• 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?

Oystein said:
Collapse of core, as evidenced by the collapse of the mechanical penthouses before release of north wall roofline - 7 seconds, give or a take a bit.
Click to expand...
Crikey. I leave you folk to your own devices for a while and you revert to string vest fact mangling.

A W Smith seems to be talking about "building 7 losing altitude before the claim of freefall", and you are talking about partial core failure start time.

East penthouse descent time could be said to be about 7s prior to release of the NW corner.

But to suggest 7s of "Building 7 losing altitude before the claim of freefall" is silly.

I suggest you folk grab the graphs I have provided you all when discussing these timing-based details.

666377698.png
 
femr2 said:
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/666377698.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...


Did you produce that graph yourself? Think I've seen a graph you made here before. Do you have a link to all the data and graphs relating to 9/11 you have created? Would make a good resource to ponder over.
 
femr2 said:
Crikey. I leave you folk to your own devices for a while and you revert to string vest fact mangling.

A W Smith seems to be talking about "building 7 losing altitude before the claim of freefall", and you are talking about partial core failure start time.

East penthouse descent time could be said to be about 7s prior to release of the NW corner.

But to suggest 7s of "Building 7 losing altitude before the claim of freefall" is silly.

I suggest you folk grab the graphs I have provided you all when discussing these timing-based details.

[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/666377698.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

AW SMith said:
Shoof said:
@ AW SMith:

Thanks again for your thoughtful insights and perspectives.

Allow me to clarify---was there evidence of unsupported perimeter columns?
Click to expand...
yes the 7 plus seconds previous to the claim of freefall. What do think was occuring for building 7 to lose altitude before the claim of freefall?
Click to expand...

femr,

I think you are not reading this as intended. I think AW Smith replied to a question about perimeter not being (laterally) supported in his first sentence by alluding to the failure of the core during 7s +/- before release, and in his second sentence talked about a different topic, namely the 1s +/- after release and before appox g was reached (boundaries of this phase are up for grabs, of course).
 
ElMondoHummus said:
Why do I sense a "do you still beat your wife" slanting in the phrasing of this question here?
Click to expand...
I was tempted to make that response when I first read Shoof's string of loaded questions.

But everyone else is correcting him and not falling for the traps - mainly "loaded questions" and "reverse burden of proof". The combination of those usually proof positive of a truther despite claims to sceptic status.

BTW the more common version - or at least the one I am accustomed to - is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It seems clearer to me as an example of a "loaded question".
 
It never crossed my mind that there may be rules and regulations for how I ask a question on this forum. If following those rules are a requirement of this forum, can someone politely direct me to where that information is detailed?

Until I see those rules and regulations---if they exist---any of you are welcome to respond to, or ignore, any or all of my questions.

If, in fact, all of my questions have been adequately explained ad nauseum already, and any inaccuracies noted, then it shouldn't be difficult for any skilled and experienced poster to quickly and succinctly answer the questions and/or show how the question is not based upon factual evidence.

It's unclear to me as to how one (or more) of my questions can be a trick if you all are clear on the facts and evidence. Can't we all just have a gentlemanly discussion here?

Cheers to ya'll.

Kurt
 
Last edited:
Shoof said:
It never crossed my mind that there may be rules and regulations for how I ask a question on this forum. If following those rules are a requirement of this forum, can someone politely direct me to where that information is detailed?

Until I see those rules and regulations---if they exist---any of you are welcome to respond to, or ignore, any or all of my questions.

If, in fact, all of my questions have been adequately explained ad nauseum already, and any inaccuracies noted, then it shouldn't be difficult for any skilled and experienced poster to quickly and succinctly answer the questions and/or show how the question is not based upon factual evidence.

Cheers to ya'll.

Kurt
Click to expand...

Any rules and regulations can be found in the members agreement. I do thank you for your politeness in your initial posts.
 
Shoof said:
It never crossed my mind that there may be rules and regulations for how I ask a question on this forum. If following those rules are a requirement of this forum, can someone politely direct me to where that information is detailed?

Until I see those rules and regulations---if they exist---any of you are welcome to respond to, or ignore, any or all of my questions.

If, in fact, all of my questions have been adequately explained ad nauseum already, and any inaccuracies noted, then it shouldn't be difficult for any skilled and experienced poster to quickly and succinctly answer the questions and/or show how the question is not based upon factual evidence.

It's unclear to me as to how one (or more) of my question can be a trick if you all are clear on the facts and evidence. Can't we all just have a gentlemanly discussion here?

Cheers to ya'll.

Kurt
Click to expand...

It has been explained to you. It is not a matter of formal forum rules, but of plain old skeptics' debate courtesy: Your questions are not just questions, they are really claims.

You want to make claims and debate claims. Please make your claims as claims then, and give us some fodder so we know those claims are somehow supported by something.

Your tactic is know around here as "JAQing off", which stands for "Just Asking Questions"


Do you know what a "loaded question" is? If not, then read your 13 questions. You will then have read 13 examples for loaded questions. They are loaded with implicit claims that some premises are true.

Please make your claims expicit. Support them with citations.
Then we have something to debate.



Alternatively, we could give you quick short answers to your questions, not back them up with evidence just like you don't back up your premises with evidence.
Are you prepared to accept answers?
 
femr2 said:
Crikey. I leave you folk to your own devices for a while and you revert to string vest fact mangling.

A W Smith seems to be talking about "building 7 losing altitude before the claim of freefall", and you are talking about partial core failure start time.

East penthouse descent time could be said to be about 7s prior to release of the NW corner.

But to suggest 7s of "Building 7 losing altitude before the claim of freefall" is silly.
I suggest you folk grab the graphs I have provided you all when discussing these timing-based details.

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/666377698.png
Click to expand...
I never suggested that. Are you having a problem reading English??? Go back and read it again or forever be known a dunce.
 
Shoof said:
It never crossed my mind that there may be rules and regulations for how I ask a question on this forum. If following those rules are a requirement of this forum, can someone politely direct me to where that information is detailed?

Until I see those rules and regulations---if they exist---any of you are welcome to respond to, or ignore, any or all of my questions.

If, in fact, all of my questions have been adequately explained ad nauseum already, and any inaccuracies noted, then it shouldn't be difficult for any skilled and experienced poster to quickly and succinctly answer the questions and/or show how the question is not based upon factual evidence.

It's unclear to me as to how one (or more) of my questions can be a trick if you all are clear on the facts and evidence. Can't we all just have a gentlemanly discussion here?

Cheers to ya'll.

Kurt
Click to expand...
:dl: it never crossed your mind that we would be onto your use of the logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof? Or argument by question fallacy?
 
12) (In lieu of the redundancy of #10 & #12) Does the false claim made by the NIST---after their sole control of the investigation for nearly six years---that WTC 7 did not enter freefall exhibit incompetence or intentional deception? Or, is there another option that is more likely, and if so, what evidence is there to support this third option?
 
[Reagan] There you go again! [/Reagan] :)

Please state your claim.

I personally would like to know:

1. Why was WTC7 targeted for CD?
2. How did the perps know ahead of time that the building would catch fire?
3. How did they manage to rig the building without anyone noticing?
4. Were explosives used or something else (thermite, nanothermite, death rays from space etc)
5. Why did they wait 7 hours to set off the charges?
 
On the bright side, Shoof now has 15 posts, which means that he can post html links. In addition to "just asking questions," there could be new, important youtubes brought to our attention!
 
Shoof said:
12) (In lieu of the redundancy of #10 & #12) Does the false claim made by the NIST---after their sole control of the investigation for nearly six years---that WTC 7 did not enter freefall exhibit incompetence or intentional deception? Or, is there another option that is more likely, and if so, what evidence is there to support this third option?
Click to expand...
Can you provide a citation for the "claim made by NIST...that WTC 7 did not enter freefall"?
 
Shoof said:
12) (In lieu of the redundancy of #10 & #12) Does the false claim made by the NIST---after their sole control of the investigation for nearly six years---that WTC 7 did not enter freefall exhibit incompetence or intentional deception? Or, is there another option that is more likely, and if so, what evidence is there to support this third option?
Click to expand...

What is this a joke? Your questions are like a freaking orgasm of logical fallacies therefore the real question is whether you are guilty of exhibit incompetence or intentional deception
 
Shoof said:
12) (In lieu of the redundancy of #10 & #12) Does the false claim made by the NIST---after their sole control of the investigation for nearly six years---that WTC 7 did not enter freefall exhibit incompetence or intentional deception? Or, is there another option that is more likely, and if so, what evidence is there to support this third option?
Click to expand...

This question has a premise.
This premise is really a claim that you make.

Please state positively the claim that you make.
Please provide evidence that the claim (the premise at the base of your question) is true, for example by citing the relevant portion of a NIST report.
Then we can talk.

I find your conscious decision to totally ignore what we tell you and to not make claims that we can debate even though you are asled to make claims very rude and impolite of you.
 
Oystein said:
This question has a premise.
This premise is really a claim that you make.

Please state positively the claim that you make.
Please provide evidence that the claim (the premise at the base of your question) is true, for example by citing the relevant portion of a NIST report.
Then we can talk.

I find your conscious decision to totally ignore what we tell you and to not make claims that we can debate even though you are asled to make claims very rude and impolite of you.
Click to expand...
And while you are at it, please be sure to include the definition of what you think "free fall acceleration" is in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom