Wow, I'm sorry I missed this afternoon of a complete avoidance of mr. thomas and mr. canoli supporting their own claims. I had to go from Atlanta to San Francisco and back again. It took me about 5.4 hours... the first 1.75 hours there was so much traffic and the last 1.4 was just a total jam up. But boy, oh boy, for 2.25 hours, man, did I fly!

But just so as I made it back in time it's all good. No worries.

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.

And how much should it be doing?

How much should that have slowed the collapse?

Would it have been seen on video?

THESE are the questions you must answer i order to give the TM's questions any validity.

You, nor any other truther, will bother to take the challenge. Instead, personal incredulity and stamping your collective feet demanding answers will be as far as any of you will go.

YOU.
FAIL.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11
The whole time the building is moving towards the ground, what you call a "collapse," it would have been doing work.

And how much should it be doing?

More than none. That should be clear enough for you.

Would it have been seen on video?

Imo, yes, the building should not have dropped like that at all. There should still have been considerable force holding its own weight up even if columns were deflected in places. Those columns will NOT just disappear, no matter what you pretend in your head.

THESE are the questions you must answer i order to give the TM's questions any validity.

You don't get to decide whether or not my questions are valid. Sorry. If you want to say they're invalid, show it with something from the NIST report or some other actual source that provides some kind of evidence. Not just because you say so.

Seriously, look at what you have to resort to, in order to avoid asking a question that makes total sense to anyone who's actually had physics. Falling bodies have kinetic energy that can do work when they come into contact/"resistance" from other objects. But when they fall perfectly in line with the acceleration due to gravity, it means they aren't doing any work, only falling. Just like WTC7 during that period as explained.

There is nothing illegitimate about that. It is plain as day. It's impossible to break it down any more than how we are forced to break it down to you. If you're shaping the way you understand physics just to try to underhand what we say, it only mean you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I want someone to debate this with me in physical terms, doing kinetic energy calculations. It can get no more obvious that you are not losing kinetic energy, than if you are accelerating at the rate of gravity.

You, nor any other truther, will bother to take the challenge. Instead, personal incredulity and stamping your collective feet demanding answers will be as far as any of you will go.

YOU.
FAIL.

What you posted here is called "projection." You just described yourself in the face of the 20 questions in the OP. You stomp your feet, cry, and FAIL.

Originally posted by bsbray11

More than none.

Yup.

Imo, yes, the building should not have dropped like that at all.

That's cuz you didn't do the work to answer the 2nd question. You know, the one you edited out?

You don't get to decide whether or not my questions are valid.

I do if you're just gonna ask it on a message board.

something from the NIST report

So you're gonna ignore the info I gave from the NIST estimate of the collapse? Imagine that.

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

Originally posted by bsbray11

More than none.

Yup.

"Yup" is not a response.

Imo, yes, the building should not have dropped like that at all.

That's cuz you didn't do the work to answer the 2nd question. You know, the one you edited out?

It's impossible to answer the second question with a specific number because we don't have WTC7's structural specifics. So the next best answer (which is still totally legitimate mathematically) is ">0". If you can't deal with that, you're only proving my point: you're wrong, and don't know what you're talking about.

You don't get to decide whether or not my questions are valid.

I do if you're just gonna ask it on a message board.

Then your personal opinion is noted, but I'll still be waiting for a legitimate answer to a legitimate question.

something from the NIST report

So you're gonna ignore the info I gave from the NIST estimate of the collapse? Imagine that.

So I'm gonna ignore information that is totally irrelevant what I'm asking you for? Yeah, uh, imagine that.

Originally posted by bsbray11

It's impossible to answer the second question with a specific number because we don't have WTC7's structural specifics.

Ahhh, isn't that cute?

The truther has his excuse all ready.

Guess you never heard of using bounding examples?

Use a 100' unsupported column.
Use several reasonable sizes.
Use the figures that Chandler gives for the first phase of the collapse - 7'?
Figure out how many degrees of bend the columns would now have.
Figure out much resistance now given.
Use that number to figure out how much it will slow the descent.

DO THAT if you want to make your question legit.

Who am I kidding, you'll have yet another excuse......

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

THESE are the questions you must answer i order to give the TM's questions any validity.

You don't get to decide whether or not my questions are valid. Sorry.

Nonsense. We get to ask you to show us they are valid.

If you want to say they're invalid, show it with something from the NIST report or some other actual source that provides some kind of evidence. Not just because you say so.

On the contrary, you don't get a free pass, bsbray11. You have to show us in the NIST report just what is wrong. You can't even point to anything in the NIST report that is invalid, despite repeated requests. I have already shown that you cannot demonstrate any validity to your claim that there is something unusual in 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration of the WTC 7 parapet, and that it has to have a separate explanation, therefore no one need accept your "question" as valid just because you say so.

As long as you refuse to accept your responsibility to demonstrate your claims, you're just making a fool of yourself, bsbray11. And we'll continue to point out your intellectual dishonesty.

I have already shown you can't and you ended up debunking your own claims of "explosive demolition."


[edit on 23-11-2009 by jthomas]

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
Ahhh, isn't that cute?

The truther has his excuse all ready.

Guess you never heard of using bounding examples?

That's exactly what ">0%" is, genius.

It means "greater than 0" and is a formal mathematical expression.

Here's another clue: the value you're asking for isn't going to be negative, so if you can't find ANYTHING greater than 0, there is no use asking for a larger number, because you won't be able to show it, either.

Who am I kidding, you'll have yet another excuse......

You have been reduced to picking single sentences out of my posts to try to "debunk" and ignoring the rest. Now that is sad.





[edit on 23-11-2009 by bsbray11]

Here's another quandry I'm having. At the initial press conference Dr. Sunder said:

"the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds."

So he's saying here that their structural model fell the 17 floors in 5.4 seconds. And they found this same time in the video evidence. Great. We're on a roll.

However when I'm reading through NCSTAR 1-9A they state "8.59 (24.59)s: The calculation was terminated." That's 8.59 seconds after the penthouse began to collapse. Wouldn't they have to had run the model to at least 11.7s to actually match the 5.4 s (i.e. 6.3 (the model's descent start time) + 5.4 (the descent period) = 11.7 (confirmation time))?

Then there's also this quote from the same document: "The calculation was stopped after the building had fallen downward approximately 10 floors, as global collapse occurred." Where's the other 7 floors needed for confirmation?

What model was Dr. Sunder talking about?

Where is their model confirmation for this 5.4s in the report?

Why didn't they list this "match" under their "Comparison of Simulations with Observables" section?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
You are the worst person on this entire forum about not being able to back up anything you say.

I know you hate me showing why the burden of proof is on your shoulders.

I don't "hate" it, and you haven't shown me anything. You're just trying to weasel out from under it. The 20 questions are obviously not my burden to answer, as I was the one who posted them.

You can't answer them, jthomas.

Just admit it.

Show me ANYTHING from NIST's WTC7 report that invalidates my question.

Sorry, you haven't pointed to anything in the NIST report to support your claim that there is anything special about 2.25 seconds of free fall.

Is this your back-handed way of admitting NIST doesn't answer my question?


Still waiting for you to prove the question doesn't deserve an answer. The only thing you've demonstrated so far is that you don't understand any of the science being discussed, and that you are hard-headed as hell, but that isn't demonstrating anything new.

Originally posted by bsbray11


Still waiting for you to prove the question doesn't deserve an answer. The only thing you've demonstrated so far is that you don't understand any of the science being discussed, and that you are hard-headed as hell, but that isn't demonstrating anything new.

As soon as you stop discrediting yourself maybe you'll figure out why you haven't demonstrated anything anyone needs to be concerned about - and why no one ever will be. If you can get yourself off this Thanksgiving's serving platter in time, that is.







[edit on 24-11-2009 by jthomas]

why did people stop replying to this thread?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Let me stress that personal speculation regarding any of these questions is not going to settle any of them definitely, so they will continue to be unanswered until addressed by proper investigation

1) What was the order that Dick Cheney had given while he knew that Flight 77 was approaching Washington DC?

First I will say that I will not provide "sources" for my answers because I think you know very well were the info. I cite is.
Since you ask for personal speculation to be kept from being used, we should only go with the information we have in the form of the 9/11 commission report, investigations by institutions and experts, press releases, witness testimony, etc...
And based on these, the order Mr. Cheney is refferrring to is clearly a "shoot down" order, not a "stand down" order.
It is very clear in the Mineta video, that the order being discussed is no other that a "shoot down" order.
By the way, let me clarify that Mr. Cheney didn´t know "which" flight it was that was approaching DC.

2) Why was the Flight 93 crash site spread out over 8 miles?

This is an issue that has been shown to have no support to a possible shooting of UA93. This plane crashed before the order had been approved. Of course a large spread out field of debris would seem to correspond more to a shoot down. However, there was an explosion and a lot of light debris made it quite far from the crash site. This was due to the light weight of the different debris, wind and the force of the explosion.
A shoot down with a missile from a Fighter jet or machine gun from same type jet would have been heard much differently by the witnesses that saw the plane, heard the engines, heard the crash.

3) Why did witnesses report hearing military jets in the area of the Flight 93 crash?

These witnesses confussed a private Falcon jet that received a request from air traffic control to check for the possibility of UA93 having crashed.
And this Falcon jet went about the area to report. (Obviously they had to maneuver in unusual ways, so this sound (and the events taking place that day) created that illusion.)

4) For what reason are Pentagon surveillance tapes showing the impact of Flight 77 still being withheld?

There are no other tapes showing the impact of flight 77.
The tapes that show anything have been made public.
There are many more tapes, but they don´t show the impact.

[size=3]5) Why couldn't Osama bin Laden seem to get his story straight about whether or not he had anything to do with 9/11?[/size]

He seems to be playing with our heads in those statements, because there have been others were he is clearly a big supporter of the attacks and others were he claims to have been involved in the planning and previously to 9/11 there was a lot of public information that showed clearly he was a big threat to US security and he and his organization (Al Qaeda) were real, he was one of the leaders, financiers, and wanted to attack the US as he did.

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

What allowed WTC7 to accelerate "briefly" at free fall was the way it was designed. A big open space had been remodeled into it. So when the supporting structure failed in the lower levels, the upper part of the building as it was comming down encountered this open space and this allowed the acceleration for a brief moment.



[edit on 21-12-2009 by rush969]

[edit on 21-12-2009 by rush969]

[edit on 21-12-2009 by rush969]

Originally posted by bsbray11

7) What was the Israeli intelligence connection to 9/11 that remains classified?

I have no idea. Could only speculate on this. But I sincerely doubt that this info. would merit a new investigation. If israely intel. knew anything in advance of 9/11 I doubt very much they would admit to any of it.

8) How was an explosive fireball supposed to have traveled down about 1000 feet of drywall elevator shafts to cause major explosions in the basement and lobby, and where is evidence to support this rumor?

I honestly can only speculate on this one. I think the explosion of the plane with all the fuel igniting is a terribly destructive force. The expansion wave of that event, (seems to me) might be enough to cause great damage anywhere in the building, and ignited fuel could indeed easily travel down the elevator shafts. You also have to consider many other things that could have exploded when they caught fire.
As with any such traumatic events some of the witness reports might seem to contradict in some aspects like exact times, size of the fires, where exactly was someone at a certain time, etc...
But I believe there has been no creditable evidence of any foul play anywhere in the buildings prior to the crashes of the planes.