911 CONGRATULATIONS!! - Truthers Force NIST to Change Final Report on WTC7!

Discussion in '9/11' started by Kokomojojo, Aug 14, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,962
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83

    yeh thats off topic but I did love the deer in the headlights look on rummy and that generals face and it was hilarious listening to them stumble and stammer around when that reporter asked them about it. BAMM!

    That was great!
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,962
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I can just hear them after the interview!

    $#@*$&(^(*& that wasnt in the script! LMFAO
     
  3. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And once again: Show me proof that free fall speed can only be attained when a building is demolished.

    I guess you missed where they admitted that a small portion of the building was in free fall for a small portion of the entire collapse, not as you suggest the entire thing for the entire collapse.

    But why argue about what they supposedly said, when they have already answered this question? For a supposed conspiracy, NIST is remarkably open about answering questions obviously posted to them by ignorant 9/11 Deniers with a "gotcha" agenda:
    In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?

    In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
    To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
    The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

    The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
    • Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    • Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    • Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
    This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
    Taken from their own FAQ about building 7, located here: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

    But that detailed, frank answer doesn't comport with your confirmation bias of what you supposedly know happened, so it's no surprise you missed it.

    But wait... Why would they demolish a building with explosives when, according to sites you draw your proof from, they could have just zapped it with a giant energy beam? I'd like that question answered by you since you're the one that uses those sites for proof.
     
  4. suede

    suede Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    1,718
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :-D Look who's talking!!! :-D
     
  5. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0


    There are many videos of buildings being brought down by explosives, I am willing to bet a $1 that the timeline, speed, acceleration profiles for similiar buildings will be very very close to that of the WTC7
     
  6. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    6,915
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You wouldn't be willing to do the research on your own though.

    Lazy.
     
  7. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,962
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83

    OH?

    So you know another way that you can create a global failure resulting in frefall?

    PROVE there is ANY other way!
     
  8. John Tyler

    John Tyler Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    583
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded"]Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org - YouTube[/ame]
     
  9. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So what?

    Gravity does not change depending on how a building is demolished.

    And, as Fang points out, like all 9/11 Deniers you're too lazy to do your own research. You'll just throw out a supposedly dramatic claim that insinuates something sinister, and then walk away and expect all the sane people to spend their whole life disproving it.
    You're the one making the claim. It is your job to provide proof of your claim.

    To review: The NIST explains, quite fully, how the collapse of WTC7 occurred. They provide the science and data to support their explanation. Note that the NIST data does not suggest a "global" failure. They state that, from videos, the NORTH FACE of the building falls in free fall for a short period of time. They fully explain how this could happen given the data. It's an exhaustive, thorough, explanation.

    You have challenged that explanation, claiming that "freefall" cannot occur unless the building were demolished.

    Therefore, the claim is yours to prove. I am not making a new claim. I am asking you to support yours with actual evidence. You'll need evidence as good or better than what NIST has already provided.
     
  10. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,962
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83

    that is fully explained in video 3

    every demolition happens in 3 phases

    acceleration, descent, deceleration.

    Giving the technical definition of the sequence of events of demolition is not an investigative explanation.

    There is nothing known to science that can cause global structural failure, demanding that one proves nothing is impossible and unreasonable.

    Therefore it is reasonable to demand that if you have any alternative means of causing such an event state it or eat it.

    it is they who are making the claim it was a collapse due to fire, not me, it is they who need to prove out their story, you support they then you litigate it.
     
  11. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Your post is unresponsive and unintelligible.

    Go back and try again. There's no point in going any further until you demonstrate you can even understand what I am writing.
     
  12. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,962
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83

    There is no point in going further because you have just demonstrated you do not understand the matter but thanks for playing.
     
  13. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Still unresponsive. I'll just repeat this until you respond to what I said, line by line.
     
  14. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,962
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83

    have you considered getting an architect to help you? If you need special education I do charge reasonable tutoring fees.
     
  15. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I won't need to.

    Now that I have suggested it, the smart people who read my posts will do it.
     
  16. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Haha, I knew that suggestion would hit a nerve.
     
  17. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Still unresponsive.
    Time to respond to my post.
    LOL... "Hit a nerve"? What suggestion? The suggestion that you are incapable of doing your own research? Why would that hit a nerve with me? It doesn't make me look like a kook.

    Again: You're a typical 9/11 Denier. You throw out sinister sounding accusations, but when it comes time for evidence, you're nowhere to be found.
     
  18. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,962
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83

    how ridiculous everyone knows that days are chronological and that their was a 24 hour period in that data set labeled september 11 2001
     
  19. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sigh......
     
  20. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,962
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83
    what do you want anyway, you are making no sense.

    it freefell and global freefall can ONLY happen in a demolition.

    Both the videos and I have explained that already
     
  21. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just like you.. Throwing out accusations that certain UNconvicted people plotted the attack, then when asked to tell us what the piece(s) of evidence are, NEVER an answer.
     
  22. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,962
    Likes Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    83

    thats why he has the acronym AWD! LOL

    [​IMG]
     
  23. 10aces

    10aces New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2011
    Messages:
    829
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
     
  24. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Specifically, I am asking you to respond, line by line, to this:
    http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...-change-final-report-wtc7-14.html#post4348770
    Again, you throw out a scary-sounding accusation, that the "government" "destroyed" all the evidence... With nothing to back it up.

    Guess what? The accusation that the government "destroyed" all the evidence is nothing but another 9/11 Denier lie, which doesn't become true no matter how many times you repeat it.
     
  25. ChrLz

    ChrLz Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No they haven't.

    1. How did YOU (don't point at a video) ascertain and verify that the building 'free-fell'? What were the actual timings and points measured, how were they determined and verified, what were the sources of error and error range?

    2. On what basis do you claim that 'global freefall' can only happen in a demolition? Was the measurement made above, truly 'global' (if not, why did you use that term)? What demolitions were measured and how was the 'free-fall' rate measured? What non-demolition collapses were measured in comparison?


    And .. have you ever heard of the term 'methodology'?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page