IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 ae911truth , richard gage , wtc 7 , wtc 7 report

Reply
Old 31st March 2011, 05:39 AM   #201
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
snip

Free fall acceleration means No resistance. The NIST model always provides resistance.
Does free fall acceleration mean controlled demolition?
NoahFence 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 31st March 2011, 06:46 AM   #202
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Thanks again Ryan. Because this free-fall argument is so central to Richard Gage's beliefs, my Building 7 epilogue will have to cover this pretty thoroughly. Clearly a three-sentence simple statement won't do.
Chris, this does make sense to me. Another analogy Ryan gave me once was like a stick you lean on, and it holds up until it breaks. And of course we all are talking about near free-fall due to air resistance in any kind of collapse.
Ryan, I do have one response to something you wrote:
..."firefighters... saw clearly, with their own eyes, how the structure's integrity deteriorated as it burned... Not even the craziest Truther has suggested there were bombs detonated during this time period. But this is tantamount to accepting that fire can cause structural degradation and, yes, collapse of a steel-framed skyscraper. In essense, they aren't denying the fact of collapse, they're merely denying the style of collapse."
Richard Gage has not suggested bombs during the fire, but others definitely have. Someone once told me with a straight face that she believed that "they" tried a controlled demolition early in the day (explosive sounds of eyewitnesses, remember?) which created structural problems etc. but then they had to go back in during the fire and finish the job, which of course they did flawlessly. Now that was a Babylon soliloquy!!!
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 10:11 AM   #203
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Chris, good job on the debate with Gage. I know how slippery he can be.

Anyway, check out this YouTube video:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It clearly shows that parts of a collapsing structure, pulled on by othert parts of the same structure, can actually fall faster than objects in true freefall.

And note the complete absence of explosives!

Good luck, Dave Thomas
DaveThomasNMSR 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 31st March 2011, 10:51 AM   #204
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by DaveThomasNMSR View Post
Chris, good job on the debate with Gage. I know how slippery he can be.

Anyway, check out this YouTube video:
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


It clearly shows that parts of a collapsing structure, pulled on by othert parts of the same structure, can actually fall faster than objects in true freefall.

And note the complete absence of explosives!

Good luck, Dave Thomas
Dave,
The YouTube link is not available. Can you just direct me with some keywords?
Thanks
Chris
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 10:57 AM   #205
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
A couple days ago Chris wrote:

"The nano-thermite chips were iron oxide, aluminum silicate and organic materials. There was no significant amount of the toxic components that they were looking for."

Well, chemist Kevin Ryan recently published an article stating that the first responders are getting sick these days because they breathed in all this horrible thermitic dust. He listed all kinds of thermitic toxic chemicals he thought were part of this deadly soup of hazardous materials.

Chris, have you read this article? Which is it? Benign thermitic materials or hazmat?

Us two Chrisses have one thing in common... we voluntarily surround ourselves with our adversaries: me with truthers and him with, well, us. Chris I admire your spunk, as many truthers admire mine.
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 11:00 AM   #206
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 877
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Dave,
The YouTube link is not available. Can you just direct me with some keywords?
Thanks
Chris
That's odd, it's working for me.

Anyway, if you seach YouTube for 'Falling Faster Than g', or Google Videos for the same, it comes up #1 on either search.

Good luck, Dave
DaveThomasNMSR 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 31st March 2011, 02:14 PM   #207
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Chris, this does make sense to me. Another analogy Ryan gave me once was like a stick you lean on, and it holds up until it breaks.
An analogy does not depict what actually happened. We can look at Figure 12-63 and see the frame twisting and buckling in an irregular manner. Then looking at the screen captures we can see that this buckling is occurring during the free fall acceleration. Buckling columns provide resistance. Because of the irregular manner of the buckling exterior columns, they do not all buckle to the point of failure at the same time. The vierendeel action of the perimeter moment frame transfers the resistance of the columns in a lesser stage of bending. So, as Shyam Sunder said [when NIST was denying the existence of free fall] "there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

Quote:
And of course we all are talking about near free-fall due to air resistance in any kind of collapse.
No, we are talking about free fall. Air resistance is negligible - too small to be considered. The NIST measurement was within 1/10th of 1% of free fall acceleration which is negligible, i.e. there was no measurable resistance.

All attempts to talk around the free fall acceleration ignore the physical reality that Shyam Sunder clearly stated: "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.
Christopher7 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 31st March 2011, 07:02 PM   #208
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Next Request

Hi gang,

In my March 6 debate with Richard Gage, a scientist friend of mine said that the side by side spectographic analyses Richard showed on a slide re thermitic dust showed two different chemical signatures. Anyone know about this. Anyone have a link to the pay phone explosion sound (someone said it was dubbed in; I would need the original to compare it to back to back if this is true).

Anyone willing to slog through the 3 1/2 hour debate and pick out inaccurate things Richard said that I missed... I will have one last chance to rebut it all in about four weeks. Link to debate is on Richard's AE911 Truth website... I'm still not allowed to create links on JREF, sorry.
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2011, 07:19 PM   #209
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Buckling columns provide resistance.

Off course. Buckling columns DO provide any resistance, but it's negligible resistance, i.e. too small to be considered.

BTW
Depending on the circumstance, even intact columns may provide negligible resistance. It happens when columns are subjected to loads too many times greater than their capacity.
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender

Last edited by Carlos; 31st March 2011 at 07:28 PM.
Carlos 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 31st March 2011, 08:02 PM   #210
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Hi Chris, Now on to the second thought experiment. "That's just one column," you're thinking, "and we added weight until it collapsed. WTC 7 didn't add weight." That's correct.

But in a sense, weight was added on columns instantaneously........with the odd arrangement of transfer beams/girders/trusses over the substation, a failure of one column would have caused load to transfer immediately. Unlike ordinary structures where the load is shared by multiple other members, transfer beams tend to concentrate loads, so it could have been quite possible for a column to be well below its ultimate yield load and instantly be multiple times over its ultimate yield load due to the failure of an adjacent structural member.

Regarding the supposed 2.5 or so seconds of "free fall speed" the failure of columns low in the structure and the resulting load shifting and instant failure of adjacent columns would have the effect of kicking the legs out from a table, there would be no resistance.
Animal 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 31st March 2011, 08:15 PM   #211
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Dave,
The YouTube link is not available. Can you just direct me with some keywords?
Thanks
Chris
h_tt_p://w_ww.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE&feature=featured

...and take out the "spoiler" underscores
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 31st March 2011, 08:23 PM   #212
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hi gang,

In my March 6 debate with Richard Gage, a scientist friend of mine said that the side by side spectographic analyses Richard showed on a slide re thermitic dust showed two different chemical signatures. Anyone know about this. Anyone have a link to the pay phone explosion sound (someone said it was dubbed in; I would need the original to compare it to back to back if this is true).

Anyone willing to slog through the 3 1/2 hour debate and pick out inaccurate things Richard said that I missed... I will have one last chance to rebut it all in about four weeks. Link to debate is on Richard's AE911 Truth website... I'm still not allowed to create links on JREF, sorry.
Did they up the minimum post count? I thought it was 15.

You can pretty much assume when Gages mouth is moving he's telling a lie or some sort of half truth. He's a carnie, snake oil salesman, con man, etc. This is his job. He has to "believe" in these things to put food on his plate. He's not trying to convince the masses, he's looking for the few rubes in the crowd that will allow him to continue doing this for a living. Another shining example of this is Alex Jones. At least he does it as an entertainer, half legitimizing himself.

You should have asked him while you had him live if he planned to use the event as an opportunity to extend his apologies to the families, friends, and associates of those who were wrongly accused of committing these heinous acts.
__________________
"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; 31st March 2011 at 08:25 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 31st March 2011, 08:41 PM   #213
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
In the final report NIST said the buckled columns provided "negligible" resistance. This gives the impression that there was some resistance when there was none. If the resistance is too small to be measured, it is for all intents and purposes, zero.

The use of the word "negligible" is an obfuscation of the fact that the buckling columns did provide resistance as Shyam Sunder stated: "there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

"There was structural resistance" and "negligible resistance" are not the same.

ETA: Somepeople refuse to accept the obvious:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.

Last edited by Christopher7; 31st March 2011 at 08:48 PM.
Christopher7 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 31st March 2011, 08:53 PM   #214
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
In the final report NIST said the buckled columns provided "negligible" resistance. This gives the impression that there was some resistance when there was none. If the resistance is too small to be measured, it is for all intents and purposes, zero.

The use of the word "negligible" is an obfuscation of the fact that the buckling columns did provide resistance as Shyam Sunder stated: "there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

"There was structural resistance" and "negligible resistance" are not the same.

Two different moments.
Two different situations.

Where's the problem?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
ETA: Somepeople refuse to accept the obvious:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.

Yes.
A free fall time would be an object that has absolutely nothing below it. No structural components, no bodies, no air.
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender

Last edited by Carlos; 31st March 2011 at 08:59 PM.
Carlos 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 31st March 2011, 09:09 PM   #215
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
A couple days ago Chris wrote:

"The nano-thermite chips were iron oxide, aluminum silicate and organic materials. There was no significant amount of the toxic components that they were looking for."

Well, chemist Kevin Ryan recently published an article stating that the first responders are getting sick these days because they breathed in all this horrible thermitic dust. He listed all kinds of thermitic toxic chemicals he thought were part of this deadly soup of hazardous materials.

Chris, have you read this article? Which is it? Benign thermitic materials or hazmat?
I will read the article tonight. Just looking at the spectrum of the nano-thermite chips I don't see any of the things that the RJ Lee Group was looking for. I'll get back to you when I have finished studying Kevin's paper but it would be better if you address your questions to him.

Quote:
Us two Chrisses have one thing in common... we voluntarily surround ourselves with our adversaries: me with truthers and him with, well, us. Chris I admire your spunk, as many truthers admire mine.
Thank you. I also appreciate your arguing the data and not attacking or insulting your opponent.
Christopher7 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 31st March 2011, 09:18 PM   #216
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Two different moments
Same collapse

No structural components
Air is not a factor in this case
Christopher7 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 1st April 2011, 05:18 AM   #217
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Two different moments
Same collapse

Same collapse but two different phases, two different stages.
At each stage the structure was in a different configuration.

Stage 1: The beginning of the collapse. There was still some significant resistance offered by the structure below.

Stage 2: There was no significant resistance offered by 7/8-storey structure.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
No structural components
Air is not a factor in this case

If you say literally free-fall acceleration and literally no resistance you should consider the air influence.

If you say almost free-fall acceleration, approximately free fall acceleration (or whatever) and negligible resistance you can ignore the air influence.

Which one do you refer?

If you answer "the second one", then you cannot say it means necessarily no structural componets.
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender

Last edited by Carlos; 1st April 2011 at 05:26 AM.
Carlos 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 1st April 2011, 07:08 AM   #218
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Chris wrote: I will read the article tonight. Just looking at the spectrum of the nano-thermite chips I don't see any of the things that the RJ Lee Group was looking for. I'll get back to you when I have finished studying Kevin's paper but it would be better if you address your questions to him.

I have read Kevin Ryan's paper and it's clear he says that thermitics are terribly toxic. Nothing more to ask him. My question would be to you, since you assert that breathing in unexploded thermites would not be the kind of health hazard the RJ Lee study would be concerned about. If you agree with Kevin Ryan (and I for one would NOT want to inhale nanothermites, thermates and their byproducts) then why didn't RJ Lee find these deadly toxins?

Also my spectograph question is this: do they show the same thing?
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2011, 07:30 AM   #219
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Also my spectograph question is this: do they show the same thing?
Hi Chris, welcome to the forums! The short answer to your question is: no. We've hammered through the Harrit data pretty thoroughly, and it's pretty well decided that they were looking at two different materials and claiming they were the same thing.

Of course the bigger problem is that we're looking at heterogeneous materials. In other words, analyzing two different spots on the same material will show two different spectra. All this leads back to an astounding level of incompetence on the part of Jones, Harrit et al in their paper. One of the posters here, Sunstealer, was finally able to figure out all of the things they did wrong. You'll want to read the posts in this thread, with kudos to ElMondoHummus, who provides excellent summaries of the various issues.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 1st April 2011, 12:51 PM   #220
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Chris wrote: I will read the article tonight. Just looking at the spectrum of the nano-thermite chips I don't see any of the things that the RJ Lee Group was looking for. I'll get back to you when I have finished studying Kevin's paper but it would be better if you address your questions to him.

I have read Kevin Ryan's paper and it's clear he says that thermitics are terribly toxic. Nothing more to ask him. My question would be to you, since you assert that breathing in unexploded thermites would not be the kind of health hazard the RJ Lee study would be concerned about.
I made no such "assertion". I noted that I don't see any of the toxins that RJ Lee was looking for in the spectrum analysis. The red/gray chips are but one of many of constituents of the dust and since they do not contain the toxins the RJ Lee Group were looking for they would not draw their attention IMO.


Quote:
If you agree with Kevin Ryan (and I for one would NOT want to inhale nanothermites, thermates and their byproducts) then why didn't RJ Lee find these deadly toxins?
Kevin Ryan did not say that the red/gray chips are toxic. He said the extreme heat they created released benzene and other toxins from plastic and polystyrene in the dust.

Quote:
Also my spectograph question is this: do they show the same thing?
You can look at the spectrographs of the unignited chips and see for yourself that there are none of the things that the RJ Lee Group was looking for.

* * * * * * * * * *

Getting back to the free fall acceleration, NIST said that the upper portion of the building moved down as a single unit at that the acceleration was 9.81 m/s2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity. This is within 1/10 of 1% of the acceleration of gravity for New York City which is 9.802 m/s2 and that is as close as a measurement can be [actually minutely faster than FFA]. The resistance from the supporting structure was as "negligible"[too small to be considered] as the air. There was NO measurable resistance.

As Shyam Sunder rightly said "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.

Last edited by Christopher7; 1st April 2011 at 02:18 PM.
Christopher7 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 1st April 2011, 02:08 PM   #221
Telltale Tom
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I
* * * * * * * * * *
Getting back to the free fall acceleration, NIST said that the upper portion of the building moved down as a single unit at that the acceleration was 9.81 m/s2, equivalent to the acceleration of gravity. This is within 1/10 of 1% of the acceleration of gravity for New York City which is 9.802 m/s2 and that is as close as a measurement can be [actually minutely faster than FF]. The resistance from the supporting structure was as "negligible"[too small to be considered] as the air. There was NO measurable resistance.

As Shyam Sunder rightly said "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it. . . . there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

In other words, the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance.
Maybe it was being pulled down by the inside. It depends if they blew up the core columns before detonating the perimeter columns. There would be some dynamic energy causing it to collapse fast, perhaps at g if the core columns were blown first.

For the rest of the towers you can generally see debris falling faster than the tower collapsing. But perhaps when the explosives went off that they pushed some of the debris down so that it is falling faster than g. Or it could be that they missed-time the explosives on every floor so that the columns gave some resistance.

It all leads to explosions doesn't it.? But perhaps there is a more obvious explanation and perhaps we should ask an engineer.

Last edited by Telltale Tom; 1st April 2011 at 02:17 PM.
Telltale Tom 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 1st April 2011, 02:24 PM   #222
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Telltale Tom View Post
Maybe it was being pulled down by the inside. It depends if they blew up the inside columns before detonating the outside columns. There would be some dynamic energy causing it to collapse fast, perhaps at g.

For the rest of the towers you can generally see debris falling faster than the tower collapsing. But perhaps when the explosives went off that they pushed some of the debris down so that it is falling faster than g. Or it could be that they missed-time the explosives on every floor so that the columns gave some resistance.

It all leads to explosions doesn't it.? But perhaps there is a more obvious explanation and perhaps we should ask an engineer.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Jones found "nano-thermite", missed the nanobots eating the steel. I measured the video collapse, parts fell faster than free-fall. 911 truth is ... (undefined stupid)
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 1st April 2011, 03:14 PM   #223
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Telltale Tom View Post
It all leads to explosions doesn't it.? But perhaps there is a more obvious explanation and perhaps we should ask an engineer.
Christopher7 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 1st April 2011, 03:25 PM   #224
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Chris, I may be in the minority on this forum when I agree with you that free-fall means no structural resistance. Maddening though it is to spend time on 8 out of 47 floors in free-fall, I'm going through the exercise. So let's say you're right when you say " the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance."

I've disagreed with NIST before, and their explanation that "gravity takes care of it" was not enough for my mind. Ryan Mackey's explanation made a lot of sense to me. He shows how, for the short time of freefall, there can indeed be no resistance: At least One 8-story chunk of floors held onto the perimeter wall. We see an eight-story buckle, due to the eccentric loading in the corner. Those floors attached to the perimeter after the core fails literally pulls in eight stories of column.

And I wonder: could this yanking down have caused the building to collapse at slightly greater than free fall due to torquing, or is the "faster than freefall" simply a computational thing where the acceleration was so close it just measured a tiny bit faster without actually being faster?
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2011, 04:53 PM   #225
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Chris, I may be in the minority on this forum when I agree with you that free-fall means no structural resistance. Maddening though it is to spend time on 8 out of 47 floors in free-fall, I'm going through the exercise. So let's say you're right when you say " the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance."

I've disagreed with NIST before, and their explanation that "gravity takes care of it" was not enough for my mind. Ryan Mackey's explanation made a lot of sense to me. He shows how, for the short time of freefall, there can indeed be no resistance: At least One 8-story chunk of floors held onto the perimeter wall. We see an eight-story buckle, due to the eccentric loading in the corner. Those floors attached to the perimeter after the core fails literally pulls in eight stories of column.

And I wonder: could this yanking down have caused the building to collapse at slightly greater than free fall due to torquing, or is the "faster than freefall" simply a computational thing where the acceleration was so close it just measured a tiny bit faster without actually being faster?
The 21 core columns under the screenwall and west penthouse failed east to west in about 1 second as can be seen in the videos. The loads they carried were transferred to the exterior columns causing them to buckle in an irregular manner, which precludes their all failing at the same time. When 7 floors of the remaining 52 exterior columns were removed, the core columns which were already moving, may have momentarily increased the free fall acceleration of the exterior columns that were just going into free fall acceleration thus giving a slightly faster than free fall time for the 2.25 seconds. However, it is also possible that the discrepancy is due to the fact that they were looking at pixels which is very accurate but not perfectly accurate. In any case the 8/100ths of a second is negligible. [too small to be considered]

We are left with no measurable resistance for about 100 feet and that can only occur if there are no structural components below and that can only occur if all the supporting structure on 7 floors is removed in a synchronistic fashion within the 2.25 seconds.

I appreciate your honesty. I have noticed that very few people on either side of the debate are willing to admit that they are wrong. My philosophy is: I may not always be right but I'm never wrong for long. When faced with facts or sound logic that proves my position incorrect, I immediately change my position to fit the new data.

Last edited by Christopher7; 1st April 2011 at 05:05 PM.
Christopher7 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 1st April 2011, 07:59 PM   #226
ImANiceGuy
Critical Thinker
 
ImANiceGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
The melted lead was vaporized during the collapse which was the energy equal over 200 TONS of TNT.
This is completely, hopelessly false, yet you say it with such confidence.

"...Thomas Cahill, a UC Davis professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric science and research professor in engineering..."

Is quoted in this LINK as saying:

"The debris pile acted like a chemical factory. It cooked together the components of the buildings and their contents, including enormous numbers of computers, and gave off gases of toxic metals, acids and organics for at least six weeks."

In their paper, Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001, Cahill reports...

"we recorded the highest levels [of all classes of polutants] we have ever seen in over 7,000 measurements we have made of very fine air pollution throughout the world, including Kuwait and China,".

So what max temps are you giving GZ Beachnut?
__________________
...JUST ASKING...

Last edited by ImANiceGuy; 1st April 2011 at 08:06 PM.
ImANiceGuy 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 1st April 2011, 08:31 PM   #227
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by ImANiceGuy View Post
This is completely, hopelessly false, yet you say it with such confidence.
...?
E=mgh, are you unable to check the math, or what? Gage misleads people with lies, are you supporting him?

Lead was also already in the mineral wool from the 70s. oops, vaporized during manufacture. darn

Last edited by beachnut; 1st April 2011 at 08:33 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 1st April 2011, 09:06 PM   #228
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Chris, I may be in the minority on this forum when I agree with you that free-fall means no structural resistance. Maddening though it is to spend time on 8 out of 47 floors in free-fall, I'm going through the exercise. So let's say you're right when you say " the NIST progressive collapse hypothesis does not include a period of free fall acceleration because there is always structural resistance."

I've disagreed with NIST before, and their explanation that "gravity takes care of it" was not enough for my mind. Ryan Mackey's explanation made a lot of sense to me. He shows how, for the short time of freefall, there can indeed be no resistance:1 At least One 8-story chunk of floors held onto the perimeter wall. We see an eight-story buckle, due to the eccentric loading in the corner. Those floors attached to the perimeter after the core fails literally pulls in eight stories of column.2

And I wonder: could this yanking down have caused the building to collapse at slightly greater than free fall due to torquing,3 or is the "faster than freefall" simply a computational thing where the acceleration was so close it just measured a tiny bit faster without actually being faster?
Chris. You have three of the key elements there see my indexing as 1,2 & 3. Let me try to put across some of the frustrations that we structural engineers feel trying to explain why free fall of part of a collapsing structure is not an issue of concern to us. (That is of no concern other than when it comes to convincing lay persons who have doubts. )

The overriding problem is that the truth movement has done a pretty good job selling the false meme that free fall == demolition AND they don't even debate it - simply take it as given in their posts/presentation. Sound propaganda technique I suppose. I think that you are now fully aware of that one.

Now next below that is their use of presumed or implied global settings. By that I mean the technique of presenting claims for free fall as if they applied to the whole structure and that the structure acted in a homogeneous way. That one also rarely stated and quite often only partially relied on. It appears to be implicit in your agreement with Chris7 where you say: "...when I agree with you that free-fall means no structural resistance..." There are two problems in that statement.

First is the presumed global application which you may or may not intend. I would prefer the statement if it said this: "...when I agree with you that free-fall means no structural resistance to the free fall of the specific element of structure we are considering..."

That partially resolves the problem with the statement as it originally stood. But it is not only "no resistance" we need to consider. That "no resistance" is usually set in a context which presumes no support because no connection whatsoever. It is used that way by most truthers and sadly by debunkers responding with less than full rigour in their comments.

Second is the reality that free fall acceleration occurs when there is zero net resistance. Ryan has identified and you have recognised that there could be "pull down". The free fall could in fact exceed g for part of an element or a subset of elements which were subject to pull down. Leveraged pull down is simplest illustrated by this clip which you may have already seen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV7TPvk__kE

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


And those complications apply to what is already a complex collapse scenario where we cannot know now and never could know with surety which bits did what to which other bits. So we have:
  • The possibility of bits falling at free fall for reasons of no resistance due to no connected structure.
  • The possibility of some bits falling faster than free fall due to leveraged pull down. AND
  • The possibility of leveraged pull down or other mechanisms exactly balancing the gravitational effect and resulting in net zero "resistance".

All three of those are possibles and even probables given the complexity of the overall collapse.

Hence the frustration of those of us who can with confidence not worry about proving free fall because our professional training supports the reasoning. But there is no simple way to pass that confidence to genuine enquirers like yourself. And it is still at least one big quantum leap away from giving you arguments to persuade those who do not want to be persuaded.

So your comment "...could this yanking down have caused the building to collapse at slightly greater than free fall due to torquing,..." I have no doubt that it could - whether or not it did I cannot comment. However another member here, femr2, specialises in measurements from video analysis and I understand that he has measured some aspects of the fall and found greater than free fall accelerations. I cannot recall the thread.

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st April 2011 at 09:16 PM. Reason: Spelin erers
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 1st April 2011, 09:08 PM   #229
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The 21 core columns under the screenwall and west penthouse failed east to west in about 1 second as can be seen in the videos. The loads they carried were transferred to the exterior columns causing them to buckle in an irregular manner, which precludes their all failing at the same time. When 7 floors of the remaining 52 exterior columns were removed, the core columns which were already moving, may have momentarily increased the free fall acceleration of the exterior columns that were just going into free fall acceleration thus giving a slightly faster than free fall time for the 2.25 seconds. However, it is also possible that the discrepancy is due to the fact that they were looking at pixels which is very accurate but not perfectly accurate. In any case the 8/100ths of a second is negligible. [too small to be considered]

We are left with no measurable resistance for about 100 feet and that can only occur if there are no structural components below and that can only occur if all the supporting structure on 7 floors is removed in a synchronistic fashion within the 2.25 seconds.

I appreciate your honesty. I have noticed that very few people on either side of the debate are willing to admit that they are wrong. My philosophy is: I may not always be right but I'm never wrong for long. When faced with facts or sound logic that proves my position incorrect, I immediately change my position to fit the new data.
Well stated.
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 1st April 2011, 10:31 PM   #230
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Thanks ozeco41, anyone know femr2?
chrismohr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st April 2011, 11:38 PM   #231
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Thanks ozeco41, anyone know femr2?
Chris;
I was pressed for time but have now searched the reference - its somewhere near this post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...94#post7013494

In the current thread "Chandler and constant speed"

Eric C

Edit PS femr2 has been regular here in recent months - together with two colleagues. All three are seen as "truthers" by many members here. I make no judgement on that. They are regulars also on http://the911forum.freeforums.org/sc...orums-f36.html which is seen as truther friendly - again I make no judgement. That forum has a fair bit of detailed technical discussion and free of the high noise of "truther v debunker" polarisation. I am not a member there fwatitswurth.

Last edited by ozeco41; 1st April 2011 at 11:44 PM. Reason: Added some femr2 info
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 2nd April 2011, 01:05 AM   #232
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Thank you very much.

You had previously stated that free fall acceleration is not unexpected or words to that effect.

There was a period of free fall acceleration that lasted for about 100 feet and that means that all the supporting structure on 7 or 8 floors was removed in a synchronized manner, that is; all the supports on each floor were removed simultaneously in order for the entire upper portion of the building to fall straight down as a single unit as is noted on page 45 of the final report.

The comparison of Figure 12-63 showing the buckling columns which provide resistance, and below is the same graphic with the columns removed as is required for FFA, begs the question - What removed them?
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1...ngvnothing.jpg

The columns could be removed in a synchronistic manner with the use of explosives or a combination of incendiaries and explosives but not in a progressive collapse.
Christopher7 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 2nd April 2011, 01:36 AM   #233
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Thank you very much...
No problerm

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
..You had previously stated that free fall acceleration is not unexpected or words to that effect....
Yes...
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...The columns could be removed in a synchronistic manner with the use of explosives or a combination of incendiaries and explosives...
True but there is no evidence to suggest such use, arguably no strategic valid reason for anyone (either "side" - Terrorists OR GW Bush conspirators) to use same; AND well nigh impossible - enough to satisfy me- that there could not have been any demolition assistance. I am military engineer qualified and my approach to WTC collapses has been strongly influenced by "How would I do it if the General gave me the task?" I couldn't do it without leaving evidence and getting caught.
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...but not in a progressive collapse.
..as an engineer I cannot accept this global claim. There are many potential mechanisms, some which I could possibly suggest, many more that are beyond my ability to reasonably predict given the paucity of direct and relevant information.

My personal "bottom line" for the two critical anti-demolition stages of WTC 9/11 collapse (those are the collapse initiation for WTC1 and WTC2 and the equivalent stage for WTC7) is that I, on the publicly available evidence cannot technically prove "no demolition". However the strategic - or "why do it" arguments plus the stronger "it could not be achieved without discovery" AND "it was ridiculously close to impossible" arguments carry the day for me. That is "no demolition".

For WTC Twin Towers the only "viable" demolition without discovery scenario required charges placed in the middle of the fire zone by fire proof suited suicide squads. Not likely by my summation. When WTC7 became the priority discussion event I saw it as the "truth movement" grasping a straw because the evidence against demolition was not readily and visibly available as it is with the twin towers. So the cynic in me doesn't debate WTC7.

Cheers. And again "Well stated.

Eric C

Last edited by ozeco41; 2nd April 2011 at 01:44 AM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd April 2011, 01:42 AM   #234
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...
There was a period of free fall acceleration that lasted for about 100 feet and that means that all the supporting structure on 7 or 8 floors was removed in a synchronized manner, that is; all the supports on each floor were removed simultaneously in order for the entire upper portion of the building to fall straight down as a single unit as is noted on page 45 of the final report.
...
The columns could be removed in a synchronistic manner with the use of explosives or a combination of incendiaries and explosives but not in a progressive collapse.
I would like to disagree. Acceleration increased during the 1.75 (or so) seconds leading up to the free-fall phase. There wasn't much of a discontinuity in the a values there, which means support wasn't removed simultaneusly but rather over a (short) period of time. Free fall simply means that all support was removed by then, and not necessarily exactly then.

However,. if you have a period during which supports fail, then we are talking progressive collapse. Remember, load redistribution happens at the speed of sound.
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 2nd April 2011, 08:56 AM   #235
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Chris and Eric,

We have agreed that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet and that Shyam Sunder has rightly stated that means there was no supporting structure below the falling upper portion of the building.

Originally Posted by C7
The columns could be removed in a synchronistic manner with the use of explosives or a combination of incendiaries and explosives
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
True
Thank you

Quote:
but there is no evidence to suggest such use, arguably no strategic valid reason for anyone (either "side" - Terrorists OR GW Bush conspirators) to use same; AND well nigh impossible - enough to satisfy me- that there could not have been any demolition assistance. I am military engineer qualified and my approach to WTC collapses has been strongly influenced by "How would I do it if the General gave me the task?" I couldn't do it without leaving evidence and getting caught. ..as an engineer I cannot accept this global claim.
So your position is: "I could have not done it without leaving evidence so therefore it cannot be done." That is because you are not thinking "outside the box". Have you seen this video by Jon Cole? He invented a device that cuts columns using regular thermite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iI...eature=related

People have been claiming that it could not be done because they have no imagination and will not accept that the military has demolition devices and techniques that we don't know about. The main point Jon makes is that just because the public doesn't know all that is possible doesn't mean it isn't possible.

Quote:
There are many potential mechanisms, some which I could possibly suggest, many more that are beyond my ability to reasonably predict given the paucity of direct and relevant information.
The only known mechanism that can remove all the supporting columns in a synchronistic manner that will allow for implosion is some form of explosives. Implosion is a fine art and could not happen as the result of the failure of a single column or demolitions companies would not go to all the trouble of rigging most or all the support columns.

Quote:
My personal "bottom line" for the two critical anti-demolition stages of WTC 9/11 collapse (those are the collapse initiation for WTC1 and WTC2 and the equivalent stage for WTC7) is that I, on the publicly available evidence cannot technically prove "no demolition". However the strategic - or "why do it" arguments plus the stronger "it could not be achieved without discovery" AND "it was ridiculously close to impossible" arguments carry the day for me. That is "no demolition".
"It can't be because . . . ." is a denial position and requires ignoring the reality that the only explanation for building 7 imploding and/or falling at free fall acceleration is removing all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors in a controlled sequence using some kind of explosive and/or incendiary device.

With all due respect

Chris
Christopher7 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 2nd April 2011, 09:04 AM   #236
Telltale Tom
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post

Sorry Chris,
I thought you were talking about WTC1 and 2

WTC 1 & WTC 2
Clearly the bombs in WTC 1 and 2 were carefully placed at the impact zone. And must have been well insulated to prevent the fire from interfering with the detonators. Since it was a quiet flashless explosion it must have been thermite, but there was some steel blanketting or some protective screen on the perimeter columns so that the flashes would not be seen.

The thermite bombs were combined with a few ordinary bombs that would go of during the collapse to enable steel to be hurled 500ft. The collapse noise covering up the explosions.

On WTC 1 they blew up the inner columns first and then had a set of super-fast thermite bombs at every level to give nominal resistance and nearly free-fall.

While on WTC 2 they decided to blow up the perimeter columns first followed by a series of super fast thermite bombs to give a nearly free fall.

And much of the thermite failed to explode, about 160 tons, according to our calculations at ae911truth. That must have been the main ignition material that they placed at all levels just in case the plane hit at some other level.

WTC 7
WTC 7 was not quite as obvious. But they certainly blew up the inner columns before the outer ones. We know that from the collapsed penthouse.
I guess they then used flashless hidden thermite bombs on all the perimeter structure. I think that was only 80 columns. And they exploded them at every level for over 100 ft to provide no resistance so that we got free-fall speed.

The government then supervised the debris removal so that there was no evidence of this and no-one saw anything suspicious. That's why we need subpoenas so that we can find out what they are not telling.
Telltale Tom 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 2nd April 2011, 09:42 AM   #237
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The only known mechanism that can remove all the supporting columns in a synchronistic manner that will allow for implosion is some form of explosives. Implosion is a fine art and could not happen as the result of the failure of a single column or demolitions companies would not go to all the trouble of rigging most or all the support columns.
A patently false statement and an equally false conclusion regarding demolition companies.

Quote:
"It can't be because . . . ." is a denial position and requires ignoring the reality that the only explanation for building 7 imploding and/or falling at free fall acceleration is removing all the supporting structure on 7 to 8 floors in a controlled sequence using some kind of explosive and/or incendiary device.

With all due respect

Chris
The only denial going on is in the belief that the ONLY explanation is explosive / incendiary device
Animal 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 2nd April 2011, 09:48 AM   #238
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
We have agreed that WTC 7 fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet and that Shyam Sunder has rightly stated that means there was no supporting structure below the falling upper portion of the building.

Not necessarily. If the load is many times greater than the load that the structure below is able to resist, the acceleration of the collapse can be very close to the acceleration of gravity.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The only known mechanism that can remove all the supporting columns in a synchronistic manner that will allow for implosion is some form of explosives.

So, are you saying the mechanisms observed at Stage 1 were in a synchronistic manner?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Implosion is a fine art and could not happen as the result of the failure of a single column or demolitions companies would not go to all the trouble of rigging most or all the support columns.

Are you saying "progressive collapse" doesn't exist?

The art of implosion is not only to bring down buildings, but also make it so that there is no risk of damage to the buildings nearby. That's why demolition companies put explosives in multiple columns of multiple floors.
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender
Carlos 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 2nd April 2011, 10:26 AM   #239
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
The only denial going on is in the belief that the ONLY explanation is explosive / incendiary device
The NIST hypothesis of a progressive collapse cannot and did not result in a period of free fall acceleration. That much Chris and I have agreed on.
Christopher7 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 2nd April 2011, 10:29 AM   #240
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The NIST hypothesis of a progressive collapse cannot and did not result in a period of free fall acceleration. That much Chris and I have agreed on.

That's what YOU say.
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender
Carlos 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

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 08:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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

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