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: 20
79
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I am still waiting for you to show me the excerpt from the NIST report where NIST explains how they were able to determine that the building would have been able to accelerate into itself at the rate of free fall, as if there was no longer any support underneath it whatsoever.

Distorting the question, trying to shift the burden of answering the question, answering straw men instead, going on rants about "truthers", none of those things have produced the section from NIST that you keep claiming explains this phenomena.

You can post these rants all day and I'm still going to be here asking for this explanation from NIST that you keep claiming exists.




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

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.


1- you need to read the links that I supplied above, and understand that the interior columns had already buckled, and were not supporting the building anymore.

2- you need to understand that once the interior columns buckled, and left long spans of the ext columns unsupported, what those long unsupported spans wil do, and what kind of resistance they will give.

I can't do this for you. I'm NOT a teacher.

Good luck figuring it out.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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


Clearly, neither he nor anyone else has to. Despite your persistent refusal to acknowledge that fact. It is part of the collapse time sequence in the NIST report. I will repeat the obvious to you once again: if you have any issue with the evidence, methodology, computer simulations, or conclusions of NIST which included the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration, then you are welcome to refute them and explain why they are wrong.

Shall I repeat that again for you, tezz?

So, once again, tell us all why we should be the least bit surprised or concerned with 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration during the collapse of WTC 7.

Speak up, tezz.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
And the 2.25 seconds of 5.4 seconds didn't change the 5.4 seconds.

jthomas, considering your documented struggle to understand the difference between free fall speed and free fall acceleration, I'll give you a pass on your ill-conceived, illogical and confused comment above.

For a continuous period of 2.25 seconds, WTC 7 fell at free fall rate.

Neither you, NIST, Joey or Fitzgibbon have explained how this free fall rate was achieved.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


I am still waiting for you to show me the excerpt from the NIST report where NIST explains how they were able to determine that the building would have been able to accelerate into itself at the rate of free fall, as if there was no longer any support underneath it whatsoever.

Distorting the question, trying to shift the burden of answering the question, answering straw men instead, going on rants about "truthers", none of those things have produced the section from NIST that you keep claiming explains this phenomena.

You can post these rants all day and I'm still going to be here asking for this explanation from NIST that you keep claiming exists.


Sorry, bsbray11, you have yet to refute the answer clearly given to you. You can pretend to avoid it all you want; you've lost all credibility in your denial here.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Despite your persistent refusal to acknowledge that fact. It is part of the collapse time sequence in the NIST report.

The fact that WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate is freely admitted, jthomas.

The fact that NIST didn't explain how it happened is lost upon you.

You have not been able to understand this. I suspect that it may involve your previous errors with speed and acceleration, suggesting that your lack of physics doesn't allow you to comprehend the question that is being asked.


Originally posted by jthomas
if you have any issue with the evidence, methodology, computer simulations, or conclusions of NIST which included the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration, then you are welcome to refute them and explain why they are wrong.

Why did NIST refuse to explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate, jthomas?

I don't expect you to understand this question, so I can't expect an answer from you. Your contribution to this thread is valid, in the sense that you are bumping the information to the top of the forum.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
Despite your persistent refusal to acknowledge that fact. It is part of the collapse time sequence in the NIST report.

The fact that WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate is freely admitted, jthomas.

The fact that NIST didn't explain how it happened is lost upon you.


So you missed this as well as refusing to read the NIST report:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am no longer surprised.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:44 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 doesn't work that way.


It does work that way Tezz, like it or not.


Originally posted by tezzajw
Mathematically, a moment in time is a single value. 2.25 seconds is a period of time that contains an infintite number of moments.


In your definition. My wife's definition when she says she'll be downstairs in a moment won't be the same. Nor will my stepdaughter's when she says she'll be out of the bathroom.

User-defined timeframe. That's what a moment is. Otherwise, you'd be able to give me a specific value as to how far a beam of light could travel in a moment. But you can't because a "moment" isn't an agreed-upon value. That's why I asked you how many KHz in a moment in my earlier post.


Originally posted by tezzajw

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.


Fine. You don't don't concur. You're welcome to your opinion. But it's only your opinion. Applicable and enforceable on nobody but you


Originally posted by tezzajw

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.


Where did I say I was going to? My reading on the matter satisfies me that the fall of WTC7 was consistent with the damage to it and how a layman would reasonably expect a building of its unique design to respond. Unless you're a trained architect, Tezz, you're just a layman getting wound up over something he doesn't comprehend.


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


I can only surmise that English is a second language for you because it's definition and usage in English is rather flexible (as I've demonstrated with a couple of household examples). German or Dutch tend to be much more specific in word usage and perhaps the challenge that needs to be overcome here.

As for the 30% thing, you completely missed the point I was making in that post and I'd suggest you go back and re-read it.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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

So, on(c)e again,

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


The objects of lighter weight and greater surface area will blow farther. That's obvious. It's also obvious that denser objects will blow less or none in wind. Like a jet engine hub/rotor.

I gave you a link to the NTSB report about the golfer having light material raining down on him 2 miles away, and just a few minutes after the crash. If it took 4 minutes to get to him, the average speed was 30 mph,and IIRC, the wind wasn't blowing that fast at that time. therefore, there are other forces at work here - expanding heat bloom from the jet fuel deflagration? I don't know. But I DO know that it has happened before, and so I find nothing out of the ordinary about it.


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


Ok then. But it was about 1000 ft. A simple ricochet is an acceptable answer for me. if you want to push something else, bring it up.



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.


1-Indian Lake isn't miles away. the near shore is about 1 mile as the crow flies. The marina was about another .8 miles away, and of courseif they found it in the water, it could have floated there.

2- it's NOT a fact that it was a human bone, IIRC. The quote says something like "believed" to be a rib bone. I'd agree it more than likely was, but so far, it isn't a stated fact by anyone, that I can see.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So, once again, tell us all why we should be the least bit surprised or concerned with 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration during the collapse of WTC 7.
Speak up, tezz.

This quote deserved its own post.

Casual readers, the human mind is driven by curiosity, wonder and intrigue. Many intelligent people through history have looked at things and wanted to know 'why' and 'how'. Scientific enquiry and human progress has blossomed because people asked questions.

jthomas is effectively trying to stifle all forms of enquiry into the collapse of WTC 7 by asking people to justify why they deserve an answer for how the building fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds.

Yes, that's right. According to jthomas, you are not permitted to ask why it is important. According to jthomas, NIST measured it and that's it. No more questions, nothing to see here, move along, move along...

jthomas, as demonstrated by your clear failure to distinguish between speed and acceleration, along with your failure to understand the shortcomings of the NIST report, you are now showing the wider ATS membership that they must justify why their questions are important.

Hilarious. I've had my laugh for the day. No doubt, others will also fall from their chair, chuckling.

jthomas, it does not matter why. People deserve an explanation from NIST to explain how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds. That's why.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Where did I say I was going to?

Fine. I've added you to the list of people who can not explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with free fall rate.

You're also in your own category trying to skew the word momentary in an attempt to distort the proportion of time that WTC 7 was in free fall.

Your figure of 30% is not momentary, it is significant.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
As for the 30% thing, you completely missed the point I was making in that post and I'd suggest you go back and re-read it.

Not at all. I entirely understand your point and how it made your 'momentary' claim look even more unrealistic.

Suggesting that a 30% time period is 'momentary' is misleading and decpetive. It is significant.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.


It was obviously consistent. We were measuring it here on ATS before NIST came out with this measurement, when they at first tried to deny free fall completely by relying on a time and starting that time with the penthouse collapse. It was only after people were measuring instantaneous acceleration of the building's roof line at right at 9.8m/s^2 consistently during the draft stages of the report that NIST finally admitted that it did in fact free-fall (which was obvious to us all along). WTC7's "collapse" has arguably turned more people into so-called "truthers" than anything else. It's my biggest personal beef with the "official story," and I honestly cannot understand how so many people are so completely unable to see the obviousness of which this building was a controlled demolition:






Unexplained explosions are heard occurring in this building prior to its collapse. Witness Barry Jennings who was inside of WTC7 said there were explosions and significant damage inside the building before either of the Twin Towers had collapsed, and that the lobby was "blown out."

The entire exterior of the building, all four corners, and the entire roof line and everything under it, start dropping simultaneously, and symmetrically, with a single kink that causes the two sides of the building to lean into each other, causing most of the mass (the center of gravity) to remain within the footprint of the building, even though debris ran out into all 4 surrounding streets.

NYPD Craig Bartmer testified that the lobby exploded just before the entire building started collapsing into its footprint symmetrically and at the rate of gravity.




NIST did not analyze any of the actual steel from the building in their report.

They did not explain or validate the assumption with calculations that all of the remaining structure could have dropped (all at once) at a rate that rapidly approached the rate of free-fall, and maintained it for a significant portion of the total collapse while the building is supposedly still being crushed and destroyed, structural members ripped apart, at the bottom of the building. They actually never explained a lot of things about WTC7.

Have you ever seen a model that demonstrates how the collapse was possible? Have you ever seen a clear demonstration on how this "new" phenomena NIST "discovered" is actually going to initiate this kind of collapse?



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)


Granted air would not have a significant effect, but what would you get when you subtract that energy from the total kinetic energy of the falling building when it's already accelerating at free-fall? Do you understand that? If that is what you're already working with, when dealing with drag, that you can't even differentiate it from a margin of error, then where does destroying the building come in? Where do the massive steel columns and braces on every single floor and all of that come into play?

It's obvious that you aren't looking at it. The energy required for that just is not there. The people saying it's there, are also having to assume it's so negligible that they can't even measure it. Then how does that contrast with a controlled demolition, people? Physically, how would that be any different than a scenario where the structure is compromised with explosives and also provides "negligible" resistance?



Originally posted by bsbray11
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).


Then you notice how little since it made it differentiate the free-fall acceleration period by calling it the "gravity-fed" part of the collapse? The point is that the entire building is following the same curve of a free-falling object.



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?


A deviation greater than the margin of error from absolute free-fall in a vacuum.


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.


Even 2.25 seconds is a significant portion of the total collapse time, and it still has no explanation. During this exact same 2.25 seconds, the building is still going to be moving lower down. What do you think is happening down there? Nothing is touching? Seriously, think about how what is happening further down the building can possibly result in the upper part falling as if nothing is under it.


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


Whatever happened to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? Since NIST did this investigation, let's start with them. They say this building's collapse was a "new phenomena," something that is totally unprecedented, which anyone with any amount of intuition or common sense about physics could have told you after watching WTC7 fall once. And like I said, that's all it's taken for many people. So what is their extraordinary evidence for this claim? What can you tell me about the collapse mechanism of that building that was so new, and why it's never happened before? Shouldn't we have a clear understanding of this?


Skyscrapers aren't flimsy.


Do you think that might mean they would exhibit more than a margin of error's deviation from free-fall if a column got hot and expanded?


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.


Just because a gash covers 8 stories doesn't mean it caused significant structural damage. The SW corner damage on WTC7 spanned at least 8 stories, if not more, and was superficial. The gash in the South face was comparable to the gash in the Banker's Trust and many other peripheral buildings, and even NIST says that damage missed anything important and would not have played any significant role in the global collapse.

[edit on 1-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
So, once again, tell us all why we should be the least bit surprised or concerned with 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration during the collapse of WTC 7.
Speak up, tezz.

This quote deserved its own post.

Casual readers, the human mind is driven by curiosity, wonder and intrigue. Many intelligent people through history have looked at things and wanted to know 'why' and 'how'. Scientific enquiry and human progress has blossomed because people asked questions.

jthomas is effectively trying to stifle all forms of enquiry into the collapse of WTC 7 by asking people to justify why they deserve an answer for how the building fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds.

Yes, that's right. According to jthomas, you are not permitted to ask why it is important. According to jthomas, NIST measured it and that's it. No more questions, nothing to see here, move along, move along...

jthomas, as demonstrated by your clear failure to distinguish between speed and acceleration, along with your failure to understand the shortcomings of the NIST report, you are now showing the wider ATS membership that they must justify why their questions are important.

Hilarious. I've had my laugh for the day. No doubt, others will also fall from their chair, chuckling.

jthomas, it does not matter why. People deserve an explanation from NIST to explain how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds. That's why.


Now Tezz shows us how the mind of a dedicated "Truther" works. Now he claims I am "...effectively trying to stifle all forms of enquiry into the collapse of WTC 7."

Gosh.

After spending most of this thread pointing him to where the answers lie: the NIST report.

You would most think tezz is a "government disinfo agent" for the amount of time he spends disparaging the thinking processes of 9/11 "Truthers."



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you demonstrate how far an object of a realistic weight could travel in the wind, please?


The objects of lighter weight and greater surface area will blow farther. That's obvious. It's also obvious that denser objects will blow less or none in wind. Like a jet engine hub/rotor.


Yeah, except the engine actually made it several hundred feet away from the crater, and into some woods.

Obviously lighter debris will go farther, but are you talking 10 feet, 20 feet from the crater? I'm talking about clothes, human remains, books. How many feet do you think it would blow from the crater? Want to validate anything with the figures for wind force I've posted?





I gave you a link to the NTSB report about the golfer having light material raining down on him 2 miles away, and just a few minutes after the crash. If it took 4 minutes to get to him, the average speed was 30 mph,and IIRC, the wind wasn't blowing that fast at that time. therefore, there are other forces at work here - expanding heat bloom from the jet fuel deflagration? I don't know.


Sure, I'm sure things like that happened as well. But I can't imagine that would be the case for rib bones, or any other part of a human body, or books or even clothes. And certain not going to apply to an engine or anything briefcase-sized, wherever such debris might have landed.




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


Ok then. But it was about 1000 ft. A simple ricochet is an acceptable answer for me. if you want to push something else, bring it up.


It's still conjecture, so as long as you're aware that it doesn't mean the OP's criteria for a legitimate answer. For anyone who doesn't consider Joey Canoli on ATS forums a credible source at least.


Unless you have some evidence of bouncing engines. Damn, 1000 feet is a damned big bounce too!



1-Indian Lake isn't miles away. the near shore is about 1 mile as the crow flies. The marina was about another .8 miles away, and of courseif they found it in the water, it could have floated there.


Fine, can you get enough wind force to blow a rub bone a single mile away? Remember that you can't apply a whole square foot of surface area to the wind, either.


2- it's NOT a fact that it was a human bone, IIRC. The quote says something like "believed" to be a rib bone. I'd agree it more than likely was, but so far, it isn't a stated fact by anyone, that I can see.


If I were the one making this kind of argument, you wouldn't be able to contain yourself.



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

Originally posted by jthomas
After spending most of this thread pointing him to where the answers lie: the NIST report.

The answers are not there, jthomas.

As I have stated before, I don't you expect to understand this. Your failure to understand the difference between speed and acceleration highlights your inability to comprehend basic physics.

Neither NIST or you have been able to explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate.

You then try to handwave that by asking us why we want to know!

Hilarious. Please, keep posting... this is so much better than being outside enjoying the sunshine.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.


It was obviously consistent. We were measuring it here on ATS before NIST came out with this measurement, when they at first tried to deny free fall completely by relying on a time and starting that time with the penthouse collapse.


Please demonstrate with references and quotes just who "denied free fall" during the 5.4 seconds, when, and where. Then explain just what is wrong with using the starting time of the Penthouse collapse.


It was only after people were measuring instantaneous acceleration of the building's roof line at right at 9.8m/s^2 consistently during the draft stages of the report that NIST finally admitted that it did in fact free-fall (which was obvious to us all along).


Demonstrate that NIST denied free fall that they would then have to "finally admit it." I have already shown you - which you refused to acknowledge - that David Chandler - who you refused to admit produced the video you posted, presented NIST with his calculations showing that during the 5.4 seconds of visible collapse time, 2 1/2 seconds were free fall acceleration. NIST then broke down the 5.4 seconds and verified 2.25 seconds of free fall time and included it in the final report. It neither changed the 5.4 seconds nor the conclusion.

Now, shows us, with specific quotes and references where NIST ever denied that.


WTC7's "collapse" has arguably turned more people into so-called "truthers" than anything else. It's my biggest personal beef with the "official story," and I honestly cannot understand how so many people are so completely unable to see the obviousness of which this building was a controlled demolition:


Too bad. You have to show us the evidence. But so far you've shown us how poor you and your fellow "Truthers" are at supporting your own claims.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by tezzajw
However, the answer is proving extremely difficult for jthomas to invent.

Interesting. Someone with your history here talking about "inventing" things.

trebor, you're a self alleged 25 year career 'civil servant' veteran of the government DoD and also a staunch official government story believer, so how about you lend some help to NIST and jthomas and attempt to explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate?

If you can't do it, then you're in the same company as jthomas. He's continually failed to explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate, which is understandable considering his problems distinguishing between speed and acceleration.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
Do you actually want me to keep allowing you to make a fool of yourself?

Please, look in the mirror and post as often as you like.

Your failure to distinguish between speed and acceleration is probably prohibiting you from realising that NIST has not explained how WTC 7 fell at free fall rate for 2.25 seconds.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join