revisiting 911 truth in the Obama days...

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

In this thread you continue to mock those who (you admit) have far, far more training and experience in engineering and physics than you do.

I'm no longer mocking you or anyone, I'm simply pointing out that free fall is not possible without the removal of the structure or platform that the free falling object was propped up by.

You can have all the credentials in the world, you still have to make sense to

I have asked you multiple times to explain to me how you think it is possible. Before you simply said, "there was no free fall", now that NIST was forced to admit free fall, you have simply resorted to either silence or 'mocking' those that question your belief.

How about you be honest with yourself, me and everyone reading this, and explain how questioning the official narrative is so silly when such simple physics are irrefutable.

You can start by telling us how the building could collapse at free fall speed, and how you accept that notion.

Nist told us how they were poised to collapse and created some funky computer model of chaos.

No one has explained this anomaly, you say it is not an anomaly, yet you cannot explain it.

So enlighten me, you can use one of your silly analogies if you please.

Maybe a skydiver free falling through a pile of falling and static debris something?

But you clain faster than freefall collapse.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

> Do you think some additional downward pressure was exerted by the conspirators efforts?

Rockets, I'm tellin ya. Little tiny rockets.

I *still* say it's the little tiny magical unicorns.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

i met an engineer only a month ago that was sure that truthers were kidding themselves, he took the time to study what they were saying and has been and active truth activist ever since.

I met an engineer about a month ago that was sure that truthers were right, he took the time to study what they were saying and has come to realize they are wrong. (We can all come up with an example, it's just that mine is correct )

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm no longer mocking you or anyone, I'm simply pointing out that free fall is not possible without the removal of the structure or platform that the free falling object was propped up by.

How is it possible to remove all of the structural integrity before the building collapses? That's sounds like an impossible task to do even if you're not hiding it from billions of people. Doesn't it seem more likely that your premise is false - either it didn't fall at "free fall" speeds or it doesn't take a full loss of integrity to have a rapid collapse.

Now when you or your 1100 engineers say it fell a free fall, what is the value we're talking about? 0.99g? What is the error range of this estimate? And what do you think would be a valid value if this wasn't a massive conspiracy?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

> Do you think some additional downward pressure was exerted by the conspirators efforts?

Rockets, I'm tellin ya. Little tiny rockets.

I *still* say it's the little tiny magical unicorns.

I'm sticking with Amazon and the rabbits.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[pirana 0]

I was thinking some Wil E Coyote style contraption.

Acme rockets heh?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm no longer mocking you or anyone, I'm simply pointing out that free fall is not possible without the removal of the structure or platform that the free falling object was propped up by.

How is it possible to remove all of the structural integrity before the building collapses? That's sounds like an impossible task to do even if you're not hiding it from billions of people. Doesn't it seem more likely that your premise is false - either it didn't fall at "free fall" speeds or it doesn't take a full loss of integrity to have a rapid collapse.

Now when you or your 1100 engineers say it fell a free fall, what is the value we're talking about? 0.99g? What is the error range of this estimate? And what do you think would be a valid value if this wasn't a massive conspiracy?

From the interviews and materials I've seen, the speed claimed above freefall speed is very small, and well within the error range of the methods used for calculating it.

In other words, if we accept the upper limit of the error margin, it is possible for them to make their claim (though it provides definitive support to neither side of the arguement).

In other other words - their "evidence" supports nothing other than that the building came down in a hurry, at about freefall speed, plus or minus a tad.

Given that, and with no evidence of localized additional gravity or any Wil E Coyote device; claims of falling faster than freefall are all wet.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In other other words - their "evidence" supports nothing other than that the building came down in a hurry, at about freefall speed, plus or minus a tad.

Given that, and with no evidence of localized additional gravity or any Wil E Coyote device; claims of falling faster than freefall are all wet.

One of their arguments (keep throwing shit at the wall) isn't that it exceeded 1g, but that it shouldn't be falling at 1g. So my question is - at what speed would they believe the official explanation of the buildings collapsing due to structural damage from the plane crashes. 0.9? 0.8? No clue, but something less than what Youtube shows?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

> Do you think some additional downward pressure was exerted by the conspirators efforts?

Rockets, I'm tellin ya. Little tiny rockets.

I *still* say it's the little tiny magical unicorns.

I'm sticking with Amazon and the rabbits.

shhhhh


wasacally wabbits... with thwemite

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

We don't point the finger anymore, we simply state the facts, the simple irrefutable facts.

How sure are you that they are aware of the freefall acceleration of building 7? Most people don't know building 7 fell because it was not really reported after that day.

If they believe free fall acceleration is possible for a steel framed building by fire alone, they need to re asses their understanding of basic physics.

No one, I repeat, No one has explained how this anomaly is possible, they have not tried and will not because it is physically impossible.

One should not be so confident of what the facts are when one is being fed bullshit.

How fast should it have fallen? Until you have some basis for an estimate based upon analysis or experiment, you cannot support your assertion that it was unusual. Perhaps it should have been slowed by 1%, maybe 10%. It makes a HUGE difference in that if it should have been slowed by something on the order of 1%, then you cannot expect measurement by video to be anywhere near accurate enough to capture that.

How accurate do you think the measurement of the fall was? I assert the measurement upon which you rely so heavily is much less accurate than you realize, and it has nothing to do with the repeatability of someone using a stopwatch while watching a video. Many factors are involved that would contribute to the inaccuracy of
such a measurement.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[rhys 0]

Quote

Rhys every time I see one of your possts , Im going to re ask my question until I get a serious asnwer.
If 9/11 was a inside job why didnt they plant some evdience of Iraq's invovlement?

Answering that question would be speculating, speculating leads you down the wrong path.

Lets stick to simple physics, that we as skydivers, should clearly understand.

Things (anything) cannot freefall unless they have very little resistance!

that is all!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Rhys every time I see one of your possts , Im going to re ask my question until I get a serious asnwer.
If 9/11 was a inside job why didnt they plant some evdience of Iraq's invovlement?

Answering that question would be speculating, speculating leads you down the wrong path.

Lets stick to simple physics, that we as skydivers, should clearly understand.

Things (anything) cannot freefall unless they have very little resistance!

that is all!

Hell, all you do is speculate.....you clearly don't understand even basic physics.....and neither the towers nor building #7 fell at freefall speed for any significant length of time. W-H-A-T _ P-A-R-T _ O-F _ T-H-A-T _ D-O _ Y-O-U _ N-O-T _ U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D ?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[rhys 0]

Quote

You have already asked me about that and I have replied. I must not have told you what you wanted to hear because you have forgotten it.
I doubt that you have even read the report. Try reading it and making up your own mind instead of just parroting what the truthers tell you.

How about you show us or give us a link to your answer, I remember some analogy about a lever with a weight and how everyone should be able to grasp that, but you did not go into any further detail.

refresh our memories.

Quote

I have asked you many times why the debris from the top of the towers hit the ground long before the towers finished collapsing at what YOU call free-fall speed. Why won't you explain this? It fits right in with your latest trend.

The debris had zero resistance from the time it left the structure until it hit something, if it was projected beyond the perimeter of the buildings.

It is possible for something to have resistance for a period, none for another and then have resistance again. Therefore the debris that hit the ground before the sructure falling through the path of greatest resistance, did so because it had no (or little) reisitance (air).

This is not to say the structure did not fall at freefall speeds for a period during thier collapses.


My question pertains to building 7, you know the Sttel framed high rise that collapsed from fire thatday also, the one that the Fema report forgot to include, and the building NIST have admitted fell at freefall speed for at least a period of 2.5 seconds and the one that we have clear evidence of that was not obscured by the massive plumes of dust from the desintergrated concrete slabs (that disintergrated in mid air).

Why do you change the subject from building 7 to the twin towers?

I know, because you are stumped by it, and you use ellaborate methods to move the conversation away from it.

How about you show us you skills as an engineer and explain how you think it is possible for 'building 7' to collapse at free fall speed through thepath of greatest resistance?


Show me you answer, an anwer that explains the machanics of this, cut and paste from the NIST report if you wish, they didn't explain it either...

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

ANSWER THE QUESTION! I said that I would even say that 50% of the people were secretly on your side. Again the question is: What would you say if an equally large group of engineers and architects signed a petition and actually believed what they were signing?

So, is your answer that you'd entirely dismiss it just because it wasn't your own point of view?

I would consider their opinion, research their subject matter, and then determine what my thoughts were.

what I wouldn't do is,

Dismiss thier experience on a whim because they question my opinion.

Mock them and everyone that follows them.

Tell them that thier opinions are not worth discussing yet spend untold hours discussion it anyway.

Make stupid fun of them insead of being realistic and answering thier questions first...

Take a look art yourself and your mates here, if i am such a whackjob along with the 1100 or so A & E's (plus countless others including undreds of first responders, immediarte family of the deceased, police, firefighters, pilots...) that have taken the time to sign the petition and puth their careers on the line, then why do you guys give such a shit about it?

why don't you just leave it?

because it intrigues you and you know there is truth behind it, it is just your popular culture is bred to 'not' allow you to believe.

If you beleive, you will become a conspiracy nut, not someone that has a relevant question, but simply a conspiracy nut.

What a sad world we live in!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

I'm asking about the specific points that this video makes. What are they and what do you agree with? For example do you agree that the language they were using (saying they decided to pull the building) is proof that there were explosives, or that the Mayor didn't enter the building to utilize the emergency facility for...some reason. What's that reason?

I beleive that loose change does bring up some very relevant points but relies too much on speculation.

It is clear now that speculation is not needed to determine the truth, too much solid evidence that does not include speculation is available and you will find that the majority of the truth movement is now thinking this way.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Oh that's beautiful. Really beautiful. Ok Rhys, I'm sure that 99% of Engineers and Architects believe your story, it's just that they're all to scared to speak up. Yep, and everyone who speaks publicly against the truth movement is definitely a government stooge

So by that rationale, you believe that any engineer that publicly questions the official narrative wouyld not be subjected to ridicule from those of your ilk?

Think about it!

Quote

Every Evangelist out there will tell you a story about a 'friend' of theirs, or someone they met who always used to speak out against the bible, and rail against God every chance he got. Until one day, that friend actually read the bible, and guess what? He was instantly converted and is now an after dinner speaker on the Creation Science circuit! Amazing story, eh?

The difference is, there is no scientific evidence for the teachings of the bible, but there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that buildings do not fall at freefall speeds through the path of greatest resistance!

Nice try.

You beleif is based on faith, mine is on evidence!

How about we begin an investigation to clear this up once and for all?

oh yeah, you guyus are violently oppsing that, because that is all we want!

Quote

So, once again matey, for the umpteenth time, why would they have bothered rigging it to collapse? What did they have to gain that made the risk worthwhile?

How much money has gone into the war on terror?

About that much!

Somewhere in the trillions of dollars!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

And I have answered you several times. Indeed, I once did the math to demonstrate how much force a collapsing building can generate. It is several orders of magnitude larger than the building is designed to withstand.

Cool so you have explained how a buliding can collapse, now explain how it can do so at freefall speed, if I remeber correctly you denied that freefal happened, but that was before NIST admitted it di happen.

Go on, enlighten us and maybe post a link to the explanation you just described to us. i have no Idea where it is, you will know some key words to find it...

really, I truly want to study your opinion rather than mock you...

Quote

OK. Let's say you're in freefall. You hit the skylight of a building at 120mph. The skylight can withstand an impact of about 50 pounds before shattering. The force of your impact is around 2500 pounds. Will you stop? Or even be noticeably slowed down?

haha, so WTC7 was made of thin plexiglass?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

I'm confused about how any conspiracy activity would have contributed to the building(s) falling "too fast."

What activity linked to a conspiracy would have allowed for such speed that non-conspiracy explanations could not account for?

In other words, if the arguement is that the speed of the collapse could not have occured given the explanation of the commission, how does that point to a conspiracy? Do you think some additional downward pressure was exerted by the conspirators efforts?

You are obviously being facecious or have not studied this topic enough. i wil assume the latter and refer you to;

www.ae911truth.org

Forthe freefall of a steel framed building to occur, pre planted explosives would have to be used.

Multipule evidence of high tech explosive material was found in the dust in manhattan, by different independant investigtors.

The only repsonse from any official invesigator is denial that these exist.

It would be easy to determine if they were there or not by gaining access to the debris that is now in a land fill. Why is access denied for such an investigation?

If it was a hoax, we would be shown it was a hoax, simply running a magnet over the dust would prove it true or flase...

This will happen, in time the FOIA will allow access.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Belgian_Draft 0]

As Bill, myself, and other continually tell you: Your questions have been answered in depth many times over.
Do not expect us to repeat because you fail to comprehend. You ask for an explanation, you get one. You don't understand "engineer speak", call it gobbledegook, and want it explained in layman's terms. You get an answer in layman's terms and you accuse the writer of dodging the question because he did not provide enough detail.
Why do I keep bringing up the towers? Because you have never provided answers to question we have posed and their collapse is permantly linked to building 7 because their debris mortally wounded it.
Can you calculate moment of inertia, radius of gyration, eccentricity, stress, moment, load factor, critical load, etc. even for a simple column? What about a column of changing cross section such as used in most buildings? Can you calculate what happens to all of these when it is subject to heating and it's supporting members are weakened or removed? These are all things a second or, at the most, third year engineering student can do in his/her sleep.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Forthe freefall of a steel framed building to occur, pre planted explosives would have to be used.

Incorrect - Billvon and I have both provided examples where steel-framed structures collapsed after a fire.

Quote

Multipule evidence of high tech explosive material was found in the dust in manhattan, by different independant investigtors.

Multiple evidence of what some 'investigators' THOUGHT was a high tech explosive was found in the dust - let's be accurate, now.

Speaking of explosives, are you ever planning on answering my questions about them?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Lets stick to simple physics, that we as skydivers, should clearly understand.

Being a skydiver does not qualify you to understand any physics.

Many skydivers still don't understand why heavy people fall faster than light people, and think the wind hits them from behind when they are running downwind under canopy.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

Take a look art yourself and your mates here, if i am such a whackjob along with the 1100 or so A & E's (plus countless others including undreds of first responders,

Where are their names on the petition? You wouldn't happen to have just made that bit up, would you?

"There's, like, millions and millions of us..."

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,259]

Quote

So by that rationale, you believe that any engineer that publicly questions the official narrative wouyld not be subjected to ridicule from those of your ilk?

That's no basis for blindly assuming that the silent majority are on your side. They're not on your side, they just think you're too ridiculous to bother engaging.

Quote

Quote

So, once again matey, for the umpteenth time, why would they have bothered rigging it to collapse? What did they have to gain that made the risk worthwhile?

How much money has gone into the war on terror?

About that much!

Somewhere in the trillions of dollars!

Who's changing the subject now? We were talking about Building 7. You said youself, on the day hardly anyone even noticed it had fallen. It had absolutely no impact on the war on terror, the Twin Towers accomplished that on their own.

So why bother rigging it to collapse at all? In terms of the war on terror, it would have been a completely useless exercise that brings a much greater risk of discovery for zero benefit.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Belgian_Draft 0]

The destruction of building #7 was just in case nobody noticed there were two skyscrapers missing from the New York skyline that morning.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[philh 0]

No Rhys you are missing the entire point of scientific enquiry which you claim to want to use here.
Ideas have consequences, theories make predictions and we asses those ideas and theories by comparing the consequences and predictions of those theories with the data. If it doesn't match we throw it out.
What you are doing is called anomaly hunting. This excellent article might help you.
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=525

You are desperately trying to find something that doesn't fit what you think you should expect from a fully fueled plane crashing into a building at high speed.
If it were simply a bizzare engineering anomaly you would not be on this forum debating it. Lets be honest here,
few would really care if your idea didn't have the implication that 9/11 was inside job. The problem with that is,the idea that 9/11 was inside job doesn't fit what we actually observe happened on 9/11.
Not only were there no Iraqis on the planes, there was no evidence to link Iraq to 9/11. The Bush government was known to pursue the theory the there was a link to Iraq and then had to give it up in the face of zero evidence. Witnesses have said that the Bush, Rumsfield etc were not very interested in attacking Afghanistan, but had their focus on Iraq. Moreover Bush looked unprepared for 9/11 as he sat in that classroom for an hour not knowing what to do , Rumsfield was inside the Pentagon when it was attacked. None of this is consistent with the idea that government had any hand in 9/11.

You cant just ignore the implications of your points if you want people to take you seriously.If you study real physics you would know this. Take quantum gravity. String theorists think they have got a good theory of quantum gravity. One of the implication of this idea are that there are extra dimensions. There are tests we may to be able to carry out in the future to see if there really are hidden dimensions. String theory will not even begin to be accepted as a final theory if we don't find these hidden dimensions. This is how real science works. You examine the consequences of your ideas to test them out.
Simply anomaly hunting without facing the implications of what you are suggesting is a sure sign of pseudo science.