NASA engineer agrees with Citizen Investigation Team

Discussion in '9/11' started by Scott, Jan 4, 2019.

  1. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Danny Jowenko says it is a CD. His assessment is that the lower supports were taken out and the building dropped.

    Well since that is what occurred why should the building fall in a different way? The lower supports DID give way. One above the penthouse first followed by the other 2 after imbalanced load.

    Deceptively, which increasingly seems to be the realm of the "truther", he is not shown the preamble where the penthouse gives way.

    By deductive reasoning(you really should give it a go!) his surprise that this is the same day as the two WTC collapses indicates without question that he says they were NOT controlled demolitions. Otherwise, why would he be surprised?
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2019
  2. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I haven't evaded anything, quite making **** up.

    That's not what I said, I said you don't understand basic physics and your next paragraph confirms it.

    All incorrect. Free fall is not a "bit", it's not a speed after time or distance nor is it non-specific. Free fall is a very specific constant rate of acceleration applied to the gravitational motion of an object (ideally in a vacuum) on this planet. If you can't understand that much, you don't understand basic physics. I posted an article written by David Chandler. Did you bother to read it or did read it but don't understand a lick of it? Free fall can be DERIVED as described by Chandler:

    if you don’t know ahead of time that the acceleration will be uniform (which would certainly apply in the case of a collapsing building), you would have to track the motion over short time intervals, calculate the velocity (speed) over each interval, and measure the rate of increase of velocity over time. If the calculated velocities are plotted on a graph, the slope of the graph would give the acceleration. If the acceleration turns out to be uniform, the v vs. t graph will be linear. Otherwise the “slope of the graph,” at any point, would be the slope of the tangent line.

    No "WE" are not talking about that, YOU are perhaps talking about that. The fact is WTC7 dropped uniformly/symmetrically from the moment the roof line began to descend and for about 2.25-2.50 secs at a rate indistinguishable from free fall (a description David Chandler uses). He was able to measure the rate of WTC7's descent (see posted graph at post #66) and NIST agreed and published it. Case closed, quit making crap up you show you know nothing about. If you're trying to contradict David Chandler and over 3,000 architects and engineers who agree with that observation you're really embarrassing yourself, especially given that you show you don't even understand what free fall is.
     
  3. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you believe Jowenko was fooled. And I suppose you also believe David Chandler and over 3,000 architects and engineers are fools too. <Mod Edit> As I already explained, it's not even the fact that WTC7 was in free fall although that is not to be discounted either, the key is the fact the building descent accelerated through its own massive structure with no discernible hesitation.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2019
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sure you have Bob. You have become so expert maybe you have convinced yourself you aren't doing it!

    I'll let you in on a little secret Bob, the day I care what your pitiful opinion means will be the day Trump starts his 3rd term.

    No. None of that is incorrect.

    Learn to read.

    I fail to understand why you went off to Google that, simply to tell me something I was aware of 45 years ago.

    The operative word being "if" which relies exclusively on your pathetic and pedantic "deductive reasoning". I understand free fall, thank you very much. I understand your urgent need to poison the well. You already tried that with your "you're not American, so you have no right to debate" schtick!

    Yes, read and fully understood. It baffles me how you can quote that simplistic crap and assume it makes you an expert. I have to laugh at your/his Stage 1/2/3 hogwash. If we acknowledge that his graph and readings are accurate, we see quite clearly that 2/3s of the fall is not at free fall. His attempts to dismiss this are fairly ludicrous.

    I don't recall anyone doubting that there was 2.25 seconds of free fall Bob, is this your disturbing need for conflict that you have to make up things? The point is that once the supports give way, that is exactly what SHOULD occur.

    Well Bob, we have a massive 2.25 seconds of free fall, but exactly how far of a fall is that? It isn't the entire piece of footage, because in 2.25 seconds an object will fall unrestricted the grand total of 81.44 feet. And further, we clearly DO see 5.4 seconds of fall, or do you dispute this?

    In 5.4 seconds an object will fall 469ft. That is nearly DOUBLE what we see. I eagerly await more of your diversion and evasion.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No Bob, that is your word not mine. I said DECEIVED! And he was. Any demolition man would recognize that the penthouse area collapsing indicates that only one of the supports had gone.

    False comparison and fake assessment - is it the number that makes them correct?

    <Rule 2/3>

    Incorrect. It was perfectly explained by the NIST report and the figure you quote doesn't account for 160ft of "missing" supposed free-fall, that is reality a missing 380ft. I know those numbers will confuse you, but that's your problem. If you ask nicely I'll show you how to work it out.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2019
  6. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is all you needed to post. The rest of your posts follows that assessment of yours. Thanks for your confirmation that you understand nothing about the NIST reports' many deceptions that you bought lock, stock and barrel as valid. That was NIST's objective after all. And despite your claim that you understand the concept of free fall and its implication with respect to WTC7 you don't at all but you do have the right to imagine you do. You also have the right to imagine that you believe you know better than experts who blatantly contradict your fantasies. I won't waste my time with your OCT fantasies any further, your vivid imagination speaks for itself.

    As for the real world, we shall see if the grand jury agrees with NIST (and you) or not. That's all that matters at this point, not the imaginations of anonymous internet jockeys who believe they are experts in all 9/11 matters strictly for the purpose of defending the OCT 24/7.

    BTW you always have the opportunity to file an Amicus Curiae in the Southern District of New York explaining your qualifications as an expert witness in defense of the NIST reports. Good luck. If you do, please post a copy here. Thanks.
     
  7. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Have to laugh. We have Good ol' Bob denying that he avoids things, then with a wave of the arm and a blast of hot air he does that very thing.

    You insist I don't know what freefall is and your method to affirm this is to avoid figures I've given disputing that claim. You seem scared to respond Bob. Have another go:

    In 2.25 seconds of free fall an object will fall unrestricted the grand total of 81.44 feet. We clearly DO see 5.4 seconds of fall, or do you dispute this? In 5.4 seconds an object will fall 469ft. That is nearly DOUBLE what we see. For free fall of the visible section of the building it is close to 3.9 seconds.

    Come on Bob where is your physics?
     
  8. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have a point? What is your objective?
     
  9. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The visible portion of the building free fall takes 3.9 seconds. That is 160ft less than what we see. I'll take your evasion for granted, as you do it on every post where you get asked something that requires logic or critical thinking.
     
  10. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You haven't answered my questions. Why is that? Again in case you missed them:

    Do you have a point? What is your objective?
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And he evades again!

    The point? How can anyone fail to see the point?

    YOU claim symmetrical free fall. Clearly in 5.4 seconds of visible and undeniable movement, at free fall we would see 160ft more drop than we actually do. I understand that your physics is down to what you can comprehend in Google, so maybe asking you such a thing is above your comprehension.

    My objective is to get through the brick wall of fail you have built around yourself.

    This is where you deny 5.4 seconds or just evade the whole painfully obvious point again.

    Here this may help:
    https://www.metabunk.org/how-buckli...cceleration-for-part-of-wtc7s-collapse.t8270/

    As an aside the whole issue of free fall is just typical of the truf movement! A veritable Strawman wrapped up with the "vast resistance" of the building impeding such a thing. As competently explained in the link above, take away something supporting virtually the whole mass above and it will fall close to free fall anyway!

    Two key moments are just before lower supports gave way we have slow movement, arm waved away with trufer hogwash and the part at the end where resistance is encountered as the building drops into itself.
     
  12. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Here is a graph from Chandler himself which is also shown on theAE911Truth website:
    http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...efall-and-building-7-on-911-by-david-chandler
    chandlergraph.PNG

    So Bobby, what do the data points within the red oval indicate? That is the start of the corner starting to drop correct? Followed by the 2.25 secs of free fall right?

    So tell me why the data points in the oval are being ignored by you and Chandler?
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok so I decided I'm going to discuss this issue with you because there is a lot to be learned here. Not by you obviously because you've already made your decision and I have no incentive to try to convince you otherwise. So this discussion will be for whoever is interested in understanding the implication of the manner in which WTC7 was destroyed. I will do my best to stick to technical issues and leave out insults and name calling.

    That's exactly what I'm asking but it's obvious you either fail to see the point or you don't have one or you're trying to manufacture your own.

    Actually, what I'm claiming is that experts such as David Chandler (for example) were able to determine that WTC7 descended at free fall for a period of 2.25-2.50 seconds from the moment the roof line began to move and based upon his analysis, I agree. Furthermore, over 3,000 architects and engineers and a countless number of other people agree and so does NIST because they published that fact.

    What you're posting has nothing to do with the issue that WTC7 descended symmetrically at free fall acceleration through its own massive structure for 2.25 seconds (let's just leave it at that time interval for the sake of brevity) or approximately 100 feet or about 8 stories. What you believe we should see does not change the fact that free fall occurred as described.

    So in other words your objective is to try to convince me of something. And it seems to me you're trying to convince me that NIST's report is correct, that Chandler's analysis and that of over 3,000 architects and engineers is incorrect and based on the rest of your post, that Mick West (a self-professed "debunker" who defends the OCT religiously and questions none of it and whose background is unknown to me) is correct when he defends NIST's analysis, all of it.

    I haven't denied anything that doesn't have any significance to me in lieu of what is significant to me. In fact, the entire building, 47 stories and an acre in size descended in approximately 6 seconds from the moment the roof line began to move.

    So the above from what I gather is Mick West's analysis that WTC7 provided perhaps 1% resistance and he uses an empty tin can as an analogy to WTC7, a 47 story steel frame high rise about an acre in size. And you're implying that my knowledge of physics is limited because this makes no sense to me at all but it's supposed to "help" me somehow. In fact Mick's analogy is intellectually insulting and worse, he tries to support his claim in part by showing NIST's twisted graphic of WTC7 that never happened. However it seems that it makes all the sense in the world to you because you're using it to support your concepts and rejecting outright what experts have written on the subject, characterizing it as "truf movement" (see below quote).

    So in your opinion, the fact that experts agree (and I agree as well) that WTC7, an incredibly massive structure provides a tremendous amount of resistance is a "straw man" which is "typical of the truf movement" (whatever that means) and Mick's tin can analogy proves WTC7 provided only 1% resistance. And experts also agree (and I as well):

    “What does it take for a tall building to collapse downward through its own structure at absolute free fall?” The answer is the underlying structure has to be removed, and the energy needed to accomplish this has to be supplied from some external source. The free falling section of the building does not contribute to this process.

    https://medium.com/@davidchandler_61838/free-fall-5efaea1ba1bd

    That's another thing. You're saying the "lower support gave way". How do you suppose that happened in your opinion? Did it happen according to NIST's "probable collapse initiation" hypothesis or do you have your own hypothesis as to how that happened? I'd like to explore that with you if you don't mind.

    And another question for you. You're saying "the part at the end where resistance is encountered as the building drops into itself". At the end where at the end? When is resistance encountered do you believe? How much resistance? Mick claims 1% but does not provide any amount beyond that.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
  14. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because the central and most significant issue is the 2.25 seconds of free fall. Why are you ignoring the most significant issue in lieu of the least significant issue? I am guessing because you're trying to distract from the obvious as NIST tried to do in their report with their 3 stage collapse phoniness.
     
  15. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    So you admit you are ignoring it? I thought Chandler said there was no stage one?
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you admit you're ignoring the free fall period and trying to sweep it under the rug with anything else you can come up with?

    There are no stages, period. That's a NIST invention used to achieve the same objective you are trying to achieve.
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Holy crap Bob, I fail to see the point? Who's point? I just told you and it is like pulling teeth getting through. I am trying to show you that the visible time and fall do not add up to free fall. It's fairly simple, you should be able to get it. I gave you figures.

    I don't recall anyone disputing this and furthermore, I recall pointing this same thing out to you from the NIST report and anyone who wants to frame analyze the video! Do you claim that your expert is more qualified than the NIST experts?

    So, can we take it the quarter of a million or whatever arbitrary figure we can attribute to the rest of the engineers and architects in America think they are mainly full of crap. Kindly stop quoting this AE911 group as some sort of appeal to authority.

    Hey Bob, guess what, you're talking crap again in more ways than one. It is 5.4 seconds of visible drop. But I love this "approximately" 100ft bullshit. In 2.25 seconds at free fall, the drop is EXACTLY 81.44 feet. In 5.4 seconds of INDISPUTABLE drop, it is 469.1ft

    Why do you keep suggesting that I am disputing this 2.25 seconds of free fall. I am not for reasons given to you. Take away the building supports and there is nothing holding it up for that short distance.

    Well no, you cannot reason with a truther. You have invested too much time on your soapbox to see any viewpoint that is "official".

    Pulling teeth. I don't actually CARE whether the NIST report is accurate or not, it seems pretty reasonable. The point is that the visible drop doesn't fit into the time we see as a free fall distance. see above (469.1ft)! Shove your "3,000 yada yada yada" appeal to authority where it belongs. I'll invoke the rest of the industry 100 times more people.

    No, 5.4 seconds and 160 feet more than what we see of the building. You can't explain this, nor will you. You just DENY IT even though it is MASSIVELY signifiucant and shows that it did not drop at free fall for anything more than the small section where the supports gave way.

    Much waffling. The tin can is a superb analogy. It has astonishing size to strength support, but one tiny change cripples it to almost none of that strength. The graphic is not supposed to be a direct comparison, it is a progression incorporating the basic variables. It cannot possibly incorporate every internal event that occurred to alter what the building actually did. This once again is the "trufer way", you don't bother looking at anything objectively, if it doesn't fit in with the evil government and all the associated crap, it is dismissed.

    A truly appalling interpretation of what I typed, completely altering its context! Incredibly massive it is, tremendous resistance AT THE SUPPORTS! The strawman is the gushing appeal to incredulity at the building dropping a short period at free fall, when that is what one would expect.

    Hogwash! The underlying support WAS removed, they collapsed and we had a small section of free fall. Exactly as one would expect.

    I'd like to explore you retracting 5.4 seconds of free fall when that is a distance way above what we see. I don't need to speculate. The first support was crushed from a girder giving way just below the penthouse dropping into that area and creating an internal collapse, visibly seen for many seconds. The shift in load across the other 2 supports created an imbalance unable to hold the redistributed huge mass above.

    I'm gonna do a Bob here. I don't need to provide an analysis of how and why the collapse suddenly hit more resistance, just that it did and proves that the fee fall claim is hogwash
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2019
  18. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm trying not to be insulting so I won't quote what you posted that I'm not interested in responding to.

    And I never said WTC7 was in free fall for more than 2.25-2.50 seconds so you don't have a point then.

    Good so then here you agree that there was free fall for 2.25 seconds.

    I don't own any experts so not one of them is mine. If you mean experts who have contradicted or questioned NIST. Absolutely not. That's why I believe what NIST did is commit treason, the number of errors, the type, the methodology, the denials and lack of transparency are not accidental. That level of incompetence just doesn't make any sense for experts at NIST. In fact this guy is appalled at his former colleagues.



    So you have a link then that you can post that shows that the rest of the engineering and architecture community think those colleagues who dispute NIST are "mainly full of crap" or are you just making that up because you hope and pray it's true? If not, please explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

    Why? They actually are an authority. Are you terrified of these people? Many of them will be called to testify as EXPERT witnesses. Can you show anywhere that they do not have the qualifications they claim they have? Can you show what qualifies you to determine they're "mainly full of crap"? ALL of them?

    As explained earlier the tone of your post suggested you are. Ok, so you don't dispute it then. At least not up to this point in your post.

    That's what the experts say, once you remove all the supports at once, you get free fall. And Shyam Sunder agrees as well.

    “free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

    So you also agree that all the supports were removed at once then. Gee, how do you figure that happened?

    You can invoke anything you like but if you don't/can't source your invocation it becomes painfully obvious you're invoking hot air.

    SMALL SECTION. How do you characterize "small section"? You agreed that all the building supports were removed and the fact is that each floor was about an acre in size and that some of the core columns had outside dimensions of 36 inches by 16 inches and others had larger dimensions, measuring 52 inches by 22 inches. And I believe there were 25 of these core columns. This is one of them:

    [​IMG]
    This image from the documentary Up From Zero shows the base of a core column, whose dimensions, minus the four flanges, are apparently 52 by 22 inches, with walls at least 5 inches thick.

    So what part is SMALL to you then? And I am asking for your opinion of how all this that you label "SMALL" gave way at once.

    Nah I rarely eat waffles, maybe pancakes on rare occasion.

    So you think WTC7 should have been built with empty tin cans then since these have "astonishing size to strength support"? That's interesting, you ought to bring that up at the next AIA conference.

    Really? So then why would anyone in his/her right mind use a tin can as an analogy for WTC7 with massive core columns as seen in the photo above? And why would anyone agree it's a "superb analogy" if that makes zero sense?

    Yeah I would say a tin can is missing a few of those columns but for you it's a"superb analogy". But that's ok you sure have a right to your opinion, that goes without saying.

    What is a "trufer"? What am I missing that you believe I "don't bother looking at anything objectively"? You mean that I feel the tin can analogy is highly insulting to the level of embarrassing and that you feel it's "superb"? Is that what I'm missing? We're talking about what happened to WTC7, not "evil government" and "associated crap". Although NIST has to be part of the discussion because their report is integral to the discussion.

    Ok so according to you, one would expect the building to free fall if all the supports were removed at once. And I agree and so does everyone else including NIST.

    So why is what Chandler wrote "hogwash" to you then? You just agreed with him. Except you keep on saying "Exactly as one would expect". Why would the removal of all supports which precipitated a "small" period of free fall be EXPECTED? (in your opinion of course)

    How do you know a girder gave way? What girder? How did it crush the first support? How did it cause an internal collapse? How were ALL the supports removed at once such that free fall took place? You claim you don't need to speculate but unless you can prove that's what happened in detail you ARE speculating.

    What was visible? The girder? How did you see it? There is no video that shows any girder as WTC7 descends that I'm aware of.

    Did you make this up or are you quoting from somewhere? You haven't sourced anything.

    I'm lost here. First you agree that there was 2.25 seconds of free fall and even insist you never disagreed with that issue, now you're saying the free fall claim is hogwash. Which is it? And this is why I assumed you disagree that there was free fall because you said that in earlier posts too.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Then fine. No more discussion needed on this point. Had you read post #60 properly instead of trying to play your physics semantics crap, we could have saved a few pages of nonsense!

    Ok, time will tell.

    Of course not, I'm doing what you are doing. Your 3000 figure is not a reflection on the level of NUMBERS that have qualification needed to analyse high rise building engineering and collapse.

    Can you detail how many are qualified appropriately? I don't determine they are full of crap any more than their position determines that those they argue against ARE.

    The 3 main trusses being what I refer to.



    Or the level of structural components below is not significant in slowing such a falling mass.

    I believe I explained how Bob, go back and read it again.

    Exactly, as are you, you just have less hot air in your arsenal.(edit: try not to twist that out of context)

    I refer to the building section from outside of approximately 80ft that fell at close enough to free fall.

    I refer you to the explanation given in the post above. You didn't quote it!

    Flippancy in this case is really dumb and used here as a way to dismiss how good his analogy is. Something can be incredibly strong and supportive, yet take one vital part of it away and it becomes almost useless.

    This is a response to why the graphic may not be accurate and makes no sense. That's twice with the same flippancy pretending to miss the point.

    Explained above, that's the 3rd time, deeply unimpressed.

    Context being everything once again and you routinely twist it. THE TRUFER way is to look at something that doesn't "fit" and instead of finding WHY it doesn't fit, assumes that it is nefarious and indicative of how their beliefs are true. The context being the model doesn't match the building fall. Well gee Bob, if they are all being dishonest, yet more in this never ending line of accomplices! they would surely just make the animation closer or almost the same wouldn't they?

    Yes. The 3 main trusses.

    Because the 3 trusses are supporting the entire mass of the building.

    I am speculating. I don't believe it possible to do otherwise, since no camera was present on the internal structure.

    You must just read this really quickly and whatever nonsense pops into your head comes out!

    "creating an internal collapse, visibly seen for many seconds"

    Now since we are in agreement that 3.25 seconds was not at free fall, there is no need for further discussion on this point. Which incidentally was the very point I was making in the first place!!

    No Bob, when the penthouse dropped, it can only do so when one side of the internal building gives way. So logic progression puts enormous strain across the building on the remaining 2 trusses. Your video showed one enormous "crack" which is implied to mean a detonation of some sort. I refer you back to post #49, especially the closing statement.

    Bob, I was under the impression that you thought the entire footage was free fall. I have seen this echoed by many people. As you now claim it was only that small 80ft section, what more is there to discuss.

    Everything about how it came down is speculation - the trufers say it was demolished because we had 2.25 seconds of free fall and it came down fairly straight. They totally ignore all the activity beforehand showing how the structure became critically imbalanced.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you deny that this implies 47 stories fell at free fall speed, then you probably need to work on your comprehension.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019
  21. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There's not? If not stages, then what term? What term do you call the different sets of data points that represent changes in motion? Parts? Periods? Portions? Sections? Here again is Chandler's graph below:
    chandlergraph.PNG

    What do the data points in the red oval, PRIOR to the freefall, represent Bobby? In the beginning, you have the almost 1 second of non-freefall..."portion" followed by the 2.25 seconds... ummm... "section"?... of freefall, followed by the... um... "period" of non-freefall.

    Chandler (whom you agree with) implies there is nothing prior to the 2.25 second... "portion"... of freefall. The building goes immediately from not moving to dropping in freefall.

    So again, if Chandler is correct, why does his graph above, show NON-FREEFALL... umm... "period"?
     
  22. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The proper statement should read...

    What was left (the perimeter facade) of the 47 story steel framed building, after the east and west penthouse collapsed into the center, started at a non-freefall descent (using just the northwest corner of the roofline for measurement), then went into a freefall descent for 2.25 seconds, and then returned to a non-freefall descent.

    Adding the reality of the event kind of takes the bite out of your statement eh?
     
  23. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Hey Bobby.

    How do you know the remaining perimeter facade fell "symmetrically"? Do you have video footage of the southwest and southeast corners of WTC7 falling with the northwest and northeast corners? Are is this just an assumption?
     
  24. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,368
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Oh no? Then what does the statement below imply? I see you make no distinction between the whole collapse or just 2.25 seconds of it, so one must assume you mean the entire collapse. 47 stories worth. Why did you not specify just 8 stories of freefall.

    Pretty deceptive on your part Bobby.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,260
    Likes Received:
    1,142
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not even close.

    It's not MY 3,000 figure (3,090 as of today), it is what's posted at the AE911 website. And the number doesn't reflect those who have qualifications needed to analyze high rise building engineering and collapse. It's not what it says, it very specifically says Architects & Engineers and their claim is that these people have been properly vetted as to their professional backgrounds and have signed the petition. I am not in any position to say this is all true but I don't have any reason to doubt it either because there are more than enough of these people who have written technical, peer reviewed papers on the subject and the rest merely agree with their conclusions. OTOH you're just making crap up when you say the remaining members of the industry believe these people are "full of crap" just because YOU disagree, have no basis with which to disagree and YOU are merely venting. Yet you hypocritically decided I am not being objective when I reject Mick West's tin can analogy as wholesale nonsense that even you claim is not analogous because it is missing many very obvious and critical characteristics.

    No, I can only confidently say that Leroy Hulsey is certainly highly qualified and that many others who have written papers and spoken on the subject have the appropriate expertise to determine if the NIST report(s) have any basis in validity. I can also say confidently (based on your posts and your supporting reference - Mick West) that YOU are not qualified nor do you have any standing to dispute these people or to determine that they are all "full of crap".

    Except your personal opinion is not based on anything real. It's just YOU venting because you disagree with anyone who disagrees with the OCT and resort to hurling insults at them, inventing some childish label ("trufer"). OTOH those who have determined that NIST's hypothesis is not valid are well qualified, have done the research and used NIST's publications, NIST's data and real world evidence as their basis to arrive at their conclusion. There is not one iota of comparison.

    Ok the highlighted pretty much says it all. There are several problems here:

    1. YOU certainly have no qualifications or standing of any kind.
    2. YOU admit you are speculating and it's obvious you have nothing in support of your personal hypothesis.
    3. YOU are just an anonymous poster in a mostly anonymous discussion forum who spends nearly 24/7 defending the OCT and questions none of it and vents his frustration at those who contradict/question it, even at professionals who are truly in a position to know (i.e. you invent a body of people who you claim assessed that these people are "full of crap").
    4. NIST, as a funded OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT entity (i.e. an AUTHORITY) tasked by Congress to investigate the destruction of the 3 towers on 9/11 published their "probable collapse initiation" hypothesis and peddled it as fact. Their publication is very detailed, very specific and has nothing to do with your personal hypothesis that you admit is strictly speculatory.
    5. Experts have written many papers analyzing the NIST reports and not your personal hypothesis.
    6. I am not interested in discussing your personal hypothesis because it is irrelevant. I assumed because you said "NIST explained it perfectly" that you are basing your opinions on NIST's conclusion(s). You are not obviously.

    I am sorry but there is nothing further I want to discuss here because I am not interested in discussing your personal hypothesis. It has nothing to do with anything with respect to 9/11. What I was looking for is a discussion of NIST's hypothesis (which is the only thing that matters in this case) vs all the known details and expert analysis that contradict NIST's conclusion(s) (i.e. the REAL WORLD). And I am also interested in discussing the opinions of those who agree with NIST's conclusion(s), disagree with the contradictory analysis and how they arrived at their own conclusion(s).

    Unless and until you are ready to discuss the real world, you are dismissed and I apologize for misunderstanding where you're coming from (i.e. nowhere meaningful).
     

Share This Page