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.
Reply
Old 23rd September 2017, 10:21 PM   #1
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Original version of BBC's 2008 program The Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower?

The original version of BBC's 2008 hour-long program part of their series "The Conspiracy Files", called "The Truth Behind The Third Tower" (or just The third Tower for short) aired on July 6, 2008. That version had the following exchange in which NIST denies freefall:

Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shyam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

This video by Adam Taylor also shows that part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJAu_OtQsK4&t=0m47s

In the later version, this part was edited out. That version seems to be the only streaming copy.


Does anybody know where to get a decent quality copy of this version?

Last edited by MicahJava; 23rd September 2017 at 10:22 PM.
MicahJava 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 September 2017, 04:25 AM   #2
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That version had the following exchange in which NIST denies freefall:

Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shyam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."
It may be worth pointing out that everything in the above exchange is factually correct.

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 24th September 2017, 08:55 AM   #3
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,530
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It may be worth pointing out that everything in the above exchange is factually correct.

Dave
True but, the same quote seen through a "truthers" eyes:

Quote:
Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds.
A free-fall collapse
will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shyam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."
__________________
"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
Old 24th September 2017, 10:57 AM   #4
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
It may be worth pointing out that everything in the above exchange is factually correct.

Dave
It may be worth pointing out that your idea of a joke is actually ignorant BS.
MicahJava 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 September 2017, 10:59 AM   #5
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It may be worth pointing out that your idea of a joke is actually ignorant BS.
Enlighten us, then. Do you wish to claim that the first 17 storeys vanished from view in less than 5.4 seconds, that a free-fall through this distance would have taken more than 3.9 seconds, that 5.4 is not nearly 40% greater than 3.9, or that 40% is not significantly more than 5%?

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

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 24th September 2017 at 11:04 AM.
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 24th September 2017, 12:11 PM   #6
MileHighMadness
Muse
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Just Southeast of Hell
Posts: 642
Free fall...not even an issue. Evidence of nothing...
__________________
I dont 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 24th September 2017, 12:35 PM   #7
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,691
Originally Posted by MileHighMadness View Post
Free fall...not even an issue. Evidence of nothing...
^^ This.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 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 September 2017, 12:41 PM   #8
Whip
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 721
straws..........they must be grasped
Whip 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 September 2017, 12:57 PM   #9
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by Whip View Post
straws..........they must be grasped
And if there are none to grasp, it's necessary to invent some.

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 24th September 2017, 01:08 PM   #10
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The original version of BBC's 2008 hour-long program part of their series "The Conspiracy Files", called "The Truth Behind The Third Tower" (or just The third Tower for short) aired on July 6, 2008. That version had the following exchange in which NIST denies freefall:

Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shyam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

This video by Adam Taylor also shows that part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJAu_OtQsK4&t=0m47s

In the later version, this part was edited out. That version seems to be the only streaming copy.


Does anybody know where to get a decent quality copy of this version?

Just to let you know that video that you posted highlights and underlines the ignorance of 9/11 truthers. For an example, the video does not provide audio comparisons between the collapse of WTC 7 and buildings under controlled demolitions using explosives. Did I mention that controlled demolitions are extremely noisy and be can be heard miles away?


1996 Sands Building Demolition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBraXwPzr5A


I should also add that David Chandler has been debunked on many occasions.
skyeagle409 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 September 2017, 01:31 PM   #11
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,530
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And if there are none to grasp, it's necessary to invent some.

Dave
__________________
"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
Old 24th September 2017, 06:42 PM   #12
cantonear1968
Graduate Poster
 
cantonear1968's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,605
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The original version of BBC's 2008 hour-long program part of their series "The Conspiracy Files", called "The Truth Behind The Third Tower" (or just The third Tower for short) aired on July 6, 2008. That version had the following exchange in which NIST denies freefall:

Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shyam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."

This video by Adam Taylor also shows that part:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJAu_OtQsK4&t=0m47s

In the later version, this part was edited out. That version seems to be the only streaming copy.


Does anybody know where to get a decent quality copy of this version?


(Only because I got tired of looking for the facepalm emoji)
__________________
Can you people please stop not thinking? - Gorgonian

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
-Good luck America with President Trump
cantonear1968 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 September 2017, 01:53 AM   #13
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,997
My understanding of the Official CT is that freefall=CD.
If we are now saying there was no freefall, then there was no CD.
Though this has come up many, many times, the Official CT has yet to explain how freefall proves CD anyway.
MicahJava, what is your point here?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 September 2017, 05:53 AM   #14
heymatto70
Scholar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 74
I know it's near impossible to prove, but how many people even knew of the existance of WTC7 before 9/11 and what the purpose of the building was? How many people knew the WTC was more than just the Twin Towers? And why does no one seem to care that the results of the attacks on the Towers caused all 7 buildings to be destroyed, or demolished remotely? Why is 7 some mysterious smoking gun?
heymatto70 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 September 2017, 07:24 AM   #15
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
There is no point to this thread besides seeing how I could obtain a copy of the original version of that BBC show
MicahJava 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 September 2017, 07:45 AM   #16
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,303
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Enlighten us, then. Do you wish to claim that the first 17 storeys vanished from view in less than 5.4 seconds, that a free-fall through this distance would have taken more than 3.9 seconds, that 5.4 is not nearly 40% greater than 3.9, or that 40% is not significantly more than 5%?

Dave
*crickets*

I was interested in the answer. Too bad we didn't get one.

MicahJava, do you dispute the factual correctness of the statements in that exchange? Which one(s)?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.

Last edited by pgimeno; 25th September 2017 at 07:46 AM.
pgimeno 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 September 2017, 08:10 AM   #17
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,303
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The original version of BBC's 2008 hour-long program part of their series "The Conspiracy Files", called "The Truth Behind The Third Tower" (or just The third Tower for short) aired on July 6, 2008. That version had the following exchange in which NIST denies freefall:

Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shyam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."
Hint: The highlighted bit is plainly false. What NIST denies is that "the time that this building took to collapse" matched that of an object in free fall. It's not denying that there could be periods where the acceleration matched that of a free falling object. That's what truthers try to put in NIST's mouth, but that's a mendacious manipulation of their words.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 September 2017, 08:52 AM   #18
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,857
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
Hint: The highlighted bit is plainly false. What NIST denies is that "the time that this building took to collapse" matched that of an object in free fall. It's not denying that there could be periods where the acceleration matched that of a free falling object. That's what truthers try to put in NIST's mouth, but that's a mendacious manipulation of their words.
Short reminder:
There was no free fall in any WTC7 video. Therefore, it is not possible to deny free fall.

"Free fall" is a condition where the only force acting on an object is gravity.
Certain points on the north face experienced a net acceleration that averaged g over an arbitrary and short period late into the collapse sequence. But those points were subject to several forces, gravity being only one of them, resulting even in a short interval of >g acceleration of some point!
The center of mass of the observed assembly with utter certainty never descended at g.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
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 September 2017, 11:32 AM   #19
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is no point to this thread
Seconded.

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 September 2017, 01:20 PM   #20
JSanderO
Master Poster
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 2,828
Did the facade drop at FF for a couple of seconds... about 100' of fall?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO 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 September 2017, 02:53 PM   #21
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
The later version of that BBC documentary was edited with little to no difference besides cutting the part that denied freefall.

The exterior of WTC 7 can be measured as being sudden symmetric freefall.

The sharpprintinginc website has also posted photographic evidence that the facade briefly moved downwards faster than freefall: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=622:622
MicahJava 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 September 2017, 02:58 PM   #22
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,382
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The later version of that BBC documentary was edited with little to no difference besides cutting the part that denied freefall.
Proof?
The Big Dog 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 September 2017, 03:27 PM   #23
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,259
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The later version of that BBC documentary was edited with little to no difference besides cutting the part that denied freefall.

Granting, arguendo, that this is true, when TV shows enter syndication (reruns), they are often edited to allow for 1-2 minutes of additional commercials, in order to increase advertising revenue. Nothing the least bit sinister (but sometimes highly annoying ).

Finding original, unedited versions of such programs can sometimes be difficult, or even impossible.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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 September 2017, 03:51 PM   #24
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,303
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The exterior of WTC 7 can be measured as being sudden symmetric freefall.
For ~8 stories. The quoted part in the OP talks about a 17 stories drop time. It doesn't consider shorter intervals, and in particular it doesn't deny free fall during shorter intervals. Get your facts right.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno 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 September 2017, 04:14 PM   #25
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 16,658
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The later version of that BBC documentary was edited with little to no difference besides cutting the part that denied freefall.

The exterior of WTC 7 can be measured as being sudden symmetric freefall.

The sharpprintinginc website has also posted photographic evidence that the facade briefly moved downwards faster than freefall: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=622:622
Not sudden, not symmetric (the facade was visibly tented in at one point, and I do believe one corner accelerated at a different rate than the other). Plus you are looking at only one aspect of the building. How fast the opposite face fell is unobserved.

It did fall as a unit at the visible top end, however the framing of the building can account for that.
__________________
"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 September 2017, 07:14 PM   #26
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,916
Sudden Symmetric Freefall? lol, WTC 7 was on fire for how long? Sudden? lol

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The later version of that BBC documentary was edited with little to no difference besides cutting the part that denied freefall.

The exterior of WTC 7 can be measured as being sudden symmetric freefall.

The sharpprintinginc website has also posted photographic evidence that the facade briefly moved downwards faster than freefall: http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/...sition=622:622
It is a lie to call it a sudden symmetic freefall, someone has no clue what symmetry means. Is math forbidden in 9/11 truth? Spreading the lie of "sudden symmetric freefall", by ignoring the collapse started before the penthouse fell through WTC 7. Big fail

Faster than free fall, jet assist, or simple physics due to things pulling on things like a chain falling faster than free fall? Faster than free fall. What units is that in?

Can a building whose interior was collapsing many seconds before the facade and roof top fell, get faster than free fall due to fire? maybe, there is no relation to CD and free fall in a building which failed in fire, except gravity is the main source of energy responsible for the destruction, not explosives, not fire. Fire caused the collapse, like explosives start the collapse in CD. That is a major logical error made by the top dolts like Jones and Richard Gage. How can they be so stupid to ignore it is gravity which is responsible for the destruction, not explosives, not the silent explosives, and not the fantasy of thermite not used on 9/11? Two clueless non-engineers believe in the fantasy of CD, Jones and Richard Gage, truth movement major liars.

Faster than freefall -
http://inspiringscience.net/2013/04/...-than-gravity/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-QFAB0gEtE
Here is why common sense and guessing fail when it comes to physics.

There is no reason the video of WTC 7 can't show a section falling at g, or even faster than g. Failure from fire leads to a gravity collapse, the same as using explosives. Gravity is used to destroy building using CD. E=mgh is released using explosives and does the work, not the explosives, but gravity is responsibe for the destruction, not the explosives. This is not hollywood, it is physics and CD, not CGI. WTC 7 fell due to gravity and was started by failures due to the effects of fire. A fact you can't grasp due to the need to believe lies from 9/11 truth liars, like Gage and Jones.

For the delusional fantasy of CD, there never was evidence. There is zero evidence for CD on 9/11. Zero is math, for No Evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE
oops, faster than g, it is physics, and WTC 7 collapse due to fire proves CD is not the only reason a building can fail. WTC 7 failed due to the effects of fire.

If 9/11 truth liars had evidence for CD, they would have teamed with a newspaper within a year of 9/11 and earned the biggest Pulitzer Prize since Watergate, but there is no evidence for CD. 9/11 truth has set a record for spreading lies of having "overwhelming evidence" for CD for 16 years, and every second sets a new record for spreading lies.

You are right about "there is no point", there never was a point to 9/11 truth besides spreading dirt dumb lies about 9/11. "Game, set, match" - called on 9/11. 16 years of failure for 9/11 truth
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 25th September 2017 at 07:32 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 26th September 2017, 01:09 AM   #27
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The exterior of WTC 7 can be measured as being sudden symmetric freefall.
And you're accusing me of ignorant BS? It wasn't sudden, it wasn't symmetric, and you yourself go on to claim that it wasn't freefall.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The sharpprintinginc website has also posted photographic evidence that the facade briefly moved downwards faster than freefall:
"Faster than freefall" means it was not in freefall.

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 26th September 2017, 03:32 AM   #28
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Granting, arguendo, that this is true, when TV shows enter syndication (reruns), they are often edited to allow for 1-2 minutes of additional commercials, in order to increase advertising revenue.
In the case of programs originally made for the BBC, of course, this gets much more severe because the BBC doesn't have commercials. As a result, a program made to run for an hour on the BBC can end up having to be cut by 10-15 minutes to accommodate the commercial time needed for an hour-long slot on another network. One approach the BBC has recently taken to address this, notably in David Attenborough's more recent natural history series, has been to make a program for a 50-minute slot followed by a 10-minute "making of" segment that can then be easily removed, but where this sort of thing hasn't been done quite a lot may need to be cut out.

Of course, in conspiracy theory world, everything is done for the worst possible motives, so the above will be conveniently denied.

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 26th September 2017, 07:44 AM   #29
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Proof?
The version you can find on Youtube today doesn't have that part. I provided a surviving scrap of footage and this text file for the original closed captioning showing the original scene where NIST denies freefall.

Last edited by MicahJava; 26th September 2017 at 07:49 AM.
MicahJava 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 26th September 2017, 07:47 AM   #30
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And you're accusing me of ignorant BS? It wasn't sudden, it wasn't symmetric, and you yourself go on to claim that it wasn't freefall.

"Faster than freefall" means it was not in freefall.

Dave
Dave, you may want to look up the three videos on Youtube "NIST Finally Admits Freefall" by David Chandler. It may clear up some of your confusion on this.
MicahJava 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 26th September 2017, 07:51 AM   #31
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,382
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The version you can find on Youtube today doesn't have that part. I provided a surviving scrap of footage and a text file for the original closed captioning showing the original scene where NIST denies freefall.
Ok and was that posted by the BBC?
The Big Dog 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 26th September 2017, 07:52 AM   #32
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Beachnut, "symmetric" means that as the exterior of WTC 7 started coming down, all four corners moved down in a split second. I think all four corners started moving down by the time it had moved down less than the distance of a single floor?
MicahJava 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 26th September 2017, 07:53 AM   #33
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dave, you may want to look up the three videos on Youtube "NIST Finally Admits Freefall" by David Chandler. It may clear up some of your confusion on this.
And you may want to look up the difference between instantaneous acceleration and average acceleration. You might also want to look at David Chandler's data and note that it doesn't show a stationary exterior followed abruptly by a significant period of acceleration at 1G, but rather a continuous variation of acceleration, starting from zero, rising to over 1G, and falling to significantly less. You might then like to admit that this proves that the statement, "The exterior of WTC 7 can be measured as being sudden symmetric freefall," is completely untrue. And then you might consider why it is that everybody but you knows this, and reflect on who's actually confused here. But I suspect you won't, because you don't understand physics well enough even to get the first part.

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 26th September 2017, 07:55 AM   #34
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Beachnut, "symmetric" means that as the exterior of WTC 7 started coming down, all four corners moved down in a split second.
"Symmetric" means nothing of the sort. Re-defining the language to suit your purposes is rather an obvious sign of dishonesty.

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 26th September 2017, 07:58 AM   #35
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
In the case of programs originally made for the BBC, of course, this gets much more severe because the BBC doesn't have commercials. As a result, a program made to run for an hour on the BBC can end up having to be cut by 10-15 minutes to accommodate the commercial time needed for an hour-long slot on another network. One approach the BBC has recently taken to address this, notably in David Attenborough's more recent natural history series, has been to make a program for a 50-minute slot followed by a 10-minute "making of" segment that can then be easily removed, but where this sort of thing hasn't been done quite a lot may need to be cut out.

Of course, in conspiracy theory world, everything is done for the worst possible motives, so the above will be conveniently denied.

Dave
BBC replaced the original scene with a brand new scene which has Shyam Sunder only saying THIS:

"It turns out that when you have connections that essentially don't have strength for the loads that they are being subjected to. And you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time. The structure has lost all integrity at that point in time."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM&t=52m57s

That is not in the original. They knew freefall was proven and quietly shaped their propaganda to accommodate that.
MicahJava 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 26th September 2017, 08:01 AM   #36
MicahJava
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,632
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And you may want to look up the difference between instantaneous acceleration and average acceleration. You might also want to look at David Chandler's data and note that it doesn't show a stationary exterior followed abruptly by a significant period of acceleration at 1G, but rather a continuous variation of acceleration, starting from zero, rising to over 1G, and falling to significantly less. You might then like to admit that this proves that the statement, "The exterior of WTC 7 can be measured as being sudden symmetric freefall," is completely untrue. And then you might consider why it is that everybody but you knows this, and reflect on who's actually confused here. But I suspect you won't, because you don't understand physics well enough even to get the first part.

Dave
https://www.reddit.com/r/iamverysmart/
MicahJava 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 26th September 2017, 08:01 AM   #37
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Of course, in conspiracy theory world, everything is done for the worst possible motives, so the above will be conveniently denied.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
They knew freefall was proven and quietly shaped their propaganda to accommodate that.
Told you.

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 26th September 2017, 08:02 AM   #38
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Appeal to ridicule noted; presumably you have no other avenue open.

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 26th September 2017, 08:28 AM   #39
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,382
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
BBC replaced the original scene with a brand new scene which has Shyam Sunder only saying THIS:

"It turns out that when you have connections that essentially don't have strength for the loads that they are being subjected to. And you have this massive failure of a column it does not take time. The structure has lost all integrity at that point in time."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbMfTtHkYM&t=52m57s

That is not in the original. They knew freefall was proven and quietly shaped their propaganda to accommodate that.
Based on the other appearances of Shyam Sunder in the BBC video, it is apparent that the interview in the truther video was taken from a completely different interview released after the WTC7 Nist report was released
The Big Dog 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 26th September 2017, 08:32 AM   #40
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: 26,418
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Narrator: "The scientists timed the fall of the top 17 floors before they disappeared from view. It took 5.4 seconds. A free-fall collapse will have taken 3.9 seconds."

Shyam: "Clearly, the time that this building took to collapse was longer by almost 40-50% than the free-fall time of an object. Well, 40% is a lot longer. It's not 5%, it's 40%. It's huge."
MicahJava, if you'd like to take a break from appeals to ridicule, random insults, thread derails and unfounded speculation, would you like to explain which part of the above is factually inaccurate, or admit that you can't?

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
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 10:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.