I found the missing Jolt.

[FalseFlag]

The acceleration during that period AVERAGED free fall.

Is this what NIST said?

Also, please explain "average acceleration".

Wait for it...

You understand the implications of AVERAGE, right?

Yes. Let me use the word in a sentence. Your grasp of reality is below AVERAGE.

 

[skyeagle409]

I have only said I'm not an expert.

Of course you're not an expert, which simply explains why you have no idea why your CD claim is totally unfounded.

 

[FalseFlag]

you can't pay for comedy this good.

Would you like my PayPal account?

This is a problem I can easily solve.

 

[FalseFlag]

which simply explains why you have no idea why your CD claim is totally unfounded.

My claim? I might agree with the CD hypothesis, but it's not my claim. I don't have the expertise to make such a claim and have it be considered credible.

 

[skyeagle409]

Is this what NIST said?

Also, please explain "average acceleration".

Wait for it...

Well, you know, the sun will eventually engulf the earth in a few billion years, and I am very sure by that time we will still be waiting for your so-called evidence.

 

[FalseFlag]

I know. It was a rhetorical question. After all if an average, or a best fit on a graph of point accelerations is g, then it REQUIRES that some points have acceleration greater than g.

Wait, what?

Let me give you a chance to correct that statement, or double down on it.

 

[skyeagle409]

My claim? I might agree with the CD hypothesis, but it's not my claim.

Then, retract what you have said regarding CD and 9/11 and do so for all to see.

 

[tfk]

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.”

Are you an expert in CD? If not, how can anyone be sure your statement is correct?

Why are you so dumb?
Are you pretending to be dumb?
Or is it a real affliction?

I have provided you with the answer to this question.
You CHOOSE to be stupid & ignore the answer that I provided you.

I wrote (and you quote below):

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.

One needs no expertise (except a middling familiarity with epistemology) to know that what you say (“you need to be an expert in the field to decide) is false, and what I’ve said (“an intelligent person can tell what is the truth of this matter, without being an expert yourself”) is true.

We’ll use something we both know nothing about: EEG brain scans.

One doc tells me that my brain scan indicates that I’ve got a tumor.
I take the scans to another doctor for a second opinion. He says that the scans indicate that there is no tumor.

What have I learned?
The extremely useful piece of info that these docs (both neurologists) disagree.

What should I do now? Throw up my hands?
No.
Do I enroll in medical school, as your frankly stupid assertion suggests, hoping that I’ll still be alive 7 years from now when I finally get my own degree?
No.

I bring the scans to MANY other neurologists.

Note very well: I do NOT - as the Twoof Movement does INCESSANTLY - bring them to theologists (D.R. Griffin), architects (Gage), particle physicists (S Jones), sociology students (A. Taylor), hardware salesmen (C. Sarns), Islamic studies professors (K. Barrett), radio shock jocks (A. Jones), ex-religious studies prof (G. MacQueen), etc. These morons know as little about neurobiology as they do about structural engineering: which is absolutely zero.

After I bring my scans to 15 or so docs, a CONSENSUS may, or may not, emerge.

Let’s say that 14 docs say “yes, a tumor”, and 1 says “no tumor”.
Then I’ve got my answer. (“no tumor” Doc is likely incompetent.)

Let’s say that 9 say “no tumor” & 6 say “tumor”.
Then the answer is clear: “the people that the medical field identifies as ‘experts’ can not tell from an EEG.

A very likely consensus is that both of my original docs were wrong (= “incompetent”).
Lets say 2 say “tumor”, 2 say “no tumor” & 11 say “You can’t tell fro an EEG”.
The conclusion that I draw is: “you cannot detect a tumor using EEG scans”.

I have no background in EEGs.
But the above is 100% true.
Whether or not your dumb ass chooses to believe it.
__

And ALL the evidence proves that it was NOT brought down by CD.

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.

You Twoofers are ironically consistent at projecting your incompetence, immorality & stupidity onto others.

For “immorality”, a week or so ago, you stated (paraphrase) that “If someone offered me (FalseFlag) a bunch of money to lie & defend what I (FF) knew to be a lie, I’d do it.”

I sincerely doubt that there is one debunker here who would take that money.
I actually doubt that you would take that money either, but you find it convenient to lie.
The twisted, pathological aspect of your comment is your ludicrous, adolescent belief about “people who disagree with you”.

In the case of “Unexamined Evidence”, I’ve asked you about 8 times now to BRING your evidence for a CD. The evidence you’ve offered: Not a single thing. Not one word.

I’ve asked you to state clearly the laws of physics that you believe are broken by NIST’s conclusions. Thus far, you’ve brought NOTHING. Not one thing. While continuing to blather your unsupported assertion.

YOU are the one that ignores evidence.

On the other hand, in two of my last posts to you, I listed 9 separate pieces of compelling proof that there was NO CD.

Here they are again.

• no blast sounds.
• no shrapnel injuries.
• no windows broken on the BACK sides of the nearby buildings.
• Most compelling proof: zero columns or girders in the debris pile that show the “visible from 15 feet away” characteristics of either melting or explosive cutting. Every single column end, in the thousands of pictures of GZ & Fresh Kills, shows a clean machined column end. Even if the end is distorted by being crushed in the collapse. This is evidence that anyone who wanted to really know the truth can check TODAY. Those photographs are available for download. (And hundreds more, for purchase in books.)
BTW, the “swiss cheese” I Beam is unmistakeable NOT from melting. If it had melted, it would not have the remnant shape of the I Beam left in the remaining steel. It’s look like a melted candle.
• Zero giant ingots of steel, with thousands of pounds of embedded debris (the inevitable consequence of “rivers of molten steel flowing down the channel rails”), had to be lance cut & hoisted out of the rubble & trucked away.
• The meteorite was provably NEVER melted steel. Or aluminum. Or any other metal. There is legible paper sticking out of it. That means that it never got above about 150°C (the charring temperature for paper).
• The rubble piles were examined in fine detail by experts trained in detection of explosives, both human & dogs. Not a single thing indicating explosives was found.
• The debris from GZ was sorted & examined down to the size of dime. No initiators, no det cord, no “thermite holding ceramics”, none of the accessory equipment required for CD was found.

You have replied to precisely ZERO of these pieces of evidence.

You accused me of “ignoring evidence”.

QED: It is YOU that chooses to ignore evidence.

Projection doesn’t get any more transparent than that.

Meanwhile, I’ve asked you, MULTIPLE TIMES, to bring your evidence. You’ve brought nothing. I’m still WAITING for you to bring ANYTHING that you believe to be compelling evidence.

Lazy links to Twoofer stupidity are not acceptable.
YOU will have to state exactly why you think that some piece of evidence is both credible & compelling.

AFTER you state that, THEN I will dismantle every one of your dumb assertions on both credibility & compelling accounts.

I say this with 100% assurance, because you’re got nothing new, and every previous twoofer assertion has been completely dismantled.
__

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.

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.

No to your stupid, superficial Appeal to Perfection.

Once you have done that, please provide proof that you have shown each and every one of them videos of the collapse of WTC7 …

No to your stupid, superficial Appeal to Perfection.

and then provide proof that each and every one of them agrees that it was not brought down by CD.

No to your stupid, superficial Appeal to Perfection.

If you do all that, you can use the term "every other demolitions expert".

No, I don’t allow facile, superficial, contrarian idiots to determine my phraseology.

There is not one single CD expert in this country that is unaware of the stupid “CD Claims” of the Twoof movement. I’ve personally talked to about 5 of them. Every one of them was completely aware of the claims of CD by Twoofers. Every one of them expressed massive disdain for the claims. None of them saw any credence in any of the CD claims.

I’m an engineer. I believe in sampling theory.
That’s a sufficient sampling for me.

Your precept that “hundreds of building demolition experts in the US know or suspect that the collapse of those buildings was a CD, but are keeping that knowledge / suspicion to themselves” is your delusion & projection.

If you want to do any work - yeah, like THAT’s ever going to happen - I invite you to look up a random sampling, call them up, and HONESTLY ask them the same question.

Come back with the name of an experienced CD expert that is unaware of these claims.

Do it all HONESTLY.
Yeah, like THAT’s ever going to happen.

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".

Your lazy, baseless prejudices are showing. And irrelevant.

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.

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.

Your illiteracy is showing.
I said, "multiple experts". (I listed 4).

If one physicist says the ball fell due to magnetics, and believed it, then he is NOT an expert. By virtue of being an incompetent moron.

If one physicist says the ball fell due to magnetics, and did not believe it, then he is NOT an expert. By virtue of being a liar.

One might accurately say “those experts showed far, FAR greater expertise than Jowenko did.”

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.

Your projection of immorality onto every CD expert in the country is YOUR delusion. And irrelevant.

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.

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?

Thank you for making my point precisely.
Yes, my conclusions about your video are completely different with & without sound.

Without sound, there is a guy that I know to be a musician & a physicist walking thru some high tech facility. No additional info is available.

With sound, I get a huge abundance of additional information.

You have shown, with 100% certainty, that deleting the sound eliminates critical, crucial information that denies the listener true & complete knowledge of what the video shows.

EXACTLY like Da Twoofers did with Jowenko.
Thanks again for making my point.

Why are you so “logically illiterate”?

Wait for it...

No need to wait for anything.
Every single time you post, you prove that you are logically illiterate.

Just exactly like you did in this post.

 

[FalseFlag]

A person of average height, according to FF's reasoning, means no one can be taller than that person.

What if you take the average height of a group of 1000 people who are all 5' 6" tall. What is the average then?

 

[FalseFlag]

You are match for the subjects that these professionals study:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11329097#post11329097

Since when does having a basic understanding of physics, and an above-average ability to point out skeptic's BS, qualify me for any sort of study?

 

[FalseFlag]

His posts are comedy gold.

Thanks for the compliment.

You bring the fraud and nonsense.

I bring the lulz.

It's a pretty good deal. I just wish I could get some of that "gubbamint cheese" too.

 

[FalseFlag]

How amusing when I have already done so.

You have posted links. You have yet to post what was requested.

 

[tfk]

Here is the exact text of my statement:

“You have a background working for the government in some capacity.
If you worked as a subcontractor, my statement is true.”

I did NOT work as a subcontractor to the government.
I worked as an employee of a private company.

My company was NOT a subcontractor to the government.
It was a subcontractor to Boeing Aerospace.
Boeing Aerospace was not, has never been, “the government”.

I've never worked in any capacity for the DoD.

Did I ever claim you did?

Nope, I thought I’d save you another hilariously stupid post.
Clearly, it is not in my power to do that.
LoL.

You spent quite a bit of time trying to discredit me.

I spend no time at all “trying to discredit you”.
Not one second.

Your own posts discredit you, quite effectively, with a Truckloads of Stupid.

As usual, you have failed.

That may or may not be true.
But YOU succeeded spectacularly.!

All you really did is show everyone how hard you are trying to distance yourself from government contracts.

Because “what I did between 1979 & 1981” is so pertinent to my engineering arguments.

In case you hadn’t noticed, read thru my posts.
This is all that I do: make mechanical engineering arguments.

And occasionally mock the most insulting & ignorant of the truthers.

I wonder why.

Because you're consumed with ignorance, paranoia & adolescent delusions of moral superiority.

Glad I could help clear that up for you.
LoL.

 

[FalseFlag]

I bring the scans to MANY other neurologists.

OK. Let's use your example. Let's show the videos of WTC7 collapsing to MANY other experts all over the world. Then let's get their opinions. You know how we can do this? They do - www.ae911truth.org

For “immorality”, a week or so ago, you stated (paraphrase) that “If someone offered me (FalseFlag) a bunch of money to lie & defend what I (FF) knew to be a lie, I’d do it.”

I'm still waiting for offers. I could do a much better job than you, too. Want proof? Have your bosses write a check for $1 million. Once it clears, I will provide proof.

ETA: I am not directly accusing you of being a paid shill. Please change "your" bosses to "the" bosses.

I sincerely doubt that there is one debunker here who would take that money.

That is the most fraudulent, ludicrous, hilarious, absurd, outlandish, and utterly false statement that any skeptic has made this year.

Congratulations. You finally did something worthwhile.

I actually doubt that you would take that money either, but you find it convenient to lie.

I will take that money and sit my ass on a beach sipping piña coladas while I support the skeptics' cause. No, I have no shame. Neither do some skeptics here, who are obviously on the payroll of the misinformation effort.

I’ve asked you to state clearly the laws of physics that you believe are broken by NIST’s conclusions.

I have also said that the laws of physics can not be broken, and you agreed. If you already agreed, why do you keep asking?

Without sound, there is a guy that I know to be a musician & a physicist walking thru some high tech facility. No additional info is available.

So you can't understand the experiment being performed unless it is explained to you? In other words, you need to be told what you are seeing in order for you to understand it. What kind of "expert" are you?

You walked right into that. Don't you think I planned that example and expected your reply?

LOL.

ETA: The money has to be tax free. If I have to pay taxes, the price is $2 million.

 

[FalseFlag]

I did NOT work as a subcontractor to the government.
I worked as an employee of a private company that received contracts from the government

Bold text added by me.

You can't weasel your way out of what you already wrote.

I spend no time at all “trying to discredit you”.

Do I need to go back and find all of your insults?

And occasionally mock the most insulting & ignorant of the truthers.

Where? I would like to see this.

 

[FalseFlag]

But YOU succeeded spectacularly!

Doing what? Exposing your fraud?

OK. You're right. We agree on this, and thanks for the compliment.

 

[beachnut]

... Glad I could help clear that up for you.
LoL.

A talk back computer bot/program could do better than 9/11 truth trolls.

 

[tfk]

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

I don't know. Does using an obviously fraudulent computer model win you any debating points?
Let me answer that for you.
No. No, it doesn't. In fact, it proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that you are committing fraud.

OK, let’s attempt to address this issue maturely.

We both agree that, during the global collapse phase, NIST’s model diverges significantly from the actual building during that time.

Please answer this question:
Do you believe that experienced Structural Engineers consider this fact to falsify the results of NIST’s analyses?

If so, please state exactly why you believe this.

Let me ask you a second question: How many mathematical models of highly chaotic dynamic systems have you ever done?

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

This might actually be true.
The issue is whether or not NIST honestly answered the questions.

You’re not paying attention.
Or your reading comprehension sucks.
Or (most likely by FAR) you’re too lazy to bother reading the information that I provided you.

Two thirds of the engineers who wrote the NIST report … do NOT work for NIST.
They are all independent, working in industry or academia.

The NCSTAR Advisory Board is made up of highly respected Structural Engineering experts … NONE of whom work for NIST.

The subcontracted Structural Engineering firms, who provided original analyses and reviewed NiST’s assumptions, methods & conclusions … were NOT NIST.

All of the groups above provided answers.
None of them were “NIST answers”.

Your paranoia about the answers provided by NIST’s engineers is hilarious.

Do you REALLY

NIST's report has been found to be convincing by the only people that really matter: competent structural & mechanical engineers

NIST's report has been found to be convincing by the only people that really matter: competent structural & mechanical engineers willing to commit fraud.
FTFY

LMFAO.
The only thing that you “fixed” is your reputation for stupidity.

NO Professional Engineer is going to risk his reputation by signing his name to a fraudulent report.

There is precisely zero possibility that a massively fraudulent report (as you assert the NCSTAR to be) would survive the slightest, most cursory examination by competent engineers. Who would immediately blow the whistle on them.

Instead, we have hundreds of engineering papers, published in peer reviewed journals, that either:
a) explicitly confirm various aspects of NIST’s methodology & results,
b) implicitly support NIST’s methods & conclusions by citing the NIST report as references,

Not one single competent engineer has published an engineering paper in any peer reviewed engineering journal which negates NIST’s assumptions, methods, or conclusions.

The closest is Dr. Quintiere, who claims that NIST underestimated the combustible fuel load on the various floors, and claims that the towers would have collapsed regardless of whether or not the insulation was removed by the jet’s impact.

And, yes, in another (futile, I’m certain) attempt to save you from writing another hilariously clueless post, I am completely familiar with the submissions of Tony Szamboti, Jonathan Cole, Steven Jones, Niels Harrit, etc.

Not one of whom has satisfied the “published in a peer reviewed engineering journal” criterion.

Nor satisfied the “competent engineer” criterion.

 

[tfk]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
I know. It was a rhetorical question. After all if an average, or a best fit on a graph of point accelerations is g, then it REQUIRES that some points have acceleration greater than g.

Wait, what?
Let me give you a chance to correct that statement, or double down on it.

LMFAO.
I guess we can add 9th grade statistics to the long, LONG list of things about which FF hasn't the slightest clue...

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

What if you take the average height of a group of 1000 people who are all 5' 6" tall. What is the average then?

Seriously? There's no point in using that data to take an average, because your measurement device is obviously broken!

No, that would only tell you it's time for a new tape measure or yardstick or whatever.

You can prove me wrong, easily. Just go out and start measuring the heights of people in random groups of one thousand. When you finally get a group whose heights fall within the same inch - it doesn't even have to be 5' 6" - then you can come back here and crow to your heart's content.

Wait for it...