Youtube keeping truth about 911 alive

Discussion in '9/11' started by LaDairis, May 24, 2016.

  1. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not saying it doesn't matter and I don't profess to know the details of what other foreign governments may have been involved (no one really knows other than those involved) but if they were, none of them could/would have been successful without significant help from the US government, the real mastermind. The ultimate proof is the STAND DOWN. Even if no elements within the US government had anything directly to do with 9/11 (and it's virtually impossible they didn't), the FACT that the US government did NOTHING prior to 9/11, despite numerous warnings, or on 9/11, is absolute proof of COMPLICITY by itself.

    The idiot propaganda they want to feed us are manure such as "no one could have imagined...", "it was a failure of imagination..." and "they did this because they hated our freedoms...". This is a fairy tale for children and the mentally defective/immature, on the level of "My Pet Goat" (speaking of STAND DOWN), it is an insult to intelligence, everything about the OCT is.

    Edit - I'm also saying it's not Israel, Saudi Arabia and/or the US, these are countries with millions of people, the people are not responsible, their governments are. One must always be careful to make a distinction between country and government, they are not one and the same.
     
  2. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    At the 12.5 second mark-a point you seem to be deliberately avoiding. Now how did explosives cause the collapse if free fall was noted for an insignificant period 12.5 seconds after the collapse initiation?

    What caused the momentum to exceed g?

    Your argument is illogical.
     
  3. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fist of all what proof do you have of this alleged "exceeded free fall" claim?

    and additionally ... Note that there are conditions that must be met in order to have free fall,
    and in the sort of collapse that WTC7 experienced, there would have to be some considerably
    serious set-up to cause what was observed to happen. The building (during that 2.25 sec )
    descends vertically so the only way to achieve that result would be for ALL of the resistance
    under the falling mass to have vanished all at the same time.
    just exactly how does a "progressive collapse" accomplish that?
     
  4. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's in the graph comparing and contrasting five differing smoothing techniques from differing sources. I've posted it repeatedly.

    [​IMG]

    Everyone who disagrees with the NIST accepts as a given that ALL of the eight the floors needed to collapse simultaneously in order to give the free fall reading, but no, it only registered in one area long after the interior collapsed. The interior collapsed and 'pulled down' the curtain, or movement wall, hence g was exceeded.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so you believe that some mass falling under the influence of gravity can pull down another mass and the resultant descent will be > 9.8 m/s^2
    ?????????????? is that what you believe?

    is this a produce of research by Dan Rather the news geek, or some different Dan Rather
    also is there an actual author credit for this.

    David Chandler will at least be identified as the author of his work.
     
  6. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Irony people. Read the irony.
     
  7. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Disprove the hypothesis. Argument from incredulity is merely a fallacy, and it is extremely boring pointing out truthers' endless abuses of logic. But I suppose, if 9/11 truth had any skills in logic, they wouldn't be truthers I suppose.

    It is a comparison between five differing smoothing techniques employed in the modelling process (the key is a dead giveaway). The work was actually done by a truther known as Fem2.

    Is that the best you can do? A weak and pathetic response like that? Not a single word to disprove the claims, just that sh*t? Wow. Chandler is still wrong whether he claims his dumbass theories or not. He has the collapse time wrong for a start.
     
  8. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    wow ... "Fem2" REALLY, and this was obviously NOT peer reviewed because if it had been published in one of your recognized academic journals,
    the author would have had to identify him or her-self ... If the author of this bit is NOT willing to come out of the shadows and publish under their own name, then why should anybody take them seriously.
    at least Johnathan Cole and David Chandler have the fortitude to publish under their own names.

    on the subject of disproving the claim of over g acceleration during the fall of WTC7
    this whole thing is a tangent that has no legs at all, the physics of this sort of thing being VERY clear,
    if an object is falling at g, and encounters another object that may or may not be falling at g or less than g
    the resulting acceleration of the two masses having made contact can NOT be over g.

    did a significant slice of AMERICA flunk physical science 101?
     
  9. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So you refuse to address the evidence and try to distract away from it with this dreck? Will this be your tactic when faced with evidence that challenges your world view from now on? Is this the low level of debate I can expect from you? Well, there's not much I can do with an individual like that, so I'll leave you in Disneyland.

    You have no idea do you? Your physics are wrong obviously.

    I'll leave you with this to ponder (I doubt that you will, but at least I tried):

    [​IMG]

    Now, figure it put for yourself, if you can.

    From your posts it looks like it.
     
  10. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "You have no idea do you? Your physics are wrong obviously. " so without providing a rebuttal
    you simply call my explanation wrong, Note this, where is there any precedent? is there any other
    documented event that includes over g acceleration where there was not some other form of energy applied to cause it to happen?

    To add to my previous, Blue made the assertion that the fall of WTC7 included at least a full second of over g acceleration,
    what is the source of that alleged data? and all we have is Fem2 ? REALLY ..... For the acceleration of g for 2.25 sec
    we have multiple people who have various advanced degrees in physics who support the at g argument and on the other side,
    only "Fem2" with some fancy looking graph, but exactly how was this data obtained and how is it being interpreted?
    and again if there are multiple individuals who have applied their names to documents asserting the at g acceleration for 2.25 sec.
    and essentially "joe nobody" has asserted that the tower ( or at least some part of it ) fell at over g for at least a full second,
    who are you going to trust?
     
  11. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What do you think the above diagram was? Oh, an explanation. *SIGH* Your other questions are mere distractions from you disproving the diagram I posted.

    Here it is again as you've decided NOT to read my posts (there's that famous Bman comprehension again).

    [​IMG]

    Do you understand it or do you need my help?
     
  12. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    anybody can use a computer graphic program and produce a graph such as what you have shown,
    the real test is how does it relate to the real world, In the case of the David Chandler work, he is completely honest and open
    as to what computer software he used to analyze the video of WTC7 collapsing and also explains his methods in detail for
    anyone to see and understand.

    People go on and on about peer review, and yet a non-peer reviewed bit comes up that allegedly supports
    your arguments and you latch on to it like it was golden, but it has not only no standing because it was authored
    by somebody who chooses to hide behind an internet handle "Fem2" but also the data is ridiculous on the face of it,
    how do you achieve over g acceleration without some additional source of energy to make it happen?
     
  13. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A convenient, but junk response to the evidence.

    LOLOL, but he only got the collapse time wrong. You are quite entertaining with this bilge. Clearly, you are not interested in addressing any contrary evidence to your weak position.

    The answer to your question is in front of your face. If you choose to ignore it like the empirical evidence for thee aircraft, then you're beyond help.

    [​IMG]

    I suppose you have the same problem with the 4D representations like all the other truthers do.
     
  14. Katzenjammer

    Katzenjammer New Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    OK ... I'll Byte what are "4D representations" ?

    also, debate about the total collapse time is a red herring, the real issue here is that 2.25 sec of free fall
    and exactly what conditions are needed to produce not only free fall, but uniformity in said fall that would have the building descending straight down.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's not just about free fall. And Chandler characterized it best, WTC7 fell at an acceleration rate indistinguishable from free fall. NIST agreed and claimed WTC7 dropped at free fall for 2.25s. The claim is not disputable except by anonymous internet jockeys armed with an opinion and a keyboard. WTC7 did not have to drop at free fall, the fact that the building drop was a virtually constant acceleration in seconds with no distinguishable jolts or hesitation indicates it was a CD. NIST never explained how the free fall claim it published in their final report on the collapse of WTC7 was possible. Especially since Shyam Sunder himself explained that "free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it" and WTC7 was a massive structure, never mind one with no structural components.
     
  16. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Only for 2.25 seconds 12.5 seconds into the collapse therefore it means nothing and in no way supports the lunacy of controlled demolition.

    Attempted misrepresentation noted. You deliberately omit the fact that it was 12.5 seconds after the collapse initiation, and that misrepresents the outcome and is dishonest. So you're just another internet jockey armed with an dodgy opinion and a keyboard? Good to know.

    Prove it. This is like the molten metal premise, and it needs to be demonstrated as your hypothesis is flawed until that is done.


    Because it was immaterial to the result. A little fact that you intentionally ignore repeatedly. There are many possibilities, so speculation was futile without concrete data. Only 9/11 truth do that, not scientists.

    Here are just a few:

    The easiest example could be a single brick that breaks free from a crumbling wall.
    The next easiest example could be a sheet of connected bricks, a wall panel, or something similar breaking free from the wall.
    The next easiest example could be an assembly of wall panels breaking free from the rest of the wall as a unit.
    The next easiest example could be the upper portion of a wall breaking free from both the lower part and the interior of the building.
    Etc.


    An ignorant association.

    I know you won't answer but here goes:

    How does free fall for 2.25 seconds 12.5 seconds after the collapse began denote CD? Answer: It doesn't. 9/11 truth need to prove this premise before anyone can go further. It is accepted as a given erroneously by those predisposed to such stories.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Skipping the irrelevant (which is most of the post).

    Despite your opinion with regard to free fall, NIST published it in their Final Report on WTC7 and it is not in dispute.

    You first deny free fall even occurred, even adding a theory about "over G" and now you're saying it "means nothing". Which one is it? If it "means nothing" to YOU, then why do you suppose they published the free fall? Why did NIST first deny free fall, then publish it in some detail?
     
  18. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0

    A lie you cannot support.

    I speculated on over 'g', I didn't develop a theory. It means nothing owing to the gap between the initiation of the progressive collapse and the time it was observed. I don't think you'll ever get if you haven't by now.

    A false dichotomy. Please try to raise the level of your debate above fallacious rants.

    Because it was inconsequential, it was probably only published to satisfy vociferous lunatics. You're intentionally overlooking the obvious to push a fallacious barrow, that is, at 12.5 seconds into the collapse, free fall is not evidence of a CD.

    It's a stupid contention, because it states that the so-called 'bombs' went off after the building fell. But as I stated, if you can't figure that out by now, you never will.
     
  19. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Skipping the irrelevant (as usual).

    No, if it's not true then I apologize, that's what I was led to believe by your posts, my mistake. So you agree then that free fall took place for 2.25s from the moment the roof line began its descent and for about 100 feet (8 stories).

    Ok then, a misuse of terms on my part, my mistake. You just speculated, which means you could be wrong and it was exact free fall, no over G, as NIST published and as accepted by just about everyone who cares.

    So then you're saying part of what NIST published was directed strictly at "vociferous lunatics", so it's "inconsequential". So according to YOU the NIST report had tricks in it. NIST threw in some stuff that meant nothing except to "lunatics". Can you point to all the stuff in the NIST reports that you believe were directed strictly at "vociferous lunatics"? It would save a lot of reading if people knew these were tricks that mean nothing. Thanks in advance for your help. But being that some things are directed at "vociferous lunatics", it would make NIST's report worthless if people didn't know which parts are inconsequential. I'm sure most people couldn't figure it out.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It looks like I was right after all so I'll have to take back my apology, OBVIOUSLY. Why did you lie (twice now in the same discussion)? How does it help your credibility?

    Post #150 http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=351109&page=15&p=1065925241#post1065925241

    (thanks for finding that for me Katz)
     
  21. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course, it didn't collapse at free fall, and your mendacious attempts at misrepresentation are exposed. Show me where I denied free fall ever occurred? You can't and you're lying as usual, as well as Magoo. Why do truthers need to lie all the time? Is it because

    It didn't collapse at free fall, this is the problem with arguing with individuals incapable of reason. :roll: Free fall was only noted for 2.25 seconds 12.5 seconds after the collapse began (FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME). I hope that resolves yours, and Magoo's poor understanding of this simple concept. Phuque me, it's like trying to explain historiography to goldfish in here.

    Stop eating crayons and THINK before you lob idiotic accusations! How many times do I have to post the same thing before you trolls will get it? Seriously, how many times have I stated my position? More than you can count and yet you try this crap on.
     
  22. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Prior post ignored due to the usual name calling and insults. There's nothing in it worthy of a response. This one as well in some parts so the irrelevant garbage is also ignored.

    The free fall occurred from the moment the roof line began its descent and continued for 2.25s or 8 stories or 100 ft. The length of time from the beginning of the roof line descent (which includes all 4 walls and a majority of the roof itself) to ground was approximately 6-7 seconds (NIST claims 5.4s but I'll be generous for this purpose). That means that WTC7 was in free fall for 35% of the time of descent (give or take), which is quite significant. There is no controversy to the free fall of WTC7, NIST agrees (after first denying it), published it and so do those who don't buy NIST's collapse initiation theory (although David Chandler measured it as 2.5s). The issue is not perfect free fall acceleration, the issue is indistinguishable from free fall (as eloquently described by David Chandler). But even that's not the primary issue alone. Even if it was not free fall, the collapse was global and at a total average acceleration very close to free fall, with no discernible jolts or hesitation. That means that the massive structure provided virtually no resistance throughout the collapse. Shyam Sunder explained free fall quite accurately ("free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it") but NIST never explained how that was possible given that WTC7 was a 47 story building with a footprint of about one acre and obviously consisting of numerous and massive structural components.

    What NIST says in effect is that the building collapsed due to fire just like a perfectly planned and executed CD. There are videos that show what happens to a building that is incorrectly setup for CD and fails. That happened many times in the past. It takes a perfect CD to cause the collapse of a building similar to the way WTC7 collapsed. Fire does not have the capability to cause a perfect collapse due to its nature. Even NIST acknowledged in the report that no fire lasted more than about 20 minutes in any one area, then moved on.

    Peddling snake oil doesn't change facts or reality. But I'm sure you'll continue to try, complete with name calling and insults.
     
  23. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Incorrect. You are misrepresenting the collapse time in order to make Chandler's lies work.

    None of which matters as free fall occurring for a mere 2.25 seconds, 12.5 seconds into a progressive collapse sequence is immaterial and in no way supports the lunatic theory of CD.

    Argument from incredulity and as such, invalid. Your continued employment of fallacious reasoning makes replying to your nonsense rather tedious. Please try to raise the level of debate toward something approaching logic and reason, as these infantile posts of yours are quite ridiculous.


    So why do you do it?
     
  24. Blues63

    Blues63 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,110
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Of course not. I caught you and Magoo intentionally misrepresenting what I posted in order to score some cheap troll points. I have no doubt that you'd be reluctant to respond, as I catch you out every time.
     
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,188
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, I can't find anything in your post worth responding to as none of it is supported by anything other than your personal opinion (i.e. worthless). The post that follows is the usual insulting nonsense.
     

Share This Page