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: 21
79
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Time for another reminder apparently..

The TOPIC is under discussion here..

NOT other Members

Thank you

Semper




posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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."


He was wrong. He was in 7 when 2 collapsed.


The entire exterior of the building, all four corners, and the entire roof line and everything under it, start dropping simultaneously, and symmetrically


No, it didn't.



NYPD Craig Bartmer testified that the lobby exploded just before the entire building started collapsing


I gave a link a few posts back explaining exactly why this is not out of the ordinary. In short, the interior columns started buckling, collapsing down to the 5th or so floor about 6 seconds before the ext collapse began. It's in the NIST report. As jthomas has proven many times before, this also confirms that you've never read it, and instead rely on ATS, ae truth, etc for your info.




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,


They didn't point it out, true. But then again, they're not clairvoyant and could not have had any idea what the TM would question after they've moved on. Imagine that.


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?


Yes. It's all in the NIST report. You know, the report you've never read?


Where do the massive steel columns and braces on every single floor and all of that come into play?


Yet more proof that you never read the NIST report. They give evidence that they weren't intact.


Physically, how would that be any different than a scenario where the structure is compromised with explosives and also provides "negligible" resistance?


Physically? Explosives would have blown glass all over the friggin place. How about..... auditory? Wanna get into that?


Even 2.25 seconds is a significant portion of the total collapse time, and it still has no explanation.


Wrong. It fell 105 ft in 2.25 sec. Just about the same amount that NIST detailed in its sims of the int columns failing.


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?


The collapse mechanism isn't new. the outcome was.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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


Yep.

Big objects doing over 500 mph tend to bounce a long distance.

Imagine that.


Fine


No, not fine. You need to expalin why you got something as simple as this so miserably incorrect.

No, actually, you don't. I already know why.

It's typical.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Maybe it's "typical" because you aren't comprehending the words being repeated to you time and again.

Can you show me where you answered any of the 20 questions with anything other than personal speculation? No? Didn't think so.

Have a link or quote from where NIST explains how free-fall is possible while the building is still "collapsing" in on itself closer to ground level? No?

When you're too stubborn to see the massive holes in your reasoning, I'm sure constant correction does get repetitive.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I am still waiting for you to show where NIST explains how the upper part of the building can free-fall while it is supposedly still "collapsing" into itself further down.

Until you can do that I have no reason to respond to your rants. You can twist words and make all the claims you want but you still haven't explained a question any physics 101 student would understand.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Interview on Meet the Press

Secretary Colin L. Powell
September 23, 2001

seattlepi.nwsource.com...


QUESTION: Will you release publicly a white paper, which links Bin Laden and Al qaeda to the attacks to put people at ease?

SECRETARY POWELL: We are hard at work bringing all the information together, intelligence information, law enforcement information. And I think, in the near future, we will be able to put out a paper, a document, that will describe quite clearly the evidence that we have linking him to this attack.




On March 29, 2006, on The Tony Snow Show, Vice President Dick Cheney stated: "We've never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."




Osama bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11...?

DANA PERINO: "No, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11, and hes sitting in jail right now."


George Bush: I personally authorised the torture that got Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to confess


Torturing people into confessing is not proof in a court of law.....

and why does the media still say Bin Laden was behind 911?



[edit on 2-11-2009 by conar]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Have a link or quote from where NIST explains how free-fall is possible while the building is still "collapsing" in on itself closer to ground level? No?


Yes.

It's on the previous page, like I mentioned in my previous post.

Granted, it doesn't hold you by your hand and say "Here it is. This is why it fell so fast during that period."

You have to figure it out by yourself.

Now, you no longer have any reason to keep repeating that question, for you have been pointed in the right direction.

Unless, of course, your only goal is to troll this board. Your next step should be to read those portions I pointed out, and figure it out for yourself.

If you refuse to address those points, one can only come to the conclusion, when one combines the miserably incorrect claim that Indian Lake is miles away from the crash site, that you are woefully misinformed.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by Joey Canoli]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


I am still waiting for you to show where NIST explains how the upper part of the building can free-fall while it is supposedly still "collapsing" into itself further down.


Addressed repeatedly.


Until you can do that I have no reason to respond to your rants. You can twist words and make all the claims you want but you still haven't explained a question any physics 101 student would understand.


Sorry, bsbray11, you are the one who made the claim in this thread that, "I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition."

As I keep reminding you, in the absence of refuting NIST and providing a stitch of evidence for your claims that the only way WTC 7 could have collapsed is by "explosive demolition," we have no reason to reject the evidence, methodology, or conclusions of NIST.

I've asked you repeatedly to demonstrate why we should not accept the collapse mechanism and conclusions of NIST that include 2.25 seconds of free fall, and you cannot give us any reason whatsoever. You have not demonstrated that the free fall acceleration of 2.25 seconds is inconsistent with the gravity driven progressive collapse of WTC 7.

We can only assume that performing your ritual of going around in circles is the only way you believe you will get a new "investigation."




[edit on 2-11-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:07 AM
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.


Good. So we agree on something.


Originally posted by bsbray11
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:


And there's the rub. You don't understand ergo it must be not understandable. That's quite an ego statement.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Unexplained explosions are heard occurring in this building


Some people heard 'explosions' coming from the base of the twin towers. They didn't think jumper deceleration as the source of the 'explosions'. The mind's a wonderful thing in its desire to quantify new input by comparison with previous input. However, that doesn't make it correct.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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?


Not having a notable effect is a different beast from "significant effect". In the collapse system of WTC7, arguing drag is analogous to arguing angels on the head of a pin. The measuring data isn't going to resolve down to the sort of precision you want (even if it were relevant).

Drag would only be of any importance in the system if WTC7 were made of some paper product like the cardboard Richard Gage used in his hilarious twin towers demonstration models.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Where do the massive steel columns and braces on every single floor and all of that come into play?


Evidently they didn't in this particular even. Given the unique design of the building, I find that less challenging than you seem to.


Originally posted by bsbray11
It's obvious that you aren't looking at it. The energy required for that just is not there.


In your humble, layman's opinion. You'll excuse me if what I've read from more experienced sources doesn't join in lockstep with your disbelief.


Originally posted by bsbray11
Then how does that contrast with a controlled demolition, people?


It bears some interesting surface similarities absent two glaring omissions: explosion shockwave and ejecta. More simply, it seemed to walk like a duck but it didn't quack like a duck. Ergo it wasn't a duck.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.

I don't recall using that particular turn of phrase. However, all collapses are "gravity-fed" with reductions allowed for resistance in various forms.

More importantly, you're again describing a moment and implying that the motion in that moment was global (which it wasn't). This is a perfect example of Truther quicksand of cherrypicking (whether by design or fecklessness).


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

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.

I'm glad to hear that. Would you care to be more specific in your quantification?


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.


"intuition or common sense about physics"? That's probably the origin of most of your problems. Real physics isn't about intuition. And common sense is surprisingly uncommon. And oddly enough, some things in life are counterintuitive yet eminently explainable by someone with the requisite knowledge.


Originally posted by bsbray11
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?


Oh, I don't know. Off the top of my head I would think that WTC7's unique design, a multi-storey gash and 7 hours worth of unfought fire might be three good places for you to start.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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?


See answer above.


Originally posted by bsbray11
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.

Really! That's a comment for the ages. Too bad you added a qualifier I didn't in my post.


Originally posted by bsbray11
The SW corner damage on WTC7 spanned at least 8 stories, if not more, and was superficial.


But guess what it would have allowed in in gigantic quantities that might have hastened the process of collapse? Air. Add air to flame and what do you get? A roaring fire. Was WTC7 engaged with unfought flames? Why yes! Do you suppose that made a difference?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


Can you show me where you answered any of the 20 questions with anything other than personal speculation?


The NIST report is not "personal speculation," as you well know.

Your claim that "I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition" IS personal speculation.

Hypocrisy does not help your "cause," bsbray11.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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.


As long as you've added yourself to the top of that list. I believe I understand the collapse mechanism and I don't feel it necessary to harp on every perceived inconsistency.


Originally posted by tezzajw
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.


You're in your own category for insisting that a flexible word like momentary be constrained to how you feel it should be used. That, my boy, is your problem and not the rest of the world's.


Originally posted by tezzajw
Your figure of 30% is not momentary, it is significant.


Because you find it vexing to consider it that way. Again, your problem.


Originally posted by tezzajw

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.


So explain what my underlying point was if you understood it.


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


Do you have a thing for endless repetition? Oy!



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:34 AM
link   

posted by conar

Torturing people into confessing is not proof in a court of law.....

and why does the media still say Bin Laden was behind 911?



Because it is all a gigantic snow-job of the American people most of whom are too lazy and indifferent to attempt to sort out the truth from the fiction.

Just like he stated originally way back in 2001, Usama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9-11, and the tortured liar Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did not either.

The American people and the people of the world have endured a steady stream of lies and manufactured videos and audios from the US Government falsely presenting Usama bin Laden as the mastermind and financier of 9-11, and now even the US Government indirectly admits it was all a mass of lies, and now claims KSM was the real mastermind of 9-11.

Since many world intelligence agencies and many world governments now admit that Usama bin Laden most likely died way back in December of 2001, SOMEBODY faked those Osama confession videos and audios, and that SOMEBODY with the most to gain from the falsehoods would be the US Government and the Bush Regime.

"cui bono?" means "Who benefits", or more literally: "For whose benefit is it?" It is a very good question throughout life's encounters and is often used by experienced criminal investigators.

The entire 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is built upon lie after lie after lie.




[edit on 11/2/09 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston

Since many world intelligence agencies and many world governments now admit that Usama bin Laden most likely died way back in December of 2001, SOMEBODY faked those Osama confession videos and audios, and that SOMEBODY with the most to gain from the falsehoods would be the US Government and the Bush Regime.


That's completely wrong. As always, you are so far behind it's laughable. Will you please finally catch up with the facts, SPreston?:

The truth about September 11 exposed!



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
Have a link or quote from where NIST explains how free-fall is possible while the building is still "collapsing" in on itself closer to ground level? No?


Yes.

It's on the previous page, like I mentioned in my previous post.

Granted, it doesn't hold you by your hand and say "Here it is. This is why it fell so fast during that period."

You have to figure it out by yourself.


I'm left to figure out how the top part of the building could free-fall while the part below is supposed to be crushing and grinding into the ground? So in other words you admit NIST has no explanation for it.

Btw I'm really damned certain that I have figured out exactly why the upper part of the building was in total free-fall while the rest of the building was "collapsing" below, but it has nothing to do with thermal expansion. It has to do with all those explosions people kept hearing in the building.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


In all your posts you have repeatedly shown you have yet to even understand question #6 from the OP. You keep distorting it and trying (intentionally, I believe) to misconstrue it to a question of how long the building was in free-fall, which is not what I asked. I clearly asked for an explanation as to how total free-fall of that building is possible. To comprehend the question one should have an understanding of what "free-fall" implies in physics. And to answer my question per the OP, means you need to find somewhere in the NIST report where this is explained.

Still waiting for you to do this.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Some people heard 'explosions' coming from the base of the twin towers. They didn't think jumper deceleration as the source of the 'explosions'. The mind's a wonderful thing in its desire to quantify new input by comparison with previous input.


I can post many eyewitness accounts for which bodies hitting the ground is a totally unacceptable explanation of the explosions they heard and/or witnessed. I have also heard electrical transformers exploding and all kinds of nonsense to explain them all away. I wonder what makes it so hard for you to believe there were bombs detonating underground and elsewhere in the building when the police were even reporting at the time, and reporting vehicles exploding underground. Is it because the mainstream media didn't pound it for 6 months straight after all that was originally reported?



Not having a notable effect is a different beast from "significant effect". In the collapse system of WTC7, arguing drag is analogous to arguing angels on the head of a pin. The measuring data isn't going to resolve down to the sort of precision you want (even if it were relevant).


You missed the point I was making entirely. I was never in my post arguing that drag should have significantly slowed the collapse. Only that the structure should provide significantly more "resistance" and that you can't even see EITHER of these things within the margin of error from absolute free-fall in a vacuum. So when you DO account for the negligible amount of drag, what is even left over? Are you saying the structure below was basically equivalent to air to begin with?



Where do the massive steel columns and braces on every single floor and all of that come into play?


Evidently they didn't in this particular even.


You're right, they didn't. But you don't know why.


Given the unique design of the building, I find that less challenging than you seem to.


"Unique design" is the biggest bunch of bull I have ever seen in place of legitimate science and investigation. Every single building in the world is "unique." You aren't telling me squat about the building, and especially nothing about why the building did not provide resistance as it dropped straight to the ground, free-falling. Please be more specific as to how a "unique design" allowed no resistance from the building at all.




Originally posted by bsbray11
It's obvious that you aren't looking at it. The energy required for that just is not there.


In your humble, layman's opinion.


You can call me whatever you want but the fact remains that no one has figured out how much "resistance" so much intact structure should theoretically have offered and applied to the collapse model. Instead, NIST and everyone else works ass-backwards saying, well, it obviously wasn't resisted, so the structure itself must have played a negligible role in the collapse of this building. But without bothering to find out why. As if that makes a damned bit of sense. NIST only published garbage like that because someone knew there are tons of stupid Americans who will buy it instantly and without a second thought.


You'll excuse me if what I've read from more experienced sources doesn't join in lockstep with your disbelief.


Just remember that it was all the experts telling Copernicus why he was so dead wrong about the Earth revolving around the Sun. If there's one crowning jewel of stupidity it is arrogance based on a perceived majority opinion. Since so many people believe it, it must be true. And all of you simultaneously saying the same thing to justify yourselves, when it was fallacious "reasoning" to begin with.

Right after 9/11, "experts" also said the steel must have melted. I am talking about tenured professors, including structural engineers. I can post the relevant quotes and sources if you want to see the ugliness. Or you can just take my word for it, for something that should be obvious anyway, that no number of people that believe something ever make that thing true simply by believing in it. I base my observations on my own knowledge only and my own common sense.

At any rate question #6 is still totally unanswered. In case you didn't get it already, I was looking for a technical answer that applies to physics and comes from a source that actually investigated this building, not fallacious, opinionated "reasoning" from an anonymous poster on an internet forum.


It bears some interesting surface similarities absent two glaring omissions: explosion shockwave and ejecta.


Not all demolitions eject material (besides dust), and plenty enough explosions occurred well before the building actually free-fell to account for the structure being compromised, without even bothering to bring up all the steel observed to suffer extreme corrosion from a eutectic reaction. See, I just answered my own question #6 very simply and elegantly, except it doesn't come from a government source: the explosions were what compromised the structure and allowed a total free-fall when the final column went. It was all obviously already out of the way, or else it would not have literally fell as if NOTHING was under it.


More simply, it seemed to walk like a duck but it didn't quack like a duck. Ergo it wasn't a duck.


I have to say it would not be very hard to fool you. Just move the sounds of the explosions and stagger them, and suddenly you forget all about them and will deny that it was a demolition even when you admit it looked like one. Can you explain how all 4 corners of the roof started dropping together simultaneously? Do you realize what THAT implies about the structure beneath?


More importantly, you're again describing a moment and implying that the motion in that moment was global (which it wasn't). This is a perfect example of Truther quicksand of cherrypicking (whether by design or fecklessness).


I already explained why it does not matter when the free-fall is happening or for how long, as long as we are in agreement that it WAS a total free-fall. At the same time this whole upper section of building is free-falling, what do you think is happening below? Nothing in the structure is contacting, and the building is just falling through air?




Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.


I'm glad to hear that. Would you care to be more specific in your quantification?


Sure. We should be able to tell by looking at the acceleration curve that there was still structure underneath the free-falling section of building that absorbed energy (specifically all the energy that it took to render WTC7 in the state it was afterward -- a smoldering 3-story pile of debris). But for all intents and purposes the data shows there was NOT structure remaining under the free-falling building, as common sense of what "free-fall" means would dictate. So what happened to it? Did NIST ever explain it to you specifically, ie technically? Weren't they supposed to do a technical report?


"intuition or common sense about physics"? That's probably the origin of most of your problems. Real physics isn't about intuition.


All professional engineers use intuition on a daily basis to diagnose and solve problems without having to crank pages of calculations each and every time. My professors even teach as much, and encourage intuition and imagination both. Fancy that. Your problem is that you have totally neglected both of those things and so they are useless to you, as you don't know how to use them. And yes, I agree, that is the biggest problem and the single greatest origin of confusion. Having no sense of intuition as to how objects are supposed to physically behave based on laws of physics has resulted in so many people here having no understanding of the implications of a building accelerating at free-fall.



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?


Oh, I don't know. Off the top of my head I would think that WTC7's unique design, a multi-storey gash and 7 hours worth of unfought fire might be three good places for you to start.


There is nothing "new" about any of those three things, and even NIST says the "gash" was insignificant. Steel-framed buildings have burned for much longer periods of time, and all buildings are "unique" so I fail to see where you are going with that.



Just because a gash covers 8 stories doesn't mean it caused significant structural damage.


Really! That's a comment for the ages. Too bad you added a qualifier I didn't in my post.


If the damage is insignificant to the collapse, then what makes you think I want to hear anything about it when I'm talking about the collapse?


But guess what it would have allowed in in gigantic quantities that might have hastened the process of collapse? Air. Add air to flame and what do you get? A roaring fire.


Really? Why don't you post some photos of this "roaring fire"? I'll brace myself, since I know how insanely intense these are going to look, especially compared to just about any other major skyscraper fire.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
You're in your own category for insisting that a flexible word like momentary be constrained to how you feel it should be used. That, my boy, is your problem and not the rest of the world's.

Fitzgibbon, when you try to claim that a 30% time period during the collapse should be considered 'momentary', it reveals much about your inability to correctly make an informed analysis of what happened.

NIST did not explain how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds with free fall rate.

You haven't explained it either. Instead, you tried to disguise the free fall time period as being 'momentary', when it is in fact significant. 30% is a significant result.

Nice try, but you were caught out on it.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 04:39 PM
link   
It does not matter how long the free-fall period was when the building is supposed to be in the middle of "collapsing." Any period of free-fall at all of the entire upper half of the building indicates that the building was being totally compromised before the mass even dropped.




top topics



 
79
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join