistaken, or did he just not get a copy of the official script?

Or maybe, just maybe, certain truthers with an agenda find it more satisfactory to believe that the originators of a hugely complicated scenario would be so feckless as to overlook informing all their 'people' of every aspect of their role. That sort of plot device emanates from 2-star Hollywood schlock, Preston. Sorry if real life is a bit more complex than all that.

Originally posted by SPreston
Even Military Industrial Complex GURU and 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY DEFENDER Popular Mechanics does not call the piece in the pond a whole engine does it?

Would that be because the flatfoot doesn't know what a jet engine in its totality is supposed to look like and "Military Industrial Complex GURU and 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY DEFENDER Popular Mechanics" with the benefit of experience and time after the fact does?

Hmmmm.. Tough one!

Originally posted by SPreston
Also, does eight miles away at the New Baltimore debris field seem to be the same as several miles to you?

Didn't know that debris has to follow the road. Does it have to yield the right of way and come to a full stop at stop signs too?

Originally posted by SPreston
And why would Indian Lake residents be claiming the aircraft dropped the debris on Indian Lake before it crashed when officially Flight 93 went nowhere near Indian Lake and nowhere south of the aircraft swallowing crater?

Drive up to Indian Lake and ask them, See if they're still saying the same thing or if you're just leeching off a comment from a particular moment in time.

I know what my guess would be.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Don't you think the structure of the building itself should provide a significantly greater amount of "resistance" than either air or a vacuum?

You're glomming onto one momentary section of time and implying that that moment was a global constant (which it wasn't and which Tezz pointed out to you already). My understanding of the design of WTC7 makes a momentary lack of resistance consistent with the observed fall. And air is not going to be providing any resistance of note in a structure of that size (certainly not when the only measurement benchmark is standard-definition videotape)

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by fitzgibbon
Given the design of that particular building, why is it that you find this one short span of gravity-fed acceleration problematic and unexpected?

The whole collapse was ultimately driven by gravity, no matter what knocked the support out.

No duh! Collapses generally are driven by gravity (at least here on Earth).

Originally posted by bsbray11
The problem is that it accelerated at 32 ft/s^2, as if nothing was underneath it.

And again, what rate would you in your expert opinion have expected?

Originally posted by bsbray11
That's what happens when you demolish buildings, historically (and thus scientifically) speaking.

For specific moments in time (not globally) and again Tezz already pointed out that that rate was only for a specific short moment of time.

Originally posted by bsbray11
NIST even admitted what happened to WTC7 was "new" and had never been seen before.

Fancy that! So everything new is inherently suspicious in your lexicon? So the first anything must be looked askance at?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why do you think it's normal for a building to drop into itself at the rate of free-fall, as if nothing is under it?

For the third time, the free-fall was a momentary phenomenon, not a global constant. Is this why you're asking the same questions that have been answered over and over and over again? You don't like the answers you've been getting so you'll pose them again expecting a different answer?

Oy!

Originally posted by bsbray11
If I were you, and really believed that, that buildings are so flimsy,
I would never step into a skyscraper again.

Skyscrapers aren't flimsy. They also typically don't have high-speed passenger jets flown into them or have large chunks of steel carving-out 8-storey long gashes in them either. If the jets and hunks of steel were a more common meme then yes, I might reconsider stepping into a skyscraper.

Until and unless that becomes a reality, I'll just whistle my way blissfully along

Originally posted by NIcon

How do we see resistance other than through it's effects? If there is zero effects how would we know its there as it's not effecting anything, Joey?

The same way that you'd see zero effect of a safety line with a capacity of 500 lbs showing observable effects on slowing the fall acceleration of a 20 ton shipping container if the crane's lifting cable snapped when the container was 40' in the air.

It would have a negligible effect on slowing its descent accelertion.

It would be dishonest to say it had zero effect, or no effect, cuz it DID do some work in slowing the acceleration.

I can't explain it any clearer than that, nor do I have the paitence to do so again. I've been paitent enough, if you can't understand it by now, then I'm sorry, but you'll never understand.

Please move on, or ask a new question.