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: 26
79
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Why waste time and energy on people who are either too thick to comprehend reality and common sense? It is futile to explain over and over to an Official Story Drone any relevant factor because facts and odds and common sense mean nothing to them. their preconceived notions surpass any and all matters of fact.

Since they are incapable of comprehending a series of events that are complicated and detailed, they cannot imagione anyone ELSE being detailed and conprehensive either. They simply cannot believe that people can be smart enough to pull off a major series of events involved in a common purpose, so the alternative for their tortured logic is to simply deny the truth and throw out silly statements that have nothing to do with refutation of evidence but servce to placate themselves that they have summarized as much as their feeble intellects can muster.

I know, it is sad. but they cannot see it; thats the key to remember. They are incapable of seeing a big picture and so ascribe those same limitations to all people.Even if you produced hard and fast evidence, which has been donw time and again the the 9-11 events, many of these Drones would insist that what they are seeing is not in fact what it is. it comes down at last to: What do you believe, me or your lying eyes?

I prefer to believe the empirical and circumstantial evidence taken as a whole, which leads any thinking person to only ONE conclusion; 9-11 was an inside job.




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So what? I never claimed any different. Please be specific in how this changes anything.
...
We can look at the total loss of KE and compare it to what we are seeing, no problem.

You implied that the resistance felt throughout the entire collapse was minimal. However we know from the same figures you're using, that throughout the entire collapse there was a lot of resistance excepting this one period of acceleration.


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

There clearly was resistance, and whether you choose allowed, affected by or whatever you like, it is irrelevant.


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.

Hard to answer such an ambiguous question. "Gravity" is an acceptable answer considering how vague it is. Nevertheless I have put down simple answers to all of your questions and I will paste that below.


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?

I don't think I did say that it was not unusual, I don't think it's really reasonable to make such judgements. Of course it does 'make sense' and your inability to understand it doesn't change that. It also has a ready explanation, which again you seem to not understand.

I don't think I can change your beliefs anyway, but if you can be more specific I will do what I can to explain it as I see it.


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?

It is based on all the available evidence, indicators of fire progression, failure modes and timings, known structural responses. If you want to be more specific, NIST used exterior images to estimate the creation and spread of fires, and then investigated how these fires would affect the building structure.

WTC7 was unique in that it has long span floor sections connected asymmetrically to very strong columns. The penthouse's collapse alone indicates Column 79 failed, and the structural analysis done by NIST indicates it was due to differential thermal expansion, and the resulting asymmetric loads on the beam seats.

This is all in the report, and it does a much better job of explaining it than I do.


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.

NIST do not address this directly, as that is not how the report is written. However, the structural behaviour which results in this is discussed in and around page 596 (258 PDF) of NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2 which you can find here: wtc.nist.gov...


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?

Whether they were downplaying any free fall claim is your own interpretation. I still see people claiming WTC 1 and 2 fell at 'freefall speed', so please don't pretend like there isn't a whole lot of inaccurate rubbish being put forward.

Now, here are my summarised answers for all 20 questions. I don't have much time here but I will answer anything else I can:

Bsbray's 20 questions:

1) What was the order that Dick Cheney had given while he knew that Flight 77 was approaching Washington DC?
a) He gave no such order, the order he gave was in relation to an existing flight track from Flight 93. It also holds no bearing on the events of the day.

2) Why was the Flight 93 crash site spread out over 8 miles?
a) Nothing in the section you provided indicates it was. This also has no bearing on the events of the day. Why would the US military shoot down a plane UNLESS it was hijacked? If the plane was hijacked, then that agrees with the 'official story' up until the shootdown. Either way it cannot benefit an 'alternate' view.

3) Why did witnesses report hearing military jets in the area of the Flight 93 crash?
a) 'Military jets' sound exactly the same as 'jets' to almost everyone. There were jets AND military jets in the area shortly after the crash.

4) For what reason are Pentagon surveillance tapes showing the impact of Flight 77 still being withheld?
a) They are not, the only tapes to show the impact have been released.

5) Why couldn't Osama bin Laden seem to get his story straight about whether or not he had anything to do with 9/11?
a) Some of the quotes attributed to Osama bin Laden are not well sourced, including a written letter from the Taliban. It is unclear if he has kept his story straight or not, but it is not surprising that someone accused of such a crime (and likely guilty in my eyes) would change his story.

6) What allowed WTC7 to accelerate vertically at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum?
a) The lack of structural resistance caused by horizontal progressive collapse.

7) What was the Israeli intelligence connection to 9/11 that remains classified?
a) Not a clue, it's classified, that means it's protected information, and so anyone telling you that they know what it is is either breaking the law, or lying.

8) How was an explosive fireball supposed to have traveled down about 1000 feet of drywall elevator shafts to cause major explosions in the basement and lobby, and where is evidence to support this rumor?
a) It wasn't, unignited jet fuel travelled down the elevator shafts. The evidence comes from a lack of any credible alternate source, and the mention of the smell of jet fuel or kerosene on practically every level of the towers, coupled with eyewitness accounts of fuel driven fireballs originating from the elevator shafts.

9) Why did basement levels fill with smoke, and why did underground PATH subway cars also fill with smoke, and why were witnesses confused into thinking explosions were coming from under the towers?
a) See above, fire at lower levels creates smoke, smoke can spread out easily when vertically restrained. There were few connections between floors compared to connections on the same floor.

10) By what processes did a mass of concrete, steel, paper, and other debris come together in a single chunk known as the "meteorite"?
a) Simple vertical pressure. There's no indication of any unique or interesting chemical reactions, no excessive heat and no 'exotic' effects. These floors were crushed together by the collapse (in my opinion)

11) Why did police say that a van with a plane "diving into New York City and exploding" exploded over their radio transmissions?
a) I very much doubt it did, such an extraordinary claim requires some pretty decent evidence!

12) What is the compound found in WTC dust that exhibits energetic combustion properties?
a) Paint (and primer)

13) What was the source of the eutectic compound and sulfur in the extreme corrosion analyzed by FEMA?
a) Most likely drywall with other potential contaminents, carpets, wire insulation and copper from the wires.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
14) What was the source of the molten metal seen pouring out of WTC2 shortly before it collapsed?
a) Unknown, it's also unknown if it's metal. There were UPSes in that area providing a large amount of lead, the plane contributed a lot of aluminium, and the buildings contained significant quantities of glass. All are potential explanations.

15) On what 'state secrets' grounds was Sibel Edmonds' FBI whistleblower case barred from court by John Ashcroft?
a) Not a clue, I thought Sibel Edmonds' gag was due to a private company matter, and had very little to do with any 911 related activities. There's obviously a lot of noise here so I am not very confident in this answer!

16) Why are there such large discrepancies in plane impact times from different government sources?
a) I don't have a good answer for this one either, although I don't find it particularly surprising. How many accurate reference clock sources do you have? I know my microwave is about 5 minutes out, my boiler is about 10 minutes out. In fact the only things that are accurate are those that recieve updates from radio frequency clocks or from the Network Time Protocol.

17) What was the "global collapse" mechanism of the Twin Towers?
a) The global collapse mechanism was 'pancaking'. An initial exterior wall failure, followed by upper section rotation, followed by vertical collapse. If you can be more specific I will try to be.

18) What was the full nature of the military wargames on 9/11?
a) Not an easily answered question, perhaps you could be more specific.

19) Why was the White House initially unwilling to authorize a commission to investigate 9/11?
a) Who knows, perhaps they felt it would reflect badly on themselves. I am no fan of the Bush government, and so I have no objection to whatever nasty things you might say about the man


20) Why was the structural documentation of the WTC Towers locked up after 9/11, and why has it still not been released except in bits and pieces by NIST?
a) It's not public information. It's the same reason you have no right to see my structural design plans for my workbench. You didn't make them, you didn't pay for them, and you have no legal interest in certifying them.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by richierich
 



Originally posted by richierich
Why waste time and energy on people who are either too thick to comprehend reality and common sense? ...

They simply cannot believe that people can be smart enough to pull off a major series of events involved in a common purpose, so the alternative for their tortured logic is to simply deny the truth and throw out silly statements that have nothing to do with refutation of evidence but servce to placate themselves that they have summarized as much as their feeble intellects can muster.


I don't believe that the only problem is feeble intelects, as you say. I think the other problem is that people don't know the relevant information. Heck, David Ray Griffin, who is now a pillar of the 9/11 truth movement, believed in the official story for a year or 2.

As to whether trying to persuade official story believers that the foundation of their beliefs is fundamentally flawed, I don't think it's flawed per se, but there are limits to how much I, atleast, am willing to spend on some points. And then, ofcourse, there are times when official story believers will walk away from an argument as well.

But I think there's something that we shouldn't forget; at present, there aren't enough people who either doubt the official story or care enough to press the government to re-investigate 9/11. I believe that it is here, in places like this, that we can try to forge the will of the fence sitters to take a stand. So when people write here, I suggest to not only focus on those who you're responding to, but also to those who are listening. The more people who are informed as to what truly occurred on 9/11, the less likely it is that we get something similar happening in the future. Not sure if anyone has read Gary Gibson's Against Gravity; I'm reading it right now. Not sure if I'll finish it, but the possibilities it brings up for the future certainly scare me.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by scott3x]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:48 PM
link   
How much room for error should we assume when NIST says "free" as in "This free fall drop"? Why would they include the "free" rather than saying just plainly "drop" or just "fall"?

How much room for error should we assume when NIST says "equivalent" as in "equivalent to the acceleration of gravity g." Why not say "close to the acceleration of gravity g"? or "near the acceleration of gravity g."

How much room for error should we assume when NIST says "at" as in "descended at gravitational acceleration" Why not say "descended near gravitational acceleration"? or "descended close to gravitational acceleration"?

I'm sure glad I only graduated from high school and I'm not one of the people who make their living out of this stuff. Their definitions are just too loose and easy for me.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
You implied that the resistance felt throughout the entire collapse was minimal. However we know from the same figures you're using, that throughout the entire collapse there was a lot of resistance excepting this one period of acceleration.


Again, explain what you are using to quantify "a lot." Being able to differentiate it from absolute free-fall?



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.

Hard to answer such an ambiguous question. "Gravity" is an acceptable answer considering how vague it is.


You only find it vague because you have somehow become convinced that buildings free-falling into themselves is normal. For everyone else, the question is obvious. I want to know what makes you so damned sure that buildings just do this naturally.


I don't think I did say that it was not unusual, I don't think it's really reasonable to make such judgements.


I don't think you are really thinking about this. You are just forcing a pre-conceived notion that "building free-falling into itself is NORMAL" and you refuse to back away from it to see the reality of the situation. Because once you do, there is no denying it. Watching WTC7 is what instantly proved to me that 9/11 was an inside job. That is literally all I needed to see, and I was skeptical, and I was instantly sold. It has done the same for hundreds, if not thousands of people. My own father even used to argue with me about this crap, and years later he finally saw WTC7 collapse on his own and came back and admitted that I was right, and that this country is in horrible shape. If you can't watch it once and immediately see the problem, then you DON'T know what in the hell you are even talking about.


I don't think I can change your beliefs anyway, but if you can be more specific I will do what I can to explain it as I see it.


My question IS specific. Let's start over with the definition of free-fall, shall we? What does free-fall mean again, in terms of kinetic energy conservation?



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?

It is based on all the available evidence


Yes, that is actually what I am asking to see. Okay?



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.

NIST do not address this directly


Why am I not surprised?

And not particularly addressed to you, but why does jthomas keep pretending that he's already posted an answer to this same question from the NIST report when he hasn't posted anything even remotely near it?


However, the structural behaviour which results in this is discussed in and around page 596 (258 PDF) of NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2 which you can find here: wtc.nist.gov...


Those models show that the majority of the structure on the lower levels was even still intact while the upper floors were free-falling. And have you honestly ever noticed the building distorting into those shapes in ANY collapse videos? I know much of the collapse was obscured anyway but those are the top floors that NIST is apparently claiming were destroyed like that before the bottom ones were, when videos simply show the building suddenly start dropping straight down from all corners of the roof line at once, and with only a slight lean to the South.



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?

Whether they were downplaying any free fall claim is your own interpretation. I still see people claiming WTC 1 and 2 fell at 'freefall speed', so please don't pretend like there isn't a whole lot of inaccurate rubbish being put forward.


Yes, you can ask jthomas himself about that particular "inaccurate rubbish."



Now, here are my summarised answers for all 20 questions. I don't have much time here but I will answer anything else I can


I could go through and pick apart each of your responses as usual, but I'll cut to the chase even more quickly by pointing out that all of the answers you posted were pure personal speculation and not supported by any of the official investigations.

I clearly and specifically asked for answers with documented evidence, especially from official sources.

The reason for this is because I know you pulled most of those out of your butt and it doesn't amount to any more than my own personal opinion, if not less.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
How much room for error should we assume when NIST says "free" as in "This free fall drop"? Why would they include the "free" rather than saying just plainly "drop" or just "fall"?

They did qualify it, rather than stating it without information.

In essence, your question is "How is this error analysis conducted". What is important here is how inaccurate their measurements of videos are. For example, if the video is 480 pixels high, the building occupies 1/2 of this, there are 240 pixels. The height of the building visible was approximately 240 feet, so it would be approximately 1 foot per pixel. I think it's probably quite a lot less than this, but that would give you an idea of just how accurate things can be.

Here's a wikipedia page which begins to cover this complex topic:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 

That would be interesting reading, exponent. But I wish they would have included it in their report like they did in Appendix C when they were covering their Video Analysis of WTC 7 Building Vibrations Before Collapse. From what I'm seeing in that section their error rates for this video analysis are from plus or minus 0.6 inches to plus or minus 1.8 inches.

Edited because I forgot to link to the source: That can be found in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 beginning on page 679.



[edit on 3-11-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   

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

That's disingenuous of you to state, exponent.

NIST's measurements for the three stages were based on a fixed point upon the roofline.

For 2.25 seconds, that fixed point upon the roofline fell with same acceleration as g.

Please show me where NIST claimed that only eight floors were affected by minimal resistance.

NIST have not explained how WTC 7 fell at the same rate as g for 2.25 seconds.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Again, explain what you are using to quantify "a lot." Being able to differentiate it from absolute free-fall?

Yes. Take this image for example, this is a derivative of NISTs measurements of a vertical line of pixels roughly in the middle of the building.



That red line represents the rate of acceleration due to gravity. As you can see, WTC7 achieves this acceleration for only a very brief period during its collapse. During that time, the section they measured was not transferring significant kinetic energy, it was in fact converting most if not all (as I've said before, all would be impossible) of its Gravitational Potential Energy into Kinetic Energy.

However, during the rest of the collapse, this energy was being absorbed or redirected somehow (by physical interaction, although I admit that's a bad description).

We could work out just how much energy this is if we had accurate enough information, but this is where NISTs modelling comes in. I will attempt to explain this if needed.


You only find it vague because you have somehow become convinced that buildings free-falling into themselves is normal. For everyone else, the question is obvious. I want to know what makes you so damned sure that buildings just do this naturally.

"normal" and "natural" are bad terms to use here, because we're talking about science rather than 'everyday life'. For example, having two eyes is normal, but having only one eye is relatively common, possible, and entirely "natural".

Anyway, I would not say I am 100% convinced, any sceptic should admit there is a possibility they are wrong. However, as has been pointed out, to advance an alternate theory, one needs to support it with evidence. If this period of free fall is proof or indicative of exposive demolition, you have the same questions as you are putting to me, to answer yourself.

What has convinced me is the thoroughness and completeness of NISTs investigation, the accuracy of their simulation and how well it works with the evidence we have. There are few things remaining unexplained in the 'official story'.


If you can't watch it once and immediately see the problem, then you DON'T know what in the hell you are even talking about.

That's rubbish and you know it. I am not about to make myself out as some sort of expert, but I have clearly demonstrated that I have a good understanding of physics and mechanics. I do know what I am talking about.

Please also remember that I did originally harbour some conspiratorial beliefs about 911. I was dubious about the existence of pentagon videos, about flight 93, and I must admit the first time I saw WTC7 I was intrigued. However I did the research, I read the entirety of the NIST report, many sections several times over. It may help that I have a good grounding in scientific investigation, and have been debating creationists for a number of years. Of course, this may bias me, but I am unable to avoid this and I state it freely.


My question IS specific. Let's start over with the definition of free-fall, shall we? What does free-fall mean again, in terms of kinetic energy conservation?

I'm afraid it is not specific enough, but I am happy to continue the discussion.

'Free fall' really cannot be defined in terms of kinetic energy conservation, as the term is never really used that way. It means 'almost unopposed' in common usage. A skydiver at terminal velocity is in 'free fall', but his kinetic energy remains the same while his gravitational potential energy is rapidly depleting. It is being transferred into motion of the air around him, and heat.

In this case, a working definition is irrelevant, we know for a fact that the central roof section of WTC7 accelerated at approximately 9.81m/s/s for a period of slightly over 2 seconds, covering a distance of 8 storeys, or likely 100ft (guesstimate!). This is all we need to know to discuss this, as it describes the events as exactly as possible.


Yes, that is actually what I am asking to see. Okay?

Well the best way to do this is to read NCSTAR 1A which is essentially a summary of the investigation, then to read NCSTAR 1-9 for anything you need more specifically, and then to ask specific questions here, on JREF, on PhysOrg or wherever you like regarding things that you do not agree with or do not understand.

I will summarise what I can, but I will definitely not do all the research for you, I have been posting on here for some time, and I very rarely see any 'truther' (substitute any term you like) posting NIST report excerpts and addressing them.


Why am I not surprised?

Because you are not familiar with how these things work. The audience for the NIST report are expected to be licensed engineers.


And not particularly addressed to you, but why does jthomas keep pretending that he's already posted an answer to this same question from the NIST report when he hasn't posted anything even remotely near it?

Because he's posted where the information is in the NIST report, and he expects you to read it and research until you understand it.


Those models show that the majority of the structure on the lower levels was even still intact while the upper floors were free-falling.

Actually I may have pointed you to the analysis without south side debris damage, but even so, if you look through the complete analysis, you will find that there are 3 major stages in the collapse. There's the vertical progression of the east penthouse due to column 79's failure. Then there is a horizontal progression of support across the whole building. This is the key stage, as the debris descending from the initial failure damages the building at a lower level, and because it is connected to the other components, damages them.

Then, once this horizontal progression occurs, the upper section of the building becomes virtually unsupported. We see this in the graph I posted above as the slow initial acceleration as the remaining components are severely overloaded and fail. Once this occurs, because there is significant support damage further down in the building, the whole top section starts to descend rapidly. It is so rapid, simply because the columns are buckled.

This is something I cannot easily demonstrate to you, because material properties do not scale well. However, I am sure you have bent paperclips in your life, and you will have noticed an interesting property. As you bend the paperclip, even if it is only just enough to permanently deform it, the actual part where it is bending becomes brittle. It becomes 'strain hardened'. In this state, it approaches how structural steel columns will perform. They are designed to support huge loads, and so are as hard as is feasible. As a result, once even slightly deformed, they will readily fracture.

Even if they are hot enough, or soft enough not to fracture, the geometry change is completely fatal. For another terrible analogy (I apologise, I would normally find a practical demonstration in person for this sort of thing) think of toothpicks. You are aware that when they are perfectly straight, they can do significant damage, and support a lot of load, but as soon as they are slightly bent, any further force will bend them outwards. They will in fact quickly bend and snap under much less force than they will hold when perfectly straight.

This is a brief summary of why this behaviour occurs, and I appreciate it is a bit disjointed and I haven't really drawn good enough parallels, but it is 1:40am here and I am distracted, so please cut me some slack. I will continue my response in the next post!

[edit on 3-11-2009 by exponent]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
And have you honestly ever noticed the building distorting into those shapes in ANY collapse videos? I know much of the collapse was obscured anyway but those are the top floors that NIST is apparently claiming were destroyed like that before the bottom ones were, when videos simply show the building suddenly start dropping straight down from all corners of the roof line at once, and with only a slight lean to the South.

No, and this is a valid point. NISTs simulation is inaccurate. I have pointed this out before, but this is unfortunately a limitation of anyone's ability to model the collapse. We do not have perfectly accurate information on the building, we know roughly how much weight the office contents contributed, roughly how strong the columns were (we know minimum spec only), roughly how powerful the fires were. This list goes on and on, and because NISTs simulation is recursive, ie the next state of the system depends on the previous, these errors will magnify as it progresses.

What is important, is that NIST replicated the general behaviours of the collapse, an initial low level failure, followed by an east penthouse progression, then an eventual relatively level roofline collapse. Bearing in mind that they haven't dictated any of these events to the model, it has produced these through the physical interaction of the components of the building. This is the key information, that NIST reproduced the collapse not in specifics, but in matching key events and methods.


I could go through and pick apart each of your responses as usual, but I'll cut to the chase even more quickly by pointing out that all of the answers you posted were pure personal speculation and not supported by any of the official investigations.

This is the problem, many of the points I replied with do have evidence to support them, but you are making the mistake of assuming that unanswered questions add doubt to a theory.

They do not, without evidence to substantiate that doubt. For example, what I will refer to as the 'shoot down order' would be devastating to the 'official story' if it was indeed an order to stand down and allow a plane to hit the pentagon. However, without evidence that this is the case, it is pure speculation and what is known as FUD, Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.


The reason for this is because I know you pulled most of those out of your butt and it doesn't amount to any more than my own personal opinion, if not less

Not at all, some were of course, but I did point out some of my answers were not very well informed, feel free to start a thread on specifics.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
That would be interesting reading, exponent. But I wish they would have included it in their report like they did in Appendix C when they were covering their Video Analysis of WTC 7 Building Vibrations Before Collapse.

Indeed, it would have been helpful. I will point out that annoyingly NIST does get accused of including 'too much information' by lots of conspiracy theorists, why it's as if they cannot win in their minds!


Anyhow, I don't think we'll be able to determine just how much energy was consumed, and nor should we aim to, because it would not give anyone the answers they seek. What needs to be done to disprove this is really a similar modelling effort, I have been encouraging the 911 truth movement to do this for some time.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

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

That's disingenuous of you to state, exponent.

NIST's measurements for the three stages were based on a fixed point upon the roofline.

For 2.25 seconds, that fixed point upon the roofline fell with same acceleration as g.

Please show me where NIST claimed that only eight floors were affected by minimal resistance.


In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2 Page 602 (264 PDF)

Unless you think the floors were expanding, then the free fall descent period covered 8 floors.


NIST have not explained how WTC 7 fell at the same rate as g for 2.25 seconds.

NIST also did not explain how they were able to see the pixels of the video. They have not explained how they came to have eyes in their heads.

Of course they didn't, you are expected to understand these things as an engineer.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by exponent]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:01 PM
link   

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

That's your quote, exponent. You have claimed that only eight floors were affected by minimal resistance.

Now, here's what you cut and pasted from the NIST report:

Originally posted by exponent

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Volume 2 Page 602 (264 PDF)

There is nothing in that cut and paste, which states that 'only eight floors were affected by minimal resistance. Nothing

The cut and paste uses the eight floors as a comparative measure of displacement for the 105 foot free fall drop.

Quite clearly, exponent, your interpretation is wrong. Plain wrong. NIST did not state that 'only eight floors were affected by minimal resistance'.

NIST stated that for a time period of 2.25 seconds, WTC 7 fell a distance of 105 feet at free fall rate.

You're free to acknowledge the error in your interpretation and correct it, if you like.

NIST has not explained how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds (a distance of 105 feet) with the same acceleration as g.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
NIST stated that for a time period of 2.25 seconds, WTC 7 fell a distance of 105 feet at free fall rate.

And therefore throughout the rest of the collapse (or the measured portion of the collapse I should say) the acceleration of the building was below that of gravity, indicating more than minimal resistance.

I apologise if I was not clear enough, but there is no error in my interpretation. I notice you have failed to understand the second point I posted. If you want me to answer with specifics, you need to explain what you understand what you don't understand about the collapse. Perhaps you could make a chronological list with missing parts for me to fill in?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
I apologise if I was not clear enough, but there is no error in my interpretation.

Your failure to understand your error is noted, exponent. I don't expect you to apologise for it, but it's been pointed out to you very precisely.

Quite clearly, exponent, your interpretation is wrong. Plain wrong. NIST did not state that 'only eight floors were affected by minimal resistance'.

NIST stated that for a time period of 2.25 seconds, WTC 7 fell a distance of 105 feet at free fall rate.

You're free to acknowledge the error in your interpretation and correct it, if you like.

NIST has not explained how WTC 7 fell for 2.25 seconds (a distance of 105 feet) with the same acceleration as g.

I find it amusing how you incorrectly interpreted the 105 foot comparison (eight floors) to think that 'only eight floors were affected by minimal resistance'.

When you're willing to admit your error, I'll be here to assist you.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
NIST stated that for a time period of 2.25 seconds, WTC 7 fell a distance of 105 feet at free fall rate.

You're free to acknowledge the error in your interpretation and correct it, if you like.

Again, there is no error here. I am using very much the dictionary definition of minimal

1: relating to or being a minimum

Source: Merriam Webster

The period in question is where the building accelerated the greatest, as the only input source is gravity this is a direct indicator of the amount of resistance the measured portion was subjected to. Therefore, during this period, the measured portion of the building was experiencing the minimum resistance seen in the collapse. In fact it is within measurement error of absolute free fall, which should indicate just how little resistance there was.

For the rest of the period the building was collapsing, we know that the rate of acceleration was greater, which means kinetic energy was being transferred into the lower structure which is the definition of resistance.

If you disagree with this, please try and point out something specific, rather than repeating your previous post almost verbatim.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Your quote:

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



The NIST excerpt that you used to try and justify your quote:

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.



Clearly, as explained to you, the NIST excerpt does not state that 'only eight floors were affected by minimal resistance'.

It's quite telling that you fail to spot the error that you made.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I think many pay too much attention to the scientific data of this free fall thing regarding wtc7. It s designed to lock you up and seperate you from the original facts.

1. WTC7 was not hit
2. Minimal Fire broke out
3. Fell like a controlled demolition supposedly from a very short lived limited fire.

Throwing data everywhere and playing the scientific peabody roll with flow charts and formulas is a destraction. Intentionally and unintentionally.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


Please, enlighten me as to the error I have made. I would appreciate it if you were specific.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join