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: 25
79
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
So my question to you is this, what are the error bars associated with this measurement?


I would say that their margin of error would be quite slim as the whole thing was recorded. It's easy to measure things on video. That includes distance and time. From there (in physics) velocity is equated. From there, acceleration is equated.




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

posted by NIcon
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Forget it, bsbray, I've asked many times what their definition of "free fall" was and I never got an answer.

But you did include "in physics, technically" which I never did. And I also never asked Fitzgibbon directly.

So maybe you'll have better luck getting an answer.



These fanatical supporters of NIST and the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY dare not give a straight answer to that question because they can only hurt themselves.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
I would say that their margin of error would be quite slim as the whole thing was recorded. It's easy to measure things on video. That includes distance and time. From there (in physics) velocity is equated. From there, acceleration is equated.


Oh I am aware of this fact, and what you're saying is correct, but it is important to actually specify the error margins, so we can see just how much energy the building may have absorbed.

We know for a fact that the acceleration cannot have been exactly g, so we must speculate.

edit: I see SPreston is still posting in his usual style:

Originally posted by SPreston
These fanatical supporters of NIST and the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY dare not give a straight answer to that question because they can only hurt themselves.

Free fall can be defined as a object accelerating under gravity until it matches resistive force. In technicality all objects are 'free falling', but usually we require a non zero velocity or acceleration.

Even so, it's irrelevant to this discussion, figures and facts are what is needed.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by exponent]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
We know for a fact that the acceleration cannot have been exactly g, so we must speculate.


What do you propose as the error of margin? Shouldn't NIST have at least explained that there was an error of margin?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
What do you propose as the error of margin? Shouldn't NIST have at least explained that there was an error of margin?


I would rather not propose one, as part of this discussion is bsbray believing that something is only explicable through the use of controlled demolition. Therefore I would like to see his calculations or his figures, and what reduction in resistance he feels explosives would add.

NIST may not have explained this the same way as they do not explain the derivative of position is velocity. Their paper is not aimed at 'high school physics', but aimed at people who make their living out of this.

I'll check if they do actually mention it though.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Their paper is not aimed at 'high school physics', but aimed at people who make their living out of this.


The funny thing is that it took a "high school physics" teacher to make NIST admit that the building was indeed collapsing at that acceleration.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nutter
The funny thing is that it took a "high school physics" teacher to make NIST admit that the building was indeed collapsing at that acceleration.

The usage of 'admit' here is not appropriate, it is equivalent to saying "aha, a child FORCED this person to ADMIT his middle name is Steve".

This sounds absurd on its face, but if you believe that people with the middle name of Steve are all tools of satan, then suddenly it becomes astounding and important information.

Unless you believe this though, it becomes as banal as any other information. NIST doesn't believe that a period of free fall means controlled demolition, and so I don't agree with the term 'admit'.

Still, this is getting off topic, I await bsbray's reply!



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
8 years after the fact hardly qualifies as "heat of a particular moment".


Yet here we are.

Now I'm the one asking what your definition of a "moment" is or why I should care. How long was Copernicus denied? Generations. That's an even longer 'heated moment.'


The "controversy" as you frame it doesn't exist anywhere except within a tiny minority of fevered brows. It doesn't even qualify as a tempest in a teapot.


Look at the many different polls done and keep in mind that only 1/3 of colonists fought or even gave a damn about America during the revolution. Naturally most people are stupid and apathetic when it comes to anything even remotely political. That's the sad medium upon which the argument between people who do care takes place.


They aren't "unanswered" in the slightest. You just refuse to accept the answers provided by others with far greater expertise than you, I or anyone on this board has. You seem to be the one thriving on "personal conjecture".


You personally have only attempted to address 1 of the 20 questions, and 16 or 17 of them have gone without further mention throughout this entire thread. You are all talk. I am still asking you for proof and you are starting to loop back into the same confused circular posting that jthomas is trapped in. That is why I keep saying we SHOULD get back to basics and talk basic definitions and conservation of energy, orders of magnitude, margins of error, those things.

You can't even pretend all the other questions are answered until you actually try to give me an answer to them first. From federal reports. Asking a question is not personal conjecture, but answering without any evidence is.


Is that your way of saying if even one professional agrees with you, then his/her opinion trumps all others? 'K


That's my way of letting you know that I don't base my case exclusively on logical fallacies. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you.



Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
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?


It happens all the time.


And the results thus far have been......?


Your experts still saying that the Sun revolves around the Earth anyway. Do you want a cookie for that? The longer we keep this denial going, the more proud we should be of you all?


Then certainly such an explosive revelation (so to speak) with such far-reaching implications would reach the attention of the general populace, would it not? And if not, why not?


I didn't realize you were going to start forcing me to making social theories before you could answer any of my questions. I can only point again to Copernicus or a large handful of other famous scientists and say, if you're trying to say that doesn't happen... you're dead wrong. Is it just too flattering to see society for what it is, even historically?


Uh...no. I was looking to you to provide an example of a controlled demolition that was anything like the WTC building collapses. You know...top-down and/or silent.


I can also post "top-down" demolitions (starting from the middle of a building, even) and if I look hard enough I think there is a video of a demolition using hydraulics that is all but silent (much unlike the actual Twin Tower "collapses"). I'm not saying hydraulics were used, but neither am I saying all super-loud TNT and C4 was used, either. I'm not saying ANYTHING about what was or wasn't put into those buildings to destroy them, because I don't know anything about that. I only know the physics claimed to explain their collapses, does not do so.



Originally posted by bsbray11
I could post videos showing "squibs" or puffs of dust popping out of WTC7 but you would tell me it was something different I'm sure.


I'm sure I wouldn't be the first and certainly not the last.


Right, but it's not like you aren't doing anything but adding your personal conjecture to it anyway.



Originally posted by bsbray11
But yes I can post large-scale demolitions of buildings where this is all that you can see coming out of them, and nothing larger.


No explosions either? This should be interesting.


If I can find the video of the building being demolished with hydraulics, sure, it will be my pleasure. One of the resident ATS "debunkers" actually posted it first and introduced me to it, so maybe they will read this and re-post it.

The demolition method itself is not what you are anticipating, but before you point that out yourself, let me ask you, so what? It would be extremely effective to use unconventional techniques to hide/mask/not need many large explosions, even though there is still an abundance of testimonies of many explosions anyway. Those were big buildings after all.


But what's the missing component that those have that WTC7 lacked?


Trust me, it could be the color of the paint if you really wanted. Are you going to keep ignoring that there were massive explosions in that building before it fell?


And I wasn't aware that the Landmark Tower had an 8-storey gash or an unfought major fire.


And I wasn't aware those two things alone could produce a symmetrical, free-fall demolition.


But then why did you in a previous post link YouTube videos with 'explosions' if comparing WTC7 to a conventional demolition wasn't in play?


WTC7 can be compared and contrasted to a conventional demolition very easily, but I'm not saying it was a conventional demolition. It bears many obvious similarities, the most compelling of which is its total free-fall acceleration as if all support had already been removed. Also its symmetry and all the explosions hear in and around it. Just the size of the building alone precludes most forms of demolition. Even explosive demolition would never legally be allowed to that building in such a crowded city, and has never been commercially attempted on a building that tall. But then again, legality was not an obstacle in this case, and neither was precedent, obviously.


We're long past the stage where 'just asking questions' is a reasonable excuse for not answering a question.


Then just answer my questions? Seriously, where have you answered anything I have specifically asked with solid evidence? I agree we should be past this stage already but we are NOT.


Not at all. I just point out that the sound order and sound quality eliminates the controlled demolition hypothesis so long favoured by some.


I disagree with your layman opinion of what sounds like an explosive and what doesn't. Unless you are intimately familiar with all classes and types of military explosives and that sort of thing, especially after filtered through who knows what kinds of software and recording equipment.


That's not to say that there aren't explosion-like sounds happening. But as I pointed out earlier, all explosion-like sounds are not explosions.


You mean you don't know what was causing the sounds of explosions.


I just pointed out that the original upload of that clip included a stereo explosion SFX on what was otherwise a mono clip. In short, it was a fake.


Where is the original, and can you actually prove all of this?


I really wouldn't hang your hat too much on that clip if you expect to be taken seriously.


I posted tons of clips of both explosions and witnesses testifying to explosions, and you've ignored the vast majority of them. Whether or not you take me seriously is your problem, since you will apparently respond to me either way.


I'm a television editor by trade. It's my business to know and analyse these things to make what I do better and to point out obvious fakes when I come across them.


That sounds about as scientific as fairy tales and magic dust.


I'm sure a sound editor would be even better at explaining these sonic shortcomings.


I would hope so. And I would hope he would be well-versed in the sounds of all kinds of explosions from all distances and environments as well.

Come to think of it, there are already a number of sound analyses of some of these clips and more. Maybe we can expand to discussing those, too?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
However, throughout this thread I've noticed you saying "absolute free fall speed in a vacuum" or similar.

This obviously does not make sense, as no mechanism could remove the air inside the building before it collapsed, and indeed there could be no situation where WTC7s structure would feel absolutely no resistance.


I agree. But I'm not the one that measured the free-fall.

So are you disputing,

(a) the measurement? (NIST's) or,

(b) the acceleration curve itself?



So my question to you is this, what are the error bars associated with this measurement? You seem to take it primarily from NIST, who give you the details of their method. So how much resistance can the building have felt but not be expressed in the measurements?


That is exactly my question. Both the drag from air and structural "resistance" are apparently within a margin of error to absolute free-fall in a vacuum.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I agree. But I'm not the one that measured the free-fall.

So are you disputing,

(a) the measurement? (NIST's) or,

(b) the acceleration curve itself?

Neither, the acceleration curve, or more exactly the 'free fall portion' is a linear regression, which I do not think has a specific error margin within the NIST report.


That is exactly my question. Both the drag from air and structural "resistance" are apparently within a margin of error to absolute free-fall in a vacuum.

But what is this margin? Is it enough to contain expected structural resistance, or is it accurate enough that there must have been some sort of 'assistance'?

These are things which have been left unresolved, despite the frequent mention of 'free-fall', without definition it is meaningless.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
But what is this margin? Is it enough to contain expected structural resistance, or is it accurate enough that there must have been some sort of 'assistance'?


The fact that you can't even tell the difference to answer your question should give you your first clue.

A building collapses straight into itself -- should we even be able to tell there was an entire building under the roof line being completely ripped apart when we look at the loss of kinetic energy?

At least you are on board with me, exponent. So can you answer question #6 from the OP or link me to where the NIST report demonstrates this behavior should be expected?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
The fact that you can't even tell the difference to answer your question should give you your first clue.

My first clue to what exactly? If the fact is indeterminate, there can be no clues



A building collapses straight into itself -- should we even be able to tell there was an entire building under the roof line being completely ripped apart when we look at the loss of kinetic energy?

Well we can, we know for a fact that the building experienced significant resistance throughout its collapse. The question is in this 2.25 second period, where the building falls a total of 8 stories, how much resistance did it actually feel?

Neither me, nor NIST, see any great surprise at it being close to unimpeded acceleration due to gravity, but that is because the building has been collapsing internally for a good number of seconds before the facade collapses.


At least you are on board with me, exponent. So can you answer question #6 from the OP or link me to where the NIST report demonstrates this behavior should be expected?

I will quote question 6:

What allowed WTC7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?


Well ignoring the fact that it clearly didn't accelerate at this rate (it would be impossible), what 'allowed' it was the severe lower level damage to the structure. I mean, it's all explained pretty well in the NIST report. I don't think you'd be particularly impressed if I quoted the NIST report directly, so I will ask you to elaborate on your question



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Im surprised there were only 2 disagreeing posters on the first page. Im going to see if they have assembled more in the following pages.

It never ceases to amaze me at the denial in people regarding 911 and all the holes in the official story. I'm convinced Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld could admit to the whole thing and the naysayers would still not believe



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Well we can, we know for a fact that the building experienced significant resistance throughout its collapse.


"Significant" apparently meaning "any measurable deviation from free-fall in a vacuum"? Or is there something more behind the word "significant"?


The question is in this 2.25 second period, where the building falls a total of 8 stories, how much resistance did it actually feel?


None, apparently. If you can't even get it larger than the margin of error from free-fall in a vacuum, it isn't there. The question is how is this possible? Is there really no big difference between a vacuum and a steel-framed building in terms of energy absorption as the roof line descends? Does it really take an insignificant amount of energy to turn this,



into this?:




Why don't we start by estimating some amounts of energy that it would have taken to accomplish some of the things we see, and then see how much of that energy we can take away from WTC7's kinetic energy before we start noticing a larger deviation from a free-fall curve?


Neither me, nor NIST, see any great surprise at it being close to unimpeded acceleration due to gravity, but that is because the building has been collapsing internally for a good number of seconds before the facade collapses.


Right, it was literally being prepared for a free-fall drop. But I can't explain why you think a building free-falling into itself is normal outside of demolition. It's not like you have a precedent to base this on, again, outside of demolition.


Well ignoring the fact that it clearly didn't accelerate at this rate (it would be impossible), what 'allowed' it was the severe lower level damage to the structure.


I thought NIST said that damage was not a significant factor? I was asking in the OP for answers from official reports, not personal speculations. That's the kicker that keeps "debunkers" from making up whatever they can muster off the tops of their heads.


I don't think you'd be particularly impressed if I quoted the NIST report directly, so I will ask you to elaborate on your question


No, I would be thrilled, as long as you're prepared to make their same argument on their behalf (ie you understand what they are saying and how they are arriving at it). What I particularly want to know is what is happening lower down in the building simultaneous with the free-fall occurring above.



Btw, out of curiosity, do you remember before NIST came out with this, when they used to say WTC7 didn't actually free-fall because they started timing the collapse when the roof line wasn't moving as opposed to measuring the roof line (with the entire exterior of the building) itself? Or were you not on that boat?

[edit on 3-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

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.


We forced Bsbray11 & Co. into an embarrassing strategic retreat. Now they have fallen back into the woo of "people heard 'explosions', it must be explosives!", knowing full well that we showed they couldn't support a single one of their claims nor refute NIST at all on the collapse of WTC 7. As predicted, bsbray11 could not even support any validity of his Question #6.

And I already have a poster to cover our loyal "Truthers'" foot-in-mouth syndrome.




Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
I can only again point you to the answer and reality you so desperately avoid:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The ball remains in your court.


If NIST can't answer my question, and you can't find specifically in the report where my question is answered, then that's not my problem.




Try again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think one of those "Moonie style interventions" to cure your rampant denial might be just the thing.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
"Significant" apparently meaning "any measurable deviation from free-fall in a vacuum"? Or is there something more behind the word "significant"?
...
None, apparently. If you can't even get it larger than the margin of error from free-fall in a vacuum, it isn't there. The question is how is this possible? Is there really no big difference between a vacuum and a steel-framed building in terms of energy absorption as the roof line descends? Does it really take an insignificant amount of energy to turn this,
...
into this?:
...
Why don't we start by estimating some amounts of energy that it would have taken to accomplish some of the things we see, and then see how much of that energy we can take away from WTC7's kinetic energy before we start noticing a larger deviation from a free-fall curve?

For a start, this is quite disingenuous. You know perfectly well that the period at which the building accelerated close to free fall was 2.25s (approximately) long, and encompassed the collapse of only 8 out of the 47 floors.

It is not acceptable to post 'before' and 'after' pictures and imply the whole thing came down without any expenditure of energy. Indeed NISTs results tell us that throughout the entire collapse, only 8 floors were affected by minimal resistance.

So no, it does not take an insignificant amount of energy, in fact it takes an awful lot of energy. If you would like to begin estimating the amount of energy involved then that is your prerogative, it is unlikely to be accurate at all.

I would be interested to know if you have any original images from Camera 3, so we can see just how many pixels we have to work with. I expect we're looking at a pixel resolution of approx 2ft, which is reasonably inaccurate.


Right, it was literally being prepared for a free-fall drop. But I can't explain why you think a building free-falling into itself is normal outside of demolition. It's not like you have a precedent to base this on, again, outside of demolition.

Nothing about this situation was "normal", a high rise building collapsed soley due to fire, something which has never happened before and indeed every effort is taken to prevent against it.

However, we do have very good information on how the building failed, we can observe the penthouse failure and investigate fire behaviour, and this leads to a pretty well supported conclusion. Precedents be damned, many new things occur daily. I had never caught a pen between my fourth and fifth fingers until I did it the other day. Does that mean such a thing is impossible? Of course not.


I thought NIST said that damage was not a significant factor? I was asking in the OP for answers from official reports, not personal speculations. That's the kicker that keeps "debunkers" from making up whatever they can muster off the tops of their heads.

NISTs comment about damage refers to the damage inflicted by WTC1. Without this damage the fires would not have been started, and the collapse mechanism would be different.

I was talking about damage occuring after initiation, as you know that this free fall period comes some 10-20 seconds after first movements (I forget how NIST measures it, they have a pre-loading period to initialise their model).

What exactly would you like me to quote from the NIST report? It makes things fairly clear I thought. Perhaps you could explain how you understand it and I can add what I understand to that.


Btw, out of curiosity, do you remember before NIST came out with this, when they used to say WTC7 didn't actually free-fall because they started timing the collapse when the roof line wasn't moving as opposed to measuring the roof line (with the entire exterior of the building) itself? Or were you not on that boat?

In their defence, this was combating people who made ludicrous claims like "47 stories in 5 seconds" and suchlike. Chandler's analysis was clearly done with some critical thought, and NIST dutifully added this to their report. I'm not sure whether the velocity derivative graph was there originally, but I love how people refer to it as NIST 'admitting'.

It seems they can do no right!

[edit on 3-11-2009 by exponent]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
We forced Bsbray11 & Co. into an embarrassing strategic retreat.


What "retreat" is that? I'm still here, you know.


Now they have fallen back into the woo of "people heard 'explosions', it must be explosives!", knowing full well that we showed they couldn't support a single one of their claims nor refute NIST at all on the collapse of WTC 7.


You have repeatedly failed to explain what in the hell you are talking about.

You'll post this, then run and hide while I am asking you to elaborate, and then pop back out 2 pages later to post some garbage like this and then go off into ignoring my posts again.

If anyone has been forced into using "strategy" here like this is a war, it's you. And you are obviously in that frame of mind by your own language.


As predicted, bsbray11 could not even support any validity of his Question #6.


That's the excuse you keep using to avoid having to answer it, yes. It was never proven that WTC7 was supposed to free-fall, though, so the question is totally legitimate. If you disagree then just post where NIST proved that WTC7 could be expected to free-fall into itself.



The fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event





posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
If NIST can't answer my question, and you can't find specifically in the report where my question is answered, then that's not my problem.




Try again: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think one of those "Moonie style interventions" to cure your rampant denial might be just the thing.


Perpetually linking back to your own nonsense is not posting anything from the NIST report, nor is it answering question #6 of the 20 from the OP.

Re-read what I posted, paying careful attention to the words, and then see if you can't do better in your next post.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
For a start, this is quite disingenuous. You know perfectly well that the period at which the building accelerated close to free fall was 2.25s (approximately) long, and encompassed the collapse of only 8 out of the 47 floors.


So what? I never claimed any different. Please be specific in how this changes anything.


It is not acceptable to post 'before' and 'after' pictures and imply the whole thing came down without any expenditure of energy.


We can look at the total loss of KE and compare it to what we are seeing, no problem.


Indeed NISTs results tell us that throughout the entire collapse, only 8 floors were affected by minimal resistance.


"Affected by"? You mean allowed? No "resistance"?


So no, it does not take an insignificant amount of energy, in fact it takes an awful lot of energy. If you would like to begin estimating the amount of energy involved then that is your prerogative, it is unlikely to be accurate at all.


My only prerogative in this thread is having question #6 answered. Are you going to take a stab at it or what? So far you've been asking just as many questions as I have.


Nothing about this situation was "normal", a high rise building collapsed soley due to fire, something which has never happened before and indeed every effort is taken to prevent against it.


Then why do you keep putting on like a building free-falling into itself isn't unusual when it's not only totally unprecedented, but doesn't even make sense and has no ready explanation? What specific evidence are you basing your views on?


However, we do have very good information on how the building failed, we can observe the penthouse failure and investigate fire behaviour, and this leads to a pretty well supported conclusion.


According to NIST, what the fire did inside the building, has never been done by fire in a steel framed skyscraper before. Since they didn't analyze any of the actual steel from Building 7, what is the evidence this is based on, again?


What exactly would you like me to quote from the NIST report?


Where the total free-fall of the building is explained as it relates to whatever the "collapse mechanism" was that was occurring simultaneously. If energy is being used, you can't have free-fall, and if no energy is used, you aren't collapsing a building. That is common sense based on the most basic physics and I want to see where NIST addresses this obvious problem.



Btw, out of curiosity, do you remember before NIST came out with this, when they used to say WTC7 didn't actually free-fall because they started timing the collapse when the roof line wasn't moving as opposed to measuring the roof line (with the entire exterior of the building) itself? Or were you not on that boat?

In their defence, this was combating people who made ludicrous claims like "47 stories in 5 seconds" and suchlike.


The whole thing was disingenuous because they were specifically downplaying the free-fall claim. When all along the building WAS accelerating at free-fall. Now are we going to have to bug the hell out of them again before they address how it relates to conservation of kinetic energy in the building?

[edit on 3-11-2009 by bsbray11]



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join