Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[tmd2_1]

Granted you were asked who was in on it and have so far named but a few.

So, ok put that aside and address the 'evidence' you have compiled as to what happened. This is what you have been doing all along is it not?

You have shown us quotes from people who said they saw molten steel. No pictures exist of this, no test data on the material in question and no technical assessment or test to determine the make up of this flowing material. We do not even have an assessment of the quantity of said molten material.
Your claim then that the molten material in the underground fire area is steel is a non sequitor.


You have the video of molten material flowing out of one corner of one floor of one tower and its orange, white and yellow. You tell us it cannot be aluminum because pure samples of aluminum pour out and cool in silver colour.
We do not have a technical test on this material to determine its make up. Whatever it is is not a pure material let alone pure aluminum and it will contain contaminants and a slag. We also know for certain that there was a large quantity of aliminum alloy present in that location and likely several other materials that can melt and flow at those temperatures. Thus your claim that this too must be liquid steel is a non sequitor.



Problem here is that you have started your search with a conclusion, that destruction was caused by something other than the obvious, the crash of a large, fast, fuel laden jet passenger aircraft and have twisted details or simply made stuff up in order to support your original premise.

You are likely to say I did the same with my collapse scenario. However I started with the quite obvious initial condition that at collapse initiation , for whatever reason that occurs, the column sections of the upper portion of the structure and the column sections of the lower portion of the structure cannot possibly be aligned.
I did not have to make that up.
I used basic physics to make a first approximation that the load on the floor pan would be 10X or more than the normal load expected to be carried by a floor pan/trusses/truss seats.
I did not have to make that up.
In a second approximation I stated that the column section of the upper part would make first contact with the lower section floor pans, driven by the entire mass of the upper section, rather than have the entire upper section mass contact the lower section floor pan all at once and evenly. This meant that more widespread impact to that lower section floor pan would come as the upper section floor pan came down to the lower section pan at which point both pans are all but assuredly no longer capable of transfering any load to the columns nor of supplying lateral bracing between core and perimeter. The only reduction in acelleration of the roofline or perimeter would come from the use of energy to punch through, then destroy the floor pans which is minimal compared to the forces involved and the energy in the moving upper section.
This was derived simply by knowing the basics of how the building was constructed, which I did not have to make up.

At no time did I have to invoke the presence of an unknown material or device. I did not have to make up the presence of materials or devices that have properties that I determine they have to have for various and sundry instances throughout the collapse (thermite is an incindiary in some cases and an explosive in others, burns quickly enough to instantly sever heavy columns, or throw debris hundreds of feet but long enough to supply heat for weeks on end)

You named suspects in the OP.
Are we no longer doing that?

I implicated people as potenital suspects. If this were a criminal trial, as it relates to my client, who actually did it is not important. I do not like giving suspects or theories here, I quickly found out a couple of things. You have to account for every little thing...I mean I wouldn't be surprised if I'm asked about bathroom breaks. No evidence is good enough, it's not real evidence. Whatever you say turns into...so you're accusing all of the FDNY, or NYPD. (I've never said one thing about them by the way). It's not worth it, so I've focused on points that cast doubt on the official story. You can see by the lack of reply to most of them, they do indeed cast a lot of doubt.

Everyone has seen that molten flow from the South tower. I think I put on a strong case that it is steel. Steve jones ran an analysis, showing it was not aluminum. If you look at that previous video it's around the 1:30 mark. I mean when do the excuses end?

 

[WildCat]

You want to talk about bad engineering? Look at NIST. NIST admitted Building 7 was free fall. It's completley impossible to have freefall without CD. This isn't even high school physics. In fact watch these 3 videos, you don't have to need to know anything about physics. NIST issues a final draft gets asked about free fall says it's impossible. Final report comes out and they admit free fall. This is good engineering? That's crazy, how can anyone believe this? They won't release how they got their numbers. This is not science. Science welcomes the opportunity for all to view and comment, and expand upon. Their model collapse time is 5.4 seconds the observed collapse time is 5.4 seconds (which isn't even right) I mean they nailed it right on the head...how many times do you think that happens. These are your great engineers? These are the guys you look to for answers?
But I know Chandler is the quack. I mean being a good engineer is saying something is impossible and then issuing a report saying that very same thing happened right? It's a joke that's what it is. Also in this video chanler points out several other fundamental things they got wrong.

But I know I'm not understanding things correctly, there is some reason for this. Always some excuse, I can be sure of that right?

Yes, you are not understanding it correctly. In fact, you're so far out of the ballpark you can't even get the game on satellite.

 

[DC]

I implicated people as potenital suspects. If this were a criminal trial, as it relates to my client, who actually did it is not important. I do not like giving suspects or theories here, I quickly found out a couple of things. You have to account for every little thing...I mean I wouldn't be surprised if I'm asked about bathroom breaks. No evidence is good enough, it's not real evidence. Whatever you say turns into...so you're accusing all of the FDNY, or NYPD. (I've never said one thing about them by the way). It's not worth it, so I've focused on points that cast doubt on the official story. You can see by the lack of reply to most of them, they do indeed cast a lot of doubt.

Everyone has seen that molten flow from the South tower. I think I put on a strong case that it is steel. Steve jones ran an analysis, showing it was not aluminum. If you look at that previous video it's around the 1:30 mark. I mean when do the excuses end?

what evidence do you have for it being steel?

 

[tmd2_1]

what evidence do you have for it being steel?

It's all explained previously. Brief Summary:

Really only 3 possibilites. Lead very unlikely, would need to be the UPS, doesn't seem like it would melt that much. Lead melts silver.

Aluminum: Melts silver, however NIST claims when mixed with office supplies will turn it orange. Experiments have shown these office supplies will fall off so NIST is not correct. The color would still be silver.

Steel: It looks like it, seems to be the last of the 3 that is possible. Steve Jones analyzed a sample from somewhere at GZ, showed it was not aluminum. You can look up all the references in this thread.

 

[NoahFence]

So the only possible thing is the one thing that you people keep saying is impossible.
Got it.


: stundie factory.

 

[DC]

It's all explained previously. Brief Summary:

Really only 3 possibilites. Lead very unlikely, would need to be the UPS, doesn't seem like it would melt that much. Lead melts silver.

Aluminum: Melts silver, however NIST claims when mixed with office supplies will turn it orange. Experiments have shown these office supplies will fall off so NIST is not correct. The color would still be silver.

Steel: It looks like it, seems to be the last of the 3 that is possible. Steve Jones analyzed a sample from somewhere at GZ, showed it was not aluminum. You can look up all the references in this thread.

depends on the temperature.

and it could have been other metals.

 

[tmd2_1]

depends on the temperature.

and it could have been other metals.

You're right I forgot to say at 1800F it melts silver. Temperature those fires should have got to. No other metals are plausible, do you really think NIST would have concluded it was aluminum if they could make a case for any other metal? They could have said something like it could be aluminum from the plane mixed with other material. It could be from copper tubing...etc, but they only said aluminum, because they know that is the only plausible answer for the amount of melting that was seen.

Also do you think they would have said something like the mixing of other materials is what caused the orange, if they didn't know it should have melted Silver?

 

[TheRedWorm]

You're right I forgot to say at 1800F it melts silver. Temperature those fires should have got to. No other metals are plausible, do you really think NIST would have concluded it was aluminum if they could make a case for any other metal? They could have said something like it could be aluminum from the plane mixed with other material. It could be from copper tubing...etc, but they only said aluminum, because they know that is the only plausible answer for the amount of melting that was seen.

Also do you think they would have said something like the mixing of other materials is what caused the orange, if they didn't know it should have melted Silver?

Maybe NIST simply didn't care about it nearly as much as truthers want them to?

 

[Reactor drone]

It's all explained previously. Brief Summary:

Really only 3 possibilites. Lead very unlikely, would need to be the UPS, doesn't seem like it would melt that much. Lead melts silver.

Aluminum: Melts silver, however NIST claims when mixed with office supplies will turn it orange. Experiments have shown these office supplies will fall off so NIST is not correct. The color would still be silver.

Steel: It looks like it, seems to be the last of the 3 that is possible. Steve Jones analyzed a sample from somewhere at GZ, showed it was not aluminum. You can look up all the references in this thread.

You forgot about the part where orange steel is still a solid and can't flow out of a building.

 

[Animal]

It's all explained previously. Brief Summary:

Really only 3 possibilites. Lead very unlikely, would need to be the UPS, doesn't seem like it would melt that much. Lead melts silver.

Aluminum: Melts silver, however NIST claims when mixed with office supplies will turn it orange. Experiments have shown these office supplies will fall off so NIST is not correct. The color would still be silver.

Steel: It looks like it, seems to be the last of the 3 that is possible. Steve Jones analyzed a sample from somewhere at GZ, showed it was not aluminum. You can look up all the references in this thread.

i.e. hand wave anything that does not fit the troofer religion.

 

[The Platypus]

Notice nothing rhymes with orange... isn't that suspicious!

Those bastards, how did they do that! We must resist the tyranny!

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You want to talk about bad engineering? Look at NIST. NIST admitted Building 7 was free fall. It's completley impossible to have freefall without CD. This isn't even high school physics. In fact watch these 3 videos, you don't have to need to know anything about physics.

I hate to break it to you, but "Freefall = demolition" isn't even science. It's just a shoddy shortcut invented and blown out of proportion by 911 conspiracy theories to avoid having to do real work to prove that the buildings actually collapsed due to controlled demolition. At what point did your professionals do detailed modelling of the towers using material properties and construction documents? At what point did they try to model the observed events? If freefall is your only answer, then you have a long way to go before you know what real engineering investigation is about.

They won't release how they got their numbers. This is not science. Science welcomes the opportunity for all to view and comment, and expand upon. Their model collapse time is 5.4 seconds the observed collapse time is 5.4 seconds (which isn't even right) I mean they nailed it right on the head...how many times do you think that happens.

AE911truth is free at anytime to do their own modeling to prove the NIST is seriously flawed. They should take their profits and either purchase the required software and get the proper training, and do their own modeling, or use their funds to outsource the work. Instead, AE911truth has wasted several years doing nothing but bluster one-liner claims with absolutely no effort to take on their own engineering investigation.

But I know Chandler is the quack. I mean being a good engineer is saying something is impossible and then issuing a report saying that very same thing happened right? It's a joke that's what it is. Also in this video chanler points out several other fundamental things they got wrong.

Chandler doesn't even know how to read conservation of momentum when he starts claiming that the force offered by the lower portion of the WTC offered "1/3 of it's weight" against the upper section. He totally neglects dynamic loads caused by the acceleration of the upper mass. Oh, and unlike the NIST and it's peers Chandler thinks his word is like that of a God. If you tell him he's wrong, you get face full of "shut up," and don't bother offering feedback to him on youtube; he blocks any and all commentary.

But I know I'm not understanding things correctly, there is some reason for this. Always some excuse, I can be sure of that right?

I don't need excuses. If you're going to argue n favor of controlled demolition, you need to learn how to take the engineering topics seriously like you're supposed to. It's a specialized field of study.

 

[000063]

A quick post;
I am unsure how i could be made out to be an unpatriotic American given that I am not a citizen, nor a resident of the USA.

Seconded.

You want to talk about bad engineering? Look at NIST. NIST admitted Building 7 was free fall.

No it wasn't. NIST admitted part of the building was at Free Fall Acceleration for part of it's descent. That's not the same as the entirety of 7's descent by a long shot.

It's completley impossible to have freefall without CD. This isn't even high school physics.

And as I explained to you using those high school physics, free fall is impossible from CD with any known technology, unless there's some technology I've missed that vaporized the supports, or instantly started them downward at FF before the falling bit caught up with 'em.

You seem to be espousing some sort of rocket explosives setup.

In fact watch these 3 videos, you don't have to need to know anything about physics.

Look, buddy, you have got to stop giving us these straight lines.

NIST issues a final draft gets asked about free fall says it's impossible. Final report comes out and they admit free fall.

No they don't, as has been pointed out to you several times.

This is good engineering? That's crazy, how can anyone believe this? They won't release how they got their numbers.

I could've sworn they explained it pretty clearly in the report.

This is not science. Science welcomes the opportunity for all to view and comment, and expand upon. Their model collapse time is 5.4 seconds the observed collapse time is 5.4 seconds (which isn't even right) I mean they nailed it right on the head...how many times do you think that happens. These are your great engineers? These are the guys you look to for answers?

No, those are the guys the ASCE looks to for answers. Those are the guys engineers and architects around the world have looked to for answers, and they have used NIST's reports to build better buildings that hold up to fire better.

But I know Chandler is the quack. I mean being a good engineer is saying something is impossible and then issuing a report saying that very same thing happened right?

Being a good scientist means admitting you were wrong in light of contrary evidence. Except they weren't. Also, if the Truth movement put pressure on them to admit they could be wrong about something, and they corrected it, doesn't that mean they actually listen to people?

It's a joke that's what it is. Also in this video chanler points out several other fundamental things they got wrong.

But I know I'm not understanding things correctly, there is some reason for this. Always some excuse,

Just one excuse; you're floating Truther memes, straw men, and speculation instead of researching for yourself. I could at least respect you, to a point, if you came by your incorrect assertions honestly.

I can be sure of that right?

Yes, I believe you can.

 

[TJM]

Out of curiosity and boredom, I had another look at the Luigi Cazzaniga video and something caught my eye. Please forgive me if this has been discussed before. In the first pic, I've circled the source of the shower of sparks coming from the hole in WTC 2:

*Note: I've wrapped the images in spoiler tags because they're quite large and I don't want to run afoul of the rules.

What caught my attention was not the yellowish mass but the silver mass immediately to the upper left, magnified here:

Apparently we have two very hot, separate substances in very close proximity to one another. What they are is up for debate, but apparently, when the two substances collide, it produced a shower of sparks.

Magnified here:

Now, I'm not metallurgist nor a chemistry or physics guy by any means, but it seems to me that the yellowish substance at the lower right is likely fire and the silver substance collides with it intermittently, producing the shower of sparks observed. Thermite, thermate, termites or whatever bug teh truth movement has up its arse now can be ruled out. Unless there's some new, top-secret delivery system that introduces two super-heated substances together while keeping them separate in the midst of an inferno, that is.

Discuss.

 

[tfk]

tmd,

Almost 10 years …

… and you STILL can't get the simplest of facts correct.

You want to talk about bad engineering? Look at NIST. NIST admitted Building 7 was free fall.

No, they did not.

Why does your sloppiness with language prevent you accurately repeating what NIST stated clearly?

It's completley impossible to have freefall without CD.

Wrong.

In the context in which near free fall occurred for a brief period with the North Wall of WTC7…

You can have free fall with CD.
You can have free fall without CD.
You can have CD with free fall.
You can have CD without free fall.

Freefall & CD are completely unrelated to each other.

You can't even listen to, and comprehend, your own videos.
This link will take you right to the pertinent moment in the video that you posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA#t=1m40s

"… the northwest corner fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity …"

How difficult is it to comprehend that "the northwest corner of the north external wall" is not "the building"?

How difficult is it to comprehend, after 4 years, that "… within a few percent …" is not the same as "… equal to …"?

Why is it that Chandler deceitfully shifts from "… within a few percent of free fall …" in his question to Sunder to "… free fall actually occurred …"?

How difficult is it to understand that Sunder is talking about the whole building and its total collapse time (from the real beginning of collapse of the east penthouse), while Chandler is talking about the collapse of the north wall only, while ignoring the first 0.8 seconds of its collapse, and then only referring to a portion of fall time (about 2.2 seconds).

How difficult is it to understand that "the average acceleration over 2.2 seconds being within a few percent of G" is NOT the same as "at G"?

This isn't even high school physics. In fact watch these 3 videos, you don't have to need to know anything about physics.

You're right.

It is not necessary to know those fields to see where the errors are.

But it is necessary to have read & understood the NIST report.
And it is necessary to be precise with your terminology. (As you & Chandler are not)

If you do both of the above, the intentional sloppiness in Chandler's comments (e.g., the source of the "40% longer than free fall time") become obvious.

And all the "gotchas" evaporate.

But knowing a little about physics would be a great help.
Even better, knowing a little about structural engineering would be a much bigger help.

A little knowledge about either of these fields will inform you clearly that Chandler is playing fast & loose with the truth. That has been his transparent pattern from the beginning.

NIST issues a final draft gets asked about free fall says it's impossible.

No, they did not.

Final report comes out and they admit free fall.

No, they did not.

Can't you get anything right?

This is good engineering?

Yes, as a matter of fact, the WTC7 report is excellent engineering.

That's crazy, how can anyone believe this?

For me? A university degree in Mechanical Engineering & 35+ years as a working engineer.

What you got?

They won't release how they got their numbers.

A 99% lie.

For all of the acceleration analysis above (& virtually all of the other numbers in the report), they exhibited complete, utter transparency. They not only released their numbers, they explained their derivations, assumptions, assumption validations & error analyses.

The only things that they withheld were 1) some private info on construction & 2) some data that they deemed sensitive. Data that they did share with other engineering groups who were capable of performing competent analyses.

For someone who repeated claims to be following the truth, you seem constantly distracted by "da twoof" instead.

This is not science.

Partly right.
Some science. Mostly engineering.

Science welcomes the opportunity for all to view and comment, and expand upon.

Wrong. Science & engineering welcome the competent to comment & expand upon. It studiously ignores the opinions of the incompetent as being irrelevant.

These are your great engineers? These are the guys you look to for answers?

Yup. Some of the best in the world. Too bad you can't understand that.

But I know Chandler is the quack.

Yup, he is. A total quack.

Who (now that you bring it up) adamantly refuses to release his original data.

Who suppresses ALL comments on ALL of his videos. Because (exactly like Balsamo) he won't tolerate people publicly disagreeing with him. God forbid they should show publicly where his errors are.

Who adamantly refuses to consult with any engineer who isn't also a quack. In other words, he refuses to discuss his ideas with anyone with competence who disagrees with him. [Because I have a soft spot for teachers, & especially science teachers, over 3 years ago I BEGGED him to simply go sit down with a competent structural engineer & discuss his ideas. He adamantly refused, and has been on a fool's errand ever since.]

Tell me again about the role of "open & honest debate in science". Then go tell Chandler.

I mean being a good engineer is saying something is impossible and then issuing a report saying that very same thing happened right?

Only in your politically motivated, delusional mind is that what happened. See above.

It's a joke that's what it is. Also in this video chanler points out several other fundamental things they got wrong.

You don't get it. Chandler is an absolute amateur. He's a high school physics teacher. He has precisely zero experience or background in structural mechanics or the collapse of large structures.

The NIST guys are all PhDs with 25+ year successful careers in Structural Engineering, Materials, Computer Modeling, etc. etc. etc.

You don't get it. The NIST guys ALL contributed right smack dab in the middle of their fields of proven expertise.

Chandler, and Jones, and Harrit, and Kevin Ryan, & Griffin, et ALL, are all a bunch of incompetent amateurs, opining outside of their fields.

Are you so blind you can't see the picture yet.

It ain't nothing about being "afraid to go against the establishment".

It's all about successful, knowledgeable experts versus clueless amateurs.

But I know I'm not understanding things correctly ...

Yup.

You got it.

Oh, yeah. Tell me again what you do for a living.

See. You won't answer.

Which gives me all the information I need.

You're just the latest Johnnie-come-lately caboose in a long, long line of loud-mouthed, clueless amateurs.

And we both know that I'm right about that.

We both know (as does everyone else here) that YOU, personally, have precisely zero ability to understand, dissect or contribute to these discussions.

We both know that you answer zero questions. I've asked you about 20. You've answered none. Others have asked you a hundred or so more. You've answered none that require thought or understanding.

And we both know that your ONLY contribution, from the very start, has been:
"Cole says ..."
"Chandler says ..."
"Watch this video ..."

You're a parrot.
Nothing more.

 

[Oystein]

This thread is simply amazing. Every time I come to this subforum, which is several times a day, you guys have piled up another few pages. When I spend an evening with my girl friend, and then sleep a good night's sleep, the next morning I find 160 new posts or so. Near impossible to just read it all, totally impossible if I were to also watch all the stupid videos I am supposed to watch, without the help of timestamps.

And yet, page after page after page after page after page it's the same routine: tmd displaying the many things he has no clue about, and near everybody else besting him.



Here is the picture that emerges: it's a tag team fight: Team JREF features Hulk Hogan, Rocky Balboa, Leonidas, Hellboy and Obelix the Gaul. Team TM features 5-year-old kindergarden kid tmd2_1, and ... well, only the kid. Every few seconds, the kid receives an upper cut, a full body slam, or is boxed right out of his shoes. The kid has already lost all teeth, one eye, broke all his fingers, is bleeding from a dozend wounds, and the big guys keep beating and kicking and slamming him. And little tmd yells: "Hey, you cowardf, we ain't finiffed yet! I win, you loooofe!"

 

[tmd2_1]

tmd,

Almost 10 years …

… and you STILL can't get the simplest of facts correct.



No, they did not.

Why does your sloppiness with language prevent you accurately repeating what NIST stated clearly?



Wrong.

In the context in which near free fall occurred for a brief period with the North Wall of WTC7…

You can have free fall with CD.
You can have free fall without CD.
You can have CD with free fall.
You can have CD without free fall.

Freefall & CD are completely unrelated to each other.

You can't even listen to, and comprehend, your own videos.
This link will take you right to the pertinent moment in the video that you posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA#t=1m40s

"… the northwest corner fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity …"

How difficult is it to comprehend that "the northwest corner of the north external wall" is not "the building"?

How difficult is it to comprehend, after 4 years, that "… within a few percent …" is not the same as "… equal to …"?

Why is it that Chandler deceitfully shifts from "… within a few percent of free fall …" in his question to Sunder to "… free fall actually occurred …"?

How difficult is it to understand that Sunder is talking about the whole building and its total collapse time (from the real beginning of collapse of the east penthouse), while Chandler is talking about the collapse of the north wall only, while ignoring the first 0.8 seconds of its collapse, and then only referring to a portion of fall time (about 2.2 seconds).

How difficult is it to understand that "the average acceleration over 2.2 seconds being within a few percent of G" is NOT the same as "at G"?



You're right.

It is not necessary to know those fields to see where the errors are.

But it is necessary to have read & understood the NIST report.
And it is necessary to be precise with your terminology. (As you & Chandler are not)

If you do both of the above, the intentional sloppiness in Chandler's comments (e.g., the source of the "40% longer than free fall time") become obvious.

And all the "gotchas" evaporate.

But knowing a little about physics would be a great help.
Even better, knowing a little about structural engineering would be a much bigger help.

A little knowledge about either of these fields will inform you clearly that Chandler is playing fast & loose with the truth. That has been his transparent pattern from the beginning.



No, they did not.



No, they did not.

Can't you get anything right?



Yes, as a matter of fact, the WTC7 report is excellent engineering.



For me? A university degree in Mechanical Engineering & 35+ years as a working engineer.

What you got?



A 99% lie.

For all of the acceleration analysis above (& virtually all of the other numbers in the report), they exhibited complete, utter transparency. They not only released their numbers, they explained their derivations, assumptions, assumption validations & error analyses.

The only things that they withheld were 1) some private info on construction & 2) some data that they deemed sensitive. Data that they did share with other engineering groups who were capable of performing competent analyses.

For someone who repeated claims to be following the truth, you seem constantly distracted by "da twoof" instead.



Partly right.
Some science. Mostly engineering.



Wrong. Science & engineering welcome the competent to comment & expand upon. It studiously ignores the opinions of the incompetent as being irrelevant.



Yup. Some of the best in the world. Too bad you can't understand that.



Yup, he is. A total quack.

Who (now that you bring it up) adamantly refuses to release his original data.

Who suppresses ALL comments on ALL of his videos. Because (exactly like Balsamo) he won't tolerate people publicly disagreeing with him. God forbid they should show publicly where his errors are.

Who adamantly refuses to consult with any engineer who isn't also a quack. In other words, he refuses to discuss his ideas with anyone with competence who disagrees with him. [Because I have a soft spot for teachers, & especially science teachers, over 3 years ago I BEGGED him to simply go sit down with a competent structural engineer & discuss his ideas. He adamantly refused, and has been on a fool's errand ever since.]

Tell me again about the role of "open & honest debate in science". Then go tell Chandler.



Only in your politically motivated, delusional mind is that what happened. See above.



You don't get it. Chandler is an absolute amateur. He's a high school physics teacher. He has precisely zero experience or background in structural mechanics or the collapse of large structures.

The NIST guys are all PhDs with 25+ year successful careers in Structural Engineering, Materials, Computer Modeling, etc. etc. etc.

You don't get it. The NIST guys ALL contributed right smack dab in the middle of their fields of proven expertise.

Chandler, and Jones, and Harrit, and Kevin Ryan, & Griffin, et ALL, are all a bunch of incompetent amateurs, opining outside of their fields.

Are you so blind you can't see the picture yet.

It ain't nothing about being "afraid to go against the establishment".

It's all about successful, knowledgeable experts versus clueless amateurs.



Yup.

You got it.

Oh, yeah. Tell me again what you do for a living.

See. You won't answer.

Which gives me all the information I need.

You're just the latest Johnnie-come-lately caboose in a long, long line of loud-mouthed, clueless amateurs.

And we both know that I'm right about that.

We both know (as does everyone else here) that YOU, personally, have precisely zero ability to understand, dissect or contribute to these discussions.

We both know that you answer zero questions. I've asked you about 20. You've answered none. Others have asked you a hundred or so more. You've answered none that require thought or understanding.

And we both know that your ONLY contribution, from the very start, has been:
"Cole says ..."
"Chandler says ..."
"Watch this video ..."

You're a parrot.
Nothing more.

I'll be quick. I believe I've answered every question asked, though I could have missed some because of the sheer quantity, so go ask away, I'll be sure to answer. You accuse me of being a parrot? Yet you're whole post here was nothing but one big appeal to authority. An authority that at best gives incomplete answers.

I'm well aware that it was only part of the building that was free fall. Read my post I never said the whole building was free fall. Just that NIST admitted free fall.

Any free fall is impossible. Don't take my word for it though. That link you made says it best, sunder is asked about the free fall from the northwest corner, and says free fall is impossible (paraphrasing) The report comes out and it's free fall, with no explanation.

Great spin on them not releasing their data. Them not releasing their data, is like them not releasing a report at all.

I agree Chandler should open up for comments. My understanding is that things got out of control with them. But I do agree they should be. But one can (and there are some) post a rebuttal video.

 

[tmd2_1]

This thread is simply amazing. Every time I come to this subforum, which is several times a day, you guys have piled up another few pages. When I spend an evening with my girl friend, and then sleep a good night's sleep, the next morning I find 160 new posts or so. Near impossible to just read it all, totally impossible if I were to also watch all the stupid videos I am supposed to watch, without the help of timestamps.

And yet, page after page after page after page after page it's the same routine: tmd displaying the many things he has no clue about, and near everybody else besting him.



Here is the picture that emerges: it's a tag team fight: Team JREF features Hulk Hogan, Rocky Balboa, Leonidas, Hellboy and Obelix the Gaul. Team TM features 5-year-old kindergarden kid tmd2_1, and ... well, only the kid. Every few seconds, the kid receives an upper cut, a full body slam, or is boxed right out of his shoes. The kid has already lost all teeth, one eye, broke all his fingers, is bleeding from a dozend wounds, and the big guys keep beating and kicking and slamming him. And little tmd yells: "Hey, you cowardf, we ain't finiffed yet! I win, you loooofe!"

That argument (or whatever you want to call it) is so 2006...LOL

 

[twinstead]

I'll be quick. I believe I've answered every question asked, though I could have missed some because of the sheer quantity, so go ask away, I'll be sure to answer. You accuse me of being a parrot? Yet you're whole post here was nothing but one big appeal to authority. An authority that at best gives incomplete answers.

I could be wrong, but i don't think it's an appeal to authority fallacy if the source is ACTUALLY FROM AN AUTHORITY. You are simply arrogantly claiming that you know better than the authority. There's a name for that, too, but the forum rules prevent me from telling you what it is.

 

[Edx]

I'm well aware that it was only part of the building that was free fall. Read my post I never said the whole building was free fall. Just that NIST admitted free fall.

People like Gage claim that explosives caused the free fall.

They claim that for free fall to occur all material had to be removed instantly at the same time to allow the top to progress down without any resistance.

Therefore Gage claims that explosives VAPORISED - like Star Trek - an ENTIRE 8 FLOORS - INSTANTLY.

Can you explain what kind of explosives could possibly work that way and why that explanation makes more sence than buckling of multiple floors in certain areas?