Breaking news! Truther Ignored by Senator!

[ozeco41]

But patience is needed, can take a while until the horse is thirsty

Agreed. I added a bit onto the previous post whilst you were making your response.

 

[dc1971]

Upset has degrees. Clearly he cared enough to bark orders at me. I've never made these statements before. It was my first post, as you can see.

And frankly, if you can debunk the claims then they will go away, but you can't because, well, that's physics.

Okay... explain the "physics" of how a senator ignores someone like you (i.e. a Truther)???

I have all afternoon!

 

[Dave Rogers]

I have to admit that I am rather dissappointed that those who have brought this up haven't done any precision measurements and calculations to prove the point, other than Dave Rogers' claim that he did while refusing to show his data.

I'd just like to point out that I showed my results in graphical form and described my methodology in full, but for some reason Tony chose to use some personal definition of "show his data" that this doesn't satisfy.

As for a decrease in the rate of acceleration, tempesta29, let's see your numbers. What do you find to be the average rate of acceleration while the upper block is crushing the damaged section of the building, and what do you find to be its rate of acceleration while crushing the undamaged section? If you don't want to show absolute numbers, what do you find to be the ratio of the two? Then, based on some assumptions about the degree of damage to the damaged section, what decrease do you expect?

Because, at the moment, what you're doing is stating something I refer to as the unevaluated inequality fallacy. You're saying that there should have been a decrease in acceleration, and that there wasn't. But you're not saying how much of a decrease there should have been, nor are you presenting numbers to demonstrate that this decrease was outside the error bars of the measured acceleration. In effect, you're saying that there are two numbers that are different, but you haven't said what the value of either one is. Give us some values, or you haven't got an argument.

Dave

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You're acting paranoid; or perhaps you're not acting.

Says the guy who thinks 10,000 evil republican nin-jews ran into a burning building and did a years worth of demolition prep-work in a minute and a half.

You have a bizarre definition of "paranoid".

Tempest: Hi, I'm a sock puppet of a previously banned member!

Me: Oh great, another sock puppet.

Tempest: OMG STOP BEING PARANOID!

Oh yeah... that's paranoia alright.

That's your second straw man in this thread alone.

No it isn't. It's the testimony of recognized experts in the field of fire damage assesment who were there that day in person and swear that building was on FIRE!

Deal with it, junior.

I never said there wasn't fire. Photographs depict a different story than you're telling, however.

You just went from saying you never said there wasn't on fire to saying the building wasn't on fire in a microsecond. How do you flip positions like that without tearing your eyebrows off?

Photographs confirm massive fires throughout the building, BTW. They show giant clouds of smoke barfing out of every floor.

Fire fighters also describe Earth-shaking explosions in the basement, so take your pick.

Secondary explosions are common in major building fires. A building that burned as extensively and heavily as WTC7 would have had lots of secondary explosions.

Is this a joke? First, very few of the columns of WTC 7 were even involved in fire. Of the 236 samples of steel from the WTC that NIST analysed, only 3 had been exposed to temperatures over 500 F.

AW Smith destroyed you already on this. I'll just refer you back to him.

 

[Drudgewire]

Posting a youtube video series isn't an argument, at least not where I come from...

And here I was thinking you came from the truth movement.

 

[NutCracker]

Also, WTC 7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds even though steel offers a minimum amount of resistance to collapse. This is also not possible if only the only dead load is WTC 7's own components.

You seem to assume a particular mode of collapse. What is this mode of collapse that you have in mind exactly and what is its justification?

 

[Thunder]

I've never posted on JREF in my life before my initial post in this thread.

quoted for research purposes.

 

[triforcharity]

Why qualify building with "office"? Do you commercial buildings burn differently than residential?

Um, yes, absolutely! Fuel loading and contents certainly do make a huge difference.

How many floors had fire on them is irrelevant.

Right. That is like saying that if someone punched you 47 times, it's the same as someone punching you once. (I am not advocating violence towards this poster. It is for comparison only. )

47 floors of burning bags of poo will elicit little more than laughter. From the north side, during collapse, there is little to no evidence of any fire taking place or ever having taken place.

Ok.

90% of strength due to a common fire? That seems high. Even so, free fall implies a 100% loss of strength, so you still lose.

Wrong. Not high at all. When a column buckles, how much resistance is it offering? Please list any assumptions, and show your math.

Yawn.

Dodge.

 

[triforcharity]

The building was in free fall for 2.25 seconds. If you inferred otherwise from my posts then I suggest you re-read.

I suggest you learn basic english. "The building" is 7WTC. A portion of The North Face, is what actually fell in freefall.

I said nothing about free fall in relation to the Twin Towers.

So far, there are serious reading comprehension issues becoming evident.

Where'd my damn irony meter go? I just GOT that one!!

 

[Mashuna]

And frankly, if you can debunk the claims then they will go away, but you can't because, well, that's physics.

Frankly, the claims are debunked because, well, that's physics. Unfortunately, they don't go away because some people just never learn.

 

[The Big Dog]

The building was in free fall for 2.25 seconds. If you inferred otherwise from my posts then I suggest you re-read.

So far, there are serious reading comprehension issues becoming evident.

I said: "Or you could spend ten minutes and learn that the entire building did not collapse at free fall."

No question there are reading comprehension issues that are evident.

Welcome to the site, you are going to be a real treasure: arrogant, uneducated, lazy and surly. What a Peach!

 

[triforcharity]

I'm not going to wade through a video series that may or may not have any relevance to my argument. If you have specific information that relates to this argument then I suggest typing it like respectful people do.

I'm not in a position to watch videos anyway. I'm listening to music

You got one of these, don't you? Impressive I must say!

 

[Craig4]

I had nothing to search for at the time. Someone said this wasn't worth looking into, and I disagreed.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

So not only have you been duped, but you've been duped into thinking you've been duped. That takes... uniqueness.
I responded on topic in this thread. I'm sorry it upsets you.
Yawn.

Please do try to remember that roughly 3000 people died that day. This is a serious topic and not suitable to be used a plaything for your little hobby. Stick with UFO's, this one deserves better than to be used as part of your odd little form of recreation.

 

[WildCat]

And frankly, if you can debunk the claims then they will go away

No, they don't. Every day someone becomes mentally ill, a 13 year old is unleashed unsupervised on the internet, and well there's no cure for stupid.

but you can't because, well, that's physics.

If it's physics you should have no trouble at all showing your math. Odd, isn't it, that no truther has been able to do this in 9 years?

 

[roger]

If it's physics you should have no trouble at all showing your math. Odd, isn't it, that no truther has been able to do this in 9 years?

Oh, come on. Surely "Ka Chunk...Ka Chunk ... Ka Chunk" counts as math???

 

[Andy_Ross]

tempesta29
WHat do you think happened to the buildings if they didn't collapse as described in the NIST report?

You must have some idwas of your own but you don't seem to have let us know what they are?

I like a good thread hijack.

 

[NutCracker]

As for a decrease in the rate of acceleration, tempesta29, let's see your numbers. What do you find to be the average rate of acceleration while the upper block is crushing the damaged section of the building, and what do you find to be its rate of acceleration while crushing the undamaged section? If you don't want to show absolute numbers, what do you find to be the ratio of the two? Then, based on some assumptions about the degree of damage to the damaged section, what decrease do you expect?

Because, at the moment, what you're doing is stating something I refer to as the unevaluated inequality fallacy. You're saying that there should have been a decrease in acceleration, and that there wasn't. But you're not saying how much of a decrease there should have been, nor are you presenting numbers to demonstrate that this decrease was outside the error bars of the measured acceleration. In effect, you're saying that there are two numbers that are different, but you haven't said what the value of either one is. Give us some values, or you haven't got an argument.

Dave

Seconded. That's what #82 triggered me to wonder as well.

tempesta29, please provide some calculations that show what the acceleration should have been as a function of time. Please discuss the validity and limitations of your model. Please show data for the actual acceleration and please discuss the discrepancy, if there is a significant one.

(Yes, I can't resist being redundant.. sorry folks)

 

[Thunder]

And frankly, if you can debunk the claims then they will go away,

you are right. rational, logical people, who have an understanding of basic science, physics, and engineering, will drop claims that have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked.

however, we are dealing with 9-11 truthers.

 

[Jackanory]

I'm talking about deceleration as a decrease in the rate of acceleration of a moving object. I realize the upper sections fell slower than gravitational acceleration. That isn't what I'm debating. What I'm saying is that as the upper sections passed through the areas most damaged by fire and plane crashes and reached virtually undamaged, lower floors, there is no decrease in the rate of acceleration of these upper sections.

This leads one to conclude that floors below the fire and crash zones offered equal resistance to said crash zones or that the upper sections weren't actually destroying the lower sections, but simply passing through them. I suggest the latter, as we all know fire and commercial airliners weaken buildings.



But none over 1200 degrees F, just for the record.

Assuming you are correct and 911 was an inside jobby...........what makes you think that CD's fall at the truther 'free fall'?

If WTC 1, 2 and 7 all had explosives primed in whatever fashion you like............then please explain how 'CD's using explosives' fall at 'free fall'.

All this talk from both 'truther' and 'debunker' camps miss the obvious. All seem to be blinkered by the buzz words of a dumb generation. 'free fall', 'pull it', 'near free fall'..............all mean jack ******

 

[NutCracker]

Assuming you are correct and 911 was an inside jobby...........what makes you think that CD's fall at the truther 'free fall'?

If WTC 1, 2 and 7 all had explosives primed in whatever fashion you like............then please explain how 'CD's using explosives' fall at 'free fall'.

All this talk from both 'truther' and 'debunker' camps miss the obvious. All seem to be blinkered by the buzz words of a dumb generation. 'free fall', 'pull it', 'near free fall'..............all mean jack ******

I must admit that I haven't read every post of this thread, but I believe he hasn't any such things, though he may have come close.

At least he talks about the quantitive concepts albeit in a qualitative way, which is better than the "Free-fall, Pull-it therefore CD" shouting kind of Truther.

I would like to see him advance his argument and put numbers to the quantitive concepts.