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: 19
79
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   

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."


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




Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
My understanding of the design of WTC7 makes a momentary lack of resistance consistent with the observed fall.

And the official, irrevocable definition of "momentary" is.....? 0.1 seconds? 0.5 seconds? 1 second? 2.25 seconds?

Fitzgibbon, you've been caught in your own trap.

You might want to think about how you're trying to declare the 2.25 second collapse at free fall rate, as being just "momentary".


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.

Tezz pointed out that it was 2.25 seconds, according to the NIST report. This is hardly a short moment of time, Fitzgibbon. Especially since the first three stages that NIST analysed spanned a period of 5.4 seconds.

For nearly 42% of the three stages that NIST analysed, WTC 7 experienced free fall rate. That's hardly a momentary portion of the collapse, Fitzgibbon.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by tezzajw]




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
ANY amount of time in free fall means that the supports were removed at the same time over a wide area and that can ONLY be done with explosives. Done deal. The official story drones cannot find a way out. They are indeed trapped by the facts...the reality, and the science.

All they can do now is bleat like sheep and pray that all is well...sad.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

.....into a statement that briefcase-sized debris was only near the crater and not miles out.


No, there's a difference that any rational person can see in our statements. His statement contains no specifiers as to what size debris was found x far from the crash site. Any rational person would agree to that.

Therefore, I am not saying that briefcase sized debris couldn't have blown that far. That's a rational position to take.

You, on the other hand, are taking a statement that contains no specifiers as to what size debris was found x far from the crash site as evidence that briefcase sized debris COULD have been found miles from the crash site, and then using that belief as the basis for asking a question to anyone that bothers to question that assumption, that they now need to "prove" that briefcase sized debris could be blown that far, when you haven't proven that THAT indeed happened in fact. That's an irrational position to take.

Again, typical.



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


Such as?


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.


Why would anybody, when you haven't shown that to be a valid question, based on actual facts?



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
My understanding of the design of WTC7 makes a momentary lack of resistance consistent with the observed fall.

And the official, irrevocable definition of "momentary" is.....?
0.1 seconds? 0.5 seconds? 1 second? 2.25 seconds?


Momentary=non-global, Tezz. Momentary means that that that rate of acceleration was unique to that moment in time, whatever its duration as opposed to the suggestion made by Preston's phraseology that the entire global process was free-fall.

That's the sort of trap that Truthers set for the unwary.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Fitzgibbon, you've been caught in your own trap.


Nothing of the sort despite your protestation to the contrary.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
You might want to think about how you're trying to declare the 2.25 second collapse at free fall rate, as being just "momentary".


Because it was non-global. As a layman, I'm not defining the duration of the moment. I leave that to the experts who know whereof they speak.


Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.

Tezz pointed out that it was 2.25 seconds, according to the NIST report. This is hardly a short moment of time, Fitzgibbon.


By your definition. You an engineer Tezz?


Originally posted by tezzajw
Especially since the first three stages that NIST analysed spanned a period of 5.4 seconds.

For nearly 42% of the three stages that NIST analysed, WTC 7 experienced free fall rate. That's hardly a momentary portion of the collapse, Fitzgibbon.


Uh huh. And what percentage of the global duration (from start of penthouse to end of collapse) do those stages represent? If the 3 stages represent say 70% of the entire duration, then your figure drops below 30%.

And this doesn't take into account the design singularities of WTC7.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Momentary=non-global, Tezz. Momentary means that that that rate of acceleration was unique to that moment in time, whatever its duration as opposed to the suggestion made by Preston's phraseology that the entire global process was free-fall.

Interesting definition there, Fitzgibbon. The word momentary implies a singular point in time, when in fact there was a continuous time period of 2.25 seconds of free fall rate.

You really need to brush up on the choice of words that you use. A 2.25 second continuous time period is certainly not 'momentary'.

Casual readers need to be aware of the veiled deceptions that some people try to imply with their choice of words.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
I'm not defining the duration of the moment. I leave that to the experts who know whereof they speak.

You tried to define a moment as being a period of time lasting 2.25 seconds. This is patently false.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
By your definition. You an engineer Tezz?

A mathematical definition of a moment in time is one point on the contiuum. A continuous 2.25 second time interval bounds an infinite number of moments.

I don't expect lots of people to understand the nuances and precise definitions of mathematical terms.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uh huh. And what percentage of the global duration (from start of penthouse to end of collapse) do those stages represent? If the 3 stages represent say 70% of the entire duration, then your figure drops below 30%.

For the analysed period of time over the three stages, nearly 42% was at free fall rate. 42% is certainly not momentary. Note that I qualified that I was only using the three stages that NIST analysed.

I find it amusing that you still wish to claim that your quoted figure of 30% would be a 'momentary' amount of time. 30% of collapse time at free fall rate is hardly 'momentary', it is significant.

Casual readers, do not believe the handwaving that we are seeing in this thread. NIST, jthomas, Joey and now Fitzgibbon have no explanation for how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds.

Fitzgibbon has been caught in a blatantly obvious attempt trying to claim that (using his figure of) 30% of the collapse time is only 'momentary'!!!

[edit on 1-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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?




Yes.

wtc.nist.gov...

Try starting on chapter 12. They don't come out and say "LOOK HERE IT IS!!! THIS IS THE REASON THAT THERE WAS A 2.25 SEC OF FREE FALL ACCELERATION!!"

Since the pdf seems to be locked, and I can't be copy/paste for you, pg 579, or 241/392 starts the vertical progression sequence around col 79, and is followed by the horizontal progression sequence across the entire interior core column region. In those sections, you'll find where they estimate that they all lost horiontal support from floor 14 down to about floor 5-8, it varies.

What that means is that for a minimum of 9 floors, the ext columns were unbraced.

The timing of these events are tied in here:

wtc.nist.gov...

Pg 43 or 85/130 contains Table 3-1, which has a timeline. It shows that ALL of the int columns had buckled by the time the ext moved.

Back to the first link. Pg 586 has more info, like :

All exterior columns buckled between Floors 7 and 14. That's backed up by the lack of horizontal bracing detailed during the int columns collapsing.

Now, all you have to do is realize just how little resistance such a long span gives when it buckles to understand it all. You can find your own reference for that, I'd assume.

It takes some reading, and it isn't easy, but it's all there.

Now, refute those findings. We'll be waiting.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 

That's a pretty good example Joey. But I have some problems with the analogy. The safety line you mentioned was never designed to hold 20 tons, whereas the columns were meant to hold up the entire building. So what NIST would be examining in your analogy would be why the crane's cable snapped in the first place (as opposed to why WTC7 collapsed). Now if NIST discovered a certain observable fact that showed the cable SHOULD NOT have snapped (as opposed to the observable fact they found that the columns offered no resistance, i.e. the free fall drop) would they then say the cable snapped because of rust (as opposed to them saying there actually was negligible resistance.)

Wow, sorry, that's confusing, but if you read it carefully it does make sense.

To make it more clear I'll try to paraphrase again. If a scientist finds a fact that shows another event is IMPOSSIBLE to take place, should that scientist just assume the event DID take place? Or should the scientist try to measure this event, no matter how small, and see if it actually took place? After measuring, if they did find this event actually took place, no matter how small, that would tell them that the original fact must be in error, because that fact said the occurrence of the event was impossible.

But I still suppose the confusion between us goes back to the definition of "free fall." I explained my definition a few pages back, could you please explain yours? I'm asking this because with my definition of "free fall" it's telling me it's IMPOSSIBLE for it to have any resistance, no matter how small or insignificant. If NIST did find resistance, no matter how small or insignificant, then it means they did not find "free fall." One or the other is not correct, either they found "free fall" or they found resistance, no matter how small or insignificant. So please let me know your definition of "free fall" that allows there to be both no resistance and resistance, no matter how small or significant, at the same time.



[edit on 1-11-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
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.


It's pretty clear from the NIST report what happened. I can only suggest that you avail yourself of the opportunity to read it and read it carefully.


But now I must go.


Bon voyage.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
The word momentary implies a singular point in time


You're tyring to force a singular, unique interpretation on a word that has more than one connotation. I explained my usage and you're calling me down for not using it the way you want it used. Sorry; doesn't work that way.


Originally posted by tezzajw
You really need to brush up on the choice of words that you use. A 2.25 second continuous time period is certainly not 'momentary'.


It certainly can be described as such. In any case, neither usage implies a global action, something that Preston's usage did imply.


Originally posted by tezzajw
Casual readers need to be aware of the veiled deceptions that some people try to imply with their choice of words.


Like Preston implying that the free-fall was global instead of momentary.


Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
I'm not defining the duration of the moment. I leave that to the experts who know whereof they speak.

You tried to define a moment as being a period of time lasting 2.25 seconds. This is patently false.


In your opinion. I laid out my usage. It's reasonable. You don't concur with my usage. Again, the only thing that's of import here is that the free-fall portion was non-global which Preston's use of free-fall implies was not the case.


Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
By your definition. You an engineer Tezz?

A mathematical definition of a moment in time is one point on the contiuum. A continuous 2.25 second time interval bounds an infinite number of moments.


Care to dig up a supporting citation for your definition of a moment? How long's a piece of string, Tezz? Depends. Same thing with a moment. It's a variable, user-defined span of time.

Quit trying to pretend that there's a specific and precise definition of the duration of a moment. There isn't such a beast.


Originally posted by tezzajw
I don't expect lots of people to understand the nuances and precise definitions of mathematical terms.


How many KHz in a moment, Tezz?


Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Uh huh. And what percentage of the global duration (from start of penthouse to end of collapse) do those stages represent? If the 3 stages represent say 70% of the entire duration, then your figure drops below 30%.

For the analysed period of time over the three stages, nearly 42% was at free fall rate. 42% is certainly not momentary. Note that I qualified that I was only using the three stages that NIST analysed.


Great. Which is a meaningless truncation of time if it doesn't include the whole of the process. That's why I trotted-out the 70% figure. If you insist on slicing the temporal pie way down, I can just as reasonably argue that I can run faster than a 757 so long as we're only dealing with the first .5 seconds after a standing start.

There's a phrase in English about lies, damn lies and statistics.


Originally posted by tezzajw
I find it amusing that you still wish to claim that your quoted figure of 30% would be a 'momentary' amount of time. 30% of collapse time at free fall rate is hardly 'momentary', it is significant.


Momentary by the definition that I laid out for you and for which you refuse to accept. Your problem with being absolutist about others using a flexible word in the manner you want it used in.


Originally posted by tezzajw
Casual readers, do not believe the handwaving that we are seeing in this thread. NIST, jthomas, Joey and now Fitzgibbon have no explanation for how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds.


I suggest you re-read NIST. The only handwaving and goalpost-moving taking place here is from you insisting that only your usage of a word is good and sufficient.

You have yet to proffer an explanation BTW


Originally posted by tezzajw
Fitzgibbon has been caught in a blatantly obvious attempt trying to claim that (using his figure of) 30% of the collapse time is only 'momentary'!!!


TEZZ!!!! What part of the explanation of "momentary=non-global" doesn't register in your lexicon? I'm calling Preston down for his implication that WTC7 fell globally at free-fall speeds and all you can do is browbeat that my you don't like the way I use the word 'momentary'.

FMG! Move on to a salient point or just move on!



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.


I can only reiterate that you really need to read the NIST report. If you have a problem with the evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions then why spend your time whining here that you don't uderstand it.


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


I've already educated you on both points. You're only indicating that the answers are inconvenient to you, which, I might add, has been the history of your replies to me when I present you with rational answers and questions that don't jive with your religious "Truther" beliefs.

If you still can't provide any reasons to us why we should be surprised in any way whatsoever by 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration during the collapse of WTC 7, I can just recommend what I advise all "Truthers" to do: go back and question your "Truther" peers who have misled you to believe there is something wrong with 2.25 seconds worth of free fall acceleration during the collapse of WTC 7.

You can start with Richard Gage, you leader famous for saying "free fall speed" instead of "free fall acceleration."

Good luck.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
If you have a problem with the evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions then why spend your time whining here that you don't uderstand it.


Because that's the way science works...

You don't just accept claims, you do the math and make sure it all checks out...

If it doesn't check out you admit it.

Science is not a faith, you are allowed to point out anomalies and contradictions...



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


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


Yes, I not only answered it multiple times, I demonstrated that you could not even deal with the answer.


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.


You see? I've reminded you to read the NIST for over a week and you still haven't.


I already know it accelerated at free-fall. I want to know HOW.


The NIST report explains the entire collapse mechanism. You can actually read it yourself. If you have any solid, valid reason to reject the evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions that include the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration, you have had ample time to tell us why.

And I have asked you to do do repeatedly. And you refuse. And you have resorted to repeated evasions and refusal to accept responsibility for your claims as you have demonstrated repeatedly in this one thread.

So, unless you can bring anything to the table, your question #6 remains addressed as it was in 2007 and is neither an "unanswered question" nor a valid issue as you have tried to claim.

So your "list" is down one question and you should admit it. It's the honorable thing to do.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
If you have a problem with the evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions then why spend your time whining here that you don't uderstand it.


Because that's the way science works...

You don't just accept claims, you do the math and make sure it all checks out...

If it doesn't check out you admit it.

Science is not a faith, you are allowed to point out anomalies and contradictions...


Yet where's the Truther math, the Truther science, the Truther calculations demonstrating the "anomalies and contradictions"? They're woefully lacking.

Instead, it's just a merry-go-round litany of 'I don't think it looks right'-type assertions unsupported by logic or reason.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


Denial is one option.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
You're tyring to force a singular, unique interpretation on a word that has more than one connotation. I explained my usage and you're calling me down for not using it the way you want it used. Sorry; doesn't work that way.

You should be sorry, for it doesn't work that way. Mathematically, a moment in time is a single value. 2.25 seconds is a period of time that contains an infintite number of moments.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
In your opinion. I laid out my usage. It's reasonable. You don't concur with my usage.

I don't concur with your usage of the descriptor 'moment' because it is wrong.

You're trying to claim that 30% of the collapse time is 'momentary' which is patently false. 30% is a significant number.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
I suggest you re-read NIST. The only handwaving and goalpost-moving taking place here is from you insisting that only your usage of a word is good and sufficient.

Clearly, Fitzgibbon, you have not explained how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate.

Your only contribution has been to abuse the use of the word 'momentary' and to try and claim that 30% is not significant!

[edit on 1-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I can only reiterate that you really need to read the NIST report.

I can only suggest to you that your failure to demonstrate how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds is now well documented in this thread.

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 great service to this thread by continually bumping it to the top of the forum.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


No kidding? So you're puzzled by gravity?


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


The problem is you refuse to deal with and/or refute the NIST report. Why do you consistently refuse to demonstrate why it is a puzzle for 2.25 seconds? Speak up man, I've asked you repeatedly to demonstrate why 2.25 seconds of free fall is a "problem" and you can't even tell us. We have no reason or explanation from you WHY it should be a problem. And the references you gave in the OP, a video by AE911Truth.net, neither demonstrates a problem nor refutes NIST either. Perhaps that is why you pretended to not even know what video you posted or the person who produced it.

Why do you refuse to refute the NIST report and the collapse mechanism and refuse to have the intellectual honesty to explain what the so-called "problem" is supposed to be?

It's time for you to come out of hiding, bsbray11. Enough of your shallow little games.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
No, there's a difference that any rational person can see in our statements. His statement contains no specifiers as to what size debris was found x far from the crash site. Any rational person would agree to that.


And I already agreed to that, when I stated in the same post you are responding to.


Therefore, I am not saying that briefcase sized debris couldn't have blown that far.


Then it might or might not have been scattered the whole 8 miles.

So, one again,


Can you demonstrate how far an object of a realistic weight could travel in the wind, please?




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


Such as?


Was a typo. The engine wasn't quite a mile out but was still several hundred feed and into the woods.


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.


Why would anybody, when you haven't shown that to be a valid question, based on actual facts?

The same sources we are basing all of this information off of says that rib bones and other human remains were found miles away. Assume a realistic weight for a rib bone and figure it out. They found it with material from a seat in the airliner, and at any rate they were confident it was debris from Flight 93. Those are the stated facts in the original sources.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 


Denial is one option.


That is why your movement earned the name the "9/11 Denial Movement" back in early 2002, and you "Truthers" are proud to live up to the name.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
You're tyring to force a singular, unique interpretation on a word that has more than one connotation. I explained my usage and you're calling me down for not using it the way you want it used. Sorry; doesn't work that way.

You should be sorry, for it does work that way. Mathematically, a moment in time is a single value. 2.25 seconds is a period of time that contains an infintite number of moments.


And the 2.25 seconds of 5.4 seconds didn't change the 5.4 seconds.




top topics



 
79
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join