I found the missing Jolt.

FalseFlag said:
You're right. I don't matter, but the truth does matter. As long as telling the truth pisses you skeptics off I'm going to keep doing it.

Freefall is not minutiae.
Click to expand...

I just want to add that WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 did not fall at free fall speed.
 
jaydeehess said:
That court case involved insurance payouts. Insurance co.'s are not in the business of handing out money for fraudulent claims. Had there been evidence that Silverstein had colluded with the FDNY or others to have WTC7 completely demolished it would have saved the insurance companies a $billion!
Click to expand...
True. This is yet another reason why we need an new investigation. There were obviously lots of people involved in this. We need to know how far it branches out.
 
skyeagle409 said:
I just want to add that WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 did not fall at free fall speed.
Click to expand...
So you want to ignore NIST's claim that WTC7 collapsed at freefall for 2.25 seconds?

Careful, if you say NIST is wrong even one time, then everything they said is wrong, and everything can be questioned.
 
FalseFlag said:
Then how is hyperbole involved? Are you out of tricks so you have decided to make nonsensical statements? Well, more nonsensical than usual.
Click to expand...

"Hyperbole" may have been the wrong word, looking back on what was said. "Exaggeration" may be be a better fit. People will often do that in reaction to traumatic stress and as you can see, that man is pretty shook up.

It's also explains how someone can be involved in an explosion that featured a shockwave strong enough to knock people off their feet, a maelstrom of flying glass and smoke but suffered no physical injury.
 
FalseFlag said:
So you want to ignore NIST's claim that WTC7 collapsed at freefall for 2.25 seconds?

Careful, if you say NIST is wrong even one time, then everything they said is wrong, and everything can be questioned.
Click to expand...

This is reality about the total collapse times.

WTC 1 = 22.02 seconds

WTC 2 = 15.28 seconds

WTC 7 = 17 seconds
 
tfk said:
And the answer to this question is an unequivocal, “Absolutely, they can NOT tell, just by looking at a video as bereft of actual evidence as any to which Jowenko had access.”
Click to expand...
Are you an expert in CD? If not, how can anyone be sure your statement is correct?

And ALL the evidence proves that it was NOT brought down by CD.
Click to expand...
You mean all of the evidence you choose to accept. The word "all" means everything that is known, or everything that exists. There is plenty of evidence to support CD. You simply choose to ignore it.

Jowenko looked at a video and concluded that it (WTC 7 collapse) was a CD.
Mark Loiseaux, Brent Blanchard, Van Romero, (and every other demolitions expert) have looked at the same videos, and concluded that it was not a CD.
Click to expand...

You seem to have a problem with "every other" and all-inclusive terminology. Please define "demolition expert", and then provide a list of everyone on this planet that meets your criteria. Once you have done that, please provide proof that you have shown each and every one of them videos of the collapse of WTC7, and then provide proof that each and every one of them agrees that it was not brought down by CD. If you do all that, you can use the term "every other demolitions expert".

Until then, what you mean to say is, "three experts (who likely make a living from government contracts) have made dubious claims about WTC7 and CD".

If multiple experts look at the same video & come to opposite conclusions, then it is proven that the video is insufficient to give a definitive answer.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about this?

Suppose I show two expert physicists a video of a person dropping a basic, unremarkable rubber ball off of a building. The ball falls and hits the ground. One physicist says the ball fell towards the earth because of gravity. The other physicist says the ball fell towards the earth because the rubber ball is magnetically attracted to the earth. Here, two experts have come to two different conclusions.

Are you really telling me the video is insufficient to give a definitive answer? Maybe one of the experts is lying, or using his expertise to mislead and commit fraud.

One might accurately say “those experts showed far, FAR greater expertise than Jowenko did.”
Click to expand...
One might also say the experts you have mentioned used their expertise to commit fraud, and in doing so, guaranteed a boatload of future government contracts.

He looked at a video in which he could neither HEAR any sounds of explosions, nor SEE any direct evidence whatsoever of CD. His only basis for concluding that it was a CD was 1) the upper part of the building fell nearly straight down and 2) the collapse initiated “somewhere below the 27th floor” (because the the lowest floor visible on the video was the 28th).

So, he could neither hear (because of he video’s doctoring) nor see any evidence FOR CD.
Click to expand...

Watch the following video twice.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E43-CfukEgs

Watch it first without sound. Then, watch it with sound. Are your conclusions different? Is what you see any different with or without sound? Are Newton's laws of motion sound-dependent?

Why are you so “logically illiterate”?
Click to expand...
Wait for it...
 
tfk said:
No, no part of that company was "Gubbamint controlled".
Click to expand...

Where did I say that you worked for a company that was "government controlled"?

Here is the exact text of my statement:
You have a background working for the government in some capacity.
Click to expand...

If you worked as a subcontractor, my statement is true.

I've never worked in any capacity for the DoD.
Click to expand...
Did I ever claim you did?

You spent quite a bit of time trying to discredit me. As usual, you have failed. All you really did is show everyone how hard you are trying to distance yourself from government contracts.

I wonder why.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
The problem here, is NOT that you don't know American Universal Thread Standards.
Click to expand...
I'm not an expert. Why would I know this?

The problem is that you THINK that you're opinions on these matters carries any weight.
Click to expand...

What part of "I'm not an expert" don't you understand? I'm guessing it's the factual part of a statement you don't understand. Kinda like how you don't understand the factual part of, "WTC 7 collapsed for approximately 2.25 seconds at freefall".

If you want to change the situation, change your ways.
Stop writing stupid, wrong nonsense.
Stop claiming to knowledge that you do NOT possess.
Stop being such a consummate dick.

If you do this, I'll reciprocate.
If you don't, I'll keep smacking about the head & shoulders, as you continue to flail away, cluelessly, in my sandbox.
Click to expand...

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

LOL

There, you don't have to wait anymore.
 
FalseFlag said:
I'm not an expert. Why would I know this?



What part of "I'm not an expert" don't you understand? I'm guessing it's the factual part of a statement you don't understand. Kinda like how you don't understand the factual part of, "WTC 7 collapsed for approximately 2.25 seconds at freefall".

Wait for it...

Wait for it...

LOL

There, you don't have to wait anymore.
Click to expand...


Now, for the rest of the story, and tell us, how long did it take WTC 7 to totally collapse?


WTC 7 Video: Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrIBOTfRFXo


In this video, and beginning from time line 0:11 to 0:16, which direction does WTC 7 tilt in the final seconds of its collapse and why?


WTC 7 Video: Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU


Now, in this third video, please point out the time line where demolition explosions are heard as WTC 7 collapses.


WTC 7 Video: Part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A


Now, let's do a quick review of the facts from a demolition expert.


Brent Blanchard

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites.

Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse. None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse. In his words: This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition.

The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

Brent Blanchard deals with WTC 7 in section 7 of his paper. He refutes the claim that the owner of WTC 7 had any role in its collapse, and also says: 'Any detonation of explosives within WTC 7 would have been detected by multiple seismographs monitoring ground vibration in the general area. No such telltale "spike" or vibratory anomaly was detected by any recording instrument.'

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445989


Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Are you claiming NIST is wrong about freefall?
Click to expand...


Considering the total collapse time of 17 seconds for WTC 7, someone is incorrect and it isn't me. Have you seen the WTC 7 video? If so, then provide us with the total collapse time for WTC 7.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
There is plenty of evidence to support CD. You simply choose to ignore it.[/qluote]

There is absolutely no evidence of explosives and to prove my point, please point out the time lines where demolition explosions are heard in the following videos.


WTC 1 Collapse Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4r-gHdyPU


WTC 2 Collapse Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0


If you cannot point out the time lines in each video where demolition explosions are heard, then you have been shown that you are incorrect as you claim that explosives were used.

In case you do not know what demolition explosions sound like, just review the following video.


Controlled Demolition Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eem7d58gjno

Now that you know what real demolition explosions sound like, go back and point out the time lines for us all, where demolition explosions are heard in the previous WTC videos. Failing to do so, it will become evident that you have lost your case and at no time were demolition explosives used to bring down the WTC buildings.

Should you decide to make another false claim about CD, it will become evident that you are just trolling for fun and nothing else because you have been presented undeniable evidence that no explosives were used.

I might add that Jowenko is on the record for stating that demolition explosives were not used to bring down WTC 1 and WTC 2.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Careful, if you say NIST is wrong even one time, then everything they said is wrong ...
Click to expand...

Are you 6 old?
Why do you write idiotic assertions like this?

Do you think that "writing patently absurd, idiotic statements" wins you debating points?

FalseFlag said:
and everything can be questioned.
Click to expand...

Every thing that NIST wrote HAS BEEN questioned.
Several times.
By competent, experienced structural engineers.

Look up the function of NIST's Information Quality Standards.
Look up the funtion of the NCSTAR Scientific Advisory Board.
Look up NIST's list of subcontracted Structural Engineering companies, who performed original studies, or validation studies, of NIST's engineers key conclusions.

Look up the engineers from MIT, Purdue, Arup, etc. who have validated NIST's results.

NIST's report has been found to be convincing by the only people that really matter: competent structural & mechanical engineers.
 
FalseFlag said:
You mean all of the evidence you choose to accept. The word "all" means everything that is known, or everything that exists. There is plenty of evidence to support CD. You simply choose to ignore it.
Click to expand...
You have a problem right there.

All of the evidence that supports CD, also supports no CD.

And there's additional evidence (or lack thereof) that supports no CD.
 
jaydeehess said:
What gets me is that NIST is not the only investigation that deduced that fire effects on steel initiated the collapse and that design allowed propagation to global collapse.

In, afaik, the only court case directly questioning the collapse of WTC7, the Nodenson report agrees with NIST on this. So along comes TSz to then make the claim that not only is the NIST report flawed, but so too is the Nordenson report, and thus we need a new investigation.

That court case involved insurance payouts. Insurance co.'s are not in the business of handing out money for fraudulent claims. Had there been evidence that Silverstein had colluded with the FDNY or others to have WTC7 completely demolished it would have saved the insurance companies a $billion!
Click to expand...

FalseFlag said:
True. This is yet another reason why we need an new investigation. There were obviously lots of people involved in this. We need to know how far it branches out.
Click to expand...

Whaaaa!!??

So, you need a third investigation into WTC7 because the two that have been done both conclude that the fires initiated the collapse and that design allowed propagation to global collapse.

IOW you require a new investigation because two investigations totally independantly of each other reached conclusions you don't like.

What a marroon! Where's my laughing dog.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom