Gage's next debate

fourtoe said:
I know you want physicists and engineers and stuff to answer your questions but when I read Chandler's response to your email I thought the same thing as Newton...I think. It does sound like Chandler is trying to weasel out of factoring in the stuff you talked about by disassociating the system from the rest of the structure...
Click to expand...
(My emphasis)
That is the situation precisely. I could not comment as to whether it is intentional or simply that Chandler has long been too close to the trees and cannot see the forest.
 
Hi Eric,

No I can make this simple. I have a drawing of the inside of Building 7 I will redo with a variation on this design, and then explain the leveraging only. This IS fun! Thank you. Chris
 
Hi Triforcharity,

I'll keep this bomb-sniffing dogs info in my back pocket if I need it. But more importantly, do expert firefighters know if buildings sometimes collapse at freefall in fires for at least part of the time? I think the answer is yes but it would be good to hear your comments on it.
Thanks all,
Chris
 
chrismohr said:
Hi Triforcharity,

I'll keep this bomb-sniffing dogs info in my back pocket if I need it. But more importantly, do expert firefighters know if buildings sometimes collapse at freefall in fires for at least part of the time? I think the answer is yes but it would be good to hear your comments on it.
Thanks all,
Chris
Click to expand...

Chris,

It's a non-starter. Firefighters generally don't care how fast or not the building falls. We typically want to have everyone out by the time that occurs.

We also typically don't really investigate the causes of building collapses, so the details of the collapse, why it occured, typically falls into the hands of NFPA or OSHA, or sometimes the USFA. If there is a death involved, that will usually fall under the State's fire marshalls office, but usually a fire protection engineer, or other type discipline would investigate.

So, the short of it, it doesn't matter to firefighters. Not in the least bit.

Hope that helps!

Cheers!
 
Free Fall and NIST and Archimides and all that jazz

Christopher7 said:
There was no leveraging because "The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit" at FFA for ~100 feet.

There may have been a momentary and minute faster than FFA of the exterior walls but only because the core and exterior walls were falling at FFA with the core slightly ahead of the exterior. It is more likely that the minute faster than FFA NIST calculated was due to the fact that they were working from a video.

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

The attempts to talk around this simple fact are nothing more than bombastic obfuscation.

This is very simple. Free fall acceleration means falling thru air - no resistance.
[air resistance would be minute/negligible in this case]
Click to expand...

Let's forget the NIST quotes for a moment. It's weird anyway, someone who totally denies the NIST story and then quoting them all the time. I'm a natural collapse advocate, not a NIST spokesman.

So if I understand correctly, you're saying that among the thousands of collapsing beams and columns, you are 100% confident that no beam still attached to the perimeter was EVER leveraged in all the chaos, even for a second, to bring the net resistance to zero even for a few stories? And that the collapse at slightly greater than free fall could not POSSIBLY be the result of negative net resistance due to leveraging? This journalist will have to report that it is hard to understand how anyone can make such a claim. Wish I were an engineer, I could probably prove you wrong.

Free fall acceleration can mean falling through air... or it can mean net zero resistance. Even an scientifically untrained minister can wrap his unsophisticated little mind around opposing forces canceling each other out!
 
chrismohr said:
Let's forget the NIST quotes for a moment. It's weird anyway, someone who totally denies the NIST story and then quoting them all the time. I'm a natural collapse advocate, not a NIST spokesman.
Click to expand...
The proof that the NIST report are a farce is in the NIST reports. I decided to take this approach when I discovered the false claims that were the basis of their original hypothesis. In the final report they admitted that the debris damage had no appreciable effect on the collapse and there was no evidence of diesel fuel fires.

So if I understand correctly, you're saying that among the thousands of collapsing beams and columns, you are 100% confident that no beam still attached to the perimeter was EVER leveraged in all the chaos, even for a second, to bring the net resistance to zero even for a few stories?
Click to expand...
No, I am talking about the upper portion of the building falling as a single unit at FFA for about 100 feet. When the upper portion of the building was in free fall, there was no stress and therefore no leverage.

And that the collapse at slightly greater than free fall could not POSSIBLY be the result of negative net resistance due to leveraging?
Click to expand...
I have said that the interior started falling first and may have momentarily caused the exterior walls to fall at minutely faster than FFA, but if it did it would be negligible.

I would agree that in the chaos of the collapse, individual beams could be momentarily propelled faster than the FFA, but not the entire upper portion of the building.

Free fall acceleration can mean falling through air... or it can mean net zero resistance.
Click to expand...
In this case they are the same. Air resistance was minute and negligible - too small to be considered.

Even an scientifically untrained minister can wrap his unsophisticated little mind around opposing forces canceling each other out!
Click to expand...
I'm sure you can, but the upper portion fell at FFA because there were no opposing forces.
 
Christopher7 said:
The proof that the NIST report are a farce is in the NIST reports. I decided to take this approach when I discovered the false claims that were the basis of their original hypothesis. In the final report they admitted that the debris damage had no appreciable effect on the collapse and there was no evidence of diesel fuel fires.
Click to expand...
So? Class A fires are usually hotter, by volumn of fuel consumed, than Class B. The amount of heat generated and where it was applied matter far more than how badly the building was damaged.

The column that started the cascade was right where a lot of the heat from the fires was venting from the building.


I have said that the interior started falling first and may have momentarily caused the exterior walls to fall at minutely faster than FFA, but if it did it would be negligible.

I would agree that in the chaos of the collapse, individual beams could be momentarily propelled faster than the FFA, but not the entire upper portion of the building.
Click to expand...

Wait. I missed the part where anybody proved faster-than-free-fall speeds. Linky?
 
leftysergeant said:
...Wait. I missed the part where anybody proved faster-than-free-fall speeds. Linky?
Click to expand...
I don't have the link to the original but it was a femr2 measurement which shows a brief period of over g. My post 403 was an explanation of how you can get greater than g acceleration for part of a building during collapse. Written for chrismohr's assistance which is the topic of the thread behind all the Chris7 noise.
 
New 911 Investigation Question for Debate

Hi all,

I think I'll need to bone up on this sulfur argument when I have more time as I prepare for my debate Epilogue. I am even less versed in chemistry than I am in physics so I will tread carefully and slowly there.

One thing I keep getting in trouble with over and over is Richard's call for a new investigation. My debate position was 1) it won't happen because there is no political will for it 2) I think that the scientific evidence for controlled demolition doesn't rise to the level of "reasonable suspicion" so another investigation is not necessary. 3) There are other groups out there who also want their causes investigated. In the debate I mentioned the Galileo Was Wrong group who think NASA is part of a coverup of the very nature of the cosmos to drive people away from the Holy Truth as revealed by the Medieval Catholic Church. They have a painstakingly researched 1200 page book to prove their points and are demanding an investigation of NASA and all astronomical societies. There's another book that says we should reinvestigate the Titanic, which was in fact unsinkable and in truth never sank at all. Its sinking was a fraud. The author of that book would love to see his book be used as the basis for an investigation. My question in the debate was, where do we draw the line? Who gets an investigation? And finally, 4) I favor more hard scientific research. You haven't proven thermites in the dust, so give the dust samples to RJ Lee or some other independent lab. Prove your claims and THEN demand an investigation.

All of these arguments fell on deaf ears. It seems so reasonable to a Truther. Let's just have a real independent investigation with full subpoena powers and we can answer all these questions once and for all.

Now that really scares me... full subpoena powers means a lot of people's lives will be brought to financial ruin. Ask the Clinton aides who went through the whole Whitewater thing.

But they do have one argument I agree with. Bush/Cheney wanted no investigation at all. Then they tried to put Henry Kissinger in charge of it. That 911 Commission was put together by an administration extremely reluctant to do it at all. I can't say yes to a Truther investigation because the science is not there. But I can't deny that the Commission was put together by an administration hostile to ANY investigation. So I am torn, and not just because this is the one thing that has alienated me from sincere Truthers, but because they seem to have a point. Comments?
 
But I can't deny that the Commission was put together by an administration hostile to ANY investigation.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything nefarious about that, other than the fact it would illuminate just how out of touch they were.
 
chrismohr said:
But they do have one argument I agree with. Bush/Cheney wanted no investigation at all. Then they tried to put Henry Kissinger in charge of it. That 911 Commission was put together by an administration extremely reluctant to do it at all. I can't say yes to a Truther investigation because the science is not there. But I can't deny that the Commission was put together by an administration hostile to ANY investigation. So I am torn, and not just because this is the one thing that has alienated me from sincere Truthers, but because they seem to have a point. Comments?
Click to expand...

The whole question of the impartiality of the 9/11 Commission is a classic example of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Truthers try to discredit the Commission itself, in the hope that this will then cast doubt on its findings. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that the Bush administration set up the 9/11 Commission unwillingly and half-heartedly when discussing one's opinion of the Bush administration; however, it's irrelevant to the question of whether the conclusions it reached, which are all available for public scrutiny, are supported by the evidence they're based on.

Dave
 
chrismohr said:
But they do have one argument I agree with. Bush/Cheney wanted no investigation at all. Then they tried to put Henry Kissinger in charge of it. That 911 Commission was put together by an administration extremely reluctant to do it at all. I can't say yes to a Truther investigation because the science is not there. But I can't deny that the Commission was put together by an administration hostile to ANY investigation. So I am torn, and not just because this is the one thing that has alienated me from sincere Truthers, but because they seem to have a point. Comments?
Click to expand...

Look at the history of "independent investigators" in this country. Ken Starr for example. It started as an investigation of Vince Foster's suicide.....and ended years later with a presidential B.J. and a stained blue dress. What administration in the right mind would want an "independent investigation"?
 
Dave Rogers said:
The whole question of the impartiality of the 9/11 Commission is a classic example of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Truthers try to discredit the Commission itself, in the hope that this will then cast doubt on its findings. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that the Bush administration set up the 9/11 Commission unwillingly and half-heartedly when discussing one's opinion of the Bush administration; however, it's irrelevant to the question of whether the conclusions it reached, which are all available for public scrutiny, are supported by the evidence they're based on.

Dave
Click to expand...

Add to that, the collapses of the towers have been studied and analyzed many times from various aspects (The Purdue Study for example) and no serious problems have ever been uncovered going on ten years. Troofers will never be satisfied.
 
chrismohr said:
Hi all,

I think I'll need to bone up on this sulfur argument when I have more time as I prepare for my debate Epilogue. I am even less versed in chemistry than I am in physics so I will tread carefully and slowly there.

One thing I keep getting in trouble with over and over is Richard's call for a new investigation. My debate position was 1) it won't happen because there is no political will for it 2) I think that the scientific evidence for controlled demolition doesn't rise to the level of "reasonable suspicion" so another investigation is not necessary. 3) There are other groups out there who also want their causes investigated. In the debate I mentioned the Galileo Was Wrong group who think NASA is part of a coverup of the very nature of the cosmos to drive people away from the Holy Truth as revealed by the Medieval Catholic Church. They have a painstakingly researched 1200 page book to prove their points and are demanding an investigation of NASA and all astronomical societies. There's another book that says we should reinvestigate the Titanic, which was in fact unsinkable and in truth never sank at all. Its sinking was a fraud. The author of that book would love to see his book be used as the basis for an investigation. My question in the debate was, where do we draw the line? Who gets an investigation? And finally, 4) I favor more hard scientific research. You haven't proven thermites in the dust, so give the dust samples to RJ Lee or some other independent lab. Prove your claims and THEN demand an investigation.

All of these arguments fell on deaf ears. It seems so reasonable to a Truther. Let's just have a real independent investigation with full subpoena powers and we can answer all these questions once and for all.

Now that really scares me... full subpoena powers means a lot of people's lives will be brought to financial ruin. Ask the Clinton aides who went through the whole Whitewater thing.

But they do have one argument I agree with. Bush/Cheney wanted no investigation at all. Then they tried to put Henry Kissinger in charge of it. That 911 Commission was put together by an administration extremely reluctant to do it at all. I can't say yes to a Truther investigation because the science is not there. But I can't deny that the Commission was put together by an administration hostile to ANY investigation. So I am torn, and not just because this is the one thing that has alienated me from sincere Truthers, but because they seem to have a point. Comments?
Click to expand...

I'll say this much: To have the legitimacy to call for a new investigation, they must demonstrate that the previous ones (plural) have drawn incorrect conclusions. Truthers attempt to make that exact argument, but their own arguments fail for reasons that have been discussed in this forum since 2006. They need to clearly prove their points to be correct, and so far none of them have.

They have to show what's wrong with the prior investigations before they can call for a new one. That's the bottom line.
 
Animal said:
Add to that, the collapses of the towers have been studied and analyzed many times from various aspects (The Purdue Study for example) and no serious problems have ever been uncovered going on ten years. Troofers will never be satisfied.
Click to expand...

Yes, Purdue's one. Usmani, Lamont, and a few others at the University of Edinburgh have also pumped out some papers on the collapses. Arup, via their association with that university has also spoken towards this issue.

There are others yet, but yes, your point about various other studies is completely valid.
 
chrismohr said:
One thing I keep getting in trouble with over and over is Richard's call for a new investigation. My debate position was 1) it won't happen because there is no political will for it 2) I think that the scientific evidence for controlled demolition doesn't rise to the level of "reasonable suspicion" so another investigation is not necessary. 3) There are other groups out there who also want their causes investigated. In the debate I mentioned the Galileo Was Wrong group who think NASA is part of a coverup of the very nature of the cosmos to drive people away from the Holy Truth as revealed by the Medieval Catholic Church. They have a painstakingly researched 1200 page book to prove their points and are demanding an investigation of NASA and all astronomical societies. There's another book that says we should reinvestigate the Titanic, which was in fact unsinkable and in truth never sank at all. Its sinking was a fraud. The author of that book would love to see his book be used as the basis for an investigation. My question in the debate was, where do we draw the line? Who gets an investigation? And finally, 4) I favor more hard scientific research. You haven't proven thermites in the dust, so give the dust samples to RJ Lee or some other independent lab. Prove your claims and THEN demand an investigation.

All of these arguments fell on deaf ears. It seems so reasonable to a Truther. Let's just have a real independent investigation with full subpoena powers and we can answer all these questions once and for all.

Now that really scares me... full subpoena powers means a lot of people's lives will be brought to financial ruin. Ask the Clinton aides who went through the whole Whitewater thing.

But they do have one argument I agree with. Bush/Cheney wanted no investigation at all. Then they tried to put Henry Kissinger in charge of it. That 911 Commission was put together by an administration extremely reluctant to do it at all. I can't say yes to a Truther investigation because the science is not there. But I can't deny that the Commission was put together by an administration hostile to ANY investigation. So I am torn, and not just because this is the one thing that has alienated me from sincere Truthers, but because they seem to have a point. Comments?
Click to expand...

The issue here is that they call for a new investigation when they haven't even bothered to look at the DOZENS of investigations that have already been made on the topic of 911. The 911 CR isn't the only investigation on the terrorists and the attacks and the FEMA/NIST reports aren't the only scientific investigations on the collapse of the towers either.

It seems like most Truthers* want everything spoon-fed to them rather than actually looking through the information that is already out there and available.

*Truthers on JREF vs. Truthers everywhere else/I have met in real life are pretty different. Most of the time I talk about 911 CTs with Truthers online (who are more interested in the arguments at least) so I am pretty downtrodden when I bring up an argument with a Truther irl and I have to deal with a response along the lines of, "well the Jews would want you to think that!".
 
chrismohr said:
One thing I keep getting in trouble with over and over is Richard's call for a new investigation. My debate position was 1) it won't happen because there is no political will for it
Click to expand...

We in the Truth Movement are trying to generate enough awareness to force Congress to have a real investigation.

2) I think that the scientific evidence for controlled demolition doesn't rise to the level of "reasonable suspicion" so another investigation is not necessary.
Click to expand...
This is because you ignore the fact that the fire that supposedly started the collapse of WTC 7 had gone out over an hour earlier. You ignore Sunder's clear statement that free fall acceleration means NO supporting structure and there was structural resistance in the NIST model.

And you hand wave all the witnesses who heard explosions including these firefighters who tell of huge explosions that destroyed the lobby of one of the Trade Towers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o


3) There are other groups out there who also want their causes investigated. In the debate I mentioned the Galileo Was Wrong group who think NASA is part of a coverup of the very nature of the cosmos to drive people away from the Holy Truth as revealed by the Medieval Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
It is inappropriate to compare an investigation of a mass murder to a request for an investigation based on religious mythology or other such silliness.

4) I favor more hard scientific research. You haven't proven thermites in the dust, so give the dust samples to RJ Lee or some other independent lab. Prove your claims and THEN demand an investigation
Click to expand...
A international team of highly qualified scientists have established a prima fascia case for nano-thermite in the WTC dust and it has been independently confirmed. Hand waving this scientific evidence is pure denial.

Now that really scares me... full subpoena powers means a lot of people's lives will be brought to financial ruin. Ask the Clinton aides who went through the whole Whitewater thing.
Click to expand...
Investigating the President's sex life was purely political and a travesty. We are talking about a mass murder.

But they do have one argument I agree with. Bush/Cheney wanted no investigation at all. Then they tried to put Henry Kissinger in charge of it. That 911 Commission was put together by an administration extremely reluctant to do it at all. I can't say yes to a Truther investigation because the science is not there.
Click to expand...
The term "Truther investigation" is condescending. This is the typical attitude of those who staunchly defend the OCT. The superior attitude does not denote superiority, it's just attitude.

The science is there but you find reasons not to believe it.

But I can't deny that the Commission was put together by an administration hostile to ANY investigation. So I am torn, and not just because this is the one thing that has alienated me from sincere Truthers, but because they seem to have a point.
Click to expand...
The co-chairs said they were "set up to fail". We need a real, independent investigation - whether or not you accept the scientific evidence of CD.

• The 9/11 Commission’s co-chairs said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)
• 9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue
• 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”
• 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”
• 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also said that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking
• And the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened”. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom