David Chandler forced NIST to admit "free-fall"

[Dave Rogers]

On the contrary. It is all about getting answers to valid questions, such as:

If you're trying to pretend this is the truth, your first example is a stunningly bad one, because (a) it's not a valid question and (b) the answer has already been provided many times on this forum.

Why can't we see the photos from the 85 security cameras at the Pentagon?

(a) It's not a valid question because the "85 security cameras at the Pentagon" never existed except in a truther lie. The FBI studied 85 security videos from the area around the Pentagon related to 9/11. It's purely an invention of the truth movement that all 85 of these were from security cameras pointed at the Pentagon; in fact, they include the Citgo and Doubletree videos. As the Gravysites point out:

Excerpt from statement of FBI Agent Jacqueline McGuire, who viewed all the videotapes collected as evidence:

fifty-six (56) of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.....I personally reviewed the remaining twenty-nine (29) videotapes. I determined that sixteen (16) of these video tapes did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.....Out of the remaining thirteen (13) videotapes, which did show the Pentagon crash site, twelve (12) videotapes only showed the Pentagon after. I determined that only one videotape showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
​

(b) The answer to why you can't see the videos is that they are private property, and the law forbids the FBI from making them public except under very specific conditions. In the case of videos that show nothing of interest, those conditions are not met.

I, for one, am interested in the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Then it might be a good idea not to ask complex questions that assume a lie in their framing.

Dave

 

[GlennB]

On the contrary. It is all about getting answers to valid questions, such as:
Why can't we see the photos from the 85 security cameras at the Pentagon?
Who was making so many put options on AA and UA (and not other airlines) just before 9/11?
and hundreds more.

You seem quite new to this 9/11 CT business, so may I pass on a tip?

Every time you feel like throwing a vague factoid out there for discussion, go to Google and put in a few key words with +debunk.

For example, +pentagon +85 +videos +debunk. This will easily lead you to This CT site, for example where you will find a detailed list of the 85 videos. You will then be disabused of the foolish notion that there were 85 security videos at The Pentagon, and thus spare your own blushes.

Or use the "Resources for debunking..." which is at the top of this 9/11 CT sub-forum.

 

[Dog Town]

For example, +pentagon +85 +videos +debunk. This will easily lead you to This CT site, for example where you will find a detailed list of the 85 videos.

This seems to be the nutcases reason at ATS,(your link above) for more recordings!

MickC

I know that if I walk down any street in Manchester (UK) close to where I live, I will be recorded HUNDREDS of times.

There are no buildings as important as the Pentagon in Manchester. So a reasonable person would expect greater surveillance around the Pentagon.

SO WHERE ARE ALL THE IMAGES.

Genius!

Odd that Manchester has so many Twoofers. Could they all be the same one?

 

[The Big Dog]

Hmmm, bump a zombie thread, ask two questions based premises that have already been debunked, get answers, don't bother responding.

Truthers just asking questions, not caring about the answers.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Odd that Manchester has so many Twoofers. Could they all be the same one?

D'oh! (or should I say "P-D'oh!"??)

 

[Dog Town]

D'oh! (or should I say "P-D'oh!"??)

I prefer to call him D'oh P.

 

[deeper]

Every time you feel like throwing a vague factoid out there for discussion, go to Google and put in a few key words with +debunk.

cicorp, this is a great piece of advice, I can vouch for it first hand. Like you, I thought that these questions needed answering. Once I looked into it, the questions I thought were important either had been answered or were irrelevant. You have been lied to by people with an agenda, don't dance to their tune.

ps. Someone put my brain out of it's misery and explain exactly what the hell is going on in that Epic Fail pic that Dog Town posted. A snake, a croc, something else? What the hell happened?

 

[Dog Town]

ps. Someone put my brain out of it's misery and explain exactly what the hell is going on in that Epic Fail pic that Dog Town posted. A snake, a croc, something else? What the hell happened?

Allow me:

A bunch of morons in Florida (and elsewhere) thought pythons would make cool pets. Eventually they realized, not so much. So they began tossing them into the everglades, thinking it was a good place for them. They have become an ecological nightmare in the food chain. The picture is an example of one.
A pythons epic failure,trying to ingest a gator. The gator is at the top of the food chain. Guess who won!

 

[Norseman]

ps. Someone put my brain out of it's misery and explain exactly what the hell is going on in that Epic Fail pic that Dog Town posted. A snake, a croc, something else? What the hell happened?

This should explain it:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1006_051006_pythoneatsgator.html

--------
I note that Dog Town came in ahead of me

 

[deeper]

Thanks guys.

 

[atavisms]

Free-fall was supposed to be evidence of explosives. Thermite is not an explosive. Yet truthers still want to have their cake and eat it too.

this is the silliest thing ive ever heard! First of all thermitic materials can be engineered to have high explosive proprieties. (like sol gels)
And from the looks of things more than one kind of highly energetic material was used to destroy wtc 1 2 2& 7

columns had to be cut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbzdO0EPOGg
then blasted apart:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JnZbYXcbqw

wtc7 http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ni0i2KZn9Hc
looks exactly like an implosion because that is what it was.

 

[TheRedWorm]

You are not competent in this field. Please stop.

 

[newton3376]

You are not competent in this field. Please stop.

And so this thread is resurrected.....

 

[twinstead]

wash, rinse, repeat...

 

[Shoof]

Because the Truth Movement isn't about finding answers to valid questions. It's about "teh Pwnage." All they want, all they care about is validation of their own beliefs and self image.

This is part of the reason the Truth Movement is almost entirely confined to the Internet.

Hi Mr. Mackey,

Are you the Mackey that wrote the paper back around 2007 that stated that DRG's entire WTC 7 theory was based upon a lie because he was asserting FF of WTC 7, and NIST had shown that FF didn't occur?

Didn't the NIST website, as recently as August of 2008 state that free-fall of WTC & did not occur?

Maybe I'm mistaken on one or more of those points. If so, I welcome your input.

Cheers,
Kurt

 

[Oystein]

Hi Mr. Mackey,

Are you the Mackey that wrote the paper back around 2007 that stated that DRG's entire WTC 7 theory was based upon a lie because he was asserting FF of WTC 7, and NIST had shown that FF didn't occur?

Didn't the NIST website, as recently as August of 2008 state that free-fall of WTC & did not occur?

Maybe I'm mistaken on one or more of those points. If so, I welcome your input.

Cheers,
Kurt

Kurt,
you feign asking questions, when in fact you make claims here. I think your claims are wrong, but before I put any time and effort into refuting your claims, I would like you to first make those claims and support them with documentaty evidence. It would go like this:

Hi Mr. Mackey,

Are you the Mackey that wrote the paper back around 2007 that refuted DRG's entire WTC 7 theory?

The paper can be downloaded from [insert URL].
On page [insert page number] Ryan Mackey stated that DRG's entire WTC 7 theory was based upon a lie because he was asserting FF of WTC 7, and NIST had shown that FF didn't occur. To quote the paper:

[insert quote]

Didn't The NIST website, as recently as August of 2008 stated in the publication [insert name and URL of NIST publication] on page [insert page number] that free-fall of WTC & did not occur. To quote the paper:

[insert quote]

Maybe I'm mistaken on one or more of those points. If so, I welcome your input.

Cheers,
Kurt

I can answer the only real question you asked:

Yes, you are writing to the same Mackey.

 

[R.Mackey]

Hi Mr. Mackey,

Are you the Mackey that wrote the paper back around 2007 that stated that DRG's entire WTC 7 theory was based upon a lie because he was asserting FF of WTC 7, and NIST had shown that FF didn't occur?

Didn't the NIST website, as recently as August of 2008 state that free-fall of WTC & did not occur?

Maybe I'm mistaken on one or more of those points. If so, I welcome your input.

Cheers,
Kurt

You're mistaken in just about every way possible.

First, Dr. Griffin has no theory. He actually discourages people from coming up with them.

Second, I did not state his claims were wrong based on such a simplistic "free-fall" comparison. Read my paper if you want to know what's in it, since you apparently don't.

Third, both Dr. Griffin's nonsense and my response to it precluded NIST's formal report on the subject.

Fourth, WTC 7 did not come down at "free-fall speed." A portion of the roofline, for a brief period, during the perimeter collapse, descended at approximately 1 g. But this doesn't really mean anything of significance.

Fifth, NIST's website (I assume you mean the NCSTAR1A and 1-9 reports) charts this rate accurately, and has since the initial draft; it furthermore provides a more adequate timeline describing far more important features of WTC 7's collapse of which you seem to be totally ignorant.

Sixth, this whole argument is a complete non sequitur. Large-scale buckling phenomena can indeed lead to a "free fall" or even a "faster than free fall" event. Thus, this tiny, isolated observation never has and never will be indicative of whatever Truther fairy story is in vogue at this particular moment.

My whitepaper is on line. If you want to know what's in it, give it a read. Thanks.

 

[ozeco41]

Hi Mr. Mackey,

Are you the Mackey that wrote the paper back around 2007 that stated that DRG's entire WTC 7 theory was based upon a lie because he was asserting FF of WTC 7, and NIST had shown that FF didn't occur?

Didn't the NIST website, as recently as August of 2008 state that free-fall of WTC & did not occur?

Maybe I'm mistaken on one or more of those points. If so, I welcome your input.

Cheers,
Kurt

I note from several of your posts that your main interest seems to be in finding NIST wrong or at least nit-picking details.

The whole issue of free fall is an irrelevancy in the context of explaining whether or not there was any malicious assistance to the collapses of the WTC towers.

It is based on a myth created and perpetuated by elements of the truth movement. The central premise being that somehow free fall only occurs with demolition. That claim is utter hogwash and should therefore be dismissed from your field of interest.

It is pointless discussing free fall because anyone with basic physics can reason why free fall can occur with building collapses however those collapses are initiated.

So what is your goal? Find fault with NIST OR understand the mechanisms of collapse OR determine whether or not there was any malicious assistance to the natural processes of prolonged unfought fires?

Tell us what your goal is and we may be able to assist. As it stands your posts so far are a good mimic of a standard truther introductory ploy - Claim "I am a sceptic" then proceed to put the lie to that claim by"JAQing" - just asking questions which are characteristically loaded with innuendo and prejudgement.

We welcome sceptics. Try behaving like one.

 

[cjnewson88]

You're mistaken in just about every way possible.

First, Dr. Griffin has no theory. He actually discourages people from coming up with them.

Second, I did not state his claims were wrong based on such a simplistic "free-fall" comparison. Read my paper if you want to know what's in it, since you apparently don't.

Third, both Dr. Griffin's nonsense and my response to it precluded NIST's formal report on the subject.

Fourth, WTC 7 did not come down at "free-fall speed." A portion of the roofline, for a brief period, during the perimeter collapse, descended at approximately 1 g. But this doesn't really mean anything of significance.

Fifth, NIST's website (I assume you mean the NCSTAR1A and 1-9 reports) charts this rate accurately, and has since the initial draft; it furthermore provides a more adequate timeline describing far more important features of WTC 7's collapse of which you seem to be totally ignorant.

Sixth, this whole argument is a complete non sequitur. Large-scale buckling phenomena can indeed lead to a "free fall" or even a "faster than free fall" event. Thus, this tiny, isolated observation never has and never will be indicative of whatever Truther fairy story is in vogue at this particular moment.

My whitepaper is on line. If you want to know what's in it, give it a read. Thanks.

 

[Robrob]

Shouf: please tell us what you think "free fall acceleration" is and how it indicates CD?