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: 23
79
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Are you or are you not going to find that scientific/mathematical definition of "moment"...?

I already have.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
And clearly your obsession with the 30% figure points out your lack of understanding of the underlying argument that propagated it.

Your documented confusion, trying to distort a 30% (your number) time period as being momentary is clearly preserved on the screen for all ATS viewers to see.

WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate. This is not momentary, as you claimed. It is a significant portion of the collapse time.




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

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Are you or are you not going to find that scientific/mathematical definition of "moment"...?

I already have.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
And clearly your obsession with the 30% figure points out your lack of understanding of the underlying argument that propagated it.

Your documented confusion, trying to distort a 30% (your number) time period as being momentary is clearly preserved on the screen for all ATS viewers to see.

WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate. This is not momentary, as you claimed. It is a significant portion of the collapse time.


Where's your link to a scientific (non-Tezz-specific) definition? It seems to be missing in your previous posts.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitzgibbon
 

Fitzgibbon, your documented confusion, trying to distort a 30% (your number) time period as being momentary is clearly preserved on the screen for all ATS viewers to see.

WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate. This is not momentary, as you claimed. It is a significant portion of the collapse time.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Are you or are you not going to find that scientific/mathematical definition of "moment"...?

I already have.


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
And clearly your obsession with the 30% figure points out your lack of understanding of the underlying argument that propagated it.

Your documented confusion, trying to distort a 30% (your number) time period as being momentary is clearly preserved on the screen for all ATS viewers to see.

WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds at free fall rate. This is not momentary, as you claimed. It is a significant portion of the collapse time.


Where's your link to a scientific (non-Tezz-specific) definition? It seems to be missing in your previous posts.


Bumping to the top because Tezzajaw isn't (or might be incapable of) providing the requested scientific, mathematical definition of a "moment", a definition he/she insists exists and which is central to his/her continued argument.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
*** KNOCK IT OFF ***


ON TOPIC NON SPAM POSTS PLEASE

oh yeah THANK YOU !!!!

[edit on 2-11-2009 by elevatedone]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Removed.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
*** KNOCK IT OFF ***


ON TOPIC NON SPAM POSTS PLEASE

oh yeah THANK YOU !!!!


Doing my level best, elevatedone.

Will continue to attempt to improve the quality of ATS discourse going forward

Fitz.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

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.


posted by tezzajw

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.



I am amazed that these NIST / 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY worshippers still continue to preach this self-deception ad infinitum ad nauseum.

The NIST pseudo-engineers (specifically Shyam Sunder and John Gross) stumbled through their lies and were forced against their will to change their lies by a high school physics teacher.







Apparently John Gross is a compulsive liar.


Google Video Link




[edit on 11/2/09 by SPreston]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
There is some fisticuffs going on at Truthaction.org about CD.

There is now considerable angst amongst some "Truthers" who feel that even discussing CD of the WTC Towers is seen as "hurting" the "cause of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

See: The Value of CD Evidence in Activism

Of course, it's not that they have given up on their religious belief that "only controlled demolition can explain the collapses of the towers." It's just that they "shouldn't talk about it in the open." It reminds me of the Vietnam days when the reason for napalming villages was that "we destroyed the village in order to save it."

In reality, it's just that some "Truthers" are finally catching on to what we've been telling them for eight years: their firmly-held beliefs really are insane, nutty, and irrational, devoid of evidence.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Who cares about the current gibberish spouting from the mouths of Jon Gold or Victoria Ashley?

The fact is your precious 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is bleeding from a dozen potentially fatal wounds and there is nothing you can do about it, except run your mindless disinformation campaign.




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Knock yerself out. Make sure that they can't be explained away with ease.


Watch the testimonies in these videos and see if you don't notice inconsistencies with all being bodies hitting the ground:
















posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


When are you going to post an excerpt from the NIST report that explains how the building could free-fall into itself without "help"? Instead of just how long the free-fall lasted or the observation that all of the structure was somehow compromised before the mass fell.


Let's take baby steps with it, jthomas: What does the conservation of energy law imply to you, when it comes to free-falling bodies?

[edit on 3-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


When are you going to post an excerpt from the NIST report that explains how the building could free-fall into itself without "help"? Instead of just how long the free-fall lasted or the observation that all of the structure was somehow compromised before the mass fell.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by bsbray11]


I can only again point you to the answer and reality you so desperately avoid:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The ball remains in your court.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by jthomas
 


Who cares about the current gibberish spouting from the mouths of Jon Gold or Victoria Ashley?


Other "Truthers" like you, as I pointed out.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
So I went to find the answer in NIST's modeling. I still couldn't find it. All I found were these points of avoidance of that period of time.



This is what the report says about this graph:
"Figure 12-61 shows that selected exterior column forces increased as gravity loads were applied (compressive loads are negative). As indicated at 4.5 (LS-DYNA calculation time, there was an increase in compressive forces on the west and south faces of the building after debris impact damage was applied. As Columns 79, 80 and 81 buckled and the floor systems failed on the east side of the building (at 15s to 16s), column forces reduced in the north and east faces. The west face column forces were dominated by the forces in Column 14, which adjacent to the severed columns in the southwest corner. At 21.5 s, exterior column buckling began at Column 14, between Floors 10 and 12. The exterior columns adjacent to the (seven) columns severed in the southwest region due to the collapse of WTC 1 were the first to buckle due to the increased forces in these columns following the debris impact damage. The south and west face columns buckled first, followed by the north and east face columns."

Why does the above graph arbitrarily end before the period of free-fall? There's no reason it should. It seems that the North and East groups of external columns still had some unloading to do which could have been shown in the graph.

Also I don't see any mention or explanation of "negligible" resistance in the columns in the quoted text.

So I'm going to have to say that this does not explain the lack of resistance in the free-fall period.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Next Part:



"When all the exterior columns had buckled, as shown in Figure 12-62, the entire building above the buckled-column region moved downward as a single unit, resulting in the global collapse of WTC 7. Detailed views of the lower exterior column buckling are shown in Figure 12-63."

Also I don't see any mention or explanation of "negligible" resistance in the columns in the quoted text or in the diagram.

I had to run my own "scientific" experiment to see, but I don't think the results are that accurate.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Next part:





The above picture is the comparisons between their modeling and the observation times of events in the collapse. I'm not going to type the whole quote about this diagram as it would take too long to type, but if you're interested you can see and read about it in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 starting at the lower part of page 598.

What I find interesting is that there is no listing in the diagram or quoted text which says something like "Our modeling predicted a period of free fall acceleration at such and such time which matches reasonably well with observations made from the video clips."

We know their modeling modeled the collapse during this period as they show the west penthouse sinking at 9.3 s, which is within this period. Why would they not include the observation of the free fall period with the results of their model? Why would they not state this as it would only go to bolster the confirmation of their model?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Knock yerself out. Make sure that they can't be explained away with ease.


Watch the testimonies in these videos and see if you don't notice inconsistencies with all being bodies hitting the ground:


Sorry but where in my post did I suggest that every explosion-like noise was a body hitting the ground? I just cited that as one possibility in a litany of non-explosion explosion-like sounds.

This response on your part is perfectly indicative of the narrow, absolutist, 'must be A or B' mindset that seems to be a Truther hallmark.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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.


Why should it if the design wouldn't have introduced it?


How exactly was the building designed to suddenly give way all of its support of everything above a certain floor instantly, so the floors above could just free-fall down a considerable distance?

My recollection of the basic building support structure is that the design was asymmetrical creating a large gap.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Given that you've provided not one whit of either it's a little disconcerting that you would attempt to call down anyone who presented either.


Does that mean you're not going to explain how it was able to free-fall because of being "unique"?


I'm not an architect but my understanding of basic physics allows me to accept that what Truthers like to deride as the OV/OCT is consistent with the observed phenomenon. If you don't accept it then it is up to you to come up with a workable, non-Rube-Goldbergish explanation that explains it.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Essentially because it was a hollow building. Kind of unique, wouldn't you say?


Hollow except for the massive columns going up through it with bracing on every floor?


See answer above


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

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. Are you a layman or are you not? Your argument suggests you are.


Can you explain how? Everyone is a "layman" to the study of any "progressively collapsing" high-rises (ie dynamic systems, not state civil/structural engineering).


Please answer the question. Are you a structural architect or are you (as virtually all here [present company included]) a layman? Because if you're the former, you should be able to rough-out figures that will withstand scrutiny & if you're the latter, then your argument about "energy required" is just so much quacking.

Your attempt at deflection suggests my assertion was correct, that you're no better versed in the mechanics of the collapse than any other person on the street.

Now that we have that cleared up...


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Copernicus had evidence on his side. What's your excuse?


What's yours?


I'm sorry but you compare yourself and your situation to that faced by Copernicus. Yet your comparison is hollow because while (on the surface) Turthers face a Copernican struggle against conventional wisdom, what they universally lack is the Copernican ability to demonstrate the conventional wisdom to be incorrect.

In more common parlance, you're urinating into a nor'wester.


Originally posted by bsbray11
You're the one trying to appeal to your perceived experts[snip]


Not at all. The experts on the non-Truther side of the equation ARE experts and repeatedly acknowledged as such by their peers.

The Truther 'experts?


Originally posted by bsbray11
...I'm trying to talk basic laws of physics and you keep diverting to other people and never want to venture an explanation as to how this could happen yourself.


Because I'm not (and you seem not to be) an architect, an expert, one who makes his/her living constructing multi-storey buildings and who must, by necessity, be cognisant of important minutiae that the layman will overlook. If the collapse of the WTC buildings could be explained by 'basic physics', your paperboy would be offering up an informed opinion.

Unfortunately, the mechanics are a little less straightforward than that.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Absent an opportunity to satisfy themselves otherwise, I guess they did. Are they still saying the same thing?


So you admit experts are limited and our perceptions of 9/11 should still be open to all possibilities without bias?


Sorry but was the message not clear? Expert opinions offered up in the heat of a particular moment without all the relevant information can be forgiven for being incomplete. The question you're ducking is whether the selfsame experts are still saying exactly the same thing once all the information is in.

After eight years, I think we can reasonably expect that the answers extant are the answers that'll stand the test of time.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
And in retrospect, your experience trumps tenured professors 24/7? If not why're we going down this dead-end street?


I didn't say it does all the time, but neither do all professionals and professors disagree with me.


What percentage of relevant professionals agree with you? My understanding is that it's somewhat south of a percentage point, a rounding error practically. And why have these Neo-Copernicans not sallied forth to enlighten their confused brethren by proffering professional texts to the withering glare of their equals?


Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by bsbray11
Dust is ejecta genius.


I said "besides," genius.


Fair enough. My bad.

That said, would you care to provide examples of demolitions of any size that didn't eject any material?


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
And where's the shockwave?


Probably with the massive sounds that accompanied the explosions various witnesses heard, or that can be heard coming from WTC7 in various video clips.


Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with actual controlled demolitions of buildings of any size and note the order of sounds as well as their relative loudness. The WTC buildings went down and there weren't the requisite sounds that would provide the desired sonic fingerprint. This is turn has created a cottage industry claiming thermite, thermate, nanothermite and all sorts of wild and woolly variations on that theme to explain this absence.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
You talking about Dylan's explosions? You know....compressed air being forced out of weak spots?


No, these:


I saw the 1st one the first time it was uploaded. The explosion SFX was added in stereo to a mono item. Oddly enough, it disappeared shortly thereafter. Nice to see its creator is still sucking people in with a revised version.

The 2nd harks back to my earlier point about not all explosion-like sounds actually being explosions. A low distant rumble is proof of nothing except a low distant rumble. Just on the surface, the sound is lacking some of the qualities that one would expect from an explosion



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 



Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by jthomas
 


Who cares about the current gibberish spouting from the mouths of Jon Gold or Victoria Ashley?


I don't know Jon Gold, but I know that Victoria Ashley is the wife of Jim Hoffman, and I respect his work regarding the WTC buildings. This doesn't mean that he or his wife are right on all things; I personally disagree with their stance regarding the pentagon attack. However, last I checked, they were in full agreement that the WTC buildings fell due to controlled demolition; reading a post of hers in the thread jthomas mentioned, I doubt she's changed her mind on this.


Originally posted by SPreston
The fact is your precious 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is bleeding from a dozen potentially fatal wounds and there is nothing you can do about it, except run your mindless disinformation campaign.


I don't think his arguments are unreasoned, but rather that their reasoning is flawed. Like michael, I think their primary strategy is to avoid looking at the facts that favour an inside job, quite possibly because the possibility that elements of their own government could have done such things is simply too abhorrent for them to contemplate.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Originally posted by bsbray11
without even bothering to bring up all the steel observed to suffer extreme corrosion from a eutectic reaction.


How about you explain that for the crowd in the third row?


It's in the FEMA report, appendix C, which coincidentally enough, is sourced in the OP on the first page on this thread.

You should be able to break it down and a layman's lexicon explanation of why this is relevant. Have at it.


Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
If the government-induced free-fall was what you claim it to be, then why does the speed of collapse only partially match what you claim it should be?


How does it only partially match?


Because by going on and on about free-fall, you imply to the passing layman reader that the entire process was free-fall when in fact it was only in part, a fact that clearly seems to bother you more than educated experts in the field.

The average person is going to take away from your phraseology an impression that is spurious and which you do nothing to disabuse them of.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Fitzgibbon]




top topics



 
79
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join