Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

20 9/11 Questions Remain Unanswered over 8 Years Later

page: 35
79
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas
 

I must admit that, no, I can't find it. I just have a hard time finding it in NIST's report and I think I know why. I think what is preventing me from finding it is:


Because you fell for bsbray11's claim that 2.25 seconds of free-fall is magic and needs a "separate explanation, " is "unexplained," and therefore "should have been explained" and invalidates the conclusions of the NIST report.

We've seen bsbray11's substantial appeals to ignorance in his "misunderstanding" of the NIST report and subsequent misrepresentations of what happened. For instance, he has long maintained the following claim, represented in his reply in this post from a year after NIST released the WTC report:


Originally posted by Pilgrum
I'd ask just how much of the internal structure was intact to provide resistance immediately after the penthouse collapsed.

bsbray11:

It doesn't matter. As long as there is ANY structure left (and obviously there is enough to keep the building standing until this point -- thus a significant amount of structure left), it will provide resistance, and that includes the exterior supports surrounding all sides of the building. That should not just give up and require 0 energy to destroy. So this really is a moot point.

...

The building HAS to fall slower than that, unless something else is providing the energy to collapse it. And this is not a narrow margin of numbers in which we are working, it's a difference between zero and what should be a relatively large number, even if the building was a house of cards. Steel is a very strong material, and the connections would also have been very strong. They don't fold up on their
www.abovetopsecret.com...


From this, we can see bisbray11 either has not read the NIST report, does not understand it, or misrepresents it as he must to maintain the fiction of "explosive demolition" for all three towers.

NIST had already clearly explained the collapse mechanism that led to the collapse of the outer walls. The fact that David Chandler found within that 5.4 seconds a period of 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration that then stopped does not change the analysis or the conclusion. It just confirms the NIST's analysis that the walls had lost all support internally before the outer walls started to collapse. There is no mystery to the 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration of the outer walls nor does it require any "special acceleration" as Chandler, bsbray11, you, and other "Truthers" insist.

Of course, David Chandler and bsbray11 insist that the effect of the collapse mechanism is, instead, magically a cause, and that cause can only be "explosive demolition."

And this goes back to the point that questions must have a legitimate premise behind them to be valid. The fact that you and bsbray11 claim that NIST does not "explain" 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration, and therefore, by implication, "should have" is invalid and without foundation.













[edit on 21-11-2009 by jthomas]




posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by jthomas
His complete failure in establishing any validity to his claim that all three towers fell at "free fall"

This is a little misleading.


No, it's completely misleading, because I only said WTC7 fell at free-fall, which even NIST admits. Not the Twin Towers too.


Fortunately you edited out that claim before I responded so I can no longer demonstrate it, but you have already made equally absurd claims concerning WTC 1 and 2:


posted on 22-4-2006 @ 06:31 PM single this post "quote"REPLY TO:
Regarding free fall,

Remember that BillyBob posted a thread a while ago showing that the Towers did fall faster than free fall for an amount of time.

This is because free fall speed is only attained after positive acceleration. The Towers can be seen falling ahead of free-falling debris at an already-steady pace while the debris is still accelerating.

You guys forget this too quickly, but it really is damning evidence. The only replies from the official-supporting camp were really just confusions of the argument, which would embarrass me, personally.

Here's BillyBob's thread.

There is the image he posts as evidence of demolition; a faster-than-free-fall demolition wave.

Here's some clarification on how this can be faster than free fall in the beginning, but then a little slower than free fall later, for those of you who may be confused:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


and...



You are talking about two of the most massive buildings in the world collapsing completely to the ground at a rate which is only slightly slower than free-fall in a complete and absolute vacuum. "Free-fall times" are assumed in a vacuum, not taking air into account (drag), which automatically tacks on a couple of extra seconds.

So you have the time it takes to fall from a tower's height in a complete vacuum. A vacuum! NOTHING THERE AT ALL!

Now you take air into account, and since air is not very dense, it does not change the time much, but still by a significant couple of seconds or so.

Now this is where it stops making sense to me. In addition to the air, you also throw in 1000+ tons of steel, concrete, office materials, etc., all right in the way, and you still have basically the same time you did when you only took air into account. That is NO different than a controlled demolition.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Anyone with a modicum of interest in physics understands bsbray11's claim that WTC 2 fell at a rate which is only slightly slower than free-fall in a complete and absolute vacuum is patently absurd.

The simple fact that it took WTC 2 16+seconds to collapse as seen clearly in this video reveals the absurdity of bsbray11's claim:

www.youtube.com...



Let bsbray11 practice some physics and report to us how tall WTC 2 would have to have been for the collapse front to be at the height of the Marriot Hotel at 12 seconds into the collapse IF the collapse was proceeding at "slightly slower than free-fall in a complete and absolute vacuum."

What is the answer to that bsbray11? Show us if you've learned some physics and that you will withdraw your claims.



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

I don't believe anybody here has determined that a mutually agreed upon phenomenon is magic and I'm not sure why you assume that an appropriate answer to the question would invalidate the conclusion of NIST. I know I'm not arguing that an appropriate answer would automatically invalidate the report. We would need the answer first to see if it does or if it does not.

But I believe it was Dr. Sunder that convinced me that with their definition of free fall ("The computed time for free fall (i.e., with no air friction) was 3.9s") that this would be impossible to happen as there would need to be structural failures happening which would make it so there could be no free fall.

So at this point of time they convinced me that free fall didn't happen and their models AGREED that it didn't happen.

But then they actually confirmed this period of free fall. So now are we to assume that, AS IF BY MAGIC, their model confirms this free fall, too? I know they didn't run their modeling again as that took about 8 weeks to run, but their modification of the report came out only about 4 weeks later. Hmmm.


It just confirms the NIST's analysis that the walls had lost all support internally before the outer walls started to collapse.

I really wish you would go read the report as I all ready posted where NIST states that all support was not lost:

"As the interior columns buckled across the building, the exterior columns were left laterally unsupported normal to east, south, and north faces."

That leaves the west face laterally supported. And if it were laterally supported then there were structural failures that needed to take place, and if structural failures needed to take place then we know we can't have free fall. But we DID HAVE free fall according to NIST's definition of free fall ("The computed time for free fall (i.e., with no air friction) was 3.9s").

Then I posted the latest entry we have from their model:



I have since found the time for this diagram which is 8.6 seconds. I notice that all the exterior columns are in different states of buckling. I do not see the mechanism that would make ALL the 47 exterior columns (and some of the assumed interior columns) reach the state of zero resistance exactly 0.05 seconds later. But we'll never know as their modeling stops here.

So, it seems to me it is you, mr. thomas, who thinks that NIST's reporting of a collapse mechanism MAGICALLY explains this 2.25 period which occurred 8.65 seconds later. Please stop bowing at the alter of the clergy of NIST and read the sacred text.



[edit on 21-11-2009 by NIcon]



posted on Nov, 21 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, it's completely misleading, because I only said WTC7 fell at free-fall, which even NIST admits. Not the Twin Towers too.


Fortunately you edited out that claim before I responded so I can no longer demonstrate it


No, I never said it in the first place.


In short, you have lied twice about me in two posts.

I think you're just trying to see how many times you can lie about me before I start getting mad. But it's not going to happen, because I know you are just trolling.



The Towers can be seen falling ahead of free-falling debris at an already-steady pace while the debris is still accelerating.


Right, and you can see this in collapse videos yourself.

So technically the collapses were faster than free-fall initially, and this only changed when the free-falling debris had enough time to accelerate to a rate greater than the linear rate of the collapse sequence.



and...


You are talking about two of the most massive buildings in the world collapsing completely to the ground at a rate which is only slightly slower than free-fall in a complete and absolute vacuum.


I said slower than free-fall here, not at or faster than. But you've already demonstrated that the towers WERE falling faster than free-fall for a period of time, jthomas, so nevermind that now.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Thanks , this is great info all in the one link and the videos .. S and F
this is now my reference link for any non believers that need awakening



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

But then they actually confirmed this period of free fall. So now are we to assume that, AS IF BY MAGIC, their model confirms this free fall, too? I know they didn't run their modeling again as that took about 8 weeks to run, but their modification of the report came out only about 4 weeks later. Hmmm.


There is no mystery here. It's not rocket sceince. NIST measured picked a rational distance to measure. It revealed that the observed collapse time was 40% slower than free-fall acceleration. David Chandler further refined the measurement, NIST agreed that during that very same time period there was indeed a 2.25 component of free-fall acceleration, bracketed on both sides by slower than free-fall acceleration, before and after the 2.25 seconds. Nothing changes. It still fell that distance in 5.4 seconds as originally measured. The conclusions are still the same.

That no one can make a case that the 2.25 seconds is meaningful in any way and must ascribe, in their own imaginations, that one should not expect any free-fall acceleration unless caused by some other force remains unsupported.


It just confirms the NIST's analysis that the walls had lost all support internally before the outer walls started to collapse.

I really wish you would go read the report as I all ready posted where NIST states that all support was not lost:

"As the interior columns buckled across the building, the exterior columns were left laterally unsupported normal to east, south, and north faces."

That leaves the west face laterally supported. And if it were laterally supported then there were structural failures that needed to take place, and if structural failures needed to take place then we know we can't have free fall. But we DID HAVE free fall according to NIST's definition of free fall


Structural failures did take place as the outer walls began to fall and David Chandler's analysis, further validated by NIST, supports NIST's conclusions even more so. You'll recall that David Chandler confirmed a period of resistance as the walls began to fall, before the 2.25 seconds of free fall.


So, it seems to me it is you, mr. thomas, who thinks that NIST's reporting of a collapse mechanism MAGICALLY explains this 2.25 period which occurred 8.65 seconds later.


It's quite clear that you are unable to make any case that there is anything surprising, unexpected, unusual, or requires any other force to describe that the effect of the collapse includes 2.25 seconds of free fall.

Until and unless you someone does so, we have no reason to believe that it requires any special explanation.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

I think you're just trying to see how many times you can lie about me before I start getting mad. But it's not going to happen, because I know you are just trolling.


I'll be sure to get a screen shot the next time.


So technically the collapses were faster than free-fall initially, and this only changed when the free-falling debris had enough time to accelerate to a rate greater than the linear rate of the collapse sequence.


Actually, you've only presented a claim that what is observed is "demolition waves" without any positive evidence of explosives or any calculation of the rate of fall at any point during the collapses to support any free-fall component. Even if you could find a free-fall component, as David Chandler did with WTC 7, you would still be left in the same position you and he are in with WTC 7: that you have nothing to demonstrate anything unusual or unexpected with a free-fall component.

As much as you want to everyone to conclude that "only explosive demolition" can explain the collapses you keep ending up at a dead end.


You are talking about two of the most massive buildings in the world collapsing completely to the ground at a rate which is only slightly slower than free-fall in a complete and absolute vacuum.


I said slower than free-fall here, not at or faster than.


Gosh. There is no question that you wrote that WTC 1 and 2 fell: at a rate which is only slightly slower than free-fall in a complete and absolute vacuum."

Your evasion in trying to change your claim of "slightly slower" than free-fall
to "slower" than free-fall only invalidates even further your claim that "only explosive demolition" can explain the collapses.

And it is no wonder that you refuse to present you us all - especially those who have unwittingly accepted your claims as somehow valid - the actual calculations showing the rate of fall of the two towers. Let me remind you:

www.youtube.com...



Let bsbray11 practice some physics and report to us how tall WTC 2 would have to have been for the collapse front to be at the height of the Marriot Hotel at 12 seconds into the collapse IF the collapse was proceeding at "slightly slower than free-fall in a complete and absolute vacuum."

What is the answer to that bsbray11? Show us if you've learned some physics and that you will withdraw your claims.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


I think I understand now why the theory "big planes crashed then big buildings fall down and go boom" is so attractive. As long as we can concentrate on a few simple facts we can then consider any other facts as less meaningful. As long as we concentrate only on point A and Z we can just shrug our shoulders at all the points in between.


Structural failures did take place as the outer walls began to fall and David Chandler's analysis, further validated by NIST, supports NIST's conclusions even more so. You'll recall that David Chandler confirmed a period of resistance as the walls began to fall, before the 2.25 seconds of free fall.


I think you have this backwards. The evidence is not there to support a theory. A theory is supposed to support itself through logical arguments and reasoning based on the evidence and through those arguments it is supposed to offer demonstrative outcomes which we can then compare to the real world to know if the theory is correct or not.

But let me put it another way so there is no confusion. It is not correct to say "The kink in the penthouse supports the theory and model of NIST" but rather it is correct to say "NIST's theory and model demonstrated the formation of the kink in the penthouse, therefore it may be correct."

You have yet to show me where NIST's theory demonstrated that 47 external columns and some internal columns reached the point of zero resistance within 0.05 seconds.

I suppose if we do ignore B through Y nothing is very surprising.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon

You have yet to show me where NIST's theory demonstrated that 47 external columns and some internal columns reached the point of zero resistance within
.

Feel free to refer to the actual NIST documents and reports, statements, data, and collapse sequence that still confuse you and explain.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 

I all ready have, mr. thomas. If you had been paying attention to my posts you would have realized that. But I understand. You have been too busy evading, misconstruing, misquoting, and miscategorizing to notice.

So I'll stand back now and allow your incredible acumen to shine and explain how NIST's theory either a) renders the question of the period of free fall drop of no practical value, or b) actually explains it.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas
 

I all ready have, mr. thomas. If you had been paying attention to my posts you would have realized that.


Actually, you haven't shown us anything specific in the report that is wrong, questionable, or you don't understand. That's why I asked for your specific references and should have no hesitation to refer to NIST documents by quotes and pages. That should be simple for you since you are the one claiming NIST should do a special explanation of something already explained to everyone' satisfaction. I would thank you for the courtesy.


So I'll stand back now and allow your incredible acumen to shine and explain how NIST's theory either a) renders the question of the period of free fall drop of no practical value, or b) actually explains it.


Tsk. Tsk. You know trying to shifting the burden to others is a no-no. It's your job to support your claims, as you well know, NIcon. No one has any problem with NIST's report on WTC 7 accept those, like you, claiming there needs to be a different explanation for the 2.25 seconds when the entire collapse sequence had already included that and the conclusions remain unchanged.

So unless you get to work, you'll remain howling into the cold wind.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

You'll recall that David Chandler confirmed a period of resistance as the walls began to fall, before the 2.25 seconds of free fall.



This is the part that truthers ignore.

It demonstrates the resistance they cry and stamp their feet about.

And then when you consider the estimated 8 floors worth of non supported columns roughly match the free fall distance, their question is answered.

But it will never change. They will never be able to demonstrate why this is wrong.


So like you've been saying all along in this retarded thread, they have no legitimate basis for any questions unless they can demonstrate why their questions are indeed legitimate by giving a better supported argument.

AIN'T.
GONNA.
HAPPEN.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
And then when you consider the estimated 8 floors worth of non supported columns roughly match the free fall distance, their question is answered.


Please explain how 8 floors worth of support just vanished out of thin air. Because even non supported columns give more resistance than air.



But it will never change. They will never be able to demonstrate why this is wrong.


And you will never demonstrate how exactly why this should be taken as real physical science.



So like you've been saying all along in this retarded thread,


Obvious total sign of despiration. "this retarded thread".


they have no legitimate basis for any questions unless they can demonstrate why their questions are indeed legitimate by giving a better supported argument.

AIN'T.
GONNA.
HAPPEN.


Here's an idea. Maybe anser the questions asked. No? Too hard for you?

[edit on 22-11-2009 by Nutter]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
I think you're just trying to see how many times you can lie about me before I start getting mad. But it's not going to happen, because I know you are just trolling.


I'll be sure to get a screen shot the next time.


There won't be a "next time" because you were lying about what I said to begin with.


Actually, you've only presented a claim that what is observed is "demolition waves" without any positive evidence of explosives or any calculation of the rate of fall at any point during the collapses to support any free-fall component.


The proof was given by billybob when he showed the collapse itself moving ahead of free-falling debris.

The free-falling debris had to accelerate, as per gravity.

The building itself, did not accelerate, but started "collapsing" at a steady rate and maintained that rate until free-falling debris finally caught up and obscured it from sight.

That is what billybob pointed out, and you can watch the videos yourself. If you can see the building blowing out, then yes, you can see the collapse ahead of the falling debris. Sorry, jthomas, you lose again.




Your evasion in trying to change your claim of "slightly slower" than free-fall
to "slower" than free-fall only invalidates even further your claim that "only explosive demolition" can explain the collapses.


Yes, I "changed my story" from "slightly slower" to "slower." Gosh, it took a genius to find that discrepancy. Good job, jthomas.
You really know your stuff when it comes to adjectives.



But remember you've just reminded us that the towers were falling faster that free-fall at a certain point, so how the towers fell slightly slower than free-fall for the majority of their duration is irrelevant now, because you've reminded us of the bigger issue, explained above.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
This is the part that truthers ignore.

It demonstrates the resistance they cry and stamp their feet about.


No, it doesn't.

The whole time the building is moving towards the ground, what you call a "collapse," it would have been doing work.


Not, first the building is destroyed, then it starts falling (ie not like the coyote on roadrunner cartoons that realizes he's standing on air, THEN falls..
).

Also not, first the building falls, THEN the energy is absorbed...

But at the same time as the collapse, energy should be absorbing into the structure, and LOST from the total kinetic energy.

That is why ANY period of absolute free-falling is damning to the official explanation of that building. People knew this before an official explanation even existed. We also knew NIST, despite having to delay the report for years, would eventually try to say it somehow collapsed under its own weight. Because that is the agenda the feds are pushing here.

But all that aside, the fact remains that WTC7 free-fell, at the rate of gravity in a vacuum, and it could only have done this if it's kinetic energy was not being used in the "collapse." It was simply falling to the ground, all dead weight by that point. For ANY of period of time, the same thing applies. See above.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by NIcon
reply to post by jthomas
 

I all ready have, mr. thomas. If you had been paying attention to my posts you would have realized that.


Actually, you haven't shown us anything specific in the report that is wrong, questionable, or you don't understand.



I can't believe you would say something so asinine after 35 pages of this thread already.


Start with WTC7 falling at free-fall in NIST's report. We know it happened; we measured it before NIST would even admit that it free-fell, as they originally tried to say it didn't because of the Penthouse collapse.


So you say,

"Actually, you haven't shown us anything specific in the report that is wrong, questionable, or you don't understand."


So, actually,


Why don't you show us how WTC7 was able to conserve all of its kinetic energy as it was free-falling for that period of time? Use the NIST report.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
here's another question: Why does the official story have so many holes in it? I mean come on, if the government did do it, you would think they would do a better job at covering it up.

[edit on 22-11-2009 by technical difficulties]



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
here's another question: Why does the official story have so many holes in it? I mean come on, if the government did do it, you would think they would do a better job at covering it up.


Historically speaking, people have never realized these kinds of things until decades later. People are generally stupid and apathetic and care more about sports or sitcoms.


The USS Maine is one example. Turns out the explosion that sank it was internal, not from an external Spanish torpedo (USS Maine's sinking got us into war with Spain).

It took about 70 years for a Naval report to "finally" conclusively show what people had been saying for decades, that it was NOT an external torpedo that sank that ship. The evidence? A single piece of hull, that "investigators" had all been looking at in reverse for all those years, they finally turned it around the right way, and realized it was blown outwards, not inwards.


It took them 70 years just to turn a piece of hull around the right way.



The only point I'm trying to make it, they bank on mass stupidity/apathy when they do this kind of stuff and it works for them every time. Gulf of Tonkin was another example, as we now know that was a bunch of exaggerated bull to get us into Vietnam as well. The Lusitania was now believed to have been transporting weapons illegally...

But it would have made a good 21st question: why are all these questions unanswered to begin with? Remember, personal conjectures are a dime a dozen, and don't count.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas


Actually, you've only presented a claim that what is observed is "demolition waves" without any positive evidence of explosives or any calculation of the rate of fall at any point during the collapses to support any free-fall component.


The proof was given by billybob when he showed the collapse itself moving ahead of free-falling debris.


No, that was a claim of "demolition waves." You have provided no positive evidence or measurements demonstrating that the "collapse" was as fast as free fall. You really need to learn how to support your claims instead of evading doing so.


The building itself, did not accelerate, but started "collapsing" at a steady rate and maintained that rate until free-falling debris finally caught up and obscured it from sight.


Then you invalidate your own claims of collapsing at "slightly" slower than free fall. But then you have not been able to provide us with any measurements to justify your claims anyway.


That is what billybob pointed out, and you can watch the videos yourself. If you can see the building blowing out, then yes, you can see the collapse ahead of the falling debris.


Funny, that the building is still left standing where you claim it is being "blown out." Have you considered eyeglasses?


Your evasion in trying to change your claim of "slightly slower" than free-fall to "slower" than free-fall only invalidates even further your claim that "only explosive demolition" can explain the collapses.


Yes, I "changed my story" from "slightly slower" to "slower."


Yes, "changing stories" and moving goal posts is an epidemic in the 9/11 "Truth" Movement. We all noticed years ago. Reason and intellectual honesty are the only known vaccines but 9/11 "Truthers" are confirmed Luddites and shun vaccines.


Gosh, it took a genius to find that discrepancy. Good job, jthomas.
You really know your stuff when it comes to adjectives.


No, it doesn't take any genius to see your dissembling so poorly. I find it perfectly predictable that you would try to weasel out of the predicament in which you put yourself.



But remember you've just reminded us that the towers were falling faster that free-fall at a certain point, so how the towers fell slightly slower than free-fall for the majority of their duration is irrelevant now, because you've reminded us of the bigger issue, explained above.


That's just another illustration of how poorly you dissemble. You've just reminded us that you cannot demonstrate any free fall component in the collapses of WTC 1 and 2, and whether it would matter or not, just as you can't do so with the collapse of WTC 7. And your inability to do a simple calculation I have requested from you twice to demonstrate that there is any reason to accept your completely unsupported claim of "controlled demolition" is rather entertaining.

There is no doubt how fast your claims have collapsed, however, bsbray11. Changing your "story" didn't help you one bit.



posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Why don't you show us how WTC7 was able to conserve all of its kinetic energy as it was free-falling for that period of time? Use the NIST report.


Have you already forgotten your obligations? You re supposed to be showing us why anyone should have any problems with a free fall component given that it was already incorporated in NIST's measurements and didn't change anything?

Why are you having such a problem, bsbray11? You can't even refer us to anything in the NIST report that is stated or show us that is flat out wrong.

What's the matter, bsbray11? Get off your butt and get to work. If you are going to get anywhere ever you're going to have to convince us.






top topics



 
79
<< 32  33  34    36 >>

log in

join