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 5th December 2013, 01:43 PM   #281
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 16,647
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
No particular reason that I have not participated since 2008. The reason I returned was because I saw a reference to JREF and that reminded that I had been here before. I had condensed some things NIST had stated regarding WTC7 into a short, simple proof. So I decided to post it here to see if anyone here could disprove it. To argue against the proof is to argue against NIST. But, I see a lot of people do not agree. But, I have yet to see it disproved. And thanks for the welcome back to the forums.
Yet to see what disproved? No one has yet proven a significant period where the building was freely falling, and no one has proven that it is impossible for the observed exterior of a freely collapsing building to reach, or even exceed, freefall acceleration.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 01:44 PM   #282
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Mark F replies:
"Beyond the fact that no one has ever given a satisfactory reason why we should even care about free-fall, it was not in their mandate for NIST to go any farther than they did."
I don't think we're disagreeing. The claim is supposed to be that these 2.25 seconds actually undermine the accuracy of the simulations they provided - as simulations of the collapse. If this is the case, then even if the NIST study is valuable vis-a-vis building safety, it brings into question its value vis-a-vis an accurate explanation of the collapse.

Again, even if this isn't the general purpose of NIST or their study, it's of independent interest whether this aspect of the study is accurate or not.
No simulation will ever 100% match observed collapse. That is impossible. If it were possible one would expect that someone among 2000 professionals in the business of structural design would have produced it sometime in the last dozen years.
However, the claim here us specifically that the fea based animation shows no basis for a free fall period of 2.25 seconds.
There are several problems with the claim. First, as pointed out above, there is a point in the animation at which there is basically no column at the eight floor level, that is less than around 45 degrees from vertical. At that tilt, with consequent loss of bottom end constraint ( the fastening of columns to foundation, disallowing that end from sliding away) would result in basically zero vertical support for the 40 floor section above.
Second, AE911T's characterization of the 2.25 second period is not accurate. It is rather disingenuous to accuse NIST of not explaining every detail if one is going to be equal or greater in one's parsimony wrt detail. In point of fact that time period saw the acelleration, of the points on the building being monitored, to increase to 'g' only as as it further increased through that rate. So what? Well, given that in simple vertical motion no object falling freely can exceed 'g' unless another force on that object is in play. Secondly, this collapse was decidedly not 1d event. It was a sequence of collapse taking place in, obviously ( though AE911T never seems to grasp this), in a 3 dimensional structure. Thus simple vertical motion analysis is most certainly vastly too simplistic an analysis on which to make the declarations that AE911T does. Rotational effects can easily increase the 1d measurement and show an increase in acceleration.
Internal collapse as is patently obvious as happening prior to facade fall, can cause a leveraged downward force on the structure of the facade, thus increasing the force causing the facade to fall.

AE911T's declarative statements simply do not take into account anything other than a simplistic, high school level , analysis, yet they tout this as a challenge to the extreme number crunching that is the NIST finite element analysis!

It is commonly known as folly to bring a knife to a gun battle. What does it say then of the group that doesn't even understand that they are the one holding a knife while the other guy brandishes a .45 automatic?

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th December 2013 at 02:01 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 5th December 2013, 01:47 PM   #283
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,915
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
No particular reason that I have not participated since 2008. The reason I returned was because I saw a reference to JREF and that reminded that I had been here before. I had condensed some things NIST had stated regarding WTC7 into a short, simple proof. So I decided to post it here to see if anyone here could disprove it. To argue against the proof is to argue against NIST. But, I see a lot of people do not agree. But, I have yet to see it disproved. And thanks for the welcome back to the forums.
It is BS, nonsense, fantasy. You took stuff made up by nuts in 911 truth, it was wrong at
[quote=david.watts;9672714]Can you disprove this simple proof?
I. Given that “free fall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building” [quote]
Your first statement is false. You made it up, or plagiarized if from the 911 truth CD fantasy bag of woo.

A lie makes your proof silly nonsense. Out of the box wrong. Bet the Bilbo guy will like your lies packaged up to look like a proof. Copy and paste 911 truth lies, and make it look like a proof.
http://bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/...ce-of-wtc.html

There are people who fall for lies like you do.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 01:49 PM   #284
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
jaydeehess replies:
"THAT is what it would take to have me consider the veracity of any group's bitch on this aspect of the NIST investigation."

Thanks for the reply. While I agree more generally that one problem with trutherism is the failure to provide a comparably thorough and comprehensive theory, rather than a series of factoids and apparent anomalies, that doesn't by itself undercut the proposed objection to the NIST study. One could, for example, agree with Bilbo that NIST should come up with a new simulation yet reject the controlled demolition hypothesis.
No it doesn't. Read horatious', ozecos, and my posts in this thread. (ETA: add LSSB to that list, probably others I have missed) The premise of the challenge to NIST fails in its own veracity in the first place. Its similar to asking if you have stopped beating your wife.

I have a problem with the characterization of the list you posted a few pages back as containing "factoids" since each of them are either ignoring details inconvenient to the supposed veracity of the statement, misstatement of fact, or outright incorrect.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th December 2013 at 02:05 PM. Reason: wow, bad typo
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 02:00 PM   #285
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
beachnut replies:

"You have asked no question, and have no position? And I am off topic?"
While it's implicit in my posting on this particular thread, you're right that I should have stated an explicit question. That question is: what do people think of this more narrow version of the "free fall" argument, and why?

"Relevant? Bilbo is a CTer on 911, and he thinks crazy web sites which lie politely offer evidence. They don't, I am on topic and Bilbo is full of woo."
You are not on topic because this thread is not about which websites Bilbo likes or whether he is full of woo.

"Did you read NIST? No."
We can assume for the sake of argument that I haven't even heard of NIST, let alone read anything by them. My post didn't presuppose that I had read NIST.

"You sure to lay on what you think is fancy talk."
I am more than happy to explain any terminology or concepts that are too fancy; but you have to identify what those are before I can explain them.

"BTW, CD will never be credible, it is a fantasy. So your claim it might is woo."
I suspect as well that CD will never be credible. What I was interested in here is a particular argument - more modest than the one considered earlier.

"You don't believe 911 was an inside job, so what do you need?"
Primarily, I find the phenomenon of laypersons taking themselves to be competent to adjudicate expert disputes to be itself interesting, and I enjoy things that interest me. Moreover, of the many cases of this phenomenon, I find 911 trutherism the most interesting. And again - I enjoy things that interest me.

Let me know if you have any other illuminating commentary!
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 02:08 PM   #286
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
In reply to jaydeehess:

I agree with you that truther literature glosses over important general facts like that things like simulations are always idealized in some respects, and that their literature uses high school-level science in a way that glosses over the fact that much more than high school science is involved in these studies. Both of these things help the truther movement convince laypersons, and are part of the reason why, as a layperson, my credence in truther literature is even lower now than it was in the past.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 02:34 PM   #287
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,915
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
beachnut replies:

"You have asked no question, and have no position? And I am off topic?"
While it's implicit in my posting on this particular thread, you're right that I should have stated an explicit question. That question is: what do people think of this more narrow version of the "free fall" argument, and why? ...
There are good answers to your implicit question. You could read NIST too.

Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
"Relevant? Bilbo is a CTer on 911, and he thinks crazy web sites which lie politely offer evidence. They don't, I am on topic and Bilbo is full of woo."
You are not on topic because this thread is not about which websites Bilbo likes or whether he is full of woo. ...
When your friend Bilbo links to web sites based on nonsense about 911, it is a good sign his 911 claims are BS. And what do you know, Bilbo's blog on 911 issues are hogwash. Woo, born of woo, worshiping woo.

Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
"Did you read NIST? No."
We can assume for the sake of argument that I haven't even heard of NIST, let alone read anything by them. My post didn't presuppose that I had read NIST. ...
Your post would be evidence you did not read NIST. yes.

Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
"You sure to lay on what you think is fancy talk."
I am more than happy to explain any terminology or concepts that are too fancy; but you have to identify what those are before I can explain them. ...
Thanks. Pilots need all the help they can get, and pilots who had everything, like me, need more. "how do you know... "


Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
"BTW, CD will never be credible, it is a fantasy. So your claim it might is woo."
I suspect as well that CD will never be credible. What I was interested in here is a particular argument - more modest than the one considered earlier. ...
Any layperson with some skills in research, reading comprehension, and logic can see Bilbo's argument is faulty.
The argument was based on a fantasy. Like debating Santa Claus, what is the purpose. I can make my 11 year old support Santa to her sisters by explaining what Santa will fail to bring her. Bilbo's evidence is nonsense, thus my contention you can take his evidence and apply it to any fantasy and be equally effective. No wonder why 911 truth remains in the pit of ignorance, only fooling the gullible; like Bilbo, your friend.

Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
"You don't believe 911 was an inside job, so what do you need?"
Primarily, I find the phenomenon of laypersons taking themselves to be competent to adjudicate expert disputes to be itself interesting, and I enjoy things that interest me. Moreover, of the many cases of this phenomenon, I find 911 trutherism the most interesting. And again - I enjoy things that interest me. ...
I have "met" a layperson who can debunk all of 911 truth, and their major is English. Seems knowing English, having the ability to research and comprehend can be as knowledgeable as an engineer, mathematician, and physics on 911 issues. What is you major?




Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Let me know if you have any other illuminating commentary!
Your friend Bilbo posts lies about 911. He cuts and pastes his way to CT woo-land. You posted silly claims which have no merit from Bilbo.
The CT that Bilbo has is not defined, has no supporting evidence; which is indicative of 911 truth. You think 911 truth has something, but you can't find any evidence. 12 years, 911 truth has failed to produce any evidence, and you will not be reading NIST.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 03:30 PM   #288
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
jaydeehess replies:
[b] One could, for example, agree with Bilbo that NIST should come up with a new simulation yet reject the controlled demolition hypothesis.
That's why this whole inquiry has been a scientific dead-end for a while now: there is no hard evidence to support the controlled demolition theory, while there is hard evidence to support the fire/collapse theory. (After all, the fires were a fact, as is the damage they can do to steel components)

So yes, CD remains an alternative, but ultimately failed hypothesis. There are a number of other equally improbable conspiracy theories out there, including one which involves some kind of death ray (Judy Wood and her followers).

So what? NIST has no responsibility to appease die-hard conspiracists who would reject any finding that disagreed with them anyway. You're not going to shut up all the nutjobs no matter what you do.

Scientifically the matter is settled, although nobody will ever have all the exact details of the collapses, since they were not observable and have to be inferred through models. Just as the first JFK bullet is inferred by the injury of a witness by chards of concrete, and the actual bullet which killed JFK can never be actually seen in any minute detail as it did the damage.
Most rational people will accept (as they should) that LHO shot JFK twice and killed him. You can certainly speculate about his motivations and connections, but nothing can be proved about them.
But the insistence on an alternative hypothesis as inherently 'better' because it isn't official is just plain silly - yet in both instances (JFK and 9/11) the 'official' story is rejected by the conspiracist in favour of more exotic and unproven ideas.
So it is, and so it will be.

You're right - NIST's analysis is not perfect, but that doesn't mean there were explosives in any of the buildings. That's where you get an A and truthers get an F.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 03:37 PM   #289
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Aliene, pls edit my name out. It looks like I wrote that.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 04:44 PM   #290
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
But, I have yet to see it disproved.
You need to do some reading. There are 290 posts in this thread. There are probably dozens of posts that disprove your free fall=cd and NIST said so. There are posts that disprove it long before you posted your "logic."

The disproof is simple and has been said repeatedly in the last 24 hours. While your logic is sound, your "givens" are fiction. My first post in this thread ruins your proof. Free fall is not a distinct characteristic of a controlled demolition. Unless you can find an analysis of the thousands of controlled demolitions that highlights the distinct appearance of a brief free fall in the building then you have a leg to stand on. This means that it is up to you to provide proof that free fall is very common in controlled demolitions. Until then, free fall has nothing in common with deliberate demolition.

Last edited by kid meatball; 5th December 2013 at 04:49 PM. Reason: Cant count
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 5th December 2013, 04:45 PM   #291
Brass
Critical Thinker
 
Brass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 441
Originally Posted by Brass View Post
If WTC7 was a controlled demolition, then why did the following happen?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler: He won't.
Bumping these so david.watts can see them and answer them.

I mean, ask questions and demand answers, right?
Brass is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 05:28 PM   #292
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,392
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Mark F replies:
"Beyond the fact that no one has ever given a satisfactory reason why we should even care about free-fall, it was not in their mandate for NIST to go any farther than they did."
I don't think we're disagreeing. The claim is supposed to be that these 2.25 seconds actually undermine the accuracy of the simulations they provided - as simulations of the collapse.
Then whoever is making such a claim should present their evidence that 2.25 seconds of free-fall (actually that was just an average over 2.25 seconds - part of it was faster, part slower) undermines NIST's collapse model even though the were not trying to explain 2.25 secs of FFA.

This period of FFA occurred after the collapse was initiated. NIST's interest is what initiated the collapse. Once the collapse is initiated the building is going to do what it is going to do and whatever that is may be of some minor academic interest or amateur amusement but I fail to see how it sheds any light upon future improvements in building safety. That latter bit is what NIST is all about.


Quote:
Again, even if this isn't the general purpose of NIST or their study, it's of independent interest whether this aspect of the study is accurate or not.
Then some independent group with access to say, around 2,000 experts should independently study this. I fail to see why my tax dollars should be involved in trying to appease a handful of internet lunatics who can't grasp that how fast something falls tells you nothing about why it fell.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 05:57 PM   #293
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Explaining a short period of acceleration near 'g' (both above and below) is of academic interest to a small group. 9/11 conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. That's about it!

I personally see no particular use for knowing, let alone hypothesizing, the minutia of a time period of 2.25 seconds in a collapse that had started 15+ seconds earlier. By that time the dynamic interactions within the structure are quite chaotic. There is no way to truly determine what was specifically happening inside the structure either. How anyone could possibly get details correct beyond what the NIST fea illustrated , with any confidence in its veracity, is beyond me.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 06:12 PM   #294
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,395
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
....I had condensed some things NIST had stated regarding WTC7 into a short, simple proof...
You keep claiming it is a "proof" when it isn't. Setting aside your untruthfulness on that aspect this was the opening statement of your post which claimed to present a "proof":
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
Can you disprove this simple proof?....
..there are at least two fatal errors in those six words. That alone must be some sort of record.

ERROR #1 - Every element of fact which your claim relies on is in error. The logic you rely on requires logical AND of all those elements. So you are not simply wrong but wrong several times over.

ERROR #2 - it is NOT our burden to prove your claim wrong - it is your burden to prove it right. You have not done so. And you have ignored advice which has identified multiple errors of fact for you.

So your claim does not warrant any response - the errors of fact have been identified for you. I identified that all your claimed facts are in error. Other members have variously identified that some of the facts as claimed by you are wrong.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...But, I see a lot of people do not agree.
Stop playing mendacity by word twisting and innuendo. You have been shown where your claimed facts are wrong.

Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
...But, I have yet to see it disproved.
Try reading the posted responses. Your claimed facts are wrong. You are claiming things which are not true when a lot of the errors have been identified for you.

Last edited by ozeco41; 5th December 2013 at 06:22 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 06:19 PM   #295
Redwood
Graduate Poster
 
Redwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,479
Unless there are any truthers who believe that the shell of WTC 7 would have remained standing after the fall of the penthouses and can explain how the fall of the north facade is actually independent of the internal collapse and can provide a motive for the Vast Conspiracy to bring down the north facade at g for a distance of ~30 meters, this discussion is completely academic, IMHO.
Redwood is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 06:34 PM   #296
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 16,647
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Unless there are any truthers who believe that the shell of WTC 7 would have remained standing after the fall of the penthouses and can explain how the fall of the north facade is actually independent of the internal collapse and can provide a motive for the Vast Conspiracy to bring down the north facade at g for a distance of ~30 meters, this discussion is completely academic, IMHO.
That's the thing, Truthers come blazing thinking they are armed with the killer evidence, only There's No There, There. They are shooting blanks and don't know it.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 5th December 2013 at 06:35 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 06:44 PM   #297
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
jaydeehess replies:
"Explaining a short period of acceleration near 'g' (both above and below) is of academic interest to a small group. 9/11 conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. That's about it!"
Granted, but surely this should also be of interest to a forum specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a thread specifically on what a period of free fall proves.

"I personally see no particular use for knowing, let alone hypothesizing, the minutia of a time period of 2.25 seconds in a collapse that had started 15+ seconds earlier. By that time the dynamic interactions within the structure are quite chaotic. There is no way to truly determine what was specifically happening inside the structure either. How anyone could possibly get details correct beyond what the NIST fea illustrated , with any confidence in its veracity, is beyond me."
This is a fine point - it challenges specifically the claims that (i) NIST's simulation doesn't account for the 2.25 seconds in a way that is relevant to explaining the cause of the collapse and (ii) that we can make any particularly confident claim about what even could explain the 2.25 seconds. But as a layperson - which I am and, as far as I can tell, you are as well - it is at least somewhat important to know that experts themselves are convinced that this is a good enough reason not to pursue this particular question any further.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 06:53 PM   #298
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Aliene, pls edit my name out. It looks like I wrote that.
Sorry 'bout that. By the time I saw this my editing window was closed.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 06:58 PM   #299
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
jaydeehess replies:
"Explaining a short period of acceleration near 'g' (both above and below) is of academic interest to a small group. 9/11 conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. That's about it!"
Granted, but surely this should also be of interest to a forum specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a thread specifically on what a period of free fall proves.
Now that you mention it, this 'freefall' thing didn't start the conspiracy fever; it's one of the artifacts of it.
Both Niels Harrit and Stephen Jones have remarked that they were initially drawn into the web of woo upon discovering building 7 and noticing that it, in their uneducated opinions, looked like a controlled demolition.

Back in those days it was fashionable for conspiracists to edit the video so it contained no audio and began just before global collapse. That way it had the strongest similarity to a real CD if one didn't notice the omissions.
Hmmm, not much has changed in all those years - it's still being misrepresented, but now with added 'freefall' and magic 'nanothermite'.
The woo just grows over time, left to itself.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 07:18 PM   #300
egalicontrarian
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 65
alienentity replies:
"Now that you mention it, this 'freefall' thing didn't start the conspiracy fever; it's one of the artifacts of it.
Both Niels Harrit and Stephen Jones have remarked that they were initially drawn into the web of woo upon discovering building 7 and noticing that it, in their uneducated opinions, looked like a controlled demolition. Back in those days it was fashionable for conspiracists to edit the video so it contained no audio and began just before global collapse. That way it had the strongest similarity to a real CD if one didn't notice the omissions."


I agree with this, and it's one of the reasons why, as a layperson, it's so hard to place any trust at all in the testimony of the leaders of the truth movement, even when those leaders have some form of relevant expertise. The history of the movement undermines its own epistemic credibility.
egalicontrarian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 07:22 PM   #301
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,392
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
jaydeehess replies:
"Explaining a short period of acceleration near 'g' (both above and below) is of academic interest to a small group. 9/11 conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. That's about it!"
Granted, but surely this should also be of interest to a forum specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a thread specifically on what a period of free fall proves.

"I personally see no particular use for knowing, let alone hypothesizing, the minutia of a time period of 2.25 seconds in a collapse that had started 15+ seconds earlier. By that time the dynamic interactions within the structure are quite chaotic. There is no way to truly determine what was specifically happening inside the structure either. How anyone could possibly get details correct beyond what the NIST fea illustrated , with any confidence in its veracity, is beyond me."
This is a fine point - it challenges specifically the claims that (i) NIST's simulation doesn't account for the 2.25 seconds in a way that is relevant to explaining the cause of the collapse and (ii) that we can make any particularly confident claim about what even could explain the 2.25 seconds. But as a layperson - which I am and, as far as I can tell, you are as well - it is at least somewhat important to know that experts themselves are convinced that this is a good enough reason not to pursue this particular question any further.
Again, why do we really care that NIST does not account for 2.25 seconds of near, at and over FFA for one portion of a building 15 seconds after the collapses began? BFD. As already pointed out to you the collapse event was complete chaos by that point. Even if there were a way to know exactly how this occurred with absolute, irrefutable certainty, so what? What possible use would this knowledge be? What would it change?

Absolutely nothing.

This whole subject is just so much mental masturbation which exists for the sole purpose of keeping what is left of the 9/11 Truth Movement on life support.

Let's pull the plug. It is time to let grandpa go.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.

Last edited by Mark F; 5th December 2013 at 07:24 PM.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 07:24 PM   #302
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 16,647
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
jaydeehess replies:
"Explaining a short period of acceleration near 'g' (both above and below) is of academic interest to a small group. 9/11 conspiracy theorists and 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. That's about it!"
Granted, but surely this should also be of interest to a forum specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a thread specifically on what a period of free fall proves.

"I personally see no particular use for knowing, let alone hypothesizing, the minutia of a time period of 2.25 seconds in a collapse that had started 15+ seconds earlier. By that time the dynamic interactions within the structure are quite chaotic. There is no way to truly determine what was specifically happening inside the structure either. How anyone could possibly get details correct beyond what the NIST fea illustrated , with any confidence in its veracity, is beyond me."
This is a fine point - it challenges specifically the claims that (i) NIST's simulation doesn't account for the 2.25 seconds in a way that is relevant to explaining the cause of the collapse and (ii) that we can make any particularly confident claim about what even could explain the 2.25 seconds. But as a layperson - which I am and, as far as I can tell, you are as well - it is at least somewhat important to know that experts themselves are convinced that this is a good enough reason not to pursue this particular question any further.
The thing is, that 2.25 seconds is an 'average' of acceleration that is roughly equal to free fall acceleration. It doesn't even prove the building is freely falling. There is no basis for an argument with NIST, because nothing needs to be explained as far as the observation. If anything, NIST should be taken to task for stating there was a defined period of freefall when observations do not support that claim.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 07:38 PM   #303
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Sure, IV is untrue. Global collapse was at least 14.6 seconds, which is far longer than free fall.

QED. Thanks for posting.

15 seconds? Free fall would have been what?
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 5th December 2013, 07:43 PM   #304
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,395
"free fall" is of no significance. No engineer/physicist considering the global collapse of a building would be surprised to find bits of the building falling at around free fall.

The problem is two fold:
1) The truther created myth is that free fall not only indicates CD but that it only occurs with CD. AND
2) Debunkers giving credence to the nonsesne by responding to it. (But hard to avoid )

Those are the false foundations on which all of this "CD discussion" rests.

Partly our fault as debunkers because we don't resist the temptation to show truthers how wrong they are. So the downside is that we give pseudo credibility to their nonsense.

The classic was when that untruthful and physics incompetent agent of AE911 - D Chandler - challenged NIST about free fall and NIST responded. A hard call for NIST seeing as more lies by Chandler was the inevitable outcome whichever way NIST turned. The problem which arises so often when honest people respond to untruthful agenda pushers.

Then NIST compounded the problem by responding in partial depth acknowledging free fall. - and others then did the inevitable and went into more detail and found that "free fall" was only a rough average.

AND far too many forgetting to ask "So what?"
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 07:48 PM   #305
Clayton Moore
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,508
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
I'd love for a CD proponent to model exactly what it would take for demolitions to remove several floors' worth of resistance to fall ALL AT ONCE, including the noise and visual characteristics that would accompany such an event.

If only they had a couple of thousand engineers on their side busily doing the necessary work...
This is the idiocy of 9/11 in a nut shell. Asking how it could be down WITH explosives to prove it happened WITHOUT explosives.
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 5th December 2013, 07:51 PM   #306
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
15 seconds? Free fall would have been what?
Do the math!
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 08:06 PM   #307
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 16,647
deleted
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by LSSBB; 5th December 2013 at 08:08 PM.
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 08:10 PM   #308
Playing Games
Thinker
 
Playing Games's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Tell him to switch to being a Bigfoot believer, it is not as bad as disrespecting those who were murdered on 911 by spreading lies without thinking and apologizing for 19 murderers.
"NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall."
and
"NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could

Tell him on the bright side, he can use the same evidence he has for 911 lies, for Bigfoot. 12 years and this is the best 911 truth had, silent explosives, invisible thermite products, and no clue what physics is.
I'm a Bigfoot believer
Playing Games is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 08:11 PM   #309
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 23,382
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
15 seconds? Free fall would have been what?
Do the math Clayton
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 5th December 2013, 08:20 PM   #310
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
This is a fine point - it challenges specifically the claims that (i) NIST's simulation doesn't account for the 2.25 seconds in a way that is relevant to explaining the cause of the collapse
I fail to see how any detail of the sequence of collapse that occurs almost at the end of that collapse, can possibly tell anyone anything about the proximate cause of the collapse. Its a ridiculous premise. That 2.25 seconds came after the initial 10+ seconds of collapse and was followed by less than 2 seconds before collapse was finished. There is a reason why NIST concentrated on the first visible signs of collapse in their investigation of the cause.





Quote:
and (ii) that we can make any particularly confident claim about what even could explain the 2.25 seconds. But as a layperson - which I am and, as far as I can tell, you are as well - it is at least somewhat important to know that experts themselves are convinced that this is a good enough reason not to pursue this particular question any further.
NIST was tasked with finding out what caused the collapse in order to determine if changes to codes could be made to lower the chance of a similar occurance. There is nothing in the dying moments of such a chaotic sequence that is of any use to that task.
The truth movement wishes to claim, with nothing more than a handwave argument, that this last moment period of near free fall indicates explosives were used. When were they used in order to produce this? After the structure had already come apart internally over a period of at least, at least, 10 seconds, AND after the final collapse involving the north facade had been underway for several more seconds?
By that time the structure was, definately, about to be a rubble pile , with or without explosives.


All that aside , did you ever address my point concerning the data that shows that the points measured achieved greater than free fall acceleration? It indicates quite clearly that there must be something other than simple 1d vertical forces and motions involved and that thus it follows that AE911T's simple 1d analysis is of no value.

Consrquently it invalidates every premise you originally posted as 'given'. Odd you had nothing to say about that.

Last edited by jaydeehess; 5th December 2013 at 08:23 PM.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2013, 08:30 PM   #311
Robrob
Philosopher
 
Robrob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,497
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
This is the idiocy of 9/11 in a nut shell. Asking how it could be down WITH explosives to prove it happened WITHOUT explosives.
That it couldn't have been done with explosives (as opposed to plane impact and fires), doesn't that kind of put a damper on your POV?
__________________
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 5th December 2013, 08:33 PM   #312
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Now that you mention it, this 'freefall' thing didn't start the conspiracy fever; it's one of the artifacts of it.
Both Niels Harrit and Stephen Jones have remarked that they were initially drawn into the web of woo upon discovering building 7 and noticing that it, in their uneducated opinions, looked like a controlled demolition.

Back in those days it was fashionable for conspiracists to edit the video so it contained no audio and began just before global collapse. That way it had the strongest similarity to a real CD if one didn't notice the omissions.
Hmmm, not much has changed in all those years - it's still being misrepresented, but now with added 'freefall' and magic 'nanothermite'.
The woo just grows over time, left to itself.
Where were these people on 9/11? I knew about the collapse of 7WTC within minutes of it happening (was driving home from work) and everyone was still calling it the Solomon Bros Building. They only heard about it years later? *** holes.
__________________
"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 5th December 2013, 08:48 PM   #313
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
Originally Posted by egalicontrarian View Post
Granted, but surely this should also be of interest to a forum specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theories, in a thread specifically on what a period of free fall proves.
It is, and has been analyzed to death in this forum. I'm pretty sure the consensus is some amount of internal structure lead the collapse, the penthouse structures, and gained enough momentum to pull the rest of the building, the facade, down faster than if it were no longer connected to the internal structures. None of us know for sure that this is the case as there was no video of the interior as it fell, and a simulation can never be as exact as the real event. There is just too much chaos in an event like this.
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 5th December 2013, 09:37 PM   #314
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by Clayton Moore View Post
This is the idiocy of 9/11 in a nut shell. Asking how it could be down WITH explosives to prove it happened WITHOUT explosives.
Somewhat similar to the idiocy of trying to prove that NIST is incorrect to prove explosives were involved.
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, 12:13 PM   #315
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,392
Originally Posted by david.watts View Post
No particular reason that I have not participated since 2008. The reason I returned was because I saw a reference to JREF and that reminded that I had been here before. I had condensed some things NIST had stated regarding WTC7 into a short, simple proof. So I decided to post it here to see if anyone here could disprove it. To argue against the proof is to argue against NIST. But, I see a lot of people do not agree. But, I have yet to see it disproved. And thanks for the welcome back to the forums.
How can anyone disprove that which you have not proved?
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is 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, 12:23 PM   #316
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,395
Originally Posted by Mark F View Post
How can anyone disprove that which you have not proved?
Exactly.

We may need to keep reminding him...

I'm opposed to the "reversed burden of proof" trick so beloved by truthers who cannot construct a proper argument. I won't fall fall for it or play his truther trick game.

BUT even I would be prepared to show him what is wrong with his arguments if ever he posts a genuine one.

He has all the advice he needs on his original claim viz:
A) every claim of FACT is wrong; PLUS
B) the "Logical AND" structure of his argument demands that every fact be correct.

So a comprehensive "FAIL" at this stage.
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, 05:24 PM   #317
david.watts
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 293
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?
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 6th December 2013, 06:04 PM   #318
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,199
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?
The NIST is saying that true free fall would be that the building was at gravitational acceleration from the very moment it started to move downwards, which it wasn't. It started to collapse slower than, and sped up to, gravitational acceleration. It then decelerated. If it was truly in free fall it would have taken less than 4 seconds for 18 floors to disappear. It took 5.6 seconds which means the building wasn't in true free fall.

Sunder was trying to explain that to be in true free fall the building would need to have no support under it from the moment it started to move, which wasn't the case.

And remember, we don't post for your benefit. We post this stuff in case there's any dunderheads out there that might think your ideas have any validity, which they don't.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Justin39640; 6th December 2013 at 06:08 PM.
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 6th December 2013, 06:06 PM   #319
kid meatball
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 303
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?
All of them need to be correct for your proof to be correct. If one is correct, it stands alone as a fact. Try making the other four points correct and we can talk.
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, 06:06 PM   #320
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,395
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?
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".

Last edited by ozeco41; 6th December 2013 at 06:07 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:02 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.