• 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.

Merged Freefall is not evidence for Controlled Demolition

tsig said:
Indeed, the fact that CD's do not achieve freefall seems to be completely missed by both sides most of the time.
Click to expand...

I'd love for a CD proponent to model exactly what it would take for demolitions to remove several floors' worth of resistance to fall ALL AT ONCE, including the noise and visual characteristics that would accompany such an event.

If only they had a couple of thousand engineers on their side busily doing the necessary work...
 
Bilbo, of the aptly named "Bilbo's blog," happens to have just posted about this very topic, although not in response to this thread (for those interested, I've been debating him on the previous post - "example 1"). I can't post links yet so I'll put spaces in the link that you'll have to fix:

http: //bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc. html

Bilbo's claims are more narrow than some of those considered here. For those who don't want to follow the link, I take the key claims to be:

"NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall."
and
"NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could have occurred."
and
"the simulations they do provide would not have resulted in free fall"
and finally
"What NIST needs to do is go back and try to simulate the actual free fall period that did occur."

Notice that this is not a direct argument for the controlled demolition hypothesis, but an argument that NIST's theory does not account for the free fall period and so does not account for all the evidence relevant to explaining the collapse.
 
egalicontrarian said:
Bilbo, of the aptly named "Bilbo's blog," happens to have just posted about this very topic, although not in response to this thread (for those interested, I've been debating him on the previous post - "example 1"). I can't post links yet so I'll put spaces in the link that you'll have to fix:

http: //bilbos1.blogspot.com/2013/12/example-2-of-relevant-evidence-of-wtc. html

Bilbo's claims are more narrow than some of those considered here. For those who don't want to follow the link, I take the key claims to be:

"NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall."
and
"NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could have occurred."
and
"the simulations they do provide would not have resulted in free fall"
and finally
"What NIST needs to do is go back and try to simulate the actual free fall period that did occur."

Notice that this is not a direct argument for the controlled demolition hypothesis, but an argument that NIST's theory does not account for the free fall period and so does not account for all the evidence relevant to explaining the collapse.
Click to expand...

To which I believe the correct response is so what?

Why does NIST have to explain free-fall at all? How will that improve future building codes? Once that building started falling it was going to do what it was going to do. NIST had a mandate to find out what initiated the collapse and argue the details all you want, they got that fundamentally right. Job done.
 
egalicontrarian said:
Bilbo, of the aptly named "Bilbo's blog," happens to have just posted about this very topic, although not in response to this thread (for those interested, I've been debating him on the previous post - "example 1"). I can't post links yet so I'll put spaces in the link that you'll have to fix:
Click to expand...

Who is Bilbo and why should we care?
 
egalicontrarian said:
Bilbo, .. Notice that this is not a direct argument for the controlled demolition hypothesis, but an argument that NIST's theory does not account for the free fall period and so does not account for all the evidence relevant to explaining the collapse.
Click to expand...

Tell him to switch to being a Bigfoot believer, it is not as bad as disrespecting those who were murdered on 911 by spreading lies without thinking and apologizing for 19 murderers.
"NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall."
and
"NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could

Tell him on the bright side, he can use the same evidence he has for 911 lies, for Bigfoot. 12 years and this is the best 911 truth had, silent explosives, invisible thermite products, and no clue what physics is.
 
Last edited:
egalicontrarian said:
Bilbo's claims are more narrow than some of those considered here. For those who don't want to follow the link, I take the key claims to be:

"NIST revised its report to show that there actually was a period of free fall."
and
"NIST failed to revise their computer simulation to show how free fall could have occurred."
and
"the simulations they do provide would not have resulted in free fall"
and finally
"What NIST needs to do is go back and try to simulate the actual free fall period that did occur."

Notice that this is not a direct argument for the controlled demolition hypothesis, but an argument that NIST's theory does not account for the free fall period and so does not account for all the evidence relevant to explaining the collapse.
Click to expand...




Have you taken a look at the video I posted earlier? Because the last three of his above points are incorrect. NIST's simulation of the collapse does provide an explanation for the brief period of freefall. There's no need for NIST to bother making an official statement on this issue since the evidence is there to be seen by any honest inquisitors, while the CT types will simply reject NIST's statements out of hand no matter what they say.
 
Mark F replies:
"Why does NIST have to explain free-fall at all?"
Suppose for the sake of argument that they don't "have to" explain free-fall. Bilbo's argument is something like: their theory doesn't account for free fall. I take that to be of independent interest (especially if it's better-explained by an alternative theory).

Dumb All Over replies:
"Who is Bilbo and why should we care?"
(i) Bilbo is a layperson who has a personal blog and endorses a minority view in an expert dispute. (ii) You should care insofar as you are interested in participating in a thread of this sort.

Beachnut replies:
"Tell him to switch to being a Bigfoot believer, it is not as bad as disrespecting those who were murdered on 911 by spreading lies without thinking and apologizing for 19 murderers."
We can assume for the sake of argument that Bilbo is "disrespecting" anyone you'd like; that's not relevant to the question under consideration.

"Tell him on the bright side, he can use the same evidence he has for 911 lies, for Bigfoot. 12 years and this is the best 911 tuth had, silent explosives, invisible thermite products, and no clue what physics is."
(i) It's obvious that he can't use the same evidence for Bigfoot, since the NIST study is not relevant to Bigfoot. (ii) Perhaps you're right that "this is the best 911 truth had"; my question was what people on this forum think about this particular, more slimmed down version of the argument under discussion. (As you can see from my own participation on Bilbo's blog - under the name "JDB" - I am not a truther.)

Horatius replies:
"NIST's simulation of the collapse does provide an explanation for the brief period of freefall. There's no need for NIST to bother making an official statement on this issue since the evidence is there to be seen by any honest inquisitors."
This is the only reply that is helpful so far, and I appreciate it. I take it that this question - on which you say NIST need not pronounce - is the main locus of this particular disagreement. While the video itself is not especially helpful to laypersons, since it's the very object of dispute, the analysis provided by 16.5, which you quote in the link, is helpful.
 
LSSBB said:
I'd love for a CD proponent to model exactly what it would take for demolitions to remove several floors' worth of resistance to fall ALL AT ONCE, including the noise and visual characteristics that would accompany such an event.

If only they had a couple of thousand engineers on their side busily doing the necessary work...
Click to expand...

Chris7 was forced to admit it would take several thousand charges exploding simultaneously to achieve this "synchronised removal of all support".

He never did explain how, or why on earth anybody might bother.
 
egalicontrarian said:
Beachnut replies:
"Tell him to switch to being a Bigfoot believer, it is not as bad as disrespecting those who were murdered on 911 by spreading lies without thinking and apologizing for 19 murderers."
We can assume for the sake of argument that Bilbo is "disrespecting" anyone you'd like; that's not relevant to the question under consideration.

"Tell him on the bright side, he can use the same evidence he has for 911 lies, for Bigfoot. 12 years and this is the best 911 tuth had, silent explosives, invisible thermite products, and no clue what physics is."
(i) It's obvious that he can't use the same evidence for Bigfoot, since the NIST study is not relevant to Bigfoot. (ii) Perhaps you're right that "this is the best 911 truth had"; my question was what people on this forum think about this particular, more slimmed down version of the argument under discussion. (As you can see from my own participation on Bilbo's blog - under the name "JDB" - I am not a truther.)
...
Click to expand...
And what say you?

What Bilbo posted has nothing to do with NIST, it all comes from delusional nuts in 911 truth. Not close to what NIST did, and it seems you have no idea what is in the NIST report, or the purpose. NIST's purpose is not to answer silly questions about fantasy thermite and silent explosives made up due to ignorance. Bilbo takes lies from 911 truth, fails to read NIST, and publishes nonsense.

It has been 12 years. Someone who thinks it was an inside job could have earned a PhD in structural engineering, physics, and English by now; and exposed the plot, earned a Pulitzer, and saved the world. But what we get is Bilbo's blog of woo on 911, who can't figure out 911 if his life was on the line.'
What we have is real people on Flight 93 who figured out 911 in minutes, and Bilbo who fails to figure out anything about 911 after 12 years. Given the answers, data, and more, Bilbo can't connect the dots and form a rational claim on 911.



Did you post them for us, his blog is a series of nut case rant on 911. His blog list leads to mentally ill lies on 911.


WRONG, he can use the same evidence for Bigfoot. Bilbo's evidence is talk, and it can be used to support any fantasy he picks. Go ahead try it.

Bilbo is able to spread lies, who cares, only idiots would believe him.

What is the goal, he will not change until he matures, or learns to think for himself. Lessons in logic, knowledge of physics, etc, some math could help. Learning not to be gullible will help. 12 years and he published this Sunday? wow

He has no evidence, Bigfoot has no evidence. Case closed.
Spreading lies like Bilbo does is disrespecting those who were murdered on 911, and he is essentially apologizing for the terrorists, trying to blame 911 on someone else. He has a fantasy, based on lies from nuts in 911 truth - it will be hard to change his delusion, the same it is for Bigfoot believers to drop their delusion.
 
Last edited:
beachnut various replies:
"And what say you?"
My view is that laypersons who take a minority position in an expert dispute (and certainly those who go against even more substantial expert consensus) should either (i) become experts; or (ii) seek the mentorship of experts who are not party to the dispute in question. Any layperson who fails to do either of these two things should, to be epistemically responsible, refrain from pronouncing on such a dispute, and should follow the usual canons of lay deference (e.g., while not necessarily swallowing whole the current official view, such a person should at least wait for a minority view to gain serious traction in the relevant community). I attempt (with little success) to explain this in the previous post on Bilbo's blog ("Example 1 of relevant evidence").

"Someone who thinks it was an inside job could have earned a PhD in structural engineering, physics, and English by now"
I agree. Most people don't have the time or resources to do this, which is why I think a second-best route is to exhibit epistemic humility and seek out serious mentorship from independent experts. Failing that, the only epistemically humble posture other than deference to the expert majority would be something like agnosticism, combined with following the development of the expert dispute.

"Given the answers, data, and more, Bilbo can't connect the dots and form a rational claim on 911."
Perhaps, but it's an actual justification of such a judgment that I'm interested in (and that forums like this are, in theory, also interested in).

"Did you post them for us, his blog is a series of nut case rant on 911."
This is not a coherent sentence, but to answer one thing you might be asking: I posted it because some participants on this forum are interested in offering genuine responses, and I was curious about how they might respond to Bilbo's fairly narrow, focused versions of truther arguments.

"His blog list leads to mentally ill lies on 911."
It's hard to know how to interpret blog lists, because you should not assume that a blogger endorses the content of every blog s/he links to. But in general, I agree that the quality of material on this blog list leaves something to be desired, and that one has to do a great deal of work to separate the wheat from the chaff.

"WRONG, he can use the same evidence for Bigfoot. Bilbo's evidence is talk, and it can be used to support any fantasy he picks. Go ahead try it."
Usually Bilbo's evidence includes (i) official studies like those by NIST and FEMA and (ii) studies by people challenging those. This could be very bad evidence, but it's not mere "talk." Anyway, I explained precisely and succinctly the reason why the same evidence could not be used for Bigfoot. And while it so happens that Bilbo actually does feel epistemically entitled to pronounce in favor of minority views in multiple expert domains in which he is not expert (and not willing to engage in the processes I recommend above), Bigfoot is not one of these domains.
 
Last edited:
egalicontrarian said:
Mark F replies:
"Why does NIST have to explain free-fall at all?"
Suppose for the sake of argument that they don't "have to" explain free-fall. Bilbo's argument is something like: their theory doesn't account for free fall. I take that to be of independent interest (especially if it's better-explained by an alternative theory).
Click to expand...

Not for the sake of argument. NIST do not have to explain free-fall. Beyond the fact that no one has ever given a satisfactory reason why we should even care about free-fall, it was not in their mandate for NIST to go any farther than they did.

If you want to find out about free-fall fine, hire an engineering firm. That is a you problem, not a NIST problem.

If only there was some group that had access to 2,000 engineers and a compelling interest in this question,...
 
egalicontrarian said:
beachnut various replies:
"And what say you?"
...
Click to expand...
And what is your position on Bilbo's silly nonsense?


The blog list leads to other failed nuts on 911...

http://www.consensus911.org/
http://www.scientificmethod911.org/index.html
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/index.html

Oh the irony, calling themselves scientist, science, and more. Wow.

Bilbo publishes nonsense, did he fool you? Can Bilbo read NIST and come up with his own lies?

It is a lie NIST had to add free-fall, you can see it in the original data if you would read NIST. Did you read NIST? I have it on two or three computers here, and NIST gives it to your free. When did you read it?

My point is, if I thought it was a big CT, I would earn the degrees to prove it, and be famous. But, as with most CT nuts, there is no substance for Bilbo to support his posting of silly lies made up by failed "scientists".

Your first post was not specific in asking for help, or guidance, yet you are not critiquing as if you asked something... did you forget to ask a question? or what?

What is your position on CD?
 
Last edited:
Mark F replies:
"Beyond the fact that no one has ever given a satisfactory reason why we should even care about free-fall, it was not in their mandate for NIST to go any farther than they did."
I don't think we're disagreeing. The claim is supposed to be that these 2.25 seconds actually undermine the accuracy of the simulations they provided - as simulations of the collapse. If this is the case, then even if the NIST study is valuable vis-a-vis building safety, it brings into question its value vis-a-vis an accurate explanation of the collapse.

Again, even if this isn't the general purpose of NIST or their study, it's of independent interest whether this aspect of the study is accurate or not.
 
Horatius said:
Have you taken a look at the video I posted earlier? Because the last three of his above points are incorrect. NIST's simulation of the collapse does provide an explanation for the brief period of freefall. There's no need for NIST to bother making an official statement on this issue since the evidence is there to be seen by any honest inquisitors, while the CT types will simply reject NIST's statements out of hand no matter what they say.
Click to expand...

I have for years now pointed out that the destruction of the core would have resulted in the cantilever trusses, over the Con-Ed building, to tilt down at their southern end which would have the effect of pushing a tilt northward , the rest of the columns of the Con-Ed building. This would buckle those columns and cause the lower end of the 40 storey block supported by those cantilever trusses, to move northward. Lo and behold, that is what is illustrated in the few driven NIST animation.

If anyone, AE911T, Bilbo, or joe-blow wishes to challenge the NIST collapse sequence, as revealed by their scientific/technical finite element analysis, then it would behoove them to first know what the NIST analysis illustrates, and second, to do the heavy lifting and produce their own, equally scientific/technical analysis. Best bet? Run a finite element analysis with the same or better level of detail as that performed by NIST.

THAT is what it would take to have me consider the veracity of any group's bitch on this aspect of the NIST investigation.
 
Last edited:
beachnut replies:
"What is your position on CD?"
I am a layperson in this area and I am not willing to (i) get a degree in engineering or (ii) seek the mentorship of independent experts in engineering (or related disciplines). So, for reasons I clearly explained, I do not endorse the controlled demolition hypothesis. Like any other scientific claim, it could eventually gain traction in the scientific community, at which point it would become more rational for me to raise my credence in the theory. [Note: there are other sorts of considerations which could bear on the question, e.g. if it were shown that multiple disciplines are systematically corrupted in some way relative to 9/11 but not anything else. But this is so far from being demonstrated or even argued that it's worth going into here.]

As for the bloglist, I've already replied to that. Generally speaking, the things you are posting don't seem relevant to the topic of my original post, or even this thread in general. So it's not clear why you continue to reply in this way.
 
jaydeehess replies:
"THAT is what it would take to have me consider the veracity of any group's bitch on this aspect of the NIST investigation."

Thanks for the reply. While I agree more generally that one problem with trutherism is the failure to provide a comparably thorough and comprehensive theory, rather than a series of factoids and apparent anomalies, that doesn't by itself undercut the proposed objection to the NIST study. One could, for example, agree with Bilbo that NIST should come up with a new simulation yet reject the controlled demolition hypothesis.
 
egalicontrarian said:
beachnut replies:
"What is your position on CD?"
I am a layperson in this area and I am not willing to (i) get a degree in engineering or (ii) seek the mentorship of independent experts in engineering (or related disciplines). So, for reasons I clearly explained, I do not endorse the controlled demolition hypothesis. Like any other scientific claim, it could eventually gain traction in the scientific community, at which point it would become more rational for me to raise my credence in the theory. [Note: there are other sorts of considerations which could bear on the question, e.g. if it were shown that multiple disciplines are systematically corrupted in some way relative to 9/11 but not anything else. But this is so far from being demonstrated or even argued that it's worth going into here.]

As for the bloglist, I've already replied to that. Generally speaking, the things you are posting don't seem relevant to the topic of my original post, or even this thread in general. So it's not clear why you continue to reply in this way.
Click to expand...

What?

You have asked no question, and have no position? And I am off topic?

Are you spamming, or do you have a question, or a position? No?

Relevant? Bilbo is a CTer on 911, and he thinks crazy web sites which lie politely offer evidence. They don't, I am on topic and Bilbo is full of woo.

Did you read NIST? No.
Do you have a question? No?

What was the question? The point. You sure to lay on what you think is fancy talk.

BTW, CD will never be credible, it is a fantasy. So your claim it might is woo.

You don't believe 911 was an inside job, so what do you need?
 
Dumb All Over said:
Hello david.watts,

How come you created your account in 2008 but only decided to start using it now over five years later?

Welcome to the forums.

DAO
Click to expand...
No particular reason that I have not participated since 2008. The reason I returned was because I saw a reference to JREF and that reminded that I had been here before. I had condensed some things NIST had stated regarding WTC7 into a short, simple proof. So I decided to post it here to see if anyone here could disprove it. To argue against the proof is to argue against NIST. But, I see a lot of people do not agree. But, I have yet to see it disproved. And thanks for the welcome back to the forums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom