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 6th December 2013, 06:14 PM   #321
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
....which it wasn't. It started to collapse slower than, and sped up to, gravitational acceleration. It then decelerated.
And, at the risk of jumping two steps ahead, that sequence by itself disproves published truther claims for CD.

But I will see if david.watts wants to take it step by step.
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 6th December 2013, 06:52 PM   #322
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,838
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Hello again everybody,

Some of you believe that the proof is incorrect because some or all of the elements stated are not correct. Well, let's start here with II.:

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

What is it about this that NIST is not correct about?
I echo what the others said in reply, and reiterate that:

1. There is no evidence supporting a sustained period of "free fall"
2. Therefore NIST's statement regarding "free fall" is irrelevant.

I am not here to defend NIST. I am here to get to the Truth. How about you?
__________________
"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 6th December 2013, 06:53 PM   #323
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 881
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
The core technical claim - "free fall is only possible if there are no structural components below providing resistance" is close enough to true - the exceptions quite remote/unlikely.

Whether NIST was right or wrong is irrelevant and the NIST references only lead to confusion. Rely on the physics and drop your secondary goal of "prove NIST wrong".
There's a simpler thing that proves his question to be irrelevant.

NIST was talking about the north face ONLY. and since any same person would agree that some internal structures failed, resulting in the drop of the penthouse some 7 seconds before global collapse, then it's undeniably true that the entirety of 7 at no time was in free fall.
Seymour Butz 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 6th December 2013, 06:58 PM   #324
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,838
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
There's a simpler thing that proves his question to be irrelevant.

NIST was talking about the north face ONLY. and since any same person would agree that some internal structures failed, resulting in the drop of the penthouse some 7 seconds before global collapse, then it's undeniably true that the entirety of 7 at no time was in free fall.
This also is correct. I saw Beachnut make reference to this before. The Center of Gravity of WTC7 did not get to free fall acceleration, and thus the assembly as a whole. It was good of you to bring up the point that all observations are of the observable portion of the exterior only.
__________________
"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 6th December 2013, 07:47 PM   #325
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,907
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Hello again everybody,

Some of you believe that the proof is incorrect because some or all of the elements stated are not correct. Well, let's start here with II.:

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

What is it about this that NIST is not correct about?
Simple.



NIST did not say that:

Chndler:

"Any number of
measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an
acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity.
Yet your report contradicts this,
c
laiming 40 percent slower
than free fall, based on a single data point."


Shyam Sunder: Well, the-first of all, gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure-applies
to all bodies on this particular-on this planet, not just in Ground Zero. The analysis showed there is a
difference in time between a free fall time-a free fall time would be an object that has no structural
components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video, it shows that the time it takes for the
17-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 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows, and the
structural analysis shows, or the collapse analysis shows, is that same that it took for the structural
model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is 5.4 seconds. It's
about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all
unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a
sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.

Not gonna fix the formatting, david. Problem?

lolz
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
The Big Dog 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 6th December 2013, 08:44 PM   #326
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,838
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Simple.



NIST did not say that:

<snip>
Wow, so david.watts post is wrong and irrelevant.

Not a way to go through life...
__________________
"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 6th December 2013, 09:36 PM   #327
achimspok
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 774
david.watts
... Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” due to the structural components below providing resistance ...

alienentity
... 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 ...


That bare assertion is supported by physics. I know, alienentity even rejected physics as unsupported years ago when he simpliy added the fall times of different building parts. Funny but true.

Mark F
... 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. ...

NIST described just the wrong collapse mechanism. They knew before what they wanted to accomplish. They described it in the Interim Report years before the Final Report.
...and OOPS, the FEA did exactly that BUT they had to plant additional fires, they had to guide the fire by opening the windows (not by threshold temperatures) but by hand, they had to raise the temperature of the column in question for hours and hours (and hours after the last photographic evidence for any fire in that region) just to reach the necessary temperature. At the same time they needed an unbarced column length of 3 floors minimum just to bow that column in time. And miraculously their hand guided FEA did all of this but collapsed much to slow and in a complete different fashion. Job not done.

old ranting Beachnut
... and no clue what physics is.

Right, NIST had no clue what perspective is. Therefore they measured a horizontal "pull in" of the north wall as seen by "camera 3" as downward movement and declared that wrong measurement as slow onset of downward movement.
And that "stage one" of a slow onset of "downward" movement was their evidence for "structural components below providing resistance".
Now go back to what David Watts wrote. Of course, it's the same argument that Chandler used. Tell your never learning friend Alienentity about that physical phenomenon.

Btw, where is your calculation to determine 1) the center of mass of the falling WTC7 and 2) how fast is it according to your calculation?
...or did you just adapted my old description about the still connected falling core that pulled the north face 1) inside and 2) accelerated it above gravity downwards after total failure?
But be careful! I'm sure you heavily criticized me for these thoughts about a falling center of mass behind that north wall.

And yes, I remember that the old thread about the "NIST free fall failure" never came to an end because no one could explain how the entire middle section of the core could have changed from standing to falling within a fraction of a second. There was no such thing like a slow onset and there was no such thing like a crumbling core inside the building. The NIST FEA is pure fantasy. The entire middle section of the core went down as one piece and was still connected to the outer shell.
If you have eyes and understand physics (just like you always need to tell everybody unasked) then you can see it just by looking at the FALLING building.

Please provide your calculations and publish it peer reviewed at FOX just to be sure you are right. If you need any measurements, please go to the web page of major tom. There you will find anything you need. ;-)
achimspok 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 6th December 2013, 09:53 PM   #328
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
then you can see it just by looking at the FALLING building.
But you can't see or hear any explosions. Hmm. Don't all deliberate demolitions use really loud explosions? Wait, you're going to show us all the silent, controlled demolitions of buildings now, aren't you? To prove me wrong, I mean. I'm wrong, aren't I? They take down buildings with undetectable bombs all the time, don't they?
kid meatball 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 6th December 2013, 09:59 PM   #329
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Could someone translate that into English for me?
__________________
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 6th December 2013, 10:02 PM   #330
911KookDetector
Thinker
 
911KookDetector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 235
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
But you can't see or hear any explosions. Hmm. Don't all deliberate demolitions use really loud explosions? Wait, you're going to show us all the silent, controlled demolitions of buildings now, aren't you? To prove me wrong, I mean. I'm wrong, aren't I? They take down buildings with undetectable bombs all the time, don't they?
IT MUST HAVE BEEN DA NANOTERMITES!
__________________
"Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it."
― Richard Feynman
911KookDetector 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 6th December 2013, 10:04 PM   #331
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Bilbo has been replying to some of the points made here, as I've been debating with him. Again, I have to put spaces in the link since I'm new:
http: //bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc. html
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 6th December 2013, 10:07 PM   #332
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by achimspok View Post
... old ranting Beachnut
... and no clue what physics is.

... ;-)
You don't understand physics, that is not news. Free-fall is not a sign of CD, so you don't do physics. You spread lies.

12 years of failure. Wait, are you saying Free-fall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition, the weak insult had me laughing to much to figure out what you are trying to say, or explain?. Better try again. 12 years and what have you proved? nothing
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 6th December 2013, 10:11 PM   #333
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Bilbo has been replying to some of the points made here, as I've been debating with him. Again, I have to put spaces in the link since I'm new:
http: //bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc. html

http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/...ce-of-wtc.html


Poor Bilbo is lost in woo on 911. If he has a rational side, you need to have him apply his critical thinking skills to 911 truth to see the massive fraud, and silly lies.

http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/...ce-of-wtc.html

It is like debunking Santa to a 5 year old. Don't do it. If he was an engineer, or able to comprehend engineering and physics (which any smart layperson can, and do) he would not be so silly making excuses for the lies, and the fantasy of CD made up my nuts in 911 truth.

it is sad people fall for 911 truth lies so easy, and without effort

Quote:
Bilbo said... ...
If there really was greater than free fall acceleration, then gravity alone was not the cause of the collapse and NIST's explanation is false. Propellent by explosives could explain greater than free fall acceleration.
Not sure you can get more "cartoon physics", or be more wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

faster than g, all in a gravity collapse. OOPS, 911 truth is wrong, Got Physics?

Last edited by beachnut; 6th December 2013 at 10:57 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 6th December 2013, 10:31 PM   #334
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Hello again everybody,

Some of you believe that the proof is incorrect because some or all of the elements stated are not correct. Well, let's start here with II.:

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

What is it about this that NIST is not correct about?
They are not incorrect. As illustrated in the fea based animation, at the time that ffa+ period takes place, the columns of the lower floors were buckled far from vertical. A column at 45 deg theoretically still takes half the load it did while vertical. However that requires the column be restrained in the horizontal at both ends otherwise it offers no load bearing capability.
It would absorb some velocity through momentum transfer from falling mass on lower, relatively stationary lower columns. The mass ratio is no less than 40:7, meaning at best this would reduce falling mass velocity by a max of about 12%.

Next: did the entire north half of the structure fall in one solid piece?
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 6th December 2013, 10:33 PM   #335
911KookDetector
Thinker
 
911KookDetector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 235
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
If he was an engineer, or able to comprehend engineering and physics (which any smart layperson can, and do) he would not be so silly making excuses for the lies, and the fantasy of CD made up my nuts in 911 truth.
Good point, beachnut. I'm college educated but I'm not an engineer like yourself. I may not be able to understand most of the crazy differential equations and what not you guys do, but one certainly doesn't need to be a credentialed P.E. or physicist to laugh at the endless amounts of woo within 911 twoof.

Although I consider myself a layman in regards to these fields, I like to think that I have a fundamental knowledge of basic concepts of physics and engineering which allow me to dismiss most 911 Truther claims within seconds, anyway.

Actually, I feel like I have substantially increased my knowledge not only on the 911 attacks but in these fields as a whole, simply from reading the NIST reports, ASCE Building Performance Report, Bazant and Zhou, Gilsanz and Ng etc.

Why do 911 Twoofers avoid these scientific papers, and where are THEIRS after 12+ years? What about their alternate calculations? I have been asking this question vehemently throughout my debunking career. Do you have any idea where these things are for Truthers, beachnut?
__________________
"Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it."
― Richard Feynman
911KookDetector 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 7th December 2013, 03:48 AM   #336
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
Watch -- I know you already have -- the videos of WTC7 collapsing. Now let me ask: How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall? And I mean it was instant. First, the penthouse fell. Second, the building remained standing , the roofline perfectly still/stationary. -- it was supported by structural resistance. Third, it instantly began free falling from a standstill. It was instant. The building was standing still. It was up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. After the penthouse fell:
“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.” (...i.e., from a standstill instantly into a free fall. Does anything NIST says contradict this? And if it does, does that agree with what we can all see in the videos?)
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Everything above matches exactly what anyone can see in the many videos.

Do not any of you see what I -- and most people -- see? I expect all of you to say, "no, that's not what I see." If so, what the heck are you seeing?
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
Old 7th December 2013, 04:05 AM   #337
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 23,832
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Watch -- I know you already have -- the videos of WTC7 collapsing. Now let me ask: How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall?
It doesn't - check out the NIST acceleration graphs. The rest of your approach to this question fails for this very reason.

Meanwhile if we accept what you claim as gospel truth we're left with the conclusion that thousands of charges detonated simultaneously in order to remove 8 storeys-worth of support. That's nuts as a concept alone, and in reality the absence of thousands of visible flashes and the deafening and damaging blast wave proves it wrong.

You have hitched your wagon to an insane horse. Get off quick!
__________________
"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 7th December 2013, 04:15 AM   #338
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Watch -- I know you already have -- the videos of WTC7 collapsing. Now let me ask: How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall? And I mean it was instant. First, the penthouse fell. Second, the building remained standing , the roofline perfectly still/stationary. -- it was supported by structural resistance. Third, it instantly began free falling from a standstill. It was instant. The building was standing still. It was up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. After the penthouse fell:
“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.” (...i.e., from a standstill instantly into a free fall. Does anything NIST says contradict this? And if it does, does that agree with what we can all see in the videos?)
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Everything above matches exactly what anyone can see in the many videos.

Do not any of you see what I -- and most people -- see? I expect all of you to say, "no, that's not what I see." If so, what the heck are you seeing?
If/when the Penthouse fell the enabling structural damage was below the penthouse. How did that enabling structural damage expand and gear up to enable a global collapse? Damage is not multi-directional it's DOWN.
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 7th December 2013, 04:33 AM   #339
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post

Poor Bilbo is lost in woo on 911. If he has a rational side, you need to have him apply his critical thinking skills to 911 truth to see the massive fraud, and silly lies.

It is like debunking Santa to a 5 year old. Don't do it. If he was an engineer, or able to comprehend engineering and physics (which any smart layperson can, and do) he would not be so silly making excuses for the lies, and the fantasy of CD made up my nuts in 911 truth.

it is sad people fall for 911 truth lies so easy, and without effort
While the brevity and superficiality of Bilbo's posts often do indicate insufficient effort on his part as a layperson adjudicating a technical dispute, the overwhelming majority of your comments, beachnut, have been much worse. They are almost pure rhetoric, and not very helpful. As you can see in my thread with Bilbo, what I am more interested in are substantive points. The last point you make in your post could be interesting if it involved more than a random Youtube clip, which shouldn't convince anyone of anything (a common strategy of truthers themselves, of course).

Anyway, it would be fun if more people might actually participate in my debate with Bilbo.
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 7th December 2013, 05:01 AM   #340
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Watch -- I know you already have -- the videos of WTC7 collapsing.
(Shifted goalposts noted - and your lack of response to advice offered by several members.)
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Now let me ask: How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall?
It didn't - Why ask the question?
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
And I mean it was instant. First, the penthouse fell. Second, the building remained standing , the roofline perfectly still/stationary.
That is one funny definition of "instant' - First this second that third something else - yet you call it "instant".

The rest of the post is too confused to respond to.

You need to decide what you mean by "the building".
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 7th December 2013, 05:47 AM   #341
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
...Anyway, it would be fun if more people might actually participate in my debate with Bilbo.
Your idea of "fun" is different to mine BUT I actually looked at the linked blog.

My interest in WTC 9/11 collapses is in explaining the collapse mechanisms to people who genuinely want to understand. I'm not interested in talking to delusional or dishonest people.

However if you want some assistance on specific issues ask and I will see what I can do. Try this as a sample:

Quote:
Bilbo said... "If there really was greater than free fall acceleration1, then gravity alone was not the cause of the collapse2 and NIST's explanation is false3. Propellent by explosives could explain greater than free fall acceleration4."
1 Greater than free-fall is possible, it is not unexpected and near enough certain it did occur at WTC7 - lengthy threads here with data.
2 Wrong. Bilbo clearly has no concept of the physics of "free body falling". Lengthy discussions and explanations on this forum if you need the info.
3 Two points. First the primary issue is about the facts of WTC 7 collapse. Second whether NIST was right or not is irrelevant. A common confusion of objectives by truthers which, sadly, many debunkers perpetuate. (Look at this thread ) Even if NIST was wrong it does not change the actual historic event.
4 Two points also. First 'free body physics' explains over "g" without the need for external applied force. Second explosives are not likely to apply such a force - a rocket motor could. Explanation of "explosives couldn't do it" also on this forum.



PS I have several times posted a "thought exercise" about the free body physics of this sort of situation - here is a recent example - look under the first spoiler - it may offer you some points but is probably too sophisticated to post direct for Bilbo - he isn't clever enough.

Last edited by ozeco41; 7th December 2013 at 06:05 AM.
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 7th December 2013, 05:49 AM   #342
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
If/when the Penthouse fell the enabling structural damage was below the penthouse. How did that enabling structural damage expand and gear up to enable a global collapse? Damage is not multi-directional it's DOWN.
See, when the column collapsed under the penthouse (because it was unsupported), it left the columns next to it unsupported and they started to collapse. Then the columns next those failed columns were unsupported and they collapsed, etc, etc. That's not even including many thousands of tons of falling debris causing even more damage to the internal structure. It's really not a difficult concept to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbjbIjQmdjI#t=1m02s
__________________
"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 7th December 2013, 06:45 AM   #343
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
David, if I understand the NIST graph correctly, during the first third of Building 7's fall it gradually went from zero acceleration to greater and greater acceleration. For about 2.25 seconds that one point on the perimeter wall that was actually measured went into approximately freefall. NIST said "at freefall," but in fact if you look at femr2's more precise measurements, that point on the top perimeter wall actually fell at very slightly faster than freefall for a total of about 3/4 second. That means there must have been some other force acting on the building. The only two forces acknowledged by Chandler et al are gravity and resistance. But greater-than-freefall indicates some other force must be involved. I propose some kind of leveraging or torqueing somewhere in the collapsing building. Therefore, at least three forces at play created what I call "zero net resistance" : perhaps a lot of gravity, a little bit of residual structural resistance, a little bit of torqueing or leveraging. It's in my video #18 (see links on my signature page).
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ
Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall
WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com
chrismohr 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 7th December 2013, 08:03 AM   #344
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
15 seconds? Free fall would have been what?
$0.00 that's why it's free.
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 7th December 2013, 08:10 AM   #345
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Watch -- I know you already have -- the videos of WTC7 collapsing. Now let me ask: How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall? And I mean it was instant. First, the penthouse fell. Second, the building remained standing , the roofline perfectly still/stationary. -- it was supported by structural resistance. Third, it instantly began free falling from a standstill. It was instant. The building was standing still. It was up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. After the penthouse fell:
“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.” (...i.e., from a standstill instantly into a free fall. Does anything NIST says contradict this? And if it does, does that agree with what we can all see in the videos?)
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Everything above matches exactly what anyone can see in the many videos.

Do not any of you see what I -- and most people -- see? I expect all of you to say, "no, that's not what I see." If so, what the heck are you seeing?
We see the same as you, we just interpret it differently. Read this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=182833

It discusses an independent analysis of the video trace of the fall of WTC7. It is very educational. In short, it will disprove your "instant" free fall. It was a fast transition to free fall, but hardly "instant." I would also point out that femr2 has "looked" at the collapse in great detail and at great length. Your "looked" is watching a few videos.
kid meatball 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 7th December 2013, 08:18 AM   #346
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,838
Originally Posted by kid meatball View Post
We see the same as you, we just interpret it differently. Read this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=182833

It discusses an independent analysis of the video trace of the fall of WTC7. It is very educational. In short, it will disprove your "instant" free fall. It was a fast transition to free fall, but hardly "instant." I would also point out that femr2 has "looked" at the collapse in great detail and at great length. Your "looked" is watching a few videos.
Thanks, I also provided a link to the femr2 video thread in the OP, if only the intrepid mr. watts would bother to read it, as well as the posting by proxy Bilbo.
__________________
"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 7th December 2013, 08:22 AM   #347
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/...ce-of-wtc.html


Poor Bilbo is lost in woo on 911. If he has a rational side, you need to have him apply his critical thinking skills to 911 truth to see the massive fraud, and silly lies.

http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/...ce-of-wtc.html

It is like debunking Santa to a 5 year old. Don't do it. If he was an engineer, or able to comprehend engineering and physics (which any smart layperson can, and do) he would not be so silly making excuses for the lies, and the fantasy of CD made up my nuts in 911 truth.

it is sad people fall for 911 truth lies so easy, and without effort

Not sure you can get more "cartoon physics", or be more wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

faster than g, all in a gravity collapse. OOPS, 911 truth is wrong, Got Physics?

This quote:

Quote:
But the burden of proof is on those who claim that the buckling columns provided only negligible support
Shows what seems to be a common misunderstanding, that a buckled column somehow is able to sustain any weight.
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 7th December 2013, 08:59 AM   #348
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 649
You drop a spinning dumbbell (and I’m not talking about a Truther). One side of the dumbbell is travelling faster than free-fall, the other side is falling slower than free-fall; however, the net sum is free-fall.

Given the complex dynamics of the phased collapse of Building 7, with the central core failing first, followed by the exterior shell, I’m not surprised we got free-fall (or slightly greater) for 2.25 seconds, on one small portion of the exterior shell.

Then Richard Gage will pin his hopes on just about anything, just as long as money keeps coming in the door.

Just my humble opinion…
__________________
“I don’t look forward to heaven, it sounds as boring as hell.” Lord Postsettle
MileHighMadness 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 7th December 2013, 11:51 AM   #349
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
While the brevity and superficiality of Bilbo's posts often do indicate insufficient effort on his part as a layperson adjudicating a technical dispute, the overwhelming majority of your comments, beachnut, have been much worse. They are almost pure rhetoric, and not very helpful. As you can see in my thread with Bilbo, what I am more interested in are substantive points. The last point you make in your post could be interesting if it involved more than a random Youtube clip, which shouldn't convince anyone of anything (a common strategy of truthers themselves, of course).

Anyway, it would be fun if more people might actually participate in my debate with Bilbo.
Your friend is making fun of 3,000 murdered on 911 by spreading dumbed down lies freely without evidence. Bilbo thinks talk is evidence, and he makes up silly physics to debate his fantasy with you. WTC 7 burned all day, and collapsed. Gravity collapse, no explosives, the thermite stuff is another fantasy started by an insane person fired from BYU. Fired for spreading lies about 911.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

Here is "faster than G", faster than free fall, and it proves stuff can be seen to move due to gravity and appear to be faster. Means gravity collapse, stuff falling all over the place can have speeds you don't expect. Since the interior of WTC 7 was collapsing, the interior had speeds faster than the exterior, and would not offer resistance, but help the collapse progress without resistance.

The interior of WTC 7 was collapsing before the rest of the exterior collapsed.

Did you get it, the interior was collapsing before what you see as the facade. Hello.

LOL, Bilbo links to the dumbest 911 web sites in history. He drank the Kool-ad and publishes lies about 911 with out thinking about how stupid the lies are. He does not care, he is on a mission of woo, and he posts dumber claims each time you engage him. Can't wait for his Flight 77, and Flight 93 claptrap.

Bilbo has no clue his claims are lies. He can't comprehend physics, and never read NIST to see the claims he posts are idiotic lies.

Quote:
Bilbo says: "Propellant by explosives could explain greater than free fall acceleration."
This is his best effort. No, gravity can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

Bilbo has to present evidence, not talk made up by nuts in 911 truth.

Silly talk of explosives which propel stuff down. Did the explosives suck WTC 7 down? Silently? lol

It is hard to "debate" illusion, fantasy, and lies made up by 911 truth "experts" in woo. Bilbo is gullible, and can't do physics. How can you debate a collapse with someone who thinks silly lies and talk are evidence? How? He will Gish gallop, and move the goal posts with propellant explosives, thermite, super nano-thermite, or the super secret silent sucking explosives of the NWO - giving a pass to 19 murderers who understand 911, who did 911 on the cheap. What a great thing, publish lies and link to web sites which spread dumbed down lies on 911.


Pure rhetoric physic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

Your friend Bilbo believes in a fantasy and has no tools to debate - he is making it up as he goes. He will not spend the time to even talk to his physics teacher in HS, or college. Too busy not doing the work to solve why he posts lies about 911. Next time take physics 101, just to get some science stink on your philosophy of debating fantasy.

You should read NIST when you start debating NIST. Did Bilbo? You guys came to class unprepared, this is rocket science, and you are doing philosophy and debating fantasy. Debating fantasy?

This is why Gage has made over a million dollars, 911 truth followers/true believers (in a faith based woo fest) don't do their own thinking, they read 911 truth web sites and that becomes their bible. Bilbo worships 911 truth as his My Blog List, and blindly follows without being skeptical, he drank the Kool-aid, and sat down to worship with 911 truth, doing nothing but talk, no action, just talk. Bilbo's web site is ignorance.

You expect others to do the work Bilbo has failed to do, to do the research, math, physics, and engineering, Bilbo is too busy to do because he is spreading lies faster than free-fall. Debate? Bilbo's claims are false on face value. Exactly like Bilbo is saying 2+2="cat", and then refuses to learn math.

Quote:
As you can see in my thread with Bilbo, what I am more interested in are substantive points.
Which point made by Bilbo are substantive? Bilbo has a fantasy, you are debating lies, Bilbo has no substantive points, he makes up his physics based on what he thinks physics should be, ignoring the fact WTC 7 was collapsing for over 10 seconds before the "free-fall" of one part of the top of the collapse. What about the rest of the building? One part, in a debate of woo. Wow.

Is Bilbo an engineer? Are you? You don't have to be to understand 911 truth is bogus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE
This one video proves objects can appear to be moving faster than a free fall object, under gravity. Are you and Bilbo incapable of understanding physics? This proves there is no need for explosives to make things appear at free fall or faster, or why some parts might appear to moving at free fall in a gravity collapse. But ignore reality, and make up more fantasy - it is what 911 truth does. Can't wait for Bilbo's take on Flight 77 and Flight 93, what rehash of woo will he pick for the rest of 911 events?

Not sure if you can help your friend, his Blog List is core of anti-intellectual claptrap on 911 issues. http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/...ce-of-wtc.html Why do people fall for lies like your friend? He thinks he is exposing fraud, and he is fraud. irony


Quote:
What NIST needs to do is go back and try to simulate the actual free fall period that did occur.
Here is Bilbo's conclusion. Because Bilbo does not understand models, he wants another model to show free fall? lol
I don't know how to tell Bilbo his ignorance of engineering models has him making up what NIST needs to do, and Bilbo never read NIST. How can you make up a need out of ignorance? Bilbo takes a youtube nut on 911 issues, and falls for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgOGmUo9O2Y
A nut who thinks thermite was found at the WTC. A religion of woo, 911 truth. When I go to Bilbo's web site, I follow the links and more idiotic claims about 911 pop up. A legacy of woo.

Last edited by beachnut; 7th December 2013 at 12:51 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 7th December 2013, 12:08 PM   #350
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Shows what seems to be a common misunderstanding, that a buckled column somehow is able to sustain any weight.
I've tried to simplify it for them before. A cardboard tube from toilet paper roll can support a heavy load. Squirt water on it and watch it sag and collapse.

Back in the day, when I was young (and smaller) At camp we used to do a trick balancing on an empty soda can on one foot. If you carefully leaned over you could quickly tap the sides and make the can instantly smash flat.
__________________
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 7th December 2013, 12:50 PM   #351
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,821
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
You drop a spinning dumbbell (and I’m not talking about a Truther). One side of the dumbbell is travelling faster than free-fall, the other side is falling slower than free-fall; however, the net sum is free-fall.

Given the complex dynamics of the phased collapse of Building 7, with the central core failing first, followed by the exterior shell, I’m not surprised we got free-fall (or slightly greater) for 2.25 seconds, on one small portion of the exterior shell.

Then Richard Gage will pin his hopes on just about anything, just as long as money keeps coming in the door.

Just my humble opinion…
It should be noted that the Center of Mass of a free falling object will be accelerating at g. In fact the sum of the acceleration of all points on the object will be g. Now if one can only see and measure one point on that object and tries to attribute the measured acceleration of that point to all points, then one will be what is referred to in scientific circles as 'wrong'.

In addition, it is patently obvious that an internal collapse preceded the fall of the exterior frame. However of course, the interior was connected to the exterior by beams and girders of 40 storeys and as the interior fell those girder connections would have been pulling down and inward on the perimeter frame. When the perimeter began its fall it therefore was being pulled down and inward(south) in addition to being accelerated by the effect of gravity.

These two issues have been illustrated, described, outlined a dozen times at least in the last few pages. Several dozen times in this and others threads.
The FACT of greater than free fall acceleration has been posted time and time again. iirc that fact shows up even in Chandler's own data, though I don't know if he bothers to addressed it. That FACT illustrates, definitively, that a simple 1d analysis, and simplistic attribution of strict 1d velocities to that measured point on the exterior of the building as being indicative of all the forces and effects across the width and depth of the structure is woefully in error. Such an approach is sophomoric at best and deliberately misleading at worst. Chandler, a high school physics teacher, might be excused for failing to recognize all possible mechanisms in play. NIST can be excused for not bothering with this minutia of the last few seconds of collapse as it can offer nothing at all wrt the cause of collapse.
However, AE911T cannot be excused for buying into and supporting the premise put forth by Chandler that this last couple of seconds somehow illustrates the use of explosive demolitions.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 7th December 2013 at 01:01 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 7th December 2013, 01:02 PM   #352
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall? And I mean it was instant....
Do not any of you see what I -- and most people -- see?
You can't see, with your eye alone, what the acceleration is. Nobody can.
All of us see it fall.

Various studies have been done; by NIST, David Chandler, Femr2 and probably others. None of them show that freefall began instantly, so your question is based on a misunderstanding of the onset of global collapse.

If you correct your misunderstanding you will have your answer: the columns buckled, and there was resistance during that process.
There were zero explosions as this occurred, ruling out any kind of high explosive demolition charge.

I suppose if you really want to grasp at straws you might posit some kind of unknown technology employing silent explosives, but you might as well join the 'molecular dissociation' camp of Judy Wood in that case. Why go there?

The controlled demolition meme of 9/11 Truth is nothing but an elaborate red herring.
__________________
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 7th December 2013, 01:18 PM   #353
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,088
It becomes a tag team of woo. Who said that, Chandler did, and he taught physics. Has to be true, someone else said it. Gage has the words from experts, he is not responsible, experts said so. Gage is free from responsibility as he uses what "experts" so to "beg for dollars" in the name of a new investigation.

The primary mover in CD is gravity - E=mgh released is the majority of energy used in CD, and all in a gravity collapse. 911 truth experts are nuts on 911 and make up science to support their claims.
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 8th December 2013, 03:35 AM   #354
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
You drop a spinning dumbbell (and I’m not talking about a Truther). One side of the dumbbell is travelling faster than free-fall, the other side is falling slower than free-fall; however, the net sum is free-fall.
That is probably as simple an example as we can use. Same level I think as the classic "ball" and "lever with cup" model.

The problem for both is that anyone who does not comprehend the physics is also almost certainly unable to translate the model into any application at WTC7. Simply put if their brains are not practised in working that way they wont understand the example model. They may see that it works - a partial step forward - but wont understand why it works. Therefore cannot take the principle and apply it in a real world scenario.
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Given the complex dynamics of the phased collapse of Building 7, with the central core failing first, followed by the exterior shell, I’m not surprised we got free-fall (or slightly greater) for 2.25 seconds, on one small portion of the exterior shell....
The occurrence of free fall was not something that any competent engineer/applied physicist would consider worth commenting on - none of us including NIST would be surprised. The trap for NIST was when Chandler started asking about free fall NIST was in a no win situation. If they didn't answer he would make mileage and if they did answer he would make mileage. And dishonestly in either case.

Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Then Richard Gage will pin his hopes on just about anything, just as long as money keeps coming in the door.…
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 8th December 2013, 10:27 AM   #355
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Watch -- I know you already have -- the videos of WTC7 collapsing. Now let me ask: How is it possible for WTC 7 to go into instant free fall? And I mean it was instant. First, the penthouse fell. Second, the building remained standing , the roofline perfectly still/stationary. -- it was supported by structural resistance. Third, it instantly began free falling from a standstill. It was instant. The building was standing still. It was up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. After the penthouse fell:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.” (...i.e., from a standstill instantly into a free fall. Does anything NIST says contradict this? And if it does, does that agree with what we can all see in the videos?)
“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Everything above matches exactly what anyone can see in the many videos.

Do not any of you see what I -- and most people -- see? I expect all of you to say, "no, that's not what I see." If so, what the heck are you seeing?
"The building was standing still. It was up straight supported by the resistance below; its roofline perfectly level and not moving; then, … instant free fall. ... What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

That is a quote from Chandler -
http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/

This free fall claim is wrong, Chandler is wrong and his and NIST's graph prove it.
"A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors ... - NIST
Look at Chandler's data. Chandler is blind to his own data that shows the start of the collapse at less than FFA due to the resistance of the columns.
To this day Chandler and others continue to fool the truther sheeple with this disinfo.


post edited
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
NIST before Chandler
The upper 18 stories took 40 percent longer to fall than free fall time.

NIST after Chandler
The upper 18 stories took 40 percent longer to fall than free fall time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NIST NCSTAR 1-9 Vol2 for Public Comment (Draft Aug 2008)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
“Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time and was consistent with physical principles. “
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909257


NIST WTC7 FINAL - 1A Report (Final November 2008)
SUMMARY
"The observed descent time of the upper 18 stories of the north face of WTC 7 (the floors clearly visible in the video evidence) was 40 percent greater than the computed free fall time.

A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s, and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below."
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610


The lower columns buckled and at a small angle the splices failed, then the north wall fell with no resistance.
............

Exterior columns shown buckled, failed splices.




NIST’s velocity graph showing first stage of less than FFA. (Downward velocity shown as positive.)


Chandler’s velocity graph showing NIST’s first stage of less than FFA. (Downward velocity shown as negative)

NIST before Chandler
The upper 18 stories took 40 percent longer to fall than free fall time.

NIST after Chandler
The upper 18 stories took 40 percent longer to fall than free fall time.

Lower columns buckle, column splices fail, building wall falls unresisted at FFA. ......
It's no shame being wrong about this free fall claim for the first time. Thereafter, it's a lie.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum

Last edited by BasqueArch; 8th December 2013 at 10:48 AM.
BasqueArch 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 8th December 2013, 08:05 PM   #356
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,838
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
While the brevity and superficiality of Bilbo's posts often do indicate insufficient effort on his part as a layperson adjudicating a technical dispute, the overwhelming majority of your comments, beachnut, have been much worse. They are almost pure rhetoric, and not very helpful. As you can see in my thread with Bilbo, what I am more interested in are substantive points. The last point you make in your post could be interesting if it involved more than a random Youtube clip, which shouldn't convince anyone of anything (a common strategy of truthers themselves, of course).

Anyway, it would be fun if more people might actually participate in my debate with Bilbo.
I have been trying to explain to Bilbo how over-g on the exterior can occur, and he just doesn't understand the basic physics of a free-body diagram and how forces stack up. I think he needs to take (retake?) a course in Physics or talk directly to a physicist to have it explained to him.
__________________
"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 8th December 2013, 08:09 PM   #357
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I have been trying to explain to Bilbo how over-g on the exterior can occur, and he just doesn't understand the basic physics of a free-body diagram and how forces stack up. I think he needs to take (retake?) a course in Physics or talk directly to a physicist to have it explained to him.
That is my opinion also. I considered and half drafted an explanation but decided against posting. I'm not into blogs or YT style 'debate'. Given that forums are dying in the arse I may need to change my attitude ---- or change this hobby.
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 8th December 2013, 10:16 PM   #358
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,792
Usually all I ask is how "freefall" gives a specific, unambiguous reference to explosives and controlled demolition, then their poker face ensues
__________________
Grizzly Bear 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 8th December 2013, 11:31 PM   #359
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,426
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Usually all I ask is how "freefall" gives a specific, unambiguous reference to explosives and controlled demolition, then their poker face ensues
I take it one step further and ask "explain how you can get free fall by using CD." That one can be answered but not by "truthers of little brain".

The one that cannot be answered is the claim that explosives were used to project heavy beams from the collapsing "Twins"

Ain't life easy when you are on the winning side. You have to pity the truthers fighting their losing battle.



Yeah -- OK "lost battle"
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 9th December 2013, 09:36 AM   #360
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
LSSBB replies:
"I think [Bilbo] needs to take (retake?) a course in Physics or talk directly to a physicist to have it explained to him."
I agree with this. My debate with Bilbo on his previous post was specifically about how, in order to avoid simple mistakes, a layperson ought to have expert guidance when attempting to adjudicate an expert dispute (and especially when the layperson wants to side with a tiny minority). Unfortunately he so far refuses to understand my position, instead interpreting it somehow as a direct defense of FEMA or something, which wouldn't make any sense. You can see how this went in the previous post.

ozeco41 replies:
"That is my opinion also. I considered and half drafted an explanation but decided against posting. I'm not into blogs or YT style 'debate'. Given that forums are dying in the arse I may need to change my attitude ---- or change this hobby."
I think a change of attitudes might be good, and your participation on Bilbo's blog would be helpful. One disadvantage of forums is that they are full of so much extraneous material. One thing that's good about a blog like Bilbo's is that he takes himself to be able to adjudicate a technical dispute with very, very few words, and fairly little ad hominem. So you can have a fairly efficient exchange that wouldn't take too much of your time. A while back on this forum Oystein noted that he had had a respectful debate with Bilbo. (Speaking of which, what happened to Oystein? And Sunstealer?)

Grizzly Bear replies:
"Usually all I ask is how "freefall" gives a specific, unambiguous reference to explosives and controlled demolition, then their poker face ensues"
This is one reason why Bilbo's post is somewhat more interesting, because he makes the more narrow argument that the official explanation merely fails to explain free fall, and that on the basis of this more study is needed. That being said, as far as I can tell Bilbo does think free fall is evidence of controlled demolition, on the basis of a superficial common sense style argument: (i) one way to achieve free fall is to remove all supports all at once; (ii) one way to remove all supports all at once is controlled demolition; (iii) so one way to achieve free fall is controlled demolition.

One argument offered here against the more narrow claim is that insofar as the NIST simulation model wasn't intended to explain all parts of the collapse, but merely the onset, the 2.25 seconds in question are not germane. This claim is somewhat hard to evaluate as a layperson. A model is always idealized in multiple respects, but that doesn't mean all anomalies in the explanandum would be acceptable. So it's important to know which sorts of anomalies are problematic and which are not. I don't know how to do this except by either (i) becoming a trained expert with lots of experience in this sort of thing; or (ii) extensive review and engagement with experts who have such experience. Of course Bilbo is implicitly unwilling to do this (I say "implicitly" because, as you can see from the previous post on his blog, he seems to refuse to respond to this aspect of my position).
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
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 09:53 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.