20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

Freefall of ANY duration spells doom for the official story drones. Over and out. There is no way they can wiggle out of freefall..no way to say it was possible because all of the supports failed at the exact same time universally...the odds are so vast that even a shameless official story drone cannot keep a straight face and claim that freefall doesn't eman anything.

Controlled demo is the ONLY answer because no other means can account for the biulding coming down in freefall. It is so simple that it cannot be covered up or obscured by nonsense and denial. If there is an intellecuallt valid response to the fact of freefall, please let's hear it. If not, admit that we were right all along and join our side, the truth side. the truth will set you free.

The Truth is anathema to these guys. They hate the Truth. They prefer to create the Truth from nothing to protect the status quo. Blind Faith holds them up and makes them strong. Real evidence is unwanted . . . . not needed . . . . not necessary.

These pseudoskeptics and government loyalists prefer to curse those who dare to question their ecclesiastical belief in the official fantasy theory. For them Truth be damned. They desperately fight to prevent any real investigation into 9-11 because they know a real investigation will destroy them.

They will attack anyone who questions their Blind Faith; 9-11 Widows, WTC 1st Responders, the Jersey Girls, surviving 9-11 victims, Eyewitnesses, anyone.

At least you finally admit you cannot convince anyone why we need a new investigation.

Too bad all of you here cannot produce a single reason why, isn't it? Even bsbray11 just admitted he cannot convince anyone why we should ever need yet another investigation.

Well I'm not so sure how to pursue an answer to #6 other than what's been covered, except to say I am really glad I am among the "incompetent."

I don't think I could live among the "competent" where when you read the mystical phrase "free fall" in a scientific report you are supposed to automatically realize it actually means "free fall, ya know, like 'free' from everything but gravity and the building below."

Where when you read the esoteric phrase "equivalent to gravitational acceleration" one is supposed to know in your bones of bones that really means in "competent" speak "sorta close to gravitational acceleration, ya know, just a teensie weensie off."

Where when pondering upon the abstruse phrase "descended at gravitational acceleration" one has to keep a proper "competent" state of mind and realize the structure was actually Cheez Wiz, and that Cheez Wiz is good, but Cheez Wiz does offer a teensie weensie amount of resistance, especially when it's old and it's hardened, but, hey, I'm hungry so let's eat! I'm so hungry I can eat 32.2 cheeseburgers!!!! But not really, I think I'll only have two! Yumm, Yumm.

But I have learned one thing from this thread. When a "competent" says "a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it," I now realize that when the "competent" said "...uh..." it was the secret "competent club" shorthand signaling that this was in fact "opposite" day and all meaning was reversed. - Wink - Wink - Nod - Nod, I see where you're coming from, Mr. "Competent."

I think this "incompetent" will go back to Joyce's Finnegans Wake for now.... at least that gibberish makes sense.

"riverrun past Eve and Adam's past swerve of shore to bend of bay brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs."

Ahh, to be on solid "incompetent" ground again.......

I have repeatedly been trying to explain why to you but you never even try to understand. You bleat about NIST's report but can't show where they address my question, either. You only even correctly iterated question #6 once in this thread. And even then you didn't answer it. The rest of the time you have just been misconstruing the question and asserting you've already answered it over and over when you haven't. And trying to somehow make it my burden to answer my own question, which is ridiculous.



All I said is historically, we've never got our story straight on a lot of controversial issues until everyone who it would have offended were dead, and the perpetrators too. It doesn't have to be that way if people such as yourself didn't exist to impede a fair look within our own lifetimes.

[edit on 8-11-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by GenRadek

---

Some people think if they answer a post saying the questions have been answered intelligent people will believe it without seeing it.

So now I'm all-powerful and "impeding" a new investigation, eh? And here I've spent all this time educating you on why you cannot convince anyone of your claims until and unless you refute NIST and support your claim that only "controlled demolition" could have been responsible for the collapse of WTC 7.

No wonder self-delusion is the most prevalent characteristic of the 9/11 "Truth" Movement.

reply to post by jthomas

---

You personally don't make much difference. But it's people that think like you in various positions where they could have actually done something, that are the problem. And you have absolutely no reason to think the way that you do. At least no logical one. You know all you have done in this thread is misconstrue a single question out of 20 and then say it's already been answered.





Right, when it would take just as much, if not less time/energy, just to post the answer again, to save people the trouble of having to dig through how many pages of posts just to realize that jthomas hasn't answered anything? But he apparently can't do that, either. Every single post is the same: just trash talk and run-around, no substance.




[edit on 8-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Intelligent people understand when a question has been addressed. "Truthers" have to deny inconvenient answers. That's one reason "Truthers" are properly known as 9/11 Deniers. As I pointed out a few posts back:

reply to post by jthomas

---

That would only apply if you had actually answered the question. But you haven't. Or if you did, what was the specific answer you claimed from NIST for question 6 again?

Will be looking forward to your answer.

Don't continue to delude yourself, bsbray11. Many of us showed quite clearly that you cannot even demonstrate where NIST's evidence, methodologies, computer simulations, and conclusions are wrong. After a few weeks of suffering your evasions, its quite clear you cannot even demonstrate your "question" is anything more than another "Truther" strawman argument.

Using your claims and futile attempts to shift the burden of proof from your shoulders, you illustrate what rational people have known about deniers for decades, starting with Holocaust Deniers. And the result is always the same: you have yet to demonstrate any of your claims or even raise an eyebrow.

And you're mad because we understand and see through your game. Sorry, bsbray11, it doesn't work with rational people like it does with your gullible "Truther" friends.


[edit on 8-11-2009 by jthomas]

reply to post by jthomas

---

See, right there, for everyone to see, you just tried to weasel out of answering the question once again by trying to somehow make it my responsibility to prove something about NIST. I am asking a question, that NIST did not answer or explain in any way. My proof is that you can't provide the answer.

I'm not going to post the entire report here so everyone can read through it for themselves to see if it's there or not. You either post it, or you accept what we all already know, that it isn't in there.

On the contrary. As everyone can plainly see, you cannot give us any reason to doubt NIST's conclusions, which, as you well know, includes the 2.25 seconds of free fall. Too bad, but you have nothing and you never did, bsbray11.

The reason to doubt their conclusions is the fact that you can't find an answer to a simple and obvious question in their report. Because it isn't in there.

Stating for how long the building free-fell is not an answer to the question. Please re-read it.

As we all can see, there's no reason any rational person doubts NISTS conclusions on WTC 7 and you've aptly demonstrated your total inability to give us any reason to doubt the conclusions.

Maybe this will help you out of your extreme denial, bsbray11:

forums.randi.org...

Not being able to address a simple question about a basic law of physics is a pretty damned good reason for a rational person to doubt their report if you ask me, and everyone else here you are arguing with. Maybe you can ask your JREF buddies and see what they tell you.

These paragraphs appear reasonable on their face, but come across as a genuine NIST criticism. However, the point made is not valid. NIST indeed did what you request, they constructed a reference structural model of WTC7. They applied damage, fire and time and observed the predictions.

The only time they do what you claim, which is "changing certain things .. to make it a better fit" is when they are selecting for a better fit. The best example I can give of this is quite relevant, and is the impact vector of the planes hitting WTC1 and 2. These values are also derived from videos, although quite a few more and with a more in depth analysis. However, they have inherent errors.

NIST analysed these errors, and produced three cases for impact, slow, base and high speeds. They then ran each situation in their simulator, and found that the high speed impact produced the best fit with post-impact damage. Once they had done this, they eliminated some of the lower and medium speed tests in order to reduce the amount of simulation they had to do.

This is exactly how an investigation of this type should be conducted. They have a limited budget and time, and discarding lines of enquiry which do not match the data is completely valid. Remember, the only way of identifying which value out of a range is correct, is if it matches what we saw on 911. NIST referring to what actually happened is not only unsurprising, it is exactly what they should be doing!

If NIST could not refer to the events of the day in their investigation, it would have cost a significant amount more, and taken longer. One of the reasons for this is the fire simulation. In both stages the fire lasted a very long time (in structural simulation terms) and involved a very large area with significant uncertainty about fuel distribution, ignition times and heat output. NIST built full scale reproductions for fire testing, but even so the towers had significantly more floor area and office layouts were quite uncertain.

These fire simulations would have to be run thousands of times to cover only a fraction of the initial cases. I will attempt some more poor maths! Even if there are only 6 variables, and lets say each of them has 4 potential values. That is 4^6 or 4096 test runs that would need to be conducted.

Would you then allow them to refer back to eliminate particular results, or would you force them to run the structural simulation 4096 times multiplied by the number of initial conditions in WTC7?

In essence, what I am saying is that the way you would like to investigate 911 is simply not practical. The complexity of these simulations is such that you have to aggressively select the best fit data. I cannot think of a single case where anyone has shown NIST using selection inappropriately.


PLEASE PLEASE do! We (the 'debunkers') have been asking for this for some time. This can only help your case, as at the very least the community can rally around a specific theory. I mean even now ae911truth talks both about huge explosives that blow mass out of the footprint and then talk about thermite, which has none of the properties they ascribe to it. Developing a specific hypothesis is something I believe to be a good use of any truther's time.


On the contrary, what you would have done is constructed a theory which makes predictions. Testing predictions is the bread and butter of science, and by making predictions, we can then scour the existing literature to find if these predictions are confirmed or contradicted.


NIST in no way invented any phenomena, the "new" event was this affecting a building on this scale. Everyone who knows anything about physics knows that heating metal makes it expand, and the equation to calculate the force involved is very trivial. In order for NIST to verify this they would have to have fabricated quite a large structure, wheras modelling it will be quite accurate and give you much more information. This is why computer modelling exists, so you don't have to build full scale reproductions of everything


I think part of your problem is that you just don't trust them, and this biases your view somewhat. I can't think of any scientific investigation ever carried out which would meet your criteria. I would come up with an electrical engineering analogy, but I don't know the specifics of your profession, and I don't want to come across as arrogant or patronising.


I understand, I just wanted to point out that there are 'tricks' that can be used because of square pixels which don't apply in all cases.


Unfortunately "something like" is not how errors are worked out. I am not completely confident in doing the maths, but you can actually calculate the errors from the available information. I cannot remember how to do it with the acceleration though


No, you just haven't done your homework! It's the same as saying "Nobody has answered my physics homework questions therefore black holes don't exist". It is a non sequitur. I have given answers that with some research you can determine to be valid, for many of the questions.

Running out of characters

(Emphasis mine)

No it doesn't! If all the supports failed simultaneously, the building would immediately accelerate at 'free-fall'. In fact, as you can see by the graph below, the building accelerated slower than free fall for over a second. This is the effect of supports breaking gradually, and from NISTs simulation we know that the fall of the east penthouse caused significant internal damage.




If you cannot live among this type of person, never enter any scientific field. Error analysis is possibly the most important thing to do correctly.


A buckled or fractured column is presumably not 'structural' in this case. Seriously, don't assume you know what words mean, they very very often carry specific meaning that you may not be aware of. Note how bsbray was unable to even define free-fall to an acceptable standard, even though we all understand the concept of it.


I have already explained why you are wrong on this point. I also gave you a challenge to illustrate why they did not ignore this or any other law. You have failed to complete this challenge at all.

In other words if they couldn't use circular reasoning to prop up their models, it would cost too much to figure anything out? Do you think that excuse would ever change the objectivity of what "really" happened to that building?



You should have kept going with that paragraph. I said the theory I come up with would be useless because it would have no specific data to back it up, ie that device x was placed on floor y. Just like the NIST report, which also has 0 evidence going for it, only an unsubstantiated theory that was produced using circular references and could very well still be describing the physics of a controlled demolition.

This is the whole quote:





Pulling a theory out of my butt that has no more objective verification going for it than NIST's is not going to help my case. It would be hypocritical.



I am not a part of any "community," unless seeking objective data is a "community," but I think you would even consider your own self a part of that one. In other words I am not in this to conform to a "movement," I don't care what anyone else says, my questions either can be answered or they can't. End of story. And so far they have not.



You mean like, if it were a demolition, people would hear explosions coming from the building? Oh wait, people did heard explosions coming from the building, and also testified to witnessing them inside the building, and were also picked up on seismographs after the Twin Towers collapses and well before WTC7's global collapse. If evidence is being able to make predictions accurately about what will happen, why don't any of those things count as evidence? Don't tell me it's because you can come up with unproven excuses to invalidate them.



They also ramp up heating and temperatures to levels that aren't substantiated. For example, in the Twin Tower reports, assuming some 70+ wood fire stoves' worth of total heat in a garage or living-room sized area, applied consistently for about 30 minutes iirc (when according to them the fires were not applying consistent heat to the same parts of the structure but were roaming), and admitted they had to keep intensifying parameters in subsequent computer simulations based on that data to get their desired theoretical initiation state. In computer models, realistic conditions also aren't a burden or have to be backed by verified/realistic data. Again, they just keep adjusting parameters until they get results that match what they see in videos. Not an objective method, only a circumstantial method at best, and intellectually dishonest.



If I don't trust them it's because they aren't being objective themselves. They've made too many assumptions while lacking real data, which blows any chance of a real investigation since they've just made assumptions about the most critical parts of the investigation based on preconceptions.



You can't think of any scientific studies that are 100% objective, yet you can't think of an analogy that demonstrates what is wrong with this, either. You can plug a schematic into a simulator, load the variables for each component into it, and it will tell you exactly what will happen when you apply power based on formulas alone. You don't have to build the circuit first, watch what it does, take measurements, and then try to "predict" what will happen when you turn the power supply on. That would be an example of what I am talking about, applied to EE. But the problem is, what I am saying is what actually makes sense, and the methodology NIST used, is what doesn't make sense, and used fallacious circular references that re-enforced blind assumptions and was not objective.



No, you just haven't done your homework! It's the same as saying "Nobody has answered my physics homework questions therefore black holes don't exist".