Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
R.Mackey said:
They did not. Read it again.

Many Truthers are making no progress -- as this thread illustrates -- because of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. In brief, they aren't smart enough to understand what they read, and resist any attempts to correct them. Perhaps you are one of those?
Click to expand...

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Click to expand...

Please try and weasel out of this. Should be a good laugh.
 
You can verify my statement quite easily. NIST, NCSTAR1-9. It's all in black and white.

ETA: Ah, you even quoted it. See where it says roofline? The roofline is not the same as the skyscraper. Makes a big, big difference.

And, again, if your claim were actually correct, you should have no trouble getting real academics on your side -- respected professors, researchers, industry leaders. Yet the best you've managed is a fired physics professor currently touring the world telling people about the evil of earthquake machines. Yes, it really is that stupid.
 
Last edited:
NIST chose a point on the roof to conduct its measurements. What exactly is your point here? Is that really the best you've got? Are you implying that the roof is some separate entity that is not part of the rest of the structure and that it encounters no resistance below it?

I really hope that's not the case as that would look really desperate. Believing the official story takes amazing dancing skills.
 
tempesta29 said:
NIST chose a point on the roof to conduct its measurements. What exactly is your point here? Is that really the best you've got? Are you implying that the roof is some separate entity that is not part of the rest of the structure and that it encounters no resistance below it?
Click to expand...

Try reading the report. That is in fact almost exactly what happened.

tempesta29 said:
I really hope that's not the case as that would look really desperate. Believing the official story takes amazing dancing skills.
Click to expand...

And yet nearly everyone does, and there's not a scrap of publication that disputes it in the entire world.

Anway, the only reason I've tolerated your blathering this long is to, once again, illustrate the point that it's all old. Your confusion, your argument, the whole "WTC 7 free-fall" garbage has been discussed here literally hundreds of times. Here is one prominent example. Check the date: 2008.

Three years with this particular argument, and you haven't been able to do a thing with it.

That's because it's nonsense.

That's why your "movement" is dead.

So far no one is even trying to prove otherwise.
 
tempesta29 said:
Look, the arguments have been laid down. There simply isn't a platform for them to be expressed.

Steel framed skyscrapers will always offer significantly more resistance than air. That's pretty simple. Do you disagree with this?
Click to expand...

Obviously. Although the term 'significant' is vague. What is significant to one may be insignificant to another...but here's one for you:

Steel framed skyscrapers can collapse due to fires. That's pretty simple, and demonstrated by engineering models. Do you disagree with this?
 
tempesta29 said:
LOL at someone belittling others for posting on message boards--by posting on message boards.

Look, you've apparently seen the arguments, and you aren't convinced. That's your choice. No "movement" can force you to change your mind. You apparently believe a steel-framed skyscraper can collapse at the same speed a quarter falls through the air. Like I said, that's your choice.

Not everyone calls this a "movement" either. People hold beliefs that are different from yours. This is clearly one of them. It's that simple. I know it makes you and your ilk feel good to call them lazy and failures, so go ahead and keep that going. Do what makes you feel good buddy.
Click to expand...

Where did you study and what are your qualifications? Would you like to break the truther mold and give me your full theory of the events on 911? How was it done,in detail? No truther here has ever answered that question. Java man was going to write a draft for us but chickened out. Would you like to step in to the breach?
 
alienentity said:
Obviously. Although the term 'significant' is vague. What is significant to one may be insignificant to another...but here's one for you:

Steel framed skyscrapers can collapse due to fires. That's pretty simple, and demonstrated by engineering models. Do you disagree with this?
Click to expand...

Significant = measurable. Are you implying that all that steel offered no more resistance than air?

I'm sure it's possible that a steel framed skyscraper could collapse due to fire. I've never seen it personally, but it may be possible. Then again, WTC 7 was hardly engulfed in flames, as you can hardly even see fires from the north side.

The point still stands: WTC 7 was in free fall for most of its 47 stories.
 
R.Mackey said:
Try reading the report. That is in fact almost exactly what happened.
Click to expand...

You keep telling me to read the report, yet it was you who said WTC 7 was never in free fall when the report accepts this fact, a fact you dance around with semantics.
 
• In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
Click to expand...

Here we go. NIST refers to the entire north face descending at gravitational acceleration now. This is from section 3.6. Again, how do steel columns provide no more resistance than air?
 
tempesta29 said:
You keep telling me to read the report, yet it was you who said WTC 7 was never in free fall when the report accepts this fact, a fact you dance around with semantics.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep this repeating this old lie? It is old. Please cone up with something new. We'll accept a new lie even, for starters at least. But please, for the sake of the OP and the sake of not staying off-topic, not those old lies again. And again. And again and again and again. Please.

(Semantics do matter. Building WTC7 <> a point neer the roof on the NW corner of the north face. This is a bit like tempesta29 <> his left eyebrow.)
 
tempesta29 said:
Here we go. NIST refers to the entire north face descending at gravitational acceleration now. This is from section 3.6. Again, how do steel columns provide no more resistance than air?
Click to expand...

Why do you repeat this old irrelevant question?
Please, try to come up with new questions - we'll accept new irrelevant questions, but please not those old irrelevant questions again. And again. And again and again and again. Please.

(The answer, old too, is easy: Because during the seconds leading up to that (about) free fall episode, the core was already in descent, and many, or all, of the north side perimeter columns had failed in the course of progressive collapse. I am sure you have been told a version of this several times before.)
 
tempesta29 said:
Significant = measurable. Are you implying that all that steel offered no more resistance than air?

I'm sure it's possible that a steel framed skyscraper could collapse due to fire. I've never seen it personally, but it may be possible. Then again, WTC 7 was hardly engulfed in flames, as you can hardly even see fires from the north side.

The point still stands: WTC 7 was in free fall for most of its 47 stories.
Click to expand...

The north side?

Have you been in a coma?
 
tempesta29 said:
You keep telling me to read the report, yet it was you who said WTC 7 was never in free fall when the report accepts this fact, a fact you dance around with semantics.
Click to expand...

No full theory then. Par for the course. Carry on deluding yourself for the rest of your life while the rest of the world gets on with things.
 
tempesta29 said:
Here we go. NIST refers to the entire north face descending at gravitational acceleration now. This is from section 3.6. Again, how do steel columns provide no more resistance than air?
Click to expand...

However, there is the fact that the east Penthouse had collapsed long before the full collapse. You truthers are so stuck on this free fall speed thing. I don't get it!
 
tempesta29 said:
I'm sure it's possible that a steel framed skyscraper could collapse due to fire. I've never seen it personally, but it may be possible. Then again, WTC 7 was hardly engulfed in flames, as you can hardly even see fires from the north side.
Click to expand...

What about the south side... hmmmmmm??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom