20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later, page 33


Pages: <<  30    31    32    33    34    35    36  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 79 times


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 02:08 PM by turbofan
reply to post by exponent


Don't be foolish 'exponent'. The Penthouse falling excuse does not account
for fire bringing down all remaining columns simultaneously.

It has already been argued that if the Penthouse columns failed first,
they should have:

1. Pulled connected beams down with the failed support column 79

2. Broke away cleanly leaving the reaminder of the building intact.

Please view the breakdown completed by REAL A's & E''s at AE911Truth.org before debating a topic like this.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 02:21 PM by exponent
Originally posted by turbofan
Don't be foolish 'exponent'. The Penthouse falling excuse does not account
for fire bringing down all remaining columns simultaneously.

Because they did not all come down simultaneously, perhaps you should read my posts in this thread before replying.

It has already been argued that if the Penthouse columns failed first,
they should have:
1. Pulled connected beams down with the failed support column 79
2. Broke away cleanly leaving the reaminder of the building intact.

Both of these occured, depending on the ultimate strength of the connecting member. You would know this if you had read the NIST report.

Please view the breakdown completed by REAL A's & E''s at AE911Truth.org before debating a topic like this.

Please link their paper analysing it.

Originally posted by superleadoverdrive
As an interested observer of this thread, I get the impression that some people are so earnest in accepting and defending the government's authority as truth they overlook the fact that truth should be the authority, not the government.

I apologise if this appears to be the case, and you are right of course that we should seek out whatever is true, rather than whatever an authority says.

It is the next portion of your post where you make a mistake:
It seems obvious to most who research 9/11 that if nothing else there were extensive efforts made in covering up and concealing evidence, so the truth is not known.

It only seems "obvious" because there are hundreds if not thousands of websites out there which tell you all sorts of lies. They will make up claims, and make up answers, they will create their own little world and attempt to draw you into it.

It's easy to get drawn in, but please don't confuse questions with evidence. We don't yet understand what happens inside a black hole, and there are many questions surrounding this, but we know for damn sure black holes exists.

Since the truth is not known, we must push forward with good science. It is apparent that bsbray believes in good science and is a true skeptic.

You have been fooled by his persona. Look carefully, notice how he will make positive claims without any evidence, and when called on them goes on to attack the opposing poster. His requirement for proof would be acceptable if it was not so hilariously biased and based on ignorance.

A good researcher, is not a proponent of a particular point of view, but remains cognizant of the fact that trials finding support for or refuting a hypothesis are both valuable in our quest for understanding. Seeing and believing the data, both in support of or refutation of a hypothesis, is the primary goal in scientific inquiry.

You are again correct, and I will point out that I was originally not a proponent of any particular view, it quickly became obvious upon a review of the evidence however, that one side existed by creating FUD and ensnaring the credulous.

If you have any specific questions, or specific criticisms indeed, I will be glad to answer them.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 02:42 PM by turbofan
reply to post by exponent


You mean the NIST report that doesn't submit their data for peer-review?

The NIST report that admits free-fall, but can't explain why?

The group of "engineers" at NIST that use ZERO as the rate of conduction
for steel in their computer simulation in order to make it fail?



Nice research "exponent". Try explaining why the building fell at near free-fall from top to bottom and fell AT free-fall for 2.5 seconds.

Try explaining why NIST has not released the entire simulation and why
they used zero for the thermal conduction of steel.



reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 02:51 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by exponent
I don't understand what you are saying in this paragraph. You acknowledge that the high heat output was for calibration, but make it seem as if NIST changed their mind?


No? They data from the "calibration" was 100% legitimate but didn't match the amount of heat they assumed had to be present across a whole floor for a collapse to initiate. And they've also stated in their own FAQs that they disagree with pancake theory and find it unlikely that all the trusses on a given floor would fail at the same instant. Can you show me where they reconciled either of those contradictory admissions with their final hypothesis?

They did not, but here is the link you will need to learn about their fire simulation:
wtc.nist.gov...


Yes, those are the same tests. Funny none of that data was evidence for their final hypothesis, but just used to calibrate further computer simulations with elevated parameters, isn't it? Oh, no wait, you think that's a legitimate application of the scientific method.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You said you don't think NIST could have done a better job with their investigation.
All I said: prove it.
You are having such a hard time with this.

Is it surprising I am having a hard time?


Frankly, no.

You are claiming it is impossible to prove they couldn't have done a better job. I think you're right. No disagreement about that from me.

I am not even foolish enough to attempt it without pointing this out, I also have to point out the part of your quote you apparently missed:
A formal proof or derivation is
...
The notion of theorem is not in general effective, therefore there may be no method by which we can always find a proof of a given sentence or determine that none exists. The concept of natural deduction is a generalization of the concept of proof.

emphasis mine.


The statement you bolded is common sense. It doesn't change whether or not you have proven anything. Only re-confirms that not everything can be proven. I guess this is another appeal to blind faith? This isn't church.

Backing up your claims would be the sensible thing to do. Posting crap like this, like jthomas always does, is just going to result in 60 more pages of thread.

Nothing is going to resolve this thread


Couple this with your earlier admission that your answers are just speculation and I think you're finally coming to the appropriate realization.

Yes how could materials possibly come together just after the collapse of 220 acres worth of skyscraper? Why it is as if both skyscrapers generated significant amounts of debris containing these materials!


They did, but it's completely asinine to think they collapsed into a eutectic mixture. The aluminum was in huge sheets, not powder form. The steel/iron was also in the form of massive columns, not powder form. Unless you are saying the dust that was caked all over everything was itself eutectic, which would be the first time anyone has ever claimed that and I would love to see your evidence, especially based on a chemical analysis.

There was also hydrogen all through those buildings, but you're not going to tell me therefore a hydrogen bomb could have formed in the debris pile, are you? Don't be so obtuse. You have to explain how these things came together to form a eutectic reaction specifically if your own conjecture is even going to be able to hold water. And it's still just conjecture. That is why you have no hope answering the question yourself. I am perfectly correct in simply stating it is still an unanswered question. Making stuff up doesn't count.

Seriously, this argument is illogical to begin with and perhaps indicative of your need for more serious care.


Pointing out the massive holes in your logic means I need serious care. Gotcha. I take that to mean, it's very painful for you to see that you have no case after all, so you are going to lash out with personal attacks? I'm hurting right there with you buddy, me and tens of thousands of others. Line up.

How exactly do you think the materials came together?


What, are you asking me questions about your theory now?

Drywall was probably the most abundant material in the towers, and is primarily calcium sulphate.


Good job. Now show me where in the chemical analysis it proves that the sulfur was just drywall dust in the eutectic. The link to FEMA's analysis is on the first page of the thread. Will be waiting... again.... forever...

Of course you want me to prove it came together, which is of course impossible.


So you don't think it's reasonable for me to believe something without evidence or proof, but on the other hand, it's fine for you to believe something unquestioningly without any evidence or proof.

Of what use is proof to you anyway if you don't even need it to have your blind faith?

More Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt from someone who doesn't seem to require any evidence at all when making claims


You just said you couldn't prove your claim, now you are accusing me of not accepting evidence.

You can't keep yourself straight for 2 lines of post that are right next to each other.

And having open questions can be conceived of as "uncertainty" and "doubt," but there is certainly no fear here unless YOU are afraid of something...


You already admitted once that your answers were just speculation. Why do you change your tune now?

Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. Some of them were speculation, some were not.


I'm going to go ahead and say anything you can't prove with evidence, is speculation. Call me what you like.

I'm sorry, but when I pointed out you invented theories that made no sense, you seem to think they require disproving, but now you claim this of me, and that I need to prove things. Which is it?


I never claimed you had to disprove my case. I don't even have a specific case. I am only asking positive evidence for things, to resolve the 20 questions. Haven't gotten any of it. The fact that I'm only playing offense kills you, doesn't it?

I believe we do know what really happened


I know what you believe.

the evidence strongly favours it.


Yeah, the evidence you can never produce. Right.

If I'm a Truther, then you're a Nazi. If you get to make up your own rules, so do I.

(emphasis mine)
I had no idea you were such an offensive human being. I'll be reporting this of course.


I wish I could do the same for you calling me a "truther" repeatedly, but no mods will hear it.

Right, none of that makes any sense to me either but I have no more faith in your competence just because you realize something I figured out on my own when I was 10. No offense to Christians, believe what you want.

None of it makes any sense but you figured it out on your own? You are losing the ability to even write a coherent paragraph.


You mean you're now losing your ability to read, too? I'll let you use your "context clues" to figure this brain-stretcher out.

Derogatory is not Discrimination. They are two different words meaning two different things.


That's like saying a racist word is derogatory but doesn't discriminate.

I have never used 'twoofer' except in this context.


Then you admit you only use the term to be derogative. Just like when I call you a Nazi. But no, seriously, Nazis are good people too!... (not..)

Like I said, that's akin to someone claiming that atheists push the christian label on people who hold christian beliefs.


Not at all the same. I don't have a "belief" here. I am asking for evidence. If that puts me in any derogative group, then you need to reconsider where your own priorities lie. Defending your ego, or defending truth?

Who says the building is supposed to be doing work? NIST certainly doesn't, I certainly haven't, could it be you are inventing criteria for complaint?


In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance.


en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks again for demonstrating you do not understand the basic physics we are discussing.

Now you take your inability to answer my questions as me putting on like I'm better than everybody else I guess. No, my understanding of 9/11 is just better than yours.

I very much doubt that, why is it you are unaware of the answers to your questions if your knowledge is so vast?


I didn't say my knowledge was "vast," only that it's better than yours. The reason is because I realize these questions have not been answered. You have blind faith in speculation and conjecture. I consider that ignorant.

So let me get this straight. You are unable to answer a simple 25 element problem to any greater accuracy than a 20% variation, but you somehow expect NIST to be able to simulate a 47 storey office building


One is a real-life problem, the other is not. Again, you intentionally made that circuit problem with ridiculous tolerances. Setting up your own pins to knock down. You have not shown how your example relates to the same margins of error NIST would have had to work with, going off structural docs alone.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by bsbray11]


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 03:23 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by exponent
The possibility of an inside job can still fit precisely in the cracks and holes left in the full story by the questions on the main page that remain unresolved to this day.

Yet another positive claim. We don't know that an 'inside job' can fit in these cracks because you nor anyone else has yet to come up with a hypothesis.


Sorry that everything has to be spoon-fed to you before you can even see more than one possible answer to an unresolved question. Being aware that you can hardly do this, I simply ask you to prove your own case by your own standards first. And you can't do it. So that just illustrates to me again that you have no concern for legitimate facts or evidence, only interest in blind faith in your status-quo opinions.

How can you claim that something that doesn't exist, fits in cracks you cannot explain, in a theory you don't understand?


The "cracks" or "holes" in my metaphor are the unanswered questions. It is still possible for them to be resolved with answers that do not fit your current beliefs. Thus my metaphor. I'm sorry that you had such trouble interpreting it, I'll try to use simpler metaphors next time or maybe explain them in full detail right after I use them.

No, I don't think I know better than him. I just happen to know what he actually said. You apparently do not, because this was your response to me:

Originally posted by exponent
The lobby was not destroyed in WTC7 until the collapse of WTC1

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not according to Jennings' testimony. Unless you are just changing it on your whim now to fit with your already-formed opinions.

One would expect you to provide evidence of his "testimony" to support this, but apparently you do not remember it well enough.


Dig in! Be sure to watch the whole thing, and try not to puke in your mouth or blow a fuse trying to dismiss everything you hear in real-time.

Just for laughs, here is a video of the lobby of WTC7 after the collapse of WTC2, and before Barry Jennings reached it. He did not actually escape the building until after the collapse of WTC1.
video.google.com...


Right, he was trapped inside the building. The "lobby" you are showing is just the entrance to the building, looking lengthways down the street, from the outside. Way to debunk anything. Just for laughs, you were right.

Way to weasel out of defending what you were originally saying. We have been here before. You will later claim there were no loud explosions indicative of a demolition. When I keep telling you these explosions are just that.

If you believe they are indicative of a demolition, you must have evidence that they are


The existence of numerous sounds of explosions in the first place is evidence. Evidence of real events that really happened. Explain them.


And that it does not matter if they set a "charge" off 5 hours before the total collapse ensues, or only 5 seconds, that building is still going to fall. The only effect is to confuse simple-minded people, or people with an attention span of only 30 seconds. Ie your typical American.

It does not matter? You don't think perhaps that if a firefighter saw the damage from this charge, they would know what it was?


I'm glad you are phrasing this crap as questions instead of making positive assertions, since the implied argument is non-sequitur anyway. Look it up and study the concept if you don't know what that means.

Do you often allow such horrifying possibilities in your plans to destroy a building for no reason whatsoever?


You assume there was no reason simply because you are personally unaware of one. Not surprising.

I mean really, you are speculating harder than anything I have posted in this thread, despite having a big chip on your shoulder about how you want proof. It's just sad to watch.


You mean it's sad to respond to because you know everything I say is reasonable. I'm not pushing a case on you. I'm asking for answers to questions. You are having a real hard time with this.

I have not accepted anything specific. I am working with ideas I myself consider very vague and am unhappy with. However, they still make a much better case in the end than what NIST has offered, simply because NIST also didn't prove anything in their report.

So what you're saying is your apparently unqualified and uneducated opinion about the structural behaviour of WTC7 is more convincing to you than a thorough analysis by several hundred if not thousand licensed and practising engineers?


You can make whatever glorifying assertions you want of NIST, but at the end of the day, you still cannot even use their report to address simple questions of basic physics, and have to resort to all number of logical fallacies and baseless claims to get out of them. They designed the report exactly so this would happen. You assume because you don't see anything in the report about conservation of energy, especially in regards to the free-fall time, then, well, it must not matter, because these guys would surely know! Nothing but blind faith. It is a question based on one of the most simple laws of physics in existence. No work can be done without energy. "Work" and "energy" are both technical terms. And yes, they obviously apply, if you only understand what they mean.

You have made it clear that you are not interested in an answer, rather continuing speculation


How would you know if I would be interested in an answer with evidence or not when you haven't even posted one? You keep darting back and forth in your posts between admitting things were assumed, admitting you have speculated, and then saying I won't accept evidence. I can't imagine what twisted functions you must be operating on right now to even compose these posts.

Once again I point out my challenge. For someone with the resources of a university or college at your disposal, you should have already solved my little puzzle shouldn't you?


You mean take the time to draw it in PSPICE and tell you what you already know? Yeah, you got me. Maybe you can explain how assuming a 10% margin of error on so many discrete components over and over relates to any specific margin of error in WTC7's structural docs.

Is a 25 resistor network somehow a more complex simulation project than a 600ft high building with multi floor fires and structural damage? Of course it isn't, so why haven't you completed my challenge?


You know just as well as I that all I would have to do is draw the circuit in a computer program and hit "run." It isn't an unsolvable problem in the least. But it is a totally irrelevant example that you made up yourself, and haven't shown to be related to WTC7 in any way. I would be an idiot for honoring it and putting on like it would mean a damned thing anyway when it doesn't.

Now I want you to think about this double-think. You keep saying you have proof, you have evidence, you have evidence, but I won't accept it, it's my fault for not listening to your evidence, blah blah blah. But then you use this example to try to demonstrate that NIST can't be blamed for the margins of error and inaccuracies in their report, so that I must accept these inaccuracies as valid anyway. I'm not even going to comment, I just want you to think about that.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 03:56 PM by jthomas
Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas


When are you going to post something of substance, jthomas?


Your game is up, bsbray11.

You can chew on this, posted today. There's a new video on David Chanler's claims with more to come, starting with a video in response to David Chanler's 'South Tower Smoking Guns' video.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 03:56 PM by exponent
Originally posted by bsbray11
No? They data from the "calibration" was 100% legitimate but didn't match the amount of heat they assumed had to be present across a whole floor for a collapse to initiate.

NISTs theory does not require heat present across a whole floor, nor would calibration tests be expected to match the condition of the towers. Yet more evidence to support my theory you've never bothered to read the report in full.

And they've also stated in their own FAQs that they disagree with pancake theory and find it unlikely that all the trusses on a given floor would fail at the same instant. Can you show me where they reconciled either of those contradictory admissions with their final hypothesis?

You have shown no contradiction. NISTs initiation theory is not one of pancaking, they disagreed with its use as an initiator. Once the collapse has begun, it would not be possible to avoid some element of 'pancaking' but NIST says nothing of this.

Yes, those are the same tests. Funny none of that data was evidence for their final hypothesis, but just used to calibrate further computer simulations with elevated parameters, isn't it? Oh, no wait, you think that's a legitimate application of the scientific method.

Yes, and so do you, you already said this and I quote:
Determining realistic heat/temperatures from the fires based on how widespread they were, where they were at, etc., is the sole exception to not looking at videos to force theoretical data. The fire data is the only data that can't be derived from the structural documents.

I said they would have to judge that based on what was seen in photos/videos, that this would be the sole exception of having to look for this data as opposed to just pumping it out through formulas.

Of course I am sure you will claim that they did something inappropriate, but not provide evidence for it. If you understand anything in my post, understand this. You are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, making positive claims without showing any evidence whatsoever.

You are claiming it is impossible to prove they couldn't have done a better job. I think you're right. No disagreement about that from me.

So, you ask me to prove something you don't believe can be proven. Considering you are acting as a judge, you have essentially asked me to do the impossible. Hardly helps your point does it when you can't distinguish the possible from the impossible?

The statement you bolded is common sense. It doesn't change whether or not you have proven anything. Only re-confirms that not everything can be proven. I guess this is another appeal to blind faith? This isn't church.

I have explained, slowly and methodically why NISTs method was the best. I have given you an example you have failed to complete to illustrate why NISTs method was the best.

You seem completely ignorant of the actual contents of my post, and convinced that you are making devastating intellectual arguments, when you are just repeating questions answered pages ago. Do you want me to just go back and requote what I said then?

Couple this with your earlier admission that your answers are just speculation and I think you're finally coming to the appropriate realization.

Considering I pointed it out explicitly in the bit you cut off, I would say so!

There was also hydrogen all through those buildings, but you're not going to tell me therefore a hydrogen bomb could have formed in the debris pile, are you? Don't be so obtuse.

There was also oxygen, but you're not going to tell me that that oxygen just happened to be attracted to the aluminium. You don't expect me to believe that it somehow combined with the surface to form an oxide layer eh?

Can you prove to me that the oxygen coating that aluminium was not provided by secret NWO oxygen cannons?

Of course you can't, but this is the level of proof you are asking from me

That is why you have no hope answering the question yourself. I am perfectly correct in simply stating it is still an unanswered question. Making stuff up doesn't count.

It's unanswered, because you will completely ignore any answers. Not because no answers exist.

So you don't think it's reasonable for me to believe something without evidence or proof, but on the other hand, it's fine for you to believe something unquestioningly without any evidence or proof.

The evidence exists in the report of the chemist who investigated the actual material, and in the knowledge of other chemists about the mechanism behind this material. Your denial of these simple facts does not mean I also deny them. I do not accept this without evidence, but in fact by accepting evidence you do not wish to hear about.

You just said you couldn't prove your claim, now you are accusing me of not accepting evidence.

You can't keep yourself straight for 2 lines of post that are right next to each other.

How you think being unable to prove a claim equates to you not accepting evidence is beyond me. Truly I have no idea what you think this proves or what point you are trying to make.

I'm going to go ahead and say anything you can't proof with evidence, is speculation. Call me what you like.

Blind? Considering I posted the answer to Question 4 and you entirely skipped it. Did I or did I not answer that question?

I never claimed you had to disprove my case. I don't even have a specific case. I am only asking positive evidence for things, to resolve the 20 questions.

So why did you claim that Barry Jennings may have felt an explosion which was part of a hidden controlled demolition arrangement within WTC7? Do you have any evidence to suggest this?

I know what you believe.

Then why did you make a false claim?

I wish I could do the same for you calling me a "truther" repeatedly, but no mods will hear it.

Of course they won't hear it, because you accused me of being part of a genocidal and racist regime, and I accused you of promoting a controlled demolition theory. The two are not comparable, and if you think they are you should seek medical help.

You mean you're now losing your ability to read, too? I'll let you use your "context clues" to figure this brain-stretcher out

In other words you realise what you said makes no sense, but you cannot admit it. That's fine, this thread is becoming a list of examples of your willing ignorance anyway.

Then you admit you only use the term to be derogative. Just like when I call you a Nazi. But no, seriously, Nazis are good people too!... (not..)

I have never used the term except when describing people. Honestly do you think twisting my words in an attempt to implicate me will do any good? It makes you look foolish and nothing more.

Not at all the same. I don't have a "belief" here. I am asking for evidence. If that puts me in any derogative group, then you need to reconsider where your own priorities lie. Defending your ego, or defending truth?

If I had an ego to defend, I would use an identifiable nickname, or crow about the number of ATS points I have, or anything. I don't care, I don't care what you think of me or what anyone else on here does. If you don't have a belief, why have you stated your beliefs explicitly?
I just realize that the only way to accomplish this is with a controlled demolition. You know, literally pushing everything out of the way with some type of explosion. For which I can provide witness testimonies (from a police officer no less), seismic data, etc.

One of these statements then must be a lie, which is it?

Reply continued in next post.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 03:56 PM by exponent
Thanks again for demonstrating you do not understand the basic physics we are discussing.

On the contrary, you are again grasping at straws to try and slander me, rather than addressing the facts.

Luckily, I have a good enough memory to show your contradictions plain as day. Here is what you said:
I am asking how WTC7 free-fell for 2.25 seconds while the building was still "collapsing" -- which means it would have to have been doing work. Free-fall by definition means all the kinetic energy of the falling building is being preserved.

This definition clearly excludes the work done by the gravitational force, otherwise the statement would be mutually exclusive. Gravity accelerates all objects equally, so any drop of any object equates to work done by gravity. If this is what you meant, how could 'free-fall' be used as a counterpoint, when 'free-fall' is the state where gravity does the largest amount of work?

You have obviously tried to change the definition you're using half way through an argument, which is silly at the least and dishonest at worst. Please do not assume that I am unaware of the concept of work. I am more than familiar with the physics of the collapse, as I have explained it to you many times.

I didn't say my knowledge was "vast," only that it's better than yours. The reason is because I realize these questions have not been answered. You have blind faith in speculation and conjecture. I consider that ignorant.

I shall point out that under this definition, a no-plane theorist would intrinsically be granted better knowledge than you, as they believe in more unanswered questions.

Congratulations on relegating yourself to a den of stupidity, perhaps you should rethink your definition somewhat.

One is a real-life problem, the other is not. Again, you intentionally made that circuit problem with ridiculous tolerances. Setting up your own pins to knock down. You have not shown how your example relates to the same margins of error NIST would have had to work with, going off structural docs alone.

Firstly, the tolerances have nothing to do with it! Even if the resistors are within 0.001% of their specification, the maximum output variation will be greater than this, and the difficulty of simulating the potential outputs will be exactly the same.

You cannot ignore the effects of complexity, there are 25 elements in that circuit, all with unknown but well bounded values. No matter how way you look at it, you have to do n^25 tests where n represents the number of individual tests.

Secondly, I have already pointed out that NIST did not have just the structural documentation to go off, they in fact had 4 major areas of uncertainty, with far more complexity than this trivial problem.

I think people should pay specific attention to this. I set bsbray a problem to solve as he would have NIST behave, and he refuses to even attempt it, instead slandering, distorting and accusing me!

Whether this is an indicator of someone who has lost an argument, or someone who realises their argument was invalid I cannot say.

The "cracks" or "holes" in my metaphor are the unanswered questions. It is still possible for them to be resolved with answers that do not fit your current beliefs. Thus my metaphor. I'm sorry that you had such trouble interpreting it, I'll try to use simpler metaphors next time or maybe explain them in full detail right after I use them.

Or perhaps you could explain how a controlled demolition theory fits in with an order relating to a plane in a different state. Just a thought?

Dig in! Be sure to watch the whole thing, and try not to puke in your mouth or blow a fuse trying to dismiss everything you hear in real-time.

So you can't actually find anything to support your claim then. If you could you would quote it, instead of pasting a full video.

Right, he was trapped inside the building. The "lobby" you are showing is just the entrance to the building, looking lengthways down the street, from the outside. Way to debunk anything. Just for laughs, you were right.

Perhaps if you watched the video for more than 5 seconds you would notice that indeed the cameraman did enter WTC7. Perhaps you could pay more attention to Mr Jennings' account and you would know that the damage is mentioned upon his exit from the building.

Apparently it's ok when you lie about this person's account, but a horrible tragedy when you believe I am lying.

The existence of numerous sounds of explosions in the first place is evidence. Evidence of real events that really happened. Explain them.

Why? You don't seem to be able to, and you are tacitly admitting here you have no evidence to suggest controlled demolition. I can list tens if not hundreds of plausible alternative sources for the sounds.

I'm glad you are phrasing this crap as questions instead of making positive assertions, since the implied argument is non-sequitur anyway. Look it up and study the concept if you don't know what that means.

So you once again have no response and resort to an attempt at slander. You apparently haven't been paying enough attention as I pointed out a previous non sequitur of yours a couple pages back. How is it that you miss all of these things? Why it's as if you don't read my posts properly at all!

You assume there was no reason simply because you are personally unaware of one. Not surprising.

Ah, and you're assuming there is a reason without being aware of it right? Oh but wait, requiring evidence of something is a sceptical position, and assuming a particular condition is a proponents position. So why are you doing the latter?

I do thank you for pointing out I am being sceptical about it though!

You mean it's sad to respond to because you know everything I say is reasonable. I'm not pushing a case on you. I'm asking for answers to questions. You are having a real hard time with this.

Actually your responses are becoming more and more delusional, to the extent that you are becoming incapable of distinguishing what I have said from what you have invented. If you were my friend I would be telling you to go to the doctors office at this point.

You can make whatever glorifying assertions you want of NIST, but at the end of the day, you still cannot even use their report to address simple questions of basic physics, and have to resort to all number of logical fallacies and baseless claims to get out of them. They designed the report exactly so this would happen. You assume because you don't see anything in the report about conservation of energy, especially in regards to the free-fall time, then, well, it must not matter, because these guys would surely know! Nothing but blind faith. It is a question based on one of the most simple laws of physics in existence. No work can be done without energy. "Work" and "energy" are both technical terms. And yes, they obviously apply, if you only understand what they mean.

I have already explained this many times, I even gave you an example so you could illustrate how it could be done. You failed to carry out this example.

The equations NIST use are dependent upon the laws you claim they did not use. There is no way around this and you have once again posted no evidence other than your misguided accusations.

You mean take the time to draw it in PSPICE and tell you what you already know? Yeah, you got me. Maybe you can explain how assuming a 10% margin of error on so many discrete components over and over relates to any specific margin of error in WTC7's structural docs.

I already have, errors compound. This is the third time I have pointed this out in fact. Odd considering this is a subject you appear to be fully aware of. Why are you ignoring what I write?

Post continued in next reply


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 03:57 PM by exponent
You know just as well as I that all I would have to do is draw the circuit in a computer program and hit "run."

Really? I wouldn't know, although i guess you can probably use matlab. I have never taken an electrical engineering degree, so I am not too familiar with your tools.

It isn't an unsolvable problem in the least. But it is a totally irrelevant example that you made up yourself, and haven't shown to be related to WTC7 in any way. I would be an idiot for honoring it and putting on like it would mean a damned thing anyway when it doesn't.

What a convenient excuse! Somehow I managed to predict this astounding turn of events.

Let me get this straight, despite me spending hours writing replies to you, trying to address the criticisms and face the challenges you have presented, you refuse to draw a circuit and in your own words, "hit run"?

Now I want you to think about this double-think. You keep saying you have proof, you have evidence, you have evidence, but I won't accept it, it's my fault for not listening to your evidence, blah blah blah.

Yes...

But then you use this example to try to demonstrate that NIST can't be blamed for the margins of error and inaccuracies in their report, so that I must accept these inaccuracies as valid anyway. I'm not even going to comment, I just want you to think about that.

Why? You have already stated very specifically that no measurement is free of error, and what I am trying to demonstrate here is not the accuracy of NIST's report, but their process.

In order to analyse this circuit iteratively, you will have to
a) reduce the number of elements by aggregating them and perhaps
i) running a sensitivity study
b) reduce the number of simulation runs by testing only a few values per resistor (proportionate to the output sensitivity)
c) Make assumptions about values you have no solid proof for

You keep talking about "proof" as if it was some physical material, as if I just had to look around in my sack of NIST research for a shiny white proof pebble. This is not how science works, proof is very much defined as agreement with evidence and a lack of contradictions.

You actually criticise NIST for this, you criticise NIST for selecting models which most closely match reality, and in doing so you are actually criticising NIST for producing proof.

You have increased in your attacks on me, calling me a Nazi, claiming I do not have the ability to understand simple concepts, but in all cases you have failed to actually refute what I say, and I have answered many of your questions. If you do not agree with these answers, they can be debated, but what you are doing is simply to ignore what I post, and refuse to do any of the research yourself.

I doubt I will continue with this ludicrous back and forth much longer, I encourage you to stop deceiving yourself and understand that your criticisms are based on unfounded superstition and distrust, rather than anything with evidential backing.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 04:08 PM by ugie1028


Good video...

WAKE UP!



reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 04:57 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by exponent
NISTs theory does not require heat present across a whole floor

It should require something to happen instantaneously across a whole floor, because that's what we are both looking at, unless you are blind.

nor would calibration tests be expected to match the condition of the towers.


I'm sure that's what they said, too, after they ran the tests and realized they couldn't support their theory with that data. You might as well not have even mentioned the lab tests because it's not like they actually proved anything relevant to their hypothesis with them.

Yet more evidence to support my theory you've never bothered to read the report in full.


I have probably read as much of it as you have. I have not read the entire 10,000+ pages though, which was mostly padding and talking about how quickly people left the buildings and other irrelevant information anyway.

And they've also stated in their own FAQs that they disagree with pancake theory and find it unlikely that all the trusses on a given floor would fail at the same instant. Can you show me where they reconciled either of those contradictory admissions with their final hypothesis?

You have shown no contradiction. NISTs initiation theory is not one of pancaking, they disagreed with its use as an initiator.


Thanks for catching up with something I just posted in the very quote you took from me.

Once the collapse has begun, it would not be possible to avoid some element of 'pancaking' but NIST says nothing of this.


Right, so it's just you personally making more stuff up I suppose. NIST actually did talk about pancake theory in one of their FAQs, though they had nothing good to say about it, and actually said it contradicts their own initiation mechanism.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


wtc.nist.gov...

I have to object to their claim that they "conclusively" showed any initiation mechanism, though. "Conclusive" implies they tested it. Which they didn't.

Yes, those are the same tests. Funny none of that data was evidence for their final hypothesis, but just used to calibrate further computer simulations with elevated parameters, isn't it? Oh, no wait, you think that's a legitimate application of the scientific method.

Yes, and so do you


No, I don't. If you think I am saying all lab tests or all computer simulations are invalid, then you aren't reading my posts worth a damn. I am saying the DATA does not match. The lab tests show one thing, even after NIST applied a megawatt burner for 30 minutes straight to a truss, than their simulation data, in which they had to increasingly elevate parameters to more "severe" cases to get their desired results and admitted as much.

I said they would have to judge that based on what was seen in photos/videos, that this would be the sole exception of having to look for this data as opposed to just pumping it out through formulas.

Of course I am sure you will claim that they did something inappropriate, but not provide evidence for it. If you understand anything in my post, understand this. You are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing, making positive claims without showing any evidence whatsoever.


Most people actually have enough common sense to realize that the fires would have been the only thing about the structure that day that was not already in the structural docs. Notwithstanding debris NIST considered insignificant.

So, you ask me to prove something you don't believe can be proven. Considering you are acting as a judge, you have essentially asked me to do the impossible.


Who would have ever thought that it would be impossible to prove something that was wrong to begin with? You want to claim their methodology was best, you must have SOME way to prove it.

I have explained, slowly and methodically why NISTs method was the best.


So what were you just claiming is impossible to prove again? Seriously?

That makes the 2nd time in 2 posts that you immediately contradict yourself. I really hope people are reading above and paying attention to this spectacle. Slowly and methodically...

You seem completely ignorant of the actual contents of my post, and convinced that you are making devastating intellectual arguments, when you are just repeating questions answered pages ago. Do you want me to just go back and requote what I said then?


Sure, and be sure to include the part where you admitted your answers are just speculation. Any part of any answer that is speculation, makes the whole answer speculation. Just like if you plug garbage into any part of an equation, it will all come out garbage.

There was also hydrogen all through those buildings, but you're not going to tell me therefore a hydrogen bomb could have formed in the debris pile, are you? Don't be so obtuse.

There was also oxygen, but you're not going to tell me that that oxygen just happened to be attracted to the aluminium. You don't expect me to believe that it somehow combined with the surface to form an oxide layer eh?


If you're so confident in yourself, why don't you pose that question in the form of a positive assertion?

Can you prove to me that the oxygen coating that aluminium was not provided by secret NWO oxygen cannons?


The difference is I never claimed anything about secret NWO oxygen cannons. But you ARE claiming that a powerful eutectic reaction formed naturally out of the debris pile, as an answer to a specific question. Put up or shut up. Stop admitting you can't prove things and then demanding I accept your answers in place of legitimate investigation anyway. You are ridiculous.

The evidence exists in the report of the chemist who investigated the actual material, and in the knowledge of other chemists about the mechanism behind this material. Your denial of these simple facts does not mean I also deny them.


I don't think you even read the report. They didn't say where it came from. Only it's chemical make-up.

How you think being unable to prove a claim equates to you not accepting evidence is beyond me. Truly I have no idea what you think this proves or what point you are trying to make.


Hmm, well this is really tough. When you can't prove something, guess what? It doesn't count as an answer. Uh oh! No, wait, let me run that by you again. Claim with no evidence = not an acceptable "answer." Wait... will a 3rd time do the trick? No? Awwww.... I really didn't think so.

Considering I posted the answer to Question 4 and you entirely skipped it. Did I or did I not answer that question?


I see that the Pentagon has admitted some 85 unreleased tapes. I guess the proof that they don't show anything relevant is because the Pentagon says so?

So why did you claim that Barry Jennings may have felt an explosion which was part of a hidden controlled demolition arrangement within WTC7? Do you have any evidence to suggest this?


His entire testimony is evidence of controlled demolition! Did you not watch the video at all?

I know what you believe.

Then why did you make a false claim?


Belief and proof are not synonyms, so no false claim was made. Sorry.

Of course they won't hear it, because you accused me of being part of a genocidal and racist regime, and I accused you of promoting a controlled demolition theory. The two are not comparable, and if you think they are you should seek medical help.


If you get to decide I'm a "truther," then I get to decide you're a Nazi. That simple.

In other words you realise what you said makes no sense, but you cannot admit it


Everyone is allowed to read my posts and decide what makes sense and what doesn't for themselves.

I have never used the term except when describing people.


Just like me and the term "Nazi." I don't call everybody a Nazi, just you!

Honestly do you think twisting my words in an attempt to implicate me will do any good? It makes you look foolish and nothing more.


Now you know what you look like every time you have to resort to calling me "truther."

If I had an ego to defend, I would use an identifiable nickname, or crow about the number of ATS points I have, or anything. I don't care


So you don't identify personally with your beliefs, such that it doesn't pain you to see that they're wrong. Yeah, right. I have seen how your tone has changed.

One of these statements then must be a lie


There were explosions.

Explosions are positive evidence of things being exploded.

If you can't see how this isn't evidence in itself, you really are blinding yourself intentionally. I know you aren't that stupid, that you can't see how so much evidence of explosions is evidence in favor of demolition. You are trying to make this all entirely too complicated.

[edit on 10-11-2009 by bsbray11]


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 05:02 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
You forgot that it's David Chandler's video that you posted in your OP, under "question" #6:

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
www.youtube.com...

I guess we should not be surprised how convenient it is for you to "forget" that, eh?

Amazing.


Oh, wow. Everything is so different now, why didn't I realize it before? It was David Chandler reading questions to NIST! David Chandler!!


You have an unhealthy obsession with this person. No one else seems to know or care who he is but you sure do have him on your list of talking points.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 05:44 PM by bsbray11
Originally posted by exponent
I am asking how WTC7 free-fell for 2.25 seconds while the building was still "collapsing" -- which means it would have to have been doing work. Free-fall by definition means all the kinetic energy of the falling building is being preserved.

This definition clearly excludes the work done by the gravitational force


Jesus Christ, you are right, exponent. Free-fall does mean gravity was doing no work, except to fall. That is also how all the kinetic energy is conserved. You have never worked a free-body diagram in your life, have you? Or worked an energy problem?

Gravity accelerates all objects equally, so any drop of any object equates to work done by gravity.


Gravity did work in just pulling the building down to the ground, that's all. You're right about that. It did nothing else. That is the problem. I think you are finally realizing the problem, but now you are trying to over-analyze it to force it to make sense to you. Good luck, and keep it coming.

You have obviously tried to change the definition you're using half way through an argument, which is silly at the least and dishonest at worst.


I said the problem is that all of the building's kinetic energy was conserved, and you apparently can't even understand what that means. When you figure it out, you will understand why I said gravity was doing no work to collapse the building.

Please do not assume that I am unaware of the concept of work. I am more than familiar with the physics of the collapse, as I have explained it to you many times.


I don't have to assume anything when you make such abuses of understanding right in front of me.

I didn't say my knowledge was "vast," only that it's better than yours. The reason is because I realize these questions have not been answered. You have blind faith in speculation and conjecture. I consider that ignorant.

I shall point out that under this definition, a no-plane theorist would intrinsically be granted better knowledge than you, as they believe in more unanswered questions.


You don't have to "believe in" an unanswered question. The only thing you "believe in" is an answer, when you don't have proof to settle it one way or another. And you keep putting on like you have proof while simultaneously admitting so much is speculation and being unable to explain so many things or account for all of the different explosions people were experiencing.

Firstly, the tolerances have nothing to do with it! Even if the resistors are within 0.001% of their specification, the maximum output variation will be greater than this, and the difficulty of simulating the potential outputs will be exactly the same.


You are basically saying a 20% margin of error is the same as a margin of error less than 1%, that this makes no difference in the end. Suffice it to say I disagree. But more important than that, is that none of this still has anything to do with WTC7 or NIST's methodology is pruning cases that best fit their pre-conceived hypothesis.

Secondly, I have already pointed out that NIST did not have just the structural documentation to go off, they in fact had 4 major areas of uncertainty, with far more complexity than this trivial problem.


And once again this is not an excuse to use a crap methodology and only go after cases that support your pre-conceived theory. I suppose if you were a police officer and had an unsolved murder, you would just blame the first person you could think of and say it was just the best you could do, and no fault with that.

I set bsbray a problem to solve as he would have NIST behave, and he refuses to even attempt it, instead slandering, distorting and accusing me!


For the record, anyone with free time on their hands can download a program called "P-SPICE" and draw the given circuit and get objective results with an accurate margin of error in seconds. Actually doing that would suggest that this has something to do with the thread or WTC7, which it doesn't. Unless you want to get into a pissing contest of who can solve circuit problems the best.... which also has nothing to do with this thread.

The "cracks" or "holes" in my metaphor are the unanswered questions. It is still possible for them to be resolved with answers that do not fit your current beliefs. Thus my metaphor. I'm sorry that you had such trouble interpreting it, I'll try to use simpler metaphors next time or maybe explain them in full detail right after I use them.

Or perhaps you could explain how a controlled demolition theory fits in with an order relating to a plane in a different state. Just a thought?


I don't see you pushing your god-awful interpretation of my metaphor again so I assume you understand it better now. And the relationship you are looking for between three demolished buildings and an ill-fated plane is called "9/11."

Dig in! Be sure to watch the whole thing, and try not to puke in your mouth or blow a fuse trying to dismiss everything you hear in real-time.

So you can't actually find anything to support your claim then. If you could you would quote it, instead of pasting a full video.


You are asking me to paste the whole transcript when you can just watch the freaking video and listen to the man himself. Through the entire video he specifically debunks all the crap you are trying to say he meant, or was confused into thinking. He corrects the things you have been asserting about his own testimony over and over. I think you're just afraid you will have to throw up in your mouth to even watch this man's testimony.

Perhaps if you watched the video for more than 5 seconds you would notice that indeed the cameraman did enter WTC7. Perhaps you could pay more attention to Mr Jennings' account and you would know that the damage is mentioned upon his exit from the building.


He said the stairwell he was standing on collapsed under him from an explosion. All you posted was someone filming the exterior of WTC7, which was obviously damaged anyway, and then running inside and up an escalator without showing the damage to the lobby.

Apparently it's ok when you lie about this person's account


How would you know when you refuse to even watch the video of his own testimony above? You don't know what he said.

You don't seem to be able to, and you are tacitly admitting here you have no evidence to suggest controlled demolition. I can list tens if not hundreds of plausible alternative sources for the sounds.


And if explosions are evidence of any of those things you could list, then they are most definitely also evidence for explosives.

Why it's as if you don't read my posts properly at all!


Ditto.

You assume there was no reason simply because you are personally unaware of one. Not surprising.

Ah, and you're assuming there is a reason without being aware of it right?


I never made a declaration either way. You just positively claimed that there was no reason for WTC7 to have been demolished. If I did feel like making assertions with no basis, at least I would have you as precedent.

Oh but wait, requiring evidence of something is a sceptical position, and assuming a particular condition is a proponents position. So why are you doing the latter?


I didn't. You did.

Actually your responses are becoming more and more delusional, to the extent that you are becoming incapable of distinguishing what I have said from what you have invented. If you were my friend I would be telling you to go to the doctors office at this point.


I don't have naive friends. All my friends and even my family realizes 9/11 was an inside job.

I have already explained this many times, I even gave you an example so you could illustrate how it could be done. You failed to carry out this example.


You have repeatedly failed to associate your self-made circuit it with WTC7's investigation.

The equations NIST use are dependent upon the laws you claim they did not use. There is no way around this and you have once again posted no evidence other than your misguided accusations.


There are certainly ways around it, it's called making an error. My evidence that NIST did not investigate this is the fact that they did not even address the implications of a building free-falling into itself, conserving all kinetic energy as it does so for any period of time.

You mean take the time to draw it in PSPICE and tell you what you already know? Yeah, you got me. Maybe you can explain how assuming a 10% margin of error on so many discrete components over and over relates to any specific margin of error in WTC7's structural docs.

I already have, errors compound.


And that isn't something I ever disagreed with. But you made up the entire circuit, horrible resistors and all, yourself. It is a straw man argument. It is not relevant to WTC7 by the numbers.


reply posted on 10-11-2009 @ 05:48 PM by jthomas
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by jthomas
You forgot that it's David Chandler's video that you posted in your OP, under "question" #6:

WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part I)
www.youtube.com...

I guess we should not be surprised how convenient it is for you to "forget" that, eh?

Amazing.


Oh, wow. Everything is so different now, why didn't I realize it before? It was David Chandler reading questions to NIST! David Chandler!!


No, it was David Chandler who produced the video you posted (while pretending you don't even know who Chandler is) and upon whose narrative you relied to make your very own claims.

Let me repeat them for everyone else who may have missed my earlier post and your resulting evasion above:

- "NIST method was not just wrong, it was fraudulent."

- "They had to declare free fall out of bounds and try to cover up the evidence."

- "They (NIST) dutifully conjured up a 5.4 second measurement to match."

- "They found the disappearance time and when out of their way to pick an artificially early start time exactly 5.4 seconds earlier. This they compared with free fall time."

- "... if he (John Gross of NIST) wasn't so occupied covering his tracks."

- "The 5.4 second he measured just happens to match exactly the theoretical prediction of computer model. That kind of precision is incredibly rare. This has all the characteristic of drylabbing, manipulating the data to match a predetermined outcome."

- "The irrelevant 5.4 second is still defended in the wording."

- "So free fall is now official dogma. How are they going to handle all the ramifications of that inconvenient fact?"

- "free fall went from an impossibility ... to be consistent with their fire-induced hypothesis."

- "They adopted an alternate bullying tactic, cover it with a lie, and walk away."

Apparently, we are supposed to accept those claims on faith and as those from an "objective" physics teacher.

So there you have it, a series of claims and accusations and no substance or explanations. All David Chanler has actually demonstrated - the free fall period of 2.25 seconds - was acknowledged and re-calculated by NIST and included in the final draft. Nothing changed the 5.4 second time span calculated by NIST nor did Chandler give any reason to change it. He affirmed it yet then declares it "irrelevant" with no reason why it is or should be.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Anybody else would actually use the NIST report for substantiation of their claims, but neither you nor Chandler can. Instead, you and Chandler used Sunder's "technical briefing" and Q&A instead of the actual document that you know you cannot refute.

Again, no one has any reason to accept your question as valid. Your question is entirely predicated on the assumption that there is something amiss with WTC showing a period of 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration. You have given us absolutely NO reason to think there is anything amiss with WTC 7 falling that way nor any reason NOT to accept the NIST report, its evidence, methodology, computer simulations, and conclusions. Neither does David Chandler in his video that you use as the basis for your claims.

So weasel onwards, bsbray11, you've done more to discredit your 9/11 "Truth" Movement than any "Truther" since Graig Ranke and Cap'n Robby Balsamo.


Pages: <<  30    31    32    33    34    35    36  >>    ^^TOP^^



Why the Pentagon?
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags
NEVER FORGET 9-11….Maybe we SHOULD forget.
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
Personal Theory on The Twin Towers Plane Pilots
  Posted 0 days ago with 8 member flags
The 9/11 Hijackers: Fraud in Official Video Exhibits Uncovered
  Posted 1 days ago with 7 member flags
Note from trapped workers surfaces 10 years after 9/11
  Posted 1 days ago with 6 member flags
Where were you when the world stopped turning...
  Posted 2 days ago with 4 member flags