• 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.

CD = Free Fall?

femr2 said:
Nonsense.
...

As long as there's no-one out there thinking that "building 7 was losing altitude for 7s before "freefall"" then we're all good, whether that's what he intended, or not.
Click to expand...

Nonsense indeed.

Same problem as all along.

You focus on certain parts of the building and ignore others.

Some parts of the building (portions of some interior floors, some girders, the EP & some interior support columns) were absolutely "losing altitude 7 seconds before the external walls began to fall".

Other parts (the external walls) were not.

All this time, & you are still saying "building 7" when you mean "the north & west exterior walls of building 7".

Typical carelessness.
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
Did you even read the post where I clarified for you what I meant?
Click to expand...
Sure. The point is that you needed to do so, and as far as I'm concerned you've not really clarified what you meant by...
What do think was occuring for building 7 to lose altitude before the claim of freefall?
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the ~1s period post-release of the NW corner but prior to the region of the acceleration profile that you are still erroniously terming "freefall" ?

Or will you continue to be a belligerent jackass trying to wedge words into my mouth? dont you have some graphs to attend to?
Click to expand...
You sound embarrassed :) I'm not trying to wedge words into your mouth in the slightest. That's why I asked you what you meant. What's the word...durrr ;)
 
femr2 said:
Sure. The point is that you needed to do so, and as far as I'm concerned you've not really clarified what you meant by...


Are you referring to the ~1s period post-release of the NW corner but prior to the region of the acceleration profile that you are still erroniously terming "freefall" ?


You sound embarrassed :) I'm not trying to wedge words into your mouth in the slightest. That's why I asked you what you meant. What's the word...durrr ;)
Click to expand...

femr2, I'd like to ask a simple question, if I may. What parts of the building do your graphs apply to?
 
tfk said:
You focus on certain parts of the building and ignore others.
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

Certain parts of the building (interior collapsing floors, girders, the EP & interior support columns & floors) were absolutely losing altitude 7 seconds before the external walls began to fall.
Click to expand...
Sure, though I'd have to change your "began" to something more accurate.

Other parts (the external walls) were not.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm. Weeeelll, not much :)

All this time, & you are still saying "building 7" when you mean "the north & west exterior walls of building 7".

Typical carelessness.
Click to expand...
As long as you are directing your accusation of carelessness at A W Smith, I quite agree.
 
femr2 said:
Sure. The point is that you needed to do so, and as far as I'm concerned you've not really clarified what you meant by...
Click to expand...
I didn't need to clarify for Oystein and the others, But i saw that you have comprehension problems. Sort of like the slow one in the back of the class.
Are you referring to the ~1s period post-release of the NW corner but prior to the region of the acceleration profile that you are still erroniously terming "freefall" ?
Click to expand...
Thought i was clear on that? I was referring to start of the core collapse indicated by the penthouse drop. I didnt term the period of freefall, Truthers do, hence "claim" of freefall
You sound embarrassed :) I'm not trying to wedge words into your mouth in the slightest. That's why I asked you what you meant. What's the word...durrr ;)
Click to expand...
:dl:
yes, yes, you are trying to wedge words into my mouth, Typical truther, Just like truthers do with Silverstein and the firemen and witnesses who use simile. I am not at all embarrassed but truthers like you lack such capability to be embarrassed. Like Gage dropping boxes in an embarrassing attempt to prove a point. :dl:
 
Last edited:
A W Smith said:
I didn't need to clarify for Oystein and the others
Click to expand...
Oystein didn't sound particularly sure about his interpretation of your, frankly, rather vague statement. I simply asked you to clarify.

But i saw that you have comprehension problems.
Click to expand...
Yawn. Nope. It's not a matter of comprehension, more your lazy prose and its ambiguous scope.

Sort of like the slow one in the back of the class. Thought i was clear on that? I was referring to start of the core collapse indicated by the penthouse drop. I didnt term it freefall, Truthers do, hence "claim" of freefall :dl:
yes, yes, you are trying to wedge words into my mouth, Typical truther, Just like truthers do with Silverstein and the firemen and witnesses who use simile. I am not at all embarrassed but truthers like you lack such capability to be embarrassed. Like Gage dropping boxes in an embarrassing attempt to prove a point. :dl:
Click to expand...
ROFL. Calm down dear ;)
 
Thought i was clear on that? I was referring to start of the core collapse indicated by the penthouse drop.
Click to expand...

AW, Oystein or pretty much anybody but a truther:

I've always contended that the collapse started well before the penthouse dropped - perhaps as much as 5-7 seconds. I figure it's pretty well obvious because the penthouse can't collapse without the structure beneath it collapsing as well.

Is that a fair assumption?
 
NoahFence said:
AW, Oystein or pretty much anybody but a truther:

I've always contended that the collapse started well before the penthouse dropped - perhaps as much as 5-7 seconds. I figure it's pretty well obvious because the penthouse can't collapse without the structure beneath it collapsing as well.

Is that a fair assumption?
Click to expand...
yes that's a fair assumption.
 
I would agree. It would take some time for the internal failures to progress enough before the column(s) holding up the EMP to fail.

However, without x-ray vision, we won't know for certain.

Unless you're a truther, then they know everything.
 
Is it just me or has Shoof gone very quiet?..

I wonder if he will ever actually address these questions.. I particularly am looking forward to an answer to this:

Shoof said:
Like many people, I accepted the US Government conspiracy theory regarding the events of 9/11 without question for about five years, at which time I was presented with a number of pieces of information that put the validity of the USG CT into question for myself.
Click to expand...
tfk said:
I would like to check your skepticism just a little bit now.

You say, you "were presented information that put the validity of the USG CT into question."

1. First, what were those most damning (to the "OGT") pieces of information?

2. Drawing on your skeptical skills, how did you check the information that you were presented. What tools did you bring to that task to see if that information was reliable, valid, etc.

Please show me that you haven't merely substituted one bit of unskeptical credulity for your acknowledged earlier one.
Click to expand...

Please Shoof, I would love to hear your story of how to so seemingly reluctantly changed your opinion on 9/11 due to some damning evidence.

Do tell.
 
Shoof said:
It was posted as recently as August of 2008 at www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html.

I'll dig around for a cached version of this, as NIST has subsequently removed that from their website.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for you.

Just change .html to .cfm and you'll be there; the new location is:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

Seems that the bad guys did a poor job destroying the evidence. Or that they changed their web service infrastructure which caused some links to become invalid.

Let me ask you a question in your own style, in the help hope that you get the point that is being made here about your loaded questions:

Is your implicit accusation of a removal of evidence by NIST due to dishonesty, or just ignorance?
 
Last edited:
Well I sure hope that Mr Benshoof intends to come back and engage in some dialog at some point. And that this doesn't turn into a drive-by.

I was monumentally underwhelmed by the caliber of his questions. It appears that there is a jail house in the Seattle area that is missing it's lawyer.


Tk
 
I must say I am somewhat disappointed. I was expecting Shoof to be different from the average internet dwelling truther.. apparently not.

shame.
 
I can't really seen how AW smith has clarified anything much apart from areeing with other users in place of giving a direct answer himself, whilst pooing out a few laughing hyenas in the process.

Anyways, why are you asking for such a clarification from him femr2? Is there a specific point you are trying to make?
 
Last edited:
What do you think was happening for about 7 seconds before the "claim of freefall"?

Zeuzzz said:
I can't really seen how AW smith has clarified anything much apart from areeing with other users in place of giving a direct answer himself, whilst pooing out a few laughing hyenas in the process.

Anyways, why are you asking for such a clarification from him femr2? Is there a specific point you are trying to make?
Click to expand...
The roof line descended for about 1.7 seconds previous to near freefall. This would be the first stage during the time where the columns buckled. However. we know from the collapse of the penthouse about 7 seconds before the building reached near freefall collapse that the core had failed and removed the lateral restraint for the exterior columns.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom