• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

NIST Petition Demands Corrections

it is a serendipidous creation of a new word to discribe many in the truth movement.

TAM:)
 
Edited out.
Page hadn't refreshed, and I have no wish to further derail, as mentioned above
 
Last edited:
I find it so ironic that 9/11 conspiracy theorists say "Greening disagrees with NIST, you agree with Greening on some things, why don't you disagree with NIST then?"

That is a false dilemma if I ever saw one. 9/11 conspiracy theorists work with an "all or nothing" attitude, and it is severely destroying their credibility. They fail to realize that people agree and disagree on different issues. If they expected Dr. Greening to come here and have us kiss his rear-end regardless of what he said, they were sadly mistaken.

It is the conspiracy theorists, not the debunekrs, that take everything that their sources (LC, 9/11 Mysteries) say as truth. Every word of it. In their minds, their "great leaders" can never be wrong. I saw this in a chat room the other night where P'dohrety refused to admit 9/11 Mysteries made one error in their film.

The conspiracy theorists work under the delusion that "The 9/11 Commission Report made an error, therefore it is all false". Yet, at the same time, you will never catch them saying this about Loose Change, or 9/11 Mysteries. This is because they are under the delusion that these films got everything right, and they cannot be wrong on one point. They recognize that admitting one wrong point will lead to admitting another wrong point.

Can you imagine having to admit you were wrong after 4 years of insulting the victims of such a horrible event? Having to admit that all of your work was flawed? The reason why 9/11 conspiracy theorists will never admit they are wrong is because of the shame they would have to deal with. Hell, being crazy but consistent is better than being sane and wrong in their opinions.

It appears after all my typing I've deviated from the topic of this thread, so I'll leave you with that food for thought and let the discussion continue :p

Doc.
 
Gravy said:
Boy, did you ever pick a bad example. They put a stopwatch on the collapse of the south tower and arrived at the ten second figure by not including the beginning of the collapse. Honest mistake, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

The 911 commision report gives the same approximate figure.
 
ERichardson said:
So the claim in LC is correct.
Click to expand...

No. How on earth did you come to that conclusion? The LC collapse timer has been heavily debunked. I'm also sure you've read this debunking and have willfully ignored it.

The 9/11 Commission Report wasn't using that figure to support scientific evidence, or to make a 100% accurate statement. As you said, and I bolded, the figure was approximate.

The 9/11 Commission Report used this figure to demonstrate, approximately, how fast the towers fell to show that they fell at a rapid rate.

The scientific report into the collapse of the World Trade Centers was a making an accurate statement, and it did not determine the collapse time as 10 seconds. In fact, if you count the cores collapsing the total collapse time was closer to 30 seconds.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but a +/-1/2 difference is significant so an approximation means nothing?
 
So let me get this straight. The Commission report says the towers fell in approximately 10 seconds. The LC video repeats that virtually word for word. You are criticising LC for lying. You aren't criticising the commision report.

WTF????

LC is not a science video either.
 
ERichardson said:
So let me get this straight. The Commission report says the towers fell in approximately 10 seconds. The LC video repeats that virtually word for word. You are criticising LC for lying. You aren't criticising the commision report.

WTF????

LC is not a science video either.
Click to expand...

Please Pay Attention...
 
ERichardson said:
So let me get this straight. The Commission report says the towers fell in approximately 10 seconds. The LC video repeats that virtually word for word. You are criticising LC for lying. You aren't criticising the commision report.

WTF????

LC is not a science video either.
Click to expand...

LC does not say "approximately", they use it as an accurate figure and then use this figure to support their free-fall argument.

The 9/11 Commission Report says "approximately", and does not treat the figure as accurate (but rather as an approximate value) and does not use the figure to support its findings.

Although LC is not a science video, it uses its timer as evidence that the building collapsed at free-fall speeds and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. Using false figures as evidence to support your conclusions seriously jeopardizes your conclusion.

All in all, I think you missed the point. Badly.
 
The Doc said:
LC does not say "approximately", and they use the figure to support their free-fall argument.

The 9/11 Commission Report says "approximately", and does not use the figure to support its findings.

Although LC is not a science video, it uses its timer as evidence that the building collapsed at free-fall speeds and therefore 9/11 was an inside job. Using false figures as evidence to support your conclusions seriously jeopardizes your conclusion.

All in all, I think you missed the point. Badly.
Click to expand...

LC does say approximately. They also never stop the stopwatch.

You can't have it both ways. Either LC and the commission report are both right or they are both wrong. Which is it?
 
ERichardson said:
LC does say approximately. They also never stop the stopwatch.

You can't have it both ways. Either LC and the commission report are both right or they are both wrong. Which is it?
Click to expand...

*Sigh*

Loose Change 2nd Edition
Galileio's Law of Falling Bodies calculates the time in which an object will travel a certain distance in complete freefall. Here goes the free-fall argument again. Distance (D) = 16.08 times Time in seconds squared.
The South Tower was 1362 feet (415 m) tall.
1362 = 16.08 times 84.70. Or, 9.2 seconds.

The Twin Towers came down in nearly freefall speed.

200,000 tons of steel shatters into sections no longer than a couple feet long.
Click to expand...

Bloded for context.

Loose Change does not use "nearly" as in "nearly 10 seconds". They use it in the context of "nearly free-fall, 9.2 seconds".

LC doesn't stop the stopwatch because they stop the footage and imply that the collapse has finished. If they wanted their viewer's to see the full collapse time, they would have left the collapse and the timer going.

I've explained my argument, you seem to have trouble getting it. Try reading it again.
 
Heres an excerpt from Gravys LC guide:

9:59. New York City, New York. The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses to the ground in approximately 10 seconds.
How approximate is that measurement?

29 minutes later the North Tower follows suit, collapsing in approximately 10 seconds.
How approximate is that measurement?
Click to expand...

They say approximately for both towers. So whos the one making false statements The Doc?
 
ERichardson said:
LC does say approximately. They also never stop the stopwatch.

You can't have it both ways. Either LC and the commission report are both right or they are both wrong. Which is it?
Click to expand...

My word. Could it be that someone has actually found a claim in LC that isn't totally incorrect? Nah.

I think the problem is they start the stopwatch too late. Or maybe I'm thinking of something else.

Sorry it's late here.
 
I'll make it a bit easier.

The 9/11 Commission Report had every right to say "approximately 10 seconds", because it didn't effect their conclusions. They gave the figure to demonstrate the buildings fell rapidly, not to give an exact figure.

Loose Change didn't have every right to approximate the collapse time, because it did effect their conclusions. They gave the figure to demonstrate the buildings fell at near free-fall speeds. If they had given the real figure, their viewers would see it did not fall at free-fall.

Do you have trouble understanding that?
 
ERichardson said:
Heres an excerpt from Gravys LC guide:



They say approximately for both towers. So whos the one making false statements The Doc?
Click to expand...

That is not in the section they use the 10 second timer to support their argument, it is much before.

Please keep this in context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom