ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


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 Dave Thomas , Michael Fullerton , wtc 7

Reply
Old 6th October 2010, 09:32 AM   #201
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 34,122
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
NIST said the free fall period continued for 32 m or approx. 8 stories. To have 8 stories of free fall (no resisting structure) you need 8 stories of resisting structure removed.
Buckled columns have no power to resist. The columns buckled.
tsig is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2010, 12:28 PM   #202
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by T.A.M. View Post
No, it did not fall seperately, but it did fall at a different rate as the rest, for that time period. It also fell at different rates at different times during the collapse. Parts of the building also fell inside, which you could not see...so I guess that is impossible also?

TAM
So by how much do these rates differ from one another? My guess is you have no idea.
cmatrix 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 October 2010, 12:33 PM   #203
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
cm,

You haven't the SLIGHTEST clue what you are talking about.

Why don't you try to learn some remedial physics. Such as the difference between velocity & acceleration.



Here is the first chart taken from the Chandler link that YOU QUOTE (with some annotations by me in red.)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...pictureid=3820

If you were able to read a velocity vs. time graph, and competent enough to turn it into acceleration vs. time, you'd realize the following:

The acceleration does NOT start into free fall "immediately". There is about 0.7 seconds during which its acceleration is significantly less than g. According to BOTH NIST & Chandler.

During this period, the resistance of the lower structure is a very high percent of G. During the time that the acceleration is approximately zero, the resistance of the building is approximately equal to the weight of the building. A very high resistance for a fatally damaged building...!!

Your claim that "the initial stage is a NIST fraud" is proven by Chandler's data to be laughably incompetent.

According to Chandler's data, there are times when the acceleration is significantly greater than G (as I've highlighted in the middle of the descent.



It ain't science. It's engineering.

You wouldn't know either if one of them walked up & dope-slapped you into the middle of next week.

Time to face facts, Michael. When it comes to any of this stuff, you're incompetent. The only person that you are fooling is yourself.


Tom
You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.
cmatrix 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 October 2010, 12:34 PM   #204
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
So by how much do these rates differ from one another? My guess is you have no idea.
your guess is correct. My guess is you only know because you were fed it by Chandler or some other believer.

Nice avatar btw, it suits you perfectly.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 October 2010, 12:37 PM   #205
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence
.
Please tell me what it is a sign of, because you have done nothing here since you began posting, but display Amateurish ridicule of NIST and its scientists, and nothing but unsupported pronouncements with respect to the alleged TOTAL BUILDING FREE FALL, which is complete fiction.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 October 2010, 04:14 PM   #206
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,757
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...

This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.

NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.

Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.

Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.


Yep. You don't even know what your own side is saying about this collapse. We might as well forget about trying to explain what our side says to you.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2010, 12:41 AM   #207
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,931
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...
Well, I'm convinced. Engineering understanding is one thing, but when some nobody on the Internet says "Yeah right..." there's really no denying the strength of that carefully reasoned argument.

But, hang on. When a structure buckles, it absorbs energy. Absorbing kinetic energy equates to providing resistance to motion. So we'd expect that, while the columns are buckling, the building only accelerates very slowly, because the buckling is providing resistance. Then, when the buckling progresses to fracture point, we'll see a sudden increase in acceleration, to something close to 1g, because the structures that were providing resistance by buckling have just stopped doing so.

A period of small acceleration, followed by a rapid increase to nearly 1g. Now where have I seen that? Oh yes - just up there ^. It's what WTC7 did; just what you'd expect it to do, if you're competent.

But we've still got that "Yeah right..." to contend with. Cmatrix presents a thoroughly plausible, physically reasonable scenario, but then handwaves it away with a simple "Yeah right..." as if it were something really, really, mind-bendingly stupid, like - I don't know - silent explosives or thermite with split-second timing. How will we ever refute that?

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 7th October 2010 at 12:42 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2010, 11:58 AM   #208
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Well, I'm convinced. Engineering understanding is one thing, but when some nobody on the Internet says "Yeah right..." there's really no denying the strength of that carefully reasoned argument.

But, hang on. When a structure buckles, it absorbs energy. Absorbing kinetic energy equates to providing resistance to motion. So we'd expect that, while the columns are buckling, the building only accelerates very slowly, because the buckling is providing resistance. Then, when the buckling progresses to fracture point, we'll see a sudden increase in acceleration, to something close to 1g, because the structures that were providing resistance by buckling have just stopped doing so.

A period of small acceleration, followed by a rapid increase to nearly 1g. Now where have I seen that? Oh yes - just up there ^. It's what WTC7 did; just what you'd expect it to do, if you're competent.

But we've still got that "Yeah right..." to contend with. Cmatrix presents a thoroughly plausible, physically reasonable scenario, but then handwaves it away with a simple "Yeah right..." as if it were something really, really, mind-bendingly stupid, like - I don't know - silent explosives or thermite with split-second timing. How will we ever refute that?

Dave
Your theory implies that all the 58 perimeter columns buckled at exactly the same time at precisely the right points to allow a straight down free fall for eight stories. Because this theory is so monumentally ridiculous it deserves an outright dismissal. No one here has ever attempted in any way to reasonably support this violently absurd theory.

Compressing a structure also stores energy. The compression theory neatly explains the roof bowing, the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. Your ridiculous theory merely explains the mental state of NIST apologists. Does your theory explain the roof bow and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration? No. Magically simultaneously buckled columns would cause the building to accelerate straight downward. Oh wait...the core columns supporting the roof could have magically bucked in the second before the facade came down. Oh but then you will also have compression that would explain the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. But, oh dear, now there is no way to explain the magical simultaneous buckling of 58 perimeter columns. Quite a pickle you have here. I'm sure the world can't wait for your hilarious attempt at an explanation.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2010, 12:06 PM   #209
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,460
You're repeating a topic we've already debunked, cmatrix. Why?
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

My website.
Newtons Bit is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2010, 12:20 PM   #210
excaza
Illuminator
 
excaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,632
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Your theory implies that all the 58 perimeter columns buckled at exactly the same time at precisely the right points to allow a straight down free fall for eight stories. Because this theory is so monumentally ridiculous it deserves an outright dismissal. No one here has ever attempted in any way to reasonably support this violently absurd theory.
The only person who has ever presented this violently absurd theory is you. Why on earth don't you get that?
__________________
excaza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2010, 01:00 PM   #211
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
cm,

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
You appear to be claiming that in this 0.7 seconds period the building was hardly accelerating at all because the structure was providing resistance. Yet during this period 8 stories of structure buckled away simultaneously? Yeah right...
Allow me to explain what it means if the roofline accelerates (downward) for a short period of time: it means the roofline picked up a downward velocity.

Next, what does it mean if the acceleration of the roof line remains at zero for a short period of time: It means that the roofline continues to move downward at that same velocity.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
This period of approximately zero acceleration is most probably due to the roof curvature seen prior to free fall. All of the core would have been blown out, possibly the floors are collapsing which could compress the facade and explain the minuscule acceleration. At any rate, since it is near zero it can be effectively ignored since it means nothing significant at all despite your vigorous handwaving.
LMAO…

What do you call a building whose roofline is moving downward at a constant velocity? You call it a "collapsing building". No matter how small that velocity might be.

You STILL don't seem to understand the difference between acceleration & velocity.

Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse.

As a result, this downward motion was the last RESULT of the collapse process. Not the cause of something that was well underway.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
NIST's three stage model is indeed a fraud. It is not proven from Chandler's data since his and NIST's data are essentially the same. NIST simply started their countdown before the facade started its fall. That is fraud plain and simple. Your entirely unsupported pronouncements do nothing to dispute that.
Yup. NIST has the competence to start the countdown of the collapse of the building when the building actually began to collapse.

The nerve of those silly engineers...

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Higher than G acceleration can also be explained by the roof bow. The sides are compressing then when the perimeter columns are blown below the building whips down faster that G for a short time.
Flex of the building's structure is, in fact a viable (but unlikely) source of faster than g acceleration.

"Blown" perimeter columns are a delusion, disproven by about 100 audio tapes.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements are sign of something but certainly not competence.
I couldn't possibly agree more.

Now, do you have anything BUT "amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements" to offer?


tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2010, 01:12 PM   #212
DaveThomasNMSR
Muse
 
DaveThomasNMSR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 702
Originally Posted by excaza View Post
The only person who has ever presented this violently absurd theory is you. Why on earth don't you get that?
Because CM is too busy committing a classic Logical Fallacy.
__________________
"This explanation is priceless, and wipes out Drosnin with laughter, which is the correct weapon to use here." - James Randi

Ergo beedunked here.

Skeptical Inquirer July/August 2011 issue on 9/11 Truth
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 8th October 2010, 01:15 AM   #213
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,931
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Your theory implies that all the 58 perimeter columns buckled at exactly the same time at precisely the right points to allow a straight down free fall for eight stories.
No it doesn't. It implies that a failure progressed rapidly, but not necessarily instantaneously, across the north face. We know that it wasn't instantaneous from the way the kink developed in the middle of the face. The more you insist on misrepresenting your opponents' positions, the more you destroy any last vestiges of credibility you may have left.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Because this theory is so monumentally ridiculous it deserves an outright dismissal. No one here has ever attempted in any way to reasonably support this violently absurd theory.
Agreed. Yet, for some reason, you're demanding we do so. Could it be, perhaps, because you don't feel confident to address the actual, physically resonable, model that people here are supporting?

As Dave Thomas pointed out, this behaviour has a name.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Compressing a structure also stores energy. The compression theory neatly explains the roof bowing, the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. Your ridiculous theory merely explains the mental state of NIST apologists. Does your theory explain the roof bow and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration? No. Magically simultaneously buckled columns would cause the building to accelerate straight downward. Oh wait...the core columns supporting the roof could have magically bucked in the second before the facade came down. Oh but then you will also have compression that would explain the minuscule initial downward acceleration and the minuscule faster than G period of acceleration. But, oh dear, now there is no way to explain the magical simultaneous buckling of 58 perimeter columns. Quite a pickle you have here. I'm sure the world can't wait for your hilarious attempt at an explanation.
Nice rant. I can almost see the spittle round the corners of your mouth. My mental picture of you saying this out loud also includes an image of straw flying round the room.

If you feel like dealing with reality at some point, we'll still be here.

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 04:40 AM   #214
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,973
Hey CMA,

When do you plan on submitting your paper to a reputable journal for peer review? I mean, obviously this would be something that any of the dozens of SE journals would love to see. I mean, proving NIST andhundreds of SE and FPE wrong is big news.

Do you need help contacting a journal? Many of us here could help you with that information. Just ask.
triforcharity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 06:31 AM   #215
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,218
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Hey CMA,

When do you plan on submitting your paper to a reputable journal for peer review? I mean, obviously this would be something that any of the dozens of SE journals would love to see. I mean, proving NIST andhundreds of SE and FPE wrong is big news.

Do you need help contacting a journal? Many of us here could help you with that information. Just ask.
He's already submitted papers to the Journal of Applied "Oh yeah? I don't *think* so!"
__________________
Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.

Spectrum Scientifics - My store - Google it people!
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 09:18 AM   #216
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
cm,



Allow me to explain what it means if the roofline accelerates (downward) for a short period of time: it means the roofline picked up a downward velocity.

Next, what does it mean if the acceleration of the roof line remains at zero for a short period of time: It means that the roofline continues to move downward at that same velocity.



LMAO…

What do you call a building whose roofline is moving downward at a constant velocity? You call it a "collapsing building". No matter how small that velocity might be.

You STILL don't seem to understand the difference between acceleration & velocity.

Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse.

As a result, this downward motion was the last RESULT of the collapse process. Not the cause of something that was well underway.



Yup. NIST has the competence to start the countdown of the collapse of the building when the building actually began to collapse.

The nerve of those silly engineers...



Flex of the building's structure is, in fact a viable (but unlikely) source of faster than g acceleration.

"Blown" perimeter columns are a delusion, disproven by about 100 audio tapes.



I couldn't possibly agree more.

Now, do you have anything BUT "amateurish ridicule and pompous entirely unsupported pronouncements" to offer?


tom
I understand the difference between acceleration and velocity. Your completely unsupported pronouncements to the contrary prove absolutely nothing.

"Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse."

This statement is a primitive attempt to misdirect away from the inconvenient topic I am attempting to discuss: the free fall period of the facade and the inconvenient fact that for free fall to happen 8 stories of resisting structure had to be removed instantaneously. You can attempt to mislead the discussion all you like but you can't explain away the free fall period.

"As a result, this downward motion was the last RESULT of the collapse process. Not the cause of something that was well underway."

Now this is truly a bizarre statement. Who ever said the initial downward motion was the cause of the collapse?

David Chandler's expose of NIST's three stage model fraud of artificially setting the roof line collapse one second before it actually started is quite obvious. If you have some sort of proof he got it wrong let's hear it. Your handwaving unsupported pronouncements count for absolutely nothing.
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 09:29 AM   #217
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,931
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
This statement is a primitive attempt to misdirect away from the inconvenient topic I am attempting to discuss: the free fall period of the facade and the inconvenient fact that for free fall to happen 8 stories of resisting structure had to be removed instantaneously.
The erroneous word is the one emboldened.

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 09:32 AM   #218
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,460
He says it HAS to be removed instantaneously. Has anyone seen cmatrix back that up with any logic? Math? Anything?
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein

My website.
Newtons Bit is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 09:47 AM   #219
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,330
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
I understand the difference between acceleration and velocity. Your completely unsupported pronouncements to the contrary prove absolutely nothing.

etc...
Riddle me this: if freefall acceleration is THE indicator of CD, then why didn't the twin towers fall at freefall acceleration as well?

The 2.25s you're fixating on does not override all the other information, unless you're attempting to reduce the debate into a non-scientific rhetorical battle, that is.
__________________
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 8th October 2010, 10:23 AM   #220
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No it doesn't. It implies that a failure progressed rapidly, but not necessarily instantaneously, across the north face. We know that it wasn't instantaneous from the way the kink developed in the middle of the face. The more you insist on misrepresenting your opponents' positions, the more you destroy any last vestiges of credibility you may have left.



Agreed. Yet, for some reason, you're demanding we do so. Could it be, perhaps, because you don't feel confident to address the actual, physically resonable, model that people here are supporting?

As Dave Thomas pointed out, this behaviour has a name.



Nice rant. I can almost see the spittle round the corners of your mouth. My mental picture of you saying this out loud also includes an image of straw flying round the room.

If you feel like dealing with reality at some point, we'll still be here.

Dave
For the free fall period eight stories of resisting structure did have to be removed virtually simultaneously. If the structures weren't removed within a fraction of a second of one another there would be resistance and therefore no free fall.

Yes the kink could be caused by the corresponding perimeter columns being removed first within a fraction of a second of the others. This process is commonly used in controlled demolitions to facilitate the walls collapsing inward to prevent collateral damage.

Exposing the obvious implications of an opponent's position is not building a straw man. In order to expose a straw man you have to actually point out the misrepresentation. You can't just wave your hands making unsupported pronouncements.

The NIST apologists here aren't even presenting an actual position, just one with massive holes in it. NIST cannot explain free fall nor can their apologists. NIST admits free fall occurred but the model their theory is based on cannot predict free fall which proves both are complete bunk. What kind of people believe in theories that are complete bunk?
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 10:32 AM   #221
T.A.M.
Keeper of the Kool-Vax
 
T.A.M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,816
Back up your vague, nonmathematic nonscientific diatribe with some math and science, and you wont need to worry about others misrepresenting....it will be there in all of its irrefutable glory....

Yah, like that is gonna happen.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 11:12 AM   #222
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,757
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
NIST admits free fall occurred but the model their theory is based on cannot predict free fall which proves both are complete bunk. What kind of people believe in theories that are complete bunk?


Why can't it predict freefall? Explain in detail what their theory is, and why it inherently cannot predict freefall.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 01:22 PM   #223
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,273
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Yes the kink could be caused by the corresponding perimeter columns being removed first within a fraction of a second of the others. This process is commonly used in controlled demolitions to facilitate the walls collapsing inward to prevent collateral damage.
So then you should be able to show a freefall that attains freefall.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 01:45 PM   #224
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
cm,

1. You don't know what you are talking about. Time after time after time, you've made trivial, absurd errors.

2. Multiple people have corrected your trivial, absurd errors.

3. You simply ignore, fail to respond to, those corrections.

4. And repeat your trivial, absurd errors.

Allow me to provide a tiny sampling.

You stated:
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
All this talk of buckling is completely irrelevant unfortunately. The three stage model of NIST is a fraud. WTC 7 was in free fall immediately when the northwest corner began descending.
You are wrong.

The north wall was NOT in free fall immediately. I showed you Chandler's data. Here it is again.



Your response: While admitting that the 0.7 seconds of non-free fall acceleration, you ignore the fact that your previous statement was completely wrong.

Here is another sample of previous comments of mine to you. Which you also ignored.



The RED LINE is the acceleration vs. time behavior that you are claiming. The RED LINE shows an object whose supports have been completely removed at 3.75 seconds, entering free fall. Immediately.

The GREEN LINE is the acceleration of the North Wall, with a lot more resolution than Chandler's graph.

Your previous assertion is that the Green Line is the same as the Red Line...

So, cm, are you now prepared to retract your previous, incorrect statement that "the north face entered free fall immediately"?
___

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
I understand the difference between acceleration and velocity. Your completely unsupported pronouncements to the contrary prove absolutely nothing.
Wrong.

I showed you before (green line in graph above) that it wasn't even in free fall during those 2.25 seconds.

Here is the raw position vs. time data: http://femr2.ucoz.com/load/dan_rathe..._data/1-1-0-29
Calculate your own velocity vs. time graph & your own acceleration vs. time graph.

Come back & discuss it.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
Originally Posted by tfk
"Now, this particular downward velocity BEGAN at about 12 seconds after the building as a whole began to collapse."
This statement is a primitive attempt to misdirect away from the inconvenient topic I am attempting to discuss …
There has been no "misdirecting away from discussion of this topic".

I have discussed your "inconvenient topic" in excruciating detail in other threads. And attempted to discuss it with you in this one. You simply run away from the discussion.

Above, in this one post, is more substantive discussion than all of your posts combined.

You are the person who will not address the issues. You simply parrot the same nonsense over & over & over.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
the free fall period of the facade and the inconvenient fact that for free fall to happen 8 stories of resisting structure had to be removed instantaneously.
Uh, wrong again.

1) It didn't enter free fall. ("immediately" or otherwise)
2) 8 stories of resisting structure do NOT have to be removed for it to enter the acceleration seen.
3) 8 stories of resisting structure do NOT have to be removed "immediately" for it to enter the acceleration seen.
4) 8 stories of resisting structure were not removed.
5) the only thing that has to happen, for that (non-free fall) acceleration to be seen is for the geometry of the supporting structure to be changed. An event that can (& did) happen in about 0.7 seconds.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
... you can't explain away the free fall period.
Just did.

You missed it.

Again.

Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
David Chandler's expose of NIST's three stage model fraud of artificially setting the roof line collapse one second before it actually started is quite obvious. If you have some sort of proof he got it wrong let's hear it. Your handwaving unsupported pronouncements count for absolutely nothing.
You don't know what you (or Chandler) are talking about.

David Chandler does not dispute NIST's raw data. [He disputes an interpretation of a small sub-set of the data.]

BOTH Chandler & NIST's data show conclusively that Stages 1, 2 & 3 exist.

You seem unable to view & understand clear graphs. Let me help you, using Chandler's raw data:



Do you understand yet that Chandler's data CONFIRMS NIST's stages?

Are you willing to "discuss" this.

Or will you continue to ignore your trivial, absurd errors?


tom

Last edited by tfk; 8th October 2010 at 01:48 PM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 01:50 PM   #225
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
 
HyJinX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,666
brilliant post Tom.
__________________
What? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole... wheel of cheese? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad; that's amazing. - Ron Burgundy
HyJinX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 02:26 PM   #226
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
Originally Posted by HyJinX View Post
brilliant post Tom.

Aw, shucks. Thanks.

I'm a little hesitant to ask what the hell your Ron Burgandy tag line refers to...



tom
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 07:03 PM   #227
cmatrix
Critical Thinker
 
cmatrix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
cm,

Just did.

You missed it.

Again.

tom
You know what? I'm not going to play your misdirection games any more. I'm ashamed I let it go this far. You again claim you have dealt with the 2.25 second free fall period, i.e. explained it. You have not. You nor anyone else here have ever explained the free fall period. NIST has never explained it. The computer model their entire theory is based on does not even show free fall. Why? Because free fall is impossible in a natural gravity-driven collapse. The NIST model shows crumpling occurring during the time the building was in free fall. Such crumpling requires the conversion of gravitational potential energy which for obvious reasons would not be available in a free falling building. There it is in plain site. The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.
__________________
JREF forum debating secrets: discredit and misdirect. Like cointelpro just dumber.
cmatrix is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 07:09 PM   #228
AZCat
Graduate Poster
 
AZCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,644
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.
Mostly truthers, in my ever-so-humble opinion.
AZCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 08:15 PM   #229
ProBonoShill
Graduate Poster
 
ProBonoShill's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,176
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
You know what? I'm not going to play your misdirection games any more. I'm ashamed I let it go this far. You again claim you have dealt with the 2.25 second free fall period, i.e. explained it. You have not. You nor anyone else here have ever explained the free fall period. NIST has never explained it. The computer model their entire theory is based on does not even show free fall. Why? Because free fall is impossible in a natural gravity-driven collapse. The NIST model shows crumpling occurring during the time the building was in free fall. Such crumpling requires the conversion of gravitational potential energy which for obvious reasons would not be available in a free falling building. There it is in plain site. The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.
Translation: I have no clue what your post means tfk, please do not include mathematics, physics and engineering in your posts as I do not understand them.
ProBonoShill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th October 2010, 08:18 PM   #230
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 21,845
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
... The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.
The best part of your delusion, you can't prove it. If you could it would be in real journal right now.

I don't need to defend NIST, you can't refute them, you can't prove them wrong. The only thing you have done is said they have rubbish for a theory, and rant about crackpot pseudo-science. Yet you have produce no science, only talk as your evidence. You lost this one. Until you produce reasons and the math to go with your work, you have failed to prove anything other than you are making up false statements about NIST.

Last edited by beachnut; 8th October 2010 at 08:35 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 9th October 2010, 10:47 AM   #231
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 17,931
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
For the free fall period eight stories of resisting structure did have to be removed virtually simultaneously. If the structures weren't removed within a fraction of a second of one another there would be resistance and therefore no free fall.
Parts that we've all been trying to get you to admit emboldened. The point, of course, is that "within a fraction of a second" is not "simultaneous", and allows the column failures to be related by a chain of causality rather than a single external cause. And that's the strawman argument you've been presenting: that the 2.25 second drop cannot be explained by a sequential failure of columns, when in fact it can, and has been. And, once the failure is seen to be sequential, it's obvious that it could be caused by progressive failure, and didn't have to be demolition.

Dave
__________________
"We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy."

- Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo

SSKCAS, covert member
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 11:40 AM   #232
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,036
Originally Posted by cmatrix View Post
You know what? I'm not going to play your misdirection games any more. I'm ashamed I let it go this far. You again claim you have dealt with the 2.25 second free fall period, i.e. explained it. You have not. You nor anyone else here have ever explained the free fall period. NIST has never explained it. The computer model their entire theory is based on does not even show free fall. Why? Because free fall is impossible in a natural gravity-driven collapse. The NIST model shows crumpling occurring during the time the building was in free fall. Such crumpling requires the conversion of gravitational potential energy which for obvious reasons would not be available in a free falling building. There it is in plain site. The NIST theory is based on a model which does not explain the obvious facts. This means both the model and the theory are complete and utter rubbish, i.e. crackpot pseudo-science. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine what sort of people agree with and defend crackpot pseudo-science.

You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

"Can't fall faster than g" describes the falling of an object under the influence on just one force: gravity. That means "untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces."

Well, the collapsing north wall of WTC7 was NOT "an object untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces." It was a portion of a far, FAR more complex system than that. It was subject to many hundreds of forces from its connection (on the far side) to the already collapsing building.

Because of those connections & forces, it is NOT impossible for it to fall at "g". It is not impossible for it to fall faster than "g".

It appears evident that, for a brief period of time, it DID fall faster than "g".

And violated not one, single law of the universe in doing so.


Neither you, nor the high school physics teacher (Chandler), seem capable of recognizing this fact.

Your hiding your head in the sand, your deciding that I'm only spewing misdirection, & your lack of understanding don't change the real facts of the issue one iota.

It just makes you (& Chandler) look like a couple of incompetents.


tom

Last edited by tfk; 9th October 2010 at 11:45 AM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 01:50 PM   #233
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.

"Can't fall faster than g" describes the falling of an object under the influence on just one force: gravity. That means "untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces."

Well, the collapsing north wall of WTC7 was NOT "an object untouched by any other object and subject to no other forces." It was a portion of a far, FAR more complex system than that. It was subject to many hundreds of forces from its connection (on the far side) to the already collapsing building.

Because of those connections & forces, it is NOT impossible for it to fall at "g". It is not impossible for it to fall faster than "g".

It appears evident that, for a brief period of time, it DID fall faster than "g".

And violated not one, single law of the universe in doing so.


Neither you, nor the high school physics teacher (Chandler), seem capable of recognizing this fact.

Your hiding your head in the sand, your deciding that I'm only spewing misdirection, & your lack of understanding don't change the real facts of the issue one iota.

It just makes you (& Chandler) look like a couple of incompetents.


tom
If it fell faster than g for a period of time presumably some item that was itself travelling faster than g impelled the rest downwards faster than g. What was that item and what caused it it to exceed g in the first place ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 9th October 2010 at 02:56 PM.
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 03:01 PM   #234
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,757
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
If it fell faster than g for a period of time presumably some item that was itself travelling faster than g inpelled the rest downwards faster than g. What was that item and what caused it it to exceed g in the first place ?



Internal forces. Tension or compression within the structure itself. A sudden fracture of a joint would release these forces to act on different parts of the structure, and it's reasonable to suggest that at least some of those forces would add to the acceleration due to gravity.


Consider a person falling in free-fall, with their body stretched out flat relative to the direction of gravity. Then imagine that this person then folds himself into a "pike position", like an Olympic diver. For the period that they are accelerating their own head and feet downwards, what would be the measured acceleration of a point on their head or feet, relative to the rest of the world? That's right, for a brief period, it would be greater that g. Scale that image up to the size of a building.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 03:08 PM   #235
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Internal forces. Tension or compression within the structure itself. A sudden fracture of a joint would release these forces to act on different parts of the structure, and it's reasonable to suggest that at least some of those forces would add to the acceleration due to gravity.


Consider a person falling in free-fall, with their body stretched out flat relative to the direction of gravity. Then imagine that this person then folds himself into a "pike position", like an Olympic diver. For the period that they are accelerating their own head and feet downwards, what would be the measured acceleration of a point on their head or feet, relative to the rest of the world? That's right, for a brief period, it would be greater that g. Scale that image up to the size of a building.
If the person goes into the pike position and is already falling at g at that time where does the extra energy come from to drive him downwards faster than g ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 03:16 PM   #236
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,757
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
If the person goes into the pike position and is already falling at g at that time where does the extra energy come from to drive him downwards faster than g ?


His lunch.
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 03:25 PM   #237
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
His lunch.
You should pass that on to NIST Horatius . It might give them another possibility to match 'thermal expansion' and 'then a miracle happened'
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 03:26 PM   #238
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,757
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
You should pass that on to NIST Horatius . It might give them another possibility to match 'thermal expansion' and ' then a miracle happened'


Why am I not at all surprised you don't know anything about how a human body works, either?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 03:34 PM   #239
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Why am I not at all surprised you don't know anything about how a human body works, either?
Lunch is too complicated Horatius. I mean what did he have for lunch and so on.
Why not convert it to the guy climbs to the top of the free-falling elevator and jumps to the floor causing it to exceed g ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'
bill smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th October 2010, 03:39 PM   #240
bill smith
Philosopher
 
bill smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,408
Originally Posted by bill smith View Post
Lunch is too complicated Horatius. I mean what did he have for lunch and so on.
Why not convert it to the guy climbs to the top of the free-falling elevator and jumps to the floor causing it to exceed g ?
PS. Or maybe the fly flying at two miles an hour in the car racing along at 90 mph flies into the windscreen presumably pushing the car along just that little bit faster than 90 mph ?
__________________
*Think WTC7 - You cannot make the four corners of a table fall together unless you cut the four legs together
*A kitchen table judgement on a world scale is enough
* To Citizens: 'There comes a time when silence is betrayal'

Last edited by bill smith; 9th October 2010 at 03:46 PM.
bill smith 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 » 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 12:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, 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.