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 23rd June 2013, 09:19 AM   #41
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Wow free fall. Is that a joke.


The idiocy is that there was so little resistance. Most of each tower was pristine and supposedly undamaged.
I discussed the resistance of WTC7 in the OP, and I point out that the interior collapse load overcomes it. Read the OP. Also, again I say this discussion is only about WTC7. No derails. If you wish to discuss WTC1 and 2 collapse progression, use the search function or index and find the appropriate thread: there are several.
__________________
"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 23rd June 2013, 09:24 AM   #42
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
So you don't know?
I could look it up, but then I'd be doing your work for you. As it is, your question appears, maybe due to its brevity and lack of detail, to be irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to JAQ, do it elsewhere please.
__________________
"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 23rd June 2013, 09:27 AM   #43
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by lexicon008 View Post
So yes..the free fall = CD argument essentially fails. It is however pretty hard to not say that the collapses happened alot faster then one would expect from a resistant structure. This is what implies that there was some other forces involved..one of which could have been CD.
It doesn't imply. It demands.
Clayton Moore 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 23rd June 2013, 09:53 AM   #44
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
It doesn't imply. It demands.
It does neither. Please reread the OP: interior collapse load overcomes resistance. Show your work, if you disagree, otherwise please take your complete conjecture elsewhere.
__________________
"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 23rd June 2013, 10:05 AM   #45
lexicon008
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 241
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
lexicon008, it is a refreshing change to encounter a poster here who at least sympathizes with, or assigns a significant likelihood to, 9/11 "Truth" claims of CD and who is able to hold differentiated views on single topics, agreeing with counterclaims when those seem well supported.
Thanks for that.

You're welcome.



It's pretty sad when a group that pretends to be of technical professionals doesn't define its terms, wouldn't you say?

It happens on both sides sadly, but yes, they should be more clear.


Nope. Do you know that part of the north wall, which supposedly fell oh so neatly, actually fell across the street and on top (on the roof) of another highrise there, damaging that other building so severely it had to be demolished in turn? Debris from WTC7 also crossed the street to the west, slamming high into the Verizon building and contributing to the Verizon's >1 billion damage bill.
This is pretty damned different from "into the footprint" and a major deception (lie), in my opinion. You can't possibly say "into foot print" or even "pretty damn close to footprint", if you destroy and majorly damage buildings on the other side of at least two streets!

Ok i'll give you that but only because classical CDs have the opportunity wrap the structure and surrounding area to lessen damage and possibility of errant materials. And the fact that the structure was not predemolished so had far more mass and material to eject




But back to the point I made:

You had previously agreed that the "freefall" argument isn't valid, and I had asked you what you make of the fact that Gage and, supposedly, his 1900+ A&E, push that argument anyway. You handwaved this question, saying it's just one argument, and perhaps not central.

Now you agree that several other of the arguments Gage and his supposed 1900+ make about WTC are also invalid, or at least weak or ill-defined.

Is it maybe time for you to step back and assume that Gage does not present good arguments for a CD of WTC7 - period? And if he doesn't - who else does? Do any good arguments exist - at all?

I think not.
And as i have said..while i find the idea of a CD possible..i find it improbable based on a number of reasons. I am not however, an engineer nor an architect. I also don't have access to all the materials they have.
You however must also realize that the AE group has not been given access to the remaining materials for testing purposes. Nor were they given the technical data used for the simulations. In an open discussion, those items need to be available to both sides. Perhaps if they were given the information they want many of them would change their minds and drop the issue?

Last edited by lexicon008; 23rd June 2013 at 10:06 AM.
lexicon008 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 23rd June 2013, 10:22 AM   #46
cmckay
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by lexicon008 View Post
And as i have said..while i find the idea of a CD possible..i find it improbable based on a number of reasons. I am not however, an engineer nor an architect. I also don't have access to all the materials they have.
You however must also realize that the AE group has not been given access to the remaining materials for testing purposes. Nor were they given the technical data used for the simulations. In an open discussion, those items need to be available to both sides. Perhaps if they were given the information they want many of them would change their minds and drop the issue?
Although I find the CD theories to be baseless, I do think NIST should release it's data for their simulation of the collapse. It would be very useful to have it.
cmckay 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 23rd June 2013, 10:37 AM   #47
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by cmckay View Post
Although I find the CD theories to be baseless, I do think NIST should release it's data for their simulation of the collapse. It would be very useful to have it.
NIST vs. AE911 and simulations sounds like a great topic for another thread. One may even already exist.
__________________
"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 23rd June 2013, 01:51 PM   #48
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Except he doesn't. All four points are fully in agreement with observed reality:
- He compares models to the behaivious he describes, i.e. average acceleration over several seconds - both align sufficiently

wrong, when he speaks of freefall, he said it did not happen.
sunder - "the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds............And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."



so structural failures had to take place and everything was not instantaneous implies there should have been structural resistance throughout the whole fall and no instantaneous/freefall/g moment.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
-- The failure was indeed not instantaneous, as acceleration increased gradually from 0 to about g over a serious span of time.
true but what would the lead NIST investigator say about g.

sunder - "And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."

he equates freefall with instantaneous meaning there was NO structural resistance.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
- Of course there was structural resistance - since acceleration was well under for most of the fall as well as on average
of course.

Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
- Once this period of progressive failure of vertical supports lower in the north wall had practically finished, there was no, or negligible, net resistance from that sub-assembly
hum, it would be nice if they kept that steel so we could analyze that hypothesis.
so are you saying "about g" like you stated above or "g".
Senenmut 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 23rd June 2013, 02:16 PM   #49
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
wrong, when he speaks of freefall, he said it did not happen.
This is the essence: "the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time" - meaning: The entire collapse took longer than complete free fall would have.
He then goes on to explain what "free fall time" is, and why they also expected the collapse to take longer than a complete free fall.

The original myth was that the entire building collapsed "at virtually free fall speed", which is what he seems to be addressing.
AsbjornAndersen 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 23rd June 2013, 02:28 PM   #50
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen View Post
This is the essence: "the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time" - meaning: The entire collapse took longer than complete free fall would have.
He then goes on to explain what "free fall time" is, and why they also expected the collapse to take longer than a complete free fall.

The original myth was that the entire building collapsed "at virtually free fall speed", which is what he seems to be addressing.
he speaks of free fall in general and describes what it means when free fall occurs.
sunder - " a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."
Senenmut 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 23rd June 2013, 02:37 PM   #51
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
he speaks of free fall in general and describes what it means when free fall occurs.
sunder - " a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."
No, like I said, he goes on to explain what he means by "free fall time", after stating that the collapse took longer than "free fall time":
AsbjornAndersen 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 23rd June 2013, 03:02 PM   #52
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen View Post
No, like I said, he goes on to explain what he means by "free fall time", after stating that the collapse took longer than "free fall time":
but it hit "free fall" which means according to sunder that the building or a "object that has no...uh... structural components below it."

I get what you are saying but he was using averages. the orginal question dealt with the nist report claims 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. after chandler brought up his math, nist had to break it up into 3 stages and low and behold.......free fall. and what did sunder say about free fall " a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."

from nist webpage: During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

sounds like sunder slipped there don't ya think!! columns buckling is providing resistance and the model does not show "free fall."


http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...n-by-fire.html

Last edited by Senenmut; 23rd June 2013 at 03:04 PM.
Senenmut 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 23rd June 2013, 03:58 PM   #53
AsbjornAndersen
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 77
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
but it hit "free fall" which means according to sunder that the building or a "object that has no...uh... structural components below it."
No, in the original context that is his definition of the time for a complete free fall.

Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
the orginal question dealt with the nist report claims 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. after chandler brought up his math, nist had to break it up into 3 stages and low and behold.......free fall.
NIST didn't "have to" break the collapse up in stages. They went beyond the scope of the report to add that section ("for discussion purposes"), but it didn't change any of their conclusions including the measured collapse time.

Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
from nist webpage: During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

sounds like sunder slipped there don't ya think!! columns buckling is providing resistance and the model does not show "free fall."
No, I don't. The acceleration gradually increased and fluctuated g for a duration (what NIST calls "stage 2"), which just shows that at that point in time, the structural support(of the perimeter wall) would have been neglible, which is consistent with most of the internal structure having already collapsed and likely serving as an extra down-pull.

If there was a slip on NIST's part, it would be that they went beyond the scope of the report in hope to clarify things about the collapse progression to people who do not understand the technicalities anyway.

Hasn't this been discussed at great length already?
AsbjornAndersen 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 23rd June 2013, 05:30 PM   #54
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
but it hit "free fall" which means according to sunder that the building or a "object that has no...uh... structural components below it."

I get what you are saying but he was using averages. the orginal question dealt with the nist report claims 40% slower than freefall based on a single data point. after chandler brought up his math, nist had to break it up into 3 stages and low and behold.......free fall. and what did sunder say about free fall " a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."

from nist webpage: During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

sounds like sunder slipped there don't ya think!! columns buckling is providing resistance and the model does not show "free fall."


http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...n-by-fire.html
NIST, sunder, etc. are not germane to the OP, Senenmut. I show there that freefall is no more proof of a controlled demolition than not-freefall, therefore there was freefall or not is not proof of CD according to the OP.

If you disagree, please show your work. References to experts and other prior work will not make your case. Facts and reasoning will. If it helps any, I believe NIST was wrong to state there was any set period of freefall, because there is no proof that there was constant freefall. This is stated in the OP. Feel free to go to the femr2 thread linked to in the OP for plenty of research material on what the actual acceleration profile looked like, and none of the detailed profiles there (including the NIST profile) look like a step function: instant, constant free fall.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 23rd June 2013 at 05:31 PM.
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 23rd June 2013, 05:41 PM   #55
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen View Post
No, in the original context that is his definition of the time for a complete free fall.
free fall is free fall. period. I don't think you understand the word. if there was resistance all the way down then what? if there was resistance all the way down then for x amount of feet NO RESISTANCE, then what. if there was resistance all the way down then for x amount of feet NO RESISTANCE then resistance again, then what?



Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen View Post
NIST didn't "have to" break the collapse up in stages. They went beyond the scope of the report to add that section ("for discussion purposes"), but it didn't change any of their conclusions including the measured collapse time.
ok? they did break it up after chandler called them out though didn't they?



Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen View Post
No, I don't. The acceleration gradually increased and fluctuated g for a duration (what NIST calls "stage 2"), which just shows that at that point in time, the structural support(of the perimeter wall) would have been neglible, which is consistent with most of the internal structure having already collapsed and likely serving as an extra down-pull.
does the computer sim show free fall? your just making stuff up and have no forensic evidence (steel beams from those locations that show bucking and such). we can watch the vid showing the collapse but can only speculate to what is going on in the inside. neglible is resistance therefor sunders remark about "a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it" would be incorrect. are you going against the lead investigator of wtc 7 from the NIST and say that resistance can = free fall along with physics in general?

Originally Posted by AsbjornAndersen View Post
If there was a slip on NIST's part, it would be that they went beyond the scope of the report in hope to clarify things about the collapse progression to people who do not understand the technicalities anyway.

Hasn't this been discussed at great length already?
sure...sounds like some good spin to me.
Senenmut 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 23rd June 2013, 05:50 PM   #56
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
NIST, sunder, etc. are not germane to the OP, Senenmut. I show there that freefall is no more proof of a controlled demolition than not-freefall, therefore there was freefall or not is not proof of CD according to the OP.

If you disagree, please show your work. References to experts and other prior work will not make your case. Facts and reasoning will. If it helps any, I believe NIST was wrong to state there was any set period of freefall, because there is no proof that there was constant freefall. This is stated in the OP. Feel free to go to the femr2 thread linked to in the OP for plenty of research material on what the actual acceleration profile looked like, and none of the detailed profiles there (including the NIST profile) look like a step function: instant, constant free fall.
it is proof of what sunder said:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."

he is an "expert" considering he was the lead investigator for wtc 7. my reasoning in sound......free fall = no structural componets below it.

but yeah, I agree with you that a controlled demo can be non FF or part FF or just about any combination of non FF and FF that one would like if you so desired in your construction of your demo.
Senenmut 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 23rd June 2013, 06:00 PM   #57
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
it is proof of what sunder said:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it."
Great, take it up with Sunder.

Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
he is an "expert" considering he was the lead investigator for wtc 7.
Great, take it up with Sunder.

Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
my reasoning in sound......free fall = no structural componets below it.
This is incorrect. Freefall can also mean that forces resisting are equaled by forces pulling plus the affect of gravity. If you disagree, show your work.

Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
but yeah, I agree with you that a controlled demo can be non FF or part FF or just about any combination of non FF and FF that one would like if you so desired in your construction of your demo.
That's nice, I don't care what CD can be, although I think you'd be hard pressed to find CD's that are above FF, since that means the interior is collapsing first, although there are examples. I think one was the Hudson building in Detroit. Have fun playing around, freefall CD won't disprove that non-CD can also be freefall.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 23rd June 2013 at 06:02 PM.
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 23rd June 2013, 06:01 PM   #58
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
free fall is free fall. period. I don't think you understand the word. if there was resistance all the way down then what? if there was resistance all the way down then for x amount of feet NO RESISTANCE, then what. if there was resistance all the way down then for x amount of feet NO RESISTANCE then resistance again, then what?
The resistance is matched and overcome by the load applied by the interior collapsing first. Please reread the OP.
__________________
"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 23rd June 2013, 06:25 PM   #59
rogers619
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 30
I notice you quote Sunder alot, Senemut. So do you agree with his overall assessment on the collapse of building 7?

You also seem to think that the 2,5 seconds of freefall NIST measured was constant and not fluctuating, this is why NIST introduced the word "average" into their assessment of stage 2 because it may have been possible for "faster than freefall" being measured. May the more educated correct me if I am wrong about these two points but this is what i gathered from reading their report.

Correct me if i am wrong Senemut but by your understanding of freefall; are we to take that 8 floors just disintegrated into dust and offered no resistance? How much explosives would be required for that? If so what material would have been powerful enough for that? Remember that this material must not cause any loud sounds and completely destroy 47 columns in a matter of a millisecond(well at least according to your understanding).
rogers619 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 23rd June 2013, 06:33 PM   #60
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by rogers619 View Post
I notice you quote Sunder alot, Senemut. So do you agree with his overall assessment on the collapse of building 7?

You also seem to think that the 2,5 seconds of freefall NIST measured was constant and not fluctuating, this is why NIST introduced the word "average" into their assessment of stage 2 because it may have been possible for "faster than freefall" being measured. May the more educated correct me if I am wrong about these two points but this is what i gathered from reading their report.

Correct me if i am wrong Senemut but by your understanding of freefall; are we to take that 8 floors just disintegrated into dust and offered no resistance? How much explosives would be required for that? If so what material would have been powerful enough for that? Remember that this material must not cause any loud sounds and completely destroy 47 columns in a matter of a millisecond(well at least according to your understanding).
Thanks for your second paragraph. I'd like Senunmut to focus. On that, that is the gist of OP point nr. 1: free fall is not demonstrably constantly achieved.
__________________
"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 23rd June 2013, 06:44 PM   #61
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
The resistance is matched and overcome by the load applied by the interior collapsing first. Please reread the OP.
are you speaking of the computer sim that did not show FF?
Senenmut 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 23rd June 2013, 07:00 PM   #62
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by rogers619 View Post
Correct me if i am wrong Senemut but by your understanding of freefall; are we to take that 8 floors just disintegrated into dust and offered no resistance? How much explosives would be required for that? If so what material would have been powerful enough for that? Remember that this material must not cause any loud sounds and completely destroy 47 columns in a matter of a millisecond(well at least according to your understanding).
dust? im not wtcdust now am I? maybe iron rich microspheres or something like that..... haha.....anyway, if one can turn 1 inch of steel (at connection points or to columns) to razor thin, and make columns buckle where you want them to buckle, then I think you are closer to the truth.





Senenmut 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 23rd June 2013, 07:22 PM   #63
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
are you speaking of the computer sim that did not show FF?
No, I am not. If you want to bring a computer sim into it, be sure to spell out all assumptions and directly show why it disproves any elements of my OP.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 23rd June 2013 at 07:31 PM.
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 23rd June 2013, 07:24 PM   #64
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
dust? im not wtcdust now am I? maybe iron rich microspheres or something like that..... haha.....anyway, if one can turn 1 inch of steel (at connection points or to columns) to razor thin, and make columns buckle where you want them to buckle, then I think you are closer to the truth.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6c54b826e6.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1b21e84975.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d8c715f054.jpg
Please explain why this is relevant.
__________________
"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 24th June 2013, 04:54 PM   #65
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Correction

I would like to make a correction to the incorrect data appearing in post #28.

Migraine is my only excuse for saying 9 video frames. By my measurement, it should have been 30 video frames
or 1 second.

5503F and 5533F


The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, I see no resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

How do you get the vertical support for several whole floors to fail completely, rapidly and in unison?

Office furnishings fires?

MM

Last edited by Miragememories; 24th June 2013 at 04:57 PM.
Miragememories 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 24th June 2013, 05:44 PM   #66
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I would like to make a correction to the incorrect data appearing in post #28.

Migraine is my only excuse for saying 9 video frames. By my measurement, it should have been 30 video frames
or 1 second.

5503F and 5533F
http://imageshack.us/a/img542/2873/dmp.png

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

ETA: we cannot see the bottom of the shell as the columns collapse, however the moment frame would redistribute the load across the front to create a more uniform breakage.
Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, I see no resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

How do you get the vertical support for several whole floors to fail completely, rapidly and in unison?

Office furnishings fires?

MM
The amazing stability is due, as I understand it, to the moment frame construction of the exterior.

As far as the resistance, please reread the OP. It is not removed, it is overcome by the load of the collapse from within.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 24th June 2013 at 05:55 PM.
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 24th June 2013, 06:08 PM   #67
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
dust? im not wtcdust now am I? maybe iron rich microspheres or something like that..... haha.....anyway, if one can turn 1 inch of steel (at connection points or to columns) to razor thin, and make columns buckle where you want them to buckle, then I think you are closer to the truth.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6c54b826e6.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1b21e84975.jpg

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d8c715f054.jpg
Um... those are pictures of steel after having been attacked by a corrosive. Do I have to post my pics again of steel battery cases that show the same sort of corrosion? (room temp, sulfuric acid attack)
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 24th June 2013, 06:10 PM   #68
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I would like to make a correction to the incorrect data appearing in post #28.

Migraine is my only excuse for saying 9 video frames. By my measurement, it should have been 30 video frames
or 1 second.

5503F and 5533F
http://imageshack.us/a/img542/2873/dmp.png

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, I see no resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

How do you get the vertical support for several whole floors to fail completely, rapidly and in unison?

Office furnishings fires?

MM
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
The amazing stability is due, as I understand it, to the moment frame construction of the exterior.

As far as the resistance, please reread the OP. It is not removed, it is overcome by the load of the collapse from within.
By the way, the apparently uniform breakage of the columns at the bottom would also be due to the moment frames redistributing the load.
__________________
"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 24th June 2013, 11:51 PM   #69
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,288
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
...
In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.
...
Too esoteric. Sounds like you feel you'd need to insert magic there for a natural (non-CD) explanation. So your choice of wirds reveals an "argument from ignorance" logical fallacy.
Whole tower didn't drop "straight" down:
- Much of the northwall that we see here dropped towards south (the kink is the result of the east-of-center portion shifting south the furthest)
- Some wall section from the north wall (north-east corner?) dropped northwards so much that it landed on top of another highrise across the street, essntially destroying that building, Fiterman Hall, as you well know
- Some wall section on the west side fell westward across the street and impaled itself into the Verizon bldg wall

MM, why do you repeat the long-debunked, false claim that "the building" dropped "straight" down (i.e. "into its footprint")? Haven't I told you often enough to please not lie?
Oystein 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 25th June 2013, 09:01 AM   #70
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473


The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, there is no observable resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
"The amazing stability is due, as I understand it, to the moment frame construction of the exterior.

As far as the resistance, please reread the OP. It is not removed, it is overcome by the load of the collapse from within.
"
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
"By the way, the apparently uniform breakage of the columns at the bottom would also be due to the moment frames redistributing the load."
I have read your OP.

You ignore the requirement for the columns at the bottom to break in unison in order to achieve the balanced drop shown clearly in the WTC7 collapse videos.

There is really no point in nitpicking about whether WTC7 was dropping at freefall, or just merely close to freefall.

A redistribution of the load requires time.

For your belief to hold water, the load was redistributed and overcame all the WTC7 perimeter columns so fast that the roofline did not tilt during this drop.

Column 79, which according to the NIST's hypothesis supposedly initiated the collapse, was located toward the eastern end of WTC7 and not at its center.

A load redistribution spreading outward from that location, to do what you suggest, would require the east side perimeter columns to stand firm, wait until the distant west side columns were overloaded, and then all fail at the same time.

Not to mention the north and south perimeter columns.

Such an amazing coincidence of failure is quite absurd.

Without human intervention to make it happen synchronously, WTC7 could never have dropped in the manner observed.

MM
Miragememories 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 25th June 2013, 09:59 AM   #71
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://imageshack.us/a/img546/4971/xd4.png

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, there is no observable resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.




I have read your OP.

You ignore the requirement for the columns at the bottom to break in unison in order to achieve the balanced drop shown clearly in the WTC7 collapse videos.

There is really no point in nitpicking about whether WTC7 was dropping at freefall, or just merely close to freefall.

A redistribution of the load requires time.

For your belief to hold water, the load was redistributed and overcame all the WTC7 perimeter columns so fast that the roofline did not tilt during this drop.

Column 79, which according to the NIST's hypothesis supposedly initiated the collapse, was located toward the eastern end of WTC7 and not at its center.

A load redistribution spreading outward from that location, to do what you suggest, would require the east side perimeter columns to stand firm, wait until the distant west side columns were overloaded, and then all fail at the same time.

Not to mention the north and south perimeter columns.

Such an amazing coincidence of failure is quite absurd.

Without human intervention to make it happen synchronously, WTC7 could never have dropped in the manner observed.

MM
Wow, you are using the visual method of woo. The interior is gone many seconds before, you are watch the facade fall. Don't worry, you are using the video, when you need to use math and physics. Failure is your only product, 12 years will be soon, and you will have nothing but failure to show. Good job.
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 25th June 2013, 10:16 AM   #72
Spanx
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,045
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://imageshack.us/a/img546/4971/xd4.png



The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.


MM
Yep it certainly is.

Have a guess how many fingers I am holding up in my left hand and while your at it guess what hand gesture I'm making with my right hand.
Spanx 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 25th June 2013, 10:19 AM   #73
sylvan8798
Master Poster
 
sylvan8798's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,829
Originally Posted by lexicon008
quite true..probably using the more dumbed down version so the common guy might understand it. If you start going into principles of least action and such then most people nod off.
Dumbing WRONG down to WRONG still makes it WRONG. Principles of least action "and such" having nothing to do with this.
__________________
DoYouEverWonder - Engineers and architects don't have to design steel buildings not to collapse from gravity. They already conquered gravity when they built it.

- Professional Wastrel
sylvan8798 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 25th June 2013, 10:56 AM   #74
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,158
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
The idiocy is that there was so little resistance.
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
I guess some whiz could provide a free fall time vs the actual collapse time for each of the three WTC buildings.
Indeed, "some whiz" would need to have already done so in order to determine how much resistance there was, and would need to have analysed how much would be expected, before being able to describe it as "so little resistance" with the slightest shred of intellectual honesty or respectability.

But I'm sure you were about to show your working.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 25th June 2013, 11:00 AM   #75
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,158
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
sounds like sunder slipped there don't ya think!!
Yes, he made an inexact statement. It would have been more correct to say that free fall would imply an object that has no structural components supporting it, as -for example - unconnected structural elements far below an object would clearly have no effect on its rate of acceleration. Not being a conspiracy theorist, I choose not to pretend that the laws of physics be revised whenever an expert mis-speaks. What's your preference?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 25th June 2013, 11:03 AM   #76
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I would like to make a correction to the incorrect data appearing in post #28.

Migraine is my only excuse for saying 9 video frames. By my measurement, it should have been 30 video frames
or 1 second.

5503F and 5533F
http://imageshack.us/a/img542/2873/dmp.png

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.

Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.

This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.

Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, I see no resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.

How do you get the vertical support for several whole floors to fail completely, rapidly and in unison?

Office furnishings fires?

MM
Exactly.

Discussion of free fall is nothing more than an attempt to distract. The speed of the collapse proves the resistance the lower floors should have provided was not provided. Something removed that resistance. Period.

Then there is the evenness of the entire building's fall. Damage, especially fire damage is slow and helter skelter chaos. The WTC7 collapse was swift and smooth as silk.
Clayton Moore 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 25th June 2013, 11:12 AM   #77
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,158
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Discussion of free fall is nothing more than an attempt to distract. The speed of the collapse proves the resistance the lower floors should have provided was not provided.
The irony is that you neither know the speed of the collapse, nor the speed at which the collapse should have occurred. How you manage to discern that one is greater than the other is a complete mystery.

The reason conspiracy theorists first started to talk about free fall is that they could then assert that the resistance of the structure was zero, which seemed to them to indicate that the entire lower structure had been destroyed before the top blocks began to fall - something, incidentally, that's conclusively disproved by every video of every collapse, not to mention entirely unrepresentative of any controlled demolition. When it was shown that, overall, the rate of acceleration was nowhere near free fall, some tried to preserve the conclusion in the absence of the argument, and hence had to make up bald assertions like the one above, despite a complete absence of evidence. And yet every calculation of collapse times that doesn't invoke non-existent physics comes up with the same conclusion: the collapse times agree, to well within the uncertainties of measurement and modelling, with expected collapse times.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 25th June 2013, 11:28 AM   #78
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
http://imageshack.us/a/img546/4971/xd4.png

The video for the above composite shows the amazing vertical stability maintained during the WTC7 north and west face high speed collapse.

The point of failure is on lower floors and out of view.

In one fell swoop all vertical support across complete floors was removed in harmony (balance), and the whole tower dropped straight down as shown in the collapse videos.
I highlighted for you words that only serve to emotionally frame how you are looking at this. This is a science and engineering problem, see how different it looks when you don't exercise hyperbole in your descriptions.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Any vertical resistance from the east or west side would slow the descent on the resisting side.
You still don't get it. The load overcomes the resistance. Throughout the descent of the exterior that dynamic changes. Sometimes the resistance is greater, sometimes the load. Therefore you have an acceleration curve that changes. Look at the acceleration curves in the FEMR2 thread.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
This would be quite visible as a growing downward slope for the side offering the least resistance.
See above.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Other than the classic controlled demolition roofline kink, there is no observable resistance to the drop offered by the east and west sides of the WTC7 tower.
What the heck is a classic controlled demolition roofline kink???
The kink is because the inside is dropping, it's tenting the exterior wall inward. The wall is resisting the pull due to the moment frame holding it together.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
I have read your OP.

You ignore the requirement for the columns at the bottom to break in unison in order to achieve the balanced drop shown clearly in the WTC7 collapse videos.
I leave it out because it doesn't matter for the freefall argument.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
There is really no point in nitpicking about whether WTC7 was dropping at freefall, or just merely close to freefall.
Great! Now stop mentioning freefall as evidence. Convince your truther buddies too!

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
A redistribution of the load requires time.
How much time is that?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
For your belief to hold water, the load was redistributed and overcame all the WTC7 perimeter columns so fast that the roofline did not tilt during this drop.
Sure, why wouldn't it have happened this way from the collapse?

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Column 79, which according to the NIST's hypothesis supposedly initiated the collapse, was located toward the eastern end of WTC7 and not at its center.

A load redistribution spreading outward from that location, to do what you suggest, would require the east side perimeter columns to stand firm, wait until the distant west side columns were overloaded, and then all fail at the same time.
You think? Show your work.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Not to mention the north and south perimeter columns.
You think? Show your work.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Such an amazing coincidence of failure is quite absurd.
There's that framing again.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Without human intervention to make it happen synchronously, WTC7 could never have dropped in the manner observed.
Not shown by you. Do some work to prove it.

Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
MM
Thanks for the attempt at an effort, better luck next time.
__________________
"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 25th June 2013, 11:31 AM   #79
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,814
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
Exactly.

Discussion of free fall is nothing more than an attempt to distract.
Great! I'll remember that next time a truther brings it up. Including you. I fully expect to never see you say "At Freefall" again. Or any of your links you keep slinging for proof.
__________________
"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 25th June 2013, 11:35 AM   #80
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,655
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I highlighted for you words that only serve to emotionally frame how you are looking at this. This is a science and engineering problem, see how different it looks when you don't exercise hyperbole in your descriptions.
His limiting the scope of the discussion to the last few seconds of the collapse also plays to his leaning to propaganda over fact.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM 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 06:54 PM.
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.