ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags controlled demolition , free fall , wtc7

Reply
Old 4th December 2013, 08:41 PM   #241
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426

Well said sir.

Maybe we should link to the femr2 measurements which show movement minutes before the release>>collapse time?



PS BTW I've never seen any truther explain HOW you can get "free fall' by use of explosives. They seem to take it for granted....

Last edited by ozeco41; 4th December 2013 at 08:43 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 08:53 PM   #242
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif
Well said sir.

Maybe we should link to the femr2 measurements which show movement minutes before the release>>collapse time?



PS BTW I've never seen any truther explain HOW you can get "free fall' by use of explosives. They seem to take it for granted....
Indeed, as I stated above, the claim that ffa=CD is a bald and unsupported mere contention based on simplistic 1d physics and a subjective parsing of the data.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 09:24 PM   #243
Brass
Critical Thinker
 
Brass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 441
If WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then why did the following happen?

- WTC7 collapse ravaged nearby buildings. Controlled demolitions don't do that - that's why they're called "controlled."

- Why did the East Mechanical Penthouse fall, which was followed by a 5-10 second delay, and then the rest of the building go?

- Where are the very loud and obvious detonations seconds before the collapse? Surely that would have been captured on film?

- Where are the very obvious blast of light? Surely that would have been captured on film?

- Why did FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro set up a collapse zone at 2:30 PM EST on 9/11; three full hours before the building collapsed? He made the decision to do it, no one told him.

Answer those, and then maybe we'll talk...

Spoiler: He won't.
Brass is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 10:07 PM   #244
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Gosh, NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall. I'm just taking their word for it.
During the general collapse, part of the (North?) facade split off and fell free for approximately four seconds (out of the entire 10-12 second collapse) before impacting on the rest of the more slowly collapsing main structure.

Your welcome. Glad I could keep you from looking foolish.
__________________
Mister Earl: "The plural of bollocks is not evidence."
Robrob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 10:19 PM   #245
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Can you disprove this simple proof?
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)(1.)
I. is not a given. It's a bare assertion, made by a person who isn't a structural engineer, nor a demolitions expert, nor even a forensic fire and safety expert.

So I reject the statement as unsupported; how can he prove it's impossible? The burden of proof is actually on him, not skeptics of his theory.
But he never showed up to prove it.

The rest of your premise fails due to that alone.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2013, 11:03 PM   #246
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Brass View Post
If WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then why did the following happen?

- WTC7 collapse ravaged nearby buildings. Controlled demolitions don't do that - that's why they're called "controlled."
"They were controlled to do that to throw us off the scent!"

Quote:
- Where are the very loud and obvious detonations seconds before the collapse? Surely that would have been captured on film?
"They used Nanothermite for a quiet detonation!"

Quote:
- Where are the very obvious blast of light? Surely that would have been captured on film?
"They used nanothermite for less obvious flashes!"

Then why do the collapses match a CD in other aspects, according to your claims? If the evidence, in your opinion, inevitably points to a CD, how do you tell it from evidence that doesn't point to a CD?

"[DEAFENING SILENCE]"
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 12:05 AM   #247
Playing Games
Thinker
 
Playing Games's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif That is an interesting definition of "proof".

I usually take a "Proof" to consist of:
A) elements of facts verified (or verifiable) by evidence;
B) linked by a logical structure of argument.

So the simple "logical structure" may be correct but the other half of the "proof" is wrong. The concept that the facts are not part of the 'proof' is new to me.
You pulled the words out of my mouth, sir! There is no conclusive evidence.
Playing Games is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 12:26 AM   #248
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Brass View Post
- Why did the East Mechanical Penthouse fall, which was followed by a 5-10 second delay, and then the rest of the building go?
Tony Szamboti used the same mechanism in what I think was his most recent "CD Claim" on this sub-forum. The sequence is "cut something with explosives" >>>> delay of many seconds/minutes >>> THEN fall. The interesting bit being "How does the building remain standing with its columns cut?"

When I explained to Tony that it requires 'Delayed Action Gravity' Tony was very quick to restate his claim - plus insult me which is SOP for Tony and many truthers when faced with sound argument.

Certainly these truther hypotheses require "Delayed effect" explosives AND "silent banging" explosives - unless said truthers are not telling the truth.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 02:09 AM   #249
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
Spank me and call me jaded...but I smell a 5 year old sock.
I wondered where D'oh P.76 was.
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 04:49 AM   #250
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
 
Porkpie Hat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by ozeco41;9673317PS
BTW I've never seen any truther explain HOW you can get "free fall' by use of explosives. They seem to take it for granted....
I think this explains everything,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_meme

Last edited by Porkpie Hat; 5th December 2013 at 04:50 AM. Reason: Fix quote tags
Porkpie Hat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 04:57 AM   #251
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
 
twinstead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 12,370
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
The "silly logic" is NIST's "silly logic."
But you'll be shown EXACTLY what NIST said, yet still believe what you believe. That's not silly logic; that's crazy
__________________
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -- Harlan Ellison
twinstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 06:26 AM   #252
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif That is an interesting definition of "proof".

I usually take a "Proof" to consist of:
A) elements of facts verified (or verifiable) by evidence;
B) linked by a logical structure of argument.

So the simple "logical structure" may be correct but the other half of the "proof" is wrong. The concept that the facts are not part of the 'proof' is new to me.
Sorry I missed this. I was basically being pedantic; in my world, logical arguments are mathematical constructs where the premises can be replaced by variables and logical mathematical operations performed upon them. In this world, "valid" and "correct" have two different meanings; a "valid" proof is one where the conclusion must necessarily follow from the truth of the premises. That is to say, if one were to set all the variables in the logical equation to TRUE, then the conclusion must be TRUE with no ambiguity. A "correct" proof is a valid proof in which the premises also happen to be true. In this case, the Truther's proof is valid; if all the premises were true, we would be forced to accept his conclusion. But they aren't and we aren't, and so his proof, while valid, is incorrect.
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 06:49 AM   #253
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,796
A thread already exists for freefall.

david.watts, please read it. Reply there, if you must. This is all a long debunked rehash - what little freefall there is evidence of is readily explainable by collapse dynamics.

Mods, please merge the threads.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 07:29 AM   #254
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
Sorry I missed this. I was basically being pedantic; in my world, logical arguments are mathematical constructs where the premises can be replaced by variables and logical mathematical operations performed upon them. In this world, "valid" and "correct" have two different meanings; a "valid" proof is one where the conclusion must necessarily follow from the truth of the premises. That is to say, if one were to set all the variables in the logical equation to TRUE, then the conclusion must be TRUE with no ambiguity. A "correct" proof is a valid proof in which the premises also happen to be true. In this case, the Truther's proof is valid; if all the premises were true, we would be forced to accept his conclusion. But they aren't and we aren't, and so his proof, while valid, is incorrect.
Understood (now ) and thanks for the explanation. I have some similar bits of professional pedantry myself. e.g. I often use "fact" in the lawyer's sense so something is a fact does not imply "true fact". "The sky is blue" is a statement of fact even if the sky is cloudy and grey. Then, wearing my more usual hat, I tend to use words like "stress" or "strain" with their engineering meanings.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 07:42 AM   #255
thedopefishlives
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Understood (now ) and thanks for the explanation. I have some similar bits of professional pedantry myself. e.g. I often use "fact" in the lawyer's sense so something is a fact does not imply "true fact". "The sky is blue" is a statement of fact even if the sky is cloudy and grey. Then, wearing my more usual hat, I tend to use words like "stress" or "strain" with their engineering meanings.
The specific distinction between valid and correct proof is what trips up many people who dabble in CT's. They see a chain of arguments and say to themselves, "Well, the reasoning is sound, therefore the conclusion must be true." No, the reasoning can be perfectly sound, but if your facts are full of the proverbial, then the conclusion is useless. It's a very useful lesson that gets taught here at JREF in multiple forms, but no true CT'er ever questions his/her premises. We wind up having to do that for them.
__________________
Truthers only insist that there must have been some sinister purpose behind [WTC7] because they already think there's a sinister purpose behind everything. -Horatius
thedopefishlives is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 07:53 AM   #256
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
The specific distinction between valid and correct proof is what trips up many people who dabble in CT's. They see a chain of arguments and say to themselves, "Well, the reasoning is sound, therefore the conclusion must be true." No, the reasoning can be perfectly sound, but if your facts are full of the proverbial, then the conclusion is useless. It's a very useful lesson that gets taught here at JREF in multiple forms, but no true CT'er ever questions his/her premises. We wind up having to do that for them.
Yes. I didn't say it but I fully appreciate the distinction between 'valid' and 'correct'.

As for the need to spoon feed truthers.....
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 08:00 AM   #257
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Can you disprove this simple proof?
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance; (David Chandler, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth)(1.)

II. And given that NIST agrees, “free fall” is only possible if there are “no structural components below” providing resistance; (Shyam Sunder, NIST)(2.)

III. Therefore, NIST understands that it requires no structural resistance below for a building to free fall.

IV. Given that NIST showed WTC7 was in free fall, and therefore there was no structural resistance from the structural components below;(3.)

V. And given that the only way for there to have been no structural resistance below allowing WTC7 to free fall, would have been to remove all structural resistance at once and that can only be done with a controlled demolition;

VI. Therefore, the free-falling WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
Q.E.D


(Note re: footnotes. I apparently not allowed to add URLs until afyer 15 posts)
1.) Freefall and Building 7: Search: "ae911truth 426-freefall-and-building-7-on-911"

2.) “WTC 7 Technical Briefing,” NIST, August 26, 2008. Although NIST originally had a video and a transcript of this briefing at its Internet website, it recently removed both of them. The transcript, under the title “NIST Technical Briefing on Its Final Draft Report on WTC 7 for Public Comment,” is available at David Chandler’s website


3.) NIST NCSTAR 1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 - p.45 (The report talks about WTC7 “descend[ing] at gravitational acceleration, i.e., free fall” and the “free fall continu[ing].
Can you show us any controlled demolition that exhibited free fall?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 08:44 AM   #258
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
http://conleys.com.au/smilies/clap.gif
Well said sir.

Maybe we should link to the femr2 measurements which show movement minutes before the release>>collapse time?



PS BTW I've never seen any truther explain HOW you can get "free fall' by use of explosives. They seem to take it for granted....
Indeed, the fact that CD's do not achieve freefall seems to be completely missed by both sides most of the time.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 10:12 AM   #259
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by thedopefishlives View Post
The specific distinction between valid and correct proof is what trips up many people who dabble in CT's. They see a chain of arguments and say to themselves, "Well, the reasoning is sound, therefore the conclusion must be true." No, the reasoning can be perfectly sound, but if your facts are full of the proverbial, then the conclusion is useless. It's a very useful lesson that gets taught here at JREF in multiple forms, but no true CT'er ever questions his/her premises. We wind up having to do that for them.
It is this distinction that trips up some people readng JSO's posts. His hypothysis for the collapse mechanism for WTC7 is valid, as is NIST's. What is in question is which, is true or if either are true.

I have come to accept that his proposition could be true with the caveat that there is no proximate cause for his proposed failure of TT1 whereas a proximate cause of the failure of col 79 is in evidence, the fires in the area of the beams and girders of the 12th floor.
JSO proposes diesel fuel fed fires on the fifth(iirc) floor but neither FEMA or NIST, who both looked into that possibility, could find evidence of such a fire.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 10:15 AM   #260
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Indeed, the fact that CD's do not achieve freefall seems to be completely missed by both sides most of the time.
Not sure if you can actually claim that either. I for one, know of no studies of controlled demolitions from which to base any commonality on the acceleration of bits o' building during a demolition, much less for that of a non-demolition collapse.

I would however suspect that during a verniage demolition (patently not applicable to WTC 7) , that the initial movement of the upper section approachs or even reachs 'g'.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 10:18 AM   #261
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,796
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Indeed, the fact that CD's do not achieve freefall seems to be completely missed by both sides most of the time.
I'd love for a CD proponent to model exactly what it would take for demolitions to remove several floors' worth of resistance to fall ALL AT ONCE, including the noise and visual characteristics that would accompany such an event.

If only they had a couple of thousand engineers on their side busily doing the necessary work...
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 10:25 AM   #262
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Bilbo, of the aptly named "Bilbo's blog," happens to have just posted about this very topic, although not in response to this thread (for those interested, I've been debating him on the previous post - "example 1"). I can't post links yet so I'll put spaces in the link that you'll have to fix:

http: //bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc. html

Bilbo's claims are more narrow than some of those considered here. For those who don't want to follow the link, I take the key claims to be:

"NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall."
and
"NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could have occurred."
and
"the simulations they do provide would not have resulted in free fall"
and finally
"What NIST needs to do is go back and try to simulate the actual free fall period that did occur."

Notice that this is not a direct argument for the controlled demolition hypothesis, but an argument that NIST's theory does not account for the free fall period and so does not account for all the evidence relevant to explaining the collapse.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 11:11 AM   #263
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Bilbo, of the aptly named "Bilbo's blog," happens to have just posted about this very topic, although not in response to this thread (for those interested, I've been debating him on the previous post - "example 1"). I can't post links yet so I'll put spaces in the link that you'll have to fix:

http: //bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc. html

Bilbo's claims are more narrow than some of those considered here. For those who don't want to follow the link, I take the key claims to be:

"NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall."
and
"NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could have occurred."
and
"the simulations they do provide would not have resulted in free fall"
and finally
"What NIST needs to do is go back and try to simulate the actual free fall period that did occur."

Notice that this is not a direct argument for the controlled demolition hypothesis, but an argument that NIST's theory does not account for the free fall period and so does not account for all the evidence relevant to explaining the collapse.
To which I believe the correct response is so what?

Why does NIST have to explain free-fall at all? How will that improve future building codes? Once that building started falling it was going to do what it was going to do. NIST had a mandate to find out what initiated the collapse and argue the details all you want, they got that fundamentally right. Job done.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 11:21 AM   #264
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Macgyver1968 View Post
Spank me and call me jaded...but I smell a 5 year old sock.
We know you just like to be spanked, you naughty boy
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 11:21 AM   #265
Dumb All Over
A Little Ugly on the Side
 
Dumb All Over's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name)
Posts: 5,522
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Bilbo, of the aptly named "Bilbo's blog," happens to have just posted about this very topic, although not in response to this thread (for those interested, I've been debating him on the previous post - "example 1"). I can't post links yet so I'll put spaces in the link that you'll have to fix:
Who is Bilbo and why should we care?
__________________
The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty forum word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead."
"Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." -Steve Martin
Dumb All Over is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 11:24 AM   #266
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Bilbo, .. Notice that this is not a direct argument for the controlled demolition hypothesis, but an argument that NIST's theory does not account for the free fall period and so does not account for all the evidence relevant to explaining the collapse.
Tell him to switch to being a Bigfoot believer, it is not as bad as disrespecting those who were murdered on 911 by spreading lies without thinking and apologizing for 19 murderers.
"NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall."
and
"NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could

Tell him on the bright side, he can use the same evidence he has for 911 lies, for Bigfoot. 12 years and this is the best 911 truth had, silent explosives, invisible thermite products, and no clue what physics is.

Last edited by beachnut; 5th December 2013 at 12:59 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 11:35 AM   #267
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 26,772
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Bilbo's claims are more narrow than some of those considered here. For those who don't want to follow the link, I take the key claims to be:

"NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall."
and
"NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could have occurred."
and
"the simulations they do provide would not have resulted in free fall"
and finally
"What NIST needs to do is go back and try to simulate the actual free fall period that did occur."

Notice that this is not a direct argument for the controlled demolition hypothesis, but an argument that NIST's theory does not account for the free fall period and so does not account for all the evidence relevant to explaining the collapse.



Have you taken a look at the video I posted earlier? Because the last three of his above points are incorrect. NIST's simulation of the collapse does provide an explanation for the brief period of freefall. There's no need for NIST to bother making an official statement on this issue since the evidence is there to be seen by any honest inquisitors, while the CT types will simply reject NIST's statements out of hand no matter what they say.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 12:29 PM   #268
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Mark F replies:
"Why does NIST have to explain free-fall at all?"
Suppose for the sake of argument that they don't "have to" explain free-fall. Bilbo's argument is something like: their theory doesn't account for free fall. I take that to be of independent interest (especially if it's better-explained by an alternative theory).

Dumb All Over replies:
"Who is Bilbo and why should we care?"
(i) Bilbo is a layperson who has a personal blog and endorses a minority view in an expert dispute. (ii) You should care insofar as you are interested in participating in a thread of this sort.

Beachnut replies:
"Tell him to switch to being a Bigfoot believer, it is not as bad as disrespecting those who were murdered on 911 by spreading lies without thinking and apologizing for 19 murderers."
We can assume for the sake of argument that Bilbo is "disrespecting" anyone you'd like; that's not relevant to the question under consideration.

"Tell him on the bright side, he can use the same evidence he has for 911 lies, for Bigfoot. 12 years and this is the best 911 tuth had, silent explosives, invisible thermite products, and no clue what physics is."
(i) It's obvious that he can't use the same evidence for Bigfoot, since the NIST study is not relevant to Bigfoot. (ii) Perhaps you're right that "this is the best 911 truth had"; my question was what people on this forum think about this particular, more slimmed down version of the argument under discussion. (As you can see from my own participation on Bilbo's blog - under the name "JDB" - I am not a truther.)

Horatius replies:
"NIST's simulation of the collapse does provide an explanation for the brief period of freefall. There's no need for NIST to bother making an official statement on this issue since the evidence is there to be seen by any honest inquisitors."
This is the only reply that is helpful so far, and I appreciate it. I take it that this question - on which you say NIST need not pronounce - is the main locus of this particular disagreement. While the video itself is not especially helpful to laypersons, since it's the very object of dispute, the analysis provided by 16.5, which you quote in the link, is helpful.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 12:29 PM   #269
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,822
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I'd love for a CD proponent to model exactly what it would take for demolitions to remove several floors' worth of resistance to fall ALL AT ONCE, including the noise and visual characteristics that would accompany such an event.

If only they had a couple of thousand engineers on their side busily doing the necessary work...
Chris7 was forced to admit it would take several thousand charges exploding simultaneously to achieve this "synchronised removal of all support".

He never did explain how, or why on earth anybody might bother.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 12:38 PM   #270
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,796
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Chris7 was forced to admit it would take several thousand charges exploding simultaneously to achieve this "synchronised removal of all support".

He never did explain how, or why on earth anybody might bother.
Too bad MSPaintFire is a static and not a dynamic tool, or Chris would had that nailed I'm sure.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 12:45 PM   #271
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Beachnut replies:
"Tell him to switch to being a Bigfoot believer, it is not as bad as disrespecting those who were murdered on 911 by spreading lies without thinking and apologizing for 19 murderers."
We can assume for the sake of argument that Bilbo is "disrespecting" anyone you'd like; that's not relevant to the question under consideration.

"Tell him on the bright side, he can use the same evidence he has for 911 lies, for Bigfoot. 12 years and this is the best 911 tuth had, silent explosives, invisible thermite products, and no clue what physics is."
(i) It's obvious that he can't use the same evidence for Bigfoot, since the NIST study is not relevant to Bigfoot. (ii) Perhaps you're right that "this is the best 911 truth had"; my question was what people on this forum think about this particular, more slimmed down version of the argument under discussion. (As you can see from my own participation on Bilbo's blog - under the name "JDB" - I am not a truther.)
...
And what say you?

What Bilbo posted has nothing to do with NIST, it all comes from delusional nuts in 911 truth. Not close to what NIST did, and it seems you have no idea what is in the NIST report, or the purpose. NIST's purpose is not to answer silly questions about fantasy thermite and silent explosives made up due to ignorance. Bilbo takes lies from 911 truth, fails to read NIST, and publishes nonsense.

It has been 12 years. Someone who thinks it was an inside job could have earned a PhD in structural engineering, physics, and English by now; and exposed the plot, earned a Pulitzer, and saved the world. But what we get is Bilbo's blog of woo on 911, who can't figure out 911 if his life was on the line.'
What we have is real people on Flight 93 who figured out 911 in minutes, and Bilbo who fails to figure out anything about 911 after 12 years. Given the answers, data, and more, Bilbo can't connect the dots and form a rational claim on 911.



Did you post them for us, his blog is a series of nut case rant on 911. His blog list leads to mentally ill lies on 911.


WRONG, he can use the same evidence for Bigfoot. Bilbo's evidence is talk, and it can be used to support any fantasy he picks. Go ahead try it.

Bilbo is able to spread lies, who cares, only idiots would believe him.

What is the goal, he will not change until he matures, or learns to think for himself. Lessons in logic, knowledge of physics, etc, some math could help. Learning not to be gullible will help. 12 years and he published this Sunday? wow

He has no evidence, Bigfoot has no evidence. Case closed.
Spreading lies like Bilbo does is disrespecting those who were murdered on 911, and he is essentially apologizing for the terrorists, trying to blame 911 on someone else. He has a fantasy, based on lies from nuts in 911 truth - it will be hard to change his delusion, the same it is for Bigfoot believers to drop their delusion.

Last edited by beachnut; 5th December 2013 at 01:02 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 12:59 PM   #272
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
beachnut various replies:
"And what say you?"
My view is that laypersons who take a minority position in an expert dispute (and certainly those who go against even more substantial expert consensus) should either (i) become experts; or (ii) seek the mentorship of experts who are not party to the dispute in question. Any layperson who fails to do either of these two things should, to be epistemically responsible, refrain from pronouncing on such a dispute, and should follow the usual canons of lay deference (e.g., while not necessarily swallowing whole the current official view, such a person should at least wait for a minority view to gain serious traction in the relevant community). I attempt (with little success) to explain this in the previous post on Bilbo's blog ("Example 1 of relevant evidence").

"Someone who thinks it was an inside job could have earned a PhD in structural engineering, physics, and English by now"
I agree. Most people don't have the time or resources to do this, which is why I think a second-best route is to exhibit epistemic humility and seek out serious mentorship from independent experts. Failing that, the only epistemically humble posture other than deference to the expert majority would be something like agnosticism, combined with following the development of the expert dispute.

"Given the answers, data, and more, Bilbo can't connect the dots and form a rational claim on 911."
Perhaps, but it's an actual justification of such a judgment that I'm interested in (and that forums like this are, in theory, also interested in).

"Did you post them for us, his blog is a series of nut case rant on 911."
This is not a coherent sentence, but to answer one thing you might be asking: I posted it because some participants on this forum are interested in offering genuine responses, and I was curious about how they might respond to Bilbo's fairly narrow, focused versions of truther arguments.

"His blog list leads to mentally ill lies on 911."
It's hard to know how to interpret blog lists, because you should not assume that a blogger endorses the content of every blog s/he links to. But in general, I agree that the quality of material on this blog list leaves something to be desired, and that one has to do a great deal of work to separate the wheat from the chaff.

"WRONG, he can use the same evidence for Bigfoot. Bilbo's evidence is talk, and it can be used to support any fantasy he picks. Go ahead try it."
Usually Bilbo's evidence includes (i) official studies like those by NIST and FEMA and (ii) studies by people challenging those. This could be very bad evidence, but it's not mere "talk." Anyway, I explained precisely and succinctly the reason why the same evidence could not be used for Bigfoot. And while it so happens that Bilbo actually does feel epistemically entitled to pronounce in favor of minority views in multiple expert domains in which he is not expert (and not willing to engage in the processes I recommend above), Bigfoot is not one of these domains.

Last edited by egalicontrarian; 5th December 2013 at 01:04 PM.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 01:05 PM   #273
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Mark F replies:
"Why does NIST have to explain free-fall at all?"
Suppose for the sake of argument that they don't "have to" explain free-fall. Bilbo's argument is something like: their theory doesn't account for free fall. I take that to be of independent interest (especially if it's better-explained by an alternative theory).
Not for the sake of argument. NIST do not have to explain free-fall. Beyond the fact that no one has ever given a satisfactory reason why we should even care about free-fall, it was not in their mandate for NIST to go any farther than they did.

If you want to find out about free-fall fine, hire an engineering firm. That is a you problem, not a NIST problem.

If only there was some group that had access to 2,000 engineers and a compelling interest in this question,...
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 01:08 PM   #274
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
beachnut various replies:
"And what say you?"
...
And what is your position on Bilbo's silly nonsense?


The blog list leads to other failed nuts on 911...

http://www.consensus911.org/
http://www.scientificmethod911.org/index.html
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/index.html

Oh the irony, calling themselves scientist, science, and more. Wow.

Bilbo publishes nonsense, did he fool you? Can Bilbo read NIST and come up with his own lies?

It is a lie NIST had to add free-fall, you can see it in the original data if you would read NIST. Did you read NIST? I have it on two or three computers here, and NIST gives it to your free. When did you read it?

My point is, if I thought it was a big CT, I would earn the degrees to prove it, and be famous. But, as with most CT nuts, there is no substance for Bilbo to support his posting of silly lies made up by failed "scientists".

Your first post was not specific in asking for help, or guidance, yet you are not critiquing as if you asked something... did you forget to ask a question? or what?

What is your position on CD?

Last edited by beachnut; 5th December 2013 at 01:13 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 01:12 PM   #275
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Mark F replies:
"Beyond the fact that no one has ever given a satisfactory reason why we should even care about free-fall, it was not in their mandate for NIST to go any farther than they did."
I don't think we're disagreeing. The claim is supposed to be that these 2.25 seconds actually undermine the accuracy of the simulations they provided - as simulations of the collapse. If this is the case, then even if the NIST study is valuable vis-a-vis building safety, it brings into question its value vis-a-vis an accurate explanation of the collapse.

Again, even if this isn't the general purpose of NIST or their study, it's of independent interest whether this aspect of the study is accurate or not.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 01:12 PM   #276
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Have you taken a look at the video I posted earlier? Because the last three of his above points are incorrect. NIST's simulation of the collapse does provide an explanation for the brief period of freefall. There's no need for NIST to bother making an official statement on this issue since the evidence is there to be seen by any honest inquisitors, while the CT types will simply reject NIST's statements out of hand no matter what they say.
I have for years now pointed out that the destruction of the core would have resulted in the cantilever trusses, over the Con-Ed building, to tilt down at their southern end which would have the effect of pushing a tilt northward , the rest of the columns of the Con-Ed building. This would buckle those columns and cause the lower end of the 40 storey block supported by those cantilever trusses, to move northward. Lo and behold, that is what is illustrated in the few driven NIST animation.

If anyone, AE911T, Bilbo, or joe-blow wishes to challenge the NIST collapse sequence, as revealed by their scientific/technical finite element analysis, then it would behoove them to first know what the NIST analysis illustrates, and second, to do the heavy lifting and produce their own, equally scientific/technical analysis. Best bet? Run a finite element analysis with the same or better level of detail as that performed by NIST.

THAT is what it would take to have me consider the veracity of any group's bitch on this aspect of the NIST investigation.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th December 2013 at 01:15 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 01:17 PM   #277
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
beachnut replies:
"What is your position on CD?"
I am a layperson in this area and I am not willing to (i) get a degree in engineering or (ii) seek the mentorship of independent experts in engineering (or related disciplines). So, for reasons I clearly explained, I do not endorse the controlled demolition hypothesis. Like any other scientific claim, it could eventually gain traction in the scientific community, at which point it would become more rational for me to raise my credence in the theory. [Note: there are other sorts of considerations which could bear on the question, e.g. if it were shown that multiple disciplines are systematically corrupted in some way relative to 9/11 but not anything else. But this is so far from being demonstrated or even argued that it's worth going into here.]

As for the bloglist, I've already replied to that. Generally speaking, the things you are posting don't seem relevant to the topic of my original post, or even this thread in general. So it's not clear why you continue to reply in this way.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 01:21 PM   #278
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
jaydeehess replies:
"THAT is what it would take to have me consider the veracity of any group's bitch on this aspect of the NIST investigation."

Thanks for the reply. While I agree more generally that one problem with trutherism is the failure to provide a comparably thorough and comprehensive theory, rather than a series of factoids and apparent anomalies, that doesn't by itself undercut the proposed objection to the NIST study. One could, for example, agree with Bilbo that NIST should come up with a new simulation yet reject the controlled demolition hypothesis.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 01:27 PM   #279
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
beachnut replies:
"What is your position on CD?"
I am a layperson in this area and I am not willing to (i) get a degree in engineering or (ii) seek the mentorship of independent experts in engineering (or related disciplines). So, for reasons I clearly explained, I do not endorse the controlled demolition hypothesis. Like any other scientific claim, it could eventually gain traction in the scientific community, at which point it would become more rational for me to raise my credence in the theory. [Note: there are other sorts of considerations which could bear on the question, e.g. if it were shown that multiple disciplines are systematically corrupted in some way relative to 9/11 but not anything else. But this is so far from being demonstrated or even argued that it's worth going into here.]

As for the bloglist, I've already replied to that. Generally speaking, the things you are posting don't seem relevant to the topic of my original post, or even this thread in general. So it's not clear why you continue to reply in this way.
What?

You have asked no question, and have no position? And I am off topic?

Are you spamming, or do you have a question, or a position? No?

Relevant? Bilbo is a CTer on 911, and he thinks crazy web sites which lie politely offer evidence. They don't, I am on topic and Bilbo is full of woo.

Did you read NIST? No.
Do you have a question? No?

What was the question? The point. You sure to lay on what you think is fancy talk.

BTW, CD will never be credible, it is a fantasy. So your claim it might is woo.

You don't believe 911 was an inside job, so what do you need?
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 01:37 PM   #280
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by Dumb All Over View Post
Hello david.watts,

How come you created your account in 2008 but only decided to start using it now over five years later?

Welcome to the forums.

DAO
No particular reason that I have not participated since 2008. The reason I returned was because I saw a reference to JREF and that reminded that I had been here before. I had condensed some things NIST had stated regarding WTC7 into a short, simple proof. So I decided to post it here to see if anyone here could disprove it. To argue against the proof is to argue against NIST. But, I see a lot of people do not agree. But, I have yet to see it disproved. And thanks for the welcome back to the forums.
david.watts is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:02 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.