Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
LSSBB replies: "I think [Bilbo] needs to take (retake?) a course in Physics or talk directly to a physicist to have it explained to him."
I agree with this. My debate with Bilbo on his previous post was specifically about how, in order to avoid simple mistakes, a layperson ought to have expert guidance when attempting to adjudicate an expert dispute (and especially when the layperson wants to side with a tiny minority). Unfortunately he so far refuses to understand my position, instead interpreting it somehow as a direct defense of FEMA or something, which wouldn't make any sense. You can see how this went in the previous post.
ozeco41 replies: "That is my opinion also. I considered and half drafted an explanation but decided against posting. I'm not into blogs or YT style 'debate'. Given that forums are dying in the arse I may need to change my attitude ---- or change this hobby."
I think a change of attitudes might be good, and your participation on Bilbo's blog would be helpful. One disadvantage of forums is that they are full of so much extraneous material. One thing that's good about a blog like Bilbo's is that he takes himself to be able to adjudicate a technical dispute with very, very few words, and fairly little ad hominem. So you can have a fairly efficient exchange that wouldn't take too much of your time. A while back on this forum Oystein noted that he had had a respectful debate with Bilbo. (Speaking of which, what happened to Oystein? And Sunstealer?)
Grizzly Bear replies: "Usually all I ask is how "freefall" gives a specific, unambiguous reference to explosives and controlled demolition, then their poker face ensues"
This is one reason why Bilbo's post is somewhat more interesting, because he makes the more narrow argument that the official explanation merely fails to explain free fall, and that on the basis of this more study is needed. That being said, as far as I can tell Bilbo does think free fall is evidence of controlled demolition, on the basis of a superficial common sense style argument: (i) one way to achieve free fall is to remove all supports all at once; (ii) one way to remove all supports all at once is controlled demolition; (iii) so one way to achieve free fall is controlled demolition.
One argument offered here against the more narrow claim is that insofar as the NIST simulation model wasn't intended to explain all parts of the collapse, but merely the onset, the 2.25 seconds in question are not germane. This claim is somewhat hard to evaluate as a layperson. A model is always idealized in multiple respects, but that doesn't mean all anomalies in the explanandum would be acceptable. So it's important to know which sorts of anomalies are problematic and which are not. I don't know how to do this except by either (i) becoming a trained expert with lots of experience in this sort of thing; or (ii) extensive review and engagement with experts who have such experience. Of course Bilbo is implicitly unwilling to do this (I say "implicitly" because, as you can see from the previous post on his blog, he seems to refuse to respond to this aspect of my position).
Sunstealer has ratcheted back on the posting, not surprising since it's all dying embers.
Oystein is a different story. He disappeared after some discussion in a non-9/11 thread about some complications in his personal life. No one can find him, phone calls and personal emails don't get through for folks that knew him more closely. His disappearance had folks worried for a long time, and there has been no news. Chris Mohr can provide further details if you need them.
... This is one reason why Bilbo's post is somewhat more interesting, because he makes the more narrow argument that the official explanation merely fails to explain free fall, and that on the basis of this more study is needed. ...
Armed with ignorance, he thinks a study is needed. He has no comprehension of physics, or what NIST did, purpose, etc. He loves to Gish Gallop using BS as his tool.
Using a single point tracked on a building, a building with infinite points. Talk about BS, he is much more narrow on this subject as he ignores the interior collapsing, making excuses why the failed interior can't help the collapse of the facade go faster; waves his hands and makes up more BS.
Then engineering models of the collapse. He wants E=mc2 to clearly explain an atomic explosions. He can't comprehend engineering models, and why they don't look like what happened, no clue. With willful ignorance, wants NIST to redo the collapse model to show free-fall, what? How absurd. Why can't he gain the knowledge and tools to understand the real world? Too lazy?
The collapse sequence NIST has is a probable collapse sequence (wake up, it might not be what happened), no one knows the real one. It is engineering, it is a possible way WTC 7 collapsed, and Bilbo wants NIST to redo it to match how he thinks it should look (how immature). Due to Bilbo's ignorance of physics, math, science, and engineering - things which he could master on his own.
Thermite was made up by a mad man; It is a lie. Bilbo holds on to lies out of ignorance. Thermite is the sign of woo, as 911 truth mentally ill leaders keep pushing it. Mental illness is the only excuse I can find for a lie so stupid. Jones, the inventor of thermite used on the WTC, also entertained the idea the USA caused the Haiti earthquake.
Bilbo also has other lies about 911, where thermite was suppose to play a a part according to the "leading 911 truth experts" who appear to be insane about thermite. The the corroded steel in Appendix C of FEMA, was studied and proves it was not attacked by thermite. It is ironic Bilbo can use the report that does not support thermite to support thermite. Not sure how he can Gish Gallop and move the goal posts to support the fantasy. Then he falls for silly 911 truth experiments of thermite, which also prove thermite was not use. (big clue: there are no piles of iron found at the WTC) It is a pattern of woo, and he can't stop defending fantasy. Like a religion of ignorance, anti-intellectual claptrap, worshiping lies dumb down so far, he can debate them nicely, and so sweet, because they are his religious fantasy of 911. A sweet liar, nice to all, defending his delusion, the need for a new study. He loves to twist the reality based work to fit his fantasy, a religion to explain his need for a new study; one more study; put 10 seconds back on the clock until he wins the Pulitzer.
12 years and we have nuts (for the 911 issue) pop up and spew the party line of 911 truth; we want a new study; we can't comprehend eutectic, we can't do engineering studies, so we pick to spread lies about the day 3,000 were murdered by 19 other nuts who do understand 911, and they did not use thermite, they used knives.
What makes Bilbo so bad, he is nice. He blogs along spreading lies instead of busting them, and exposing 911 truth for the biased hateful liars and frauds they are. He supports lies because he can't comprehend. When he matures, he will wish the Internet did not remember his silly posts, nice posts of woo, his legacy.
Not by anyone but him. He is the problem here, he will have to hire a tutor. Wow. The graph of one point, needs more study. lol, typical 911 truth mentally; skip the big picture, please explain this one point.
He takes studies and messes up the meaning to support his biased view of the topic being discussed. It is called ignorance, and he refuses to learn or try to expand his knowledge based. Not only not listening, but make up more junk, not learning, only in need of, "more study". 12 years, study time over.
He is so nice, supporting lies and liars, 911 truth. Good job. You have a great friend who can't see the fraud of 911 truth.
Yes, as long as the message is delivered nicely, why question the intent; is that a NAZI follower kind of thing? Tolerate lies and ignorance because it is packaged as a sweet debate, all nice and personable. Is that how racism works, and the best way to spread lies? Do it nicely?
What if Flight 93 Passengers all got up, said we "need more study", and sat down, failing to take action to stop murderers? 12 years, and Bilbo needs more study, and he asks so nicely as he spreads delusions of explosives, and thermite, so nicely. He is nice, but he does not understand models.
Free fall is the greatest rate of acceleration that gravity can achieve. If acceleration is greater than free fall, then something more than just gravity is at work.
Bilbo takes delusions of 911 truth, claims based on ignorances and turns them into a religion of woo; he can't take a simple concept and apply it to a collapsing building. That is ignorance.
oops faster than g, again. Be sure he ignores simple concepts and sticks with the woo, presented nicely, calmly and with lots of sweet BS, to keep it super nice, personable, perfect.
Bilbo posts videos on his blog filled with lies and nonsense about 911. Good job being nice and spreading lies Bilbo. Nice job, nicely done, spreading lies. Perfect. Like a religion, his prophets are the top nuts in 911 truth.
Just completely remove the entire lengths of columnal support over the height for which you wish the structure to drop at ffa, doing so with every column on that(those) level(s) simultaneously.
easy-peasy. ,,,, but gonna be a tad (earth shakingly) loud.
Just completely remove the entire lengths of columnal support over the height for which you wish the structure to drop at ffa, doing so with every column on that(those) level(s) simultaneously.
easy-peasy. ,,,, but gonna be a tad (earth shakingly) loud.
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?
Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?
90% yes. The other 10% can stay on the side to allow for some more esoteric possibilities.
Try a slightly different approach:
If the building is falling then all columns have failed. (Believe it or not I have posted that claim several times in specific reference to WTC1 or WTC2 and been ignored by BOTH "sides" - so it isn't only perceived truthers that are not trusted. )
PS BTW Where are you trying to go - I may be able to help.
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?
Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?
Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
We already know, from the earlier collapse of the E Penthouse, that collapse was not even nearly synchronised, whether so-called 'global' collapse was through chance or choice. Additionally, we never see the E or S faces of the building and simply don't know what was happening there.
You're starting with a faulty observation and reaching a faulty conclusion.
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?
Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
clayton you do know that fire will weaken steel especially the intense prolonged kind of fire that occurred during the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre
The strength of hot rolled structural steel decreases with temperature. Following an extensive series of standard fire tests, that strength reduction has been quantified. Recent international research has also shown that the limiting (failure) temperature of a structural steel member is not fixed but varies according to two factors, the temperature profile and the load.
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?
Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
What you describe is a Verniage technique of demolition. Yes if such a condition as you describe above exists then the entire structure that remains above the destroyed zone will fall as a unit , simultaneously.
That sequence of collapse did not exist in the case of WTC 7(or for that matter with WTC 1 & 2 either) , and therefore that condition (all columns destroyed simultaneously) does not follow either.
Why is it that you and others cannot observe the collapse as first an internal collapse followed by the outer walls collapsing? Why is it the you cannot see that the north side of the structure failed first along the 'kink' follwoed by the rest of the structure collapsing?
Yes, when the collapse finally ramped up to the final few seconds and the structure was observed at certain locations, to have its acceleration ramp up to and through free fall, it would be a safe bet that all columns had failed at a lower level. Failed columns means they support no load. A buckled column supports no load. A column tilted beyond 30 degrees, with a loss of lateral restraint at either end, will support NO load.
Hi hi, I hope everyone has been sleeping well. I have, kind of. I am trying to figure out where to go from here. Can we try to agree on something, or maybe anything -- kind of the same thing wouldn't you say? If a building -- WTC7 or any other -- is observed to collapse on all sides at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time, would that not mean that all of the structural support must have given way at the same/virtually the same/very nearly the same time?
Are we gonna disagree on this? I mean, it doesn't take a PHD in physics to understand that, does it?
HI HI! Lets do this first! Why don't you go back and acknowledge all the errors you made in your "QED" post from several days ago, which have been painstakingly cataloged in this thread.
...One argument offered here against the more narrow claim is that insofar as the NIST simulation model wasn't intended to explain all parts of the collapse, but merely the onset, the 2.25 seconds in question are not germane. ...
David Chandler claimed there was free fall for 2.25 seconds. NIST went back and did their own measurements (measuring from the middle of the top of the building, instead of the northwest corner as Chandler had done) and agreed that there was free fall for 2.25 seconds. So neither party is in dispute about this. Only third party bloggers dispute it. NIST didn't revise their simulation to show no resistance. Instead, they claim that the resistance of the buckling columns was negligible. Very well. At leas do the calculations to show that it was negligible.
Truthers like your friend are gullible. He all over the place with silly claims. NIST data has always been the same, the "free-fall" stuff was there. Thus the Chandler claim is the same as NIST, except Chandler thinks 911 was an inside job, Chandler has a fantasy. What the talk of third party bloggers who dispute it? Source? Bilbo has no real story on 911, he sees 911 truth stuff and thinks there is substance, the same as Bigfoot believers, BS based on delusions. Instead of exposing the ignorance of 911 truth, Bilbo embraces the lies as substance.
Truthers like your friend are gullible, when he finds 911 truth claims he is not armed with the tools to see the fraud, the lies. Bilbo thinks Kevin Ryan has substance, and falls for the lies about OKC. Bilbo is so gullible he thinks the government did the OKC bombing after seeing a fantasy video. Bilbo's blog is based on ignorance, and Bilbo is diverging from the truth into woo-land.
What could be an intelligent Blog exposing 911 truth claims as delusional, is a blog of weak worship of woo, an embarrassingly anti-intellectual take on 911, a study in gullibility and ignorance.
Here is the latest from Bilbo. The bolded stuff is what he's replying to (I think LSSBB is the one engaging him).
"637:
The combined acceleration from the pull added to the g acceleration of the weight of the columns, minus the resistance at the bottom, can exceed g. It is a simple stack up of forces.
Let's go back to your original equation:
(Force of Pull) - (Force of Resistance) + (Pull of gravity) = (Total Force)
If the Force of Pull were something separate from the Pull of gravity, then we have a separate force that we add to the Pull of gravity. For example, let's say that Superman were pulling down on the interior columns and walls. Then we have a force in addition to gravity. Then acceleration could (and given Superman's strength, no doubt would) exceed free fall.
But (according to NIST) there is no separate force from gravity. We have gravity pulling down on everything at the same time and with the same force. It's pulling down on the exterior of the building. It's pulling down on the interior of the building. In our F=MA calculations, F=the pull of gravity. There's no other force to add to it.
Now if A is greater than free fall, then some additional force besides gravity is at work, and NIST's theory is falsified.
Free fall is the greatest rate of acceleration that gravity can achieve. If acceleration is greater than free fall, then something more than just gravity is at work."
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
