• 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?

A W Smith said:
The roof line descended for about 1.7 seconds previous to near freefall.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest <1s as, if you recall, the NIST values suffered from their misinterpretation of early motion around the highlighted pixel...
378832692.png

...amongst other technical problems with their tracing process, discussed in detail elsewhere.

This would be the first stage during the time where the columns buckled.
Click to expand...
The columns ? What columns ? All columns ? :) Can you recall Ryan's suggestion of "flexure" during the period you're citing from NIST (rather than using y'r noodle and incorporating all the additional detail you've learded since reading the NIST "bible" ? ;) )

However. we know from the collapse descent of the East penthouse about 7 seconds before the building visible North and West building facades reached near freefall collapse acceleration that a section of the core had failed and removed the lateral restraint for some of the exterior columns.
Click to expand...
ftfy :) Even with the fixes, it's still not great.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
Click to expand...
Isn't it about time you stopped ignoring everything you've learned that contradicts (or improves upon) your bible ?
 
femr2 said:
I'd suggest <1s as, if you recall, the NIST values suffered from their misinterpretation of early motion around the highlighted pixel...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/378832692.png
...amongst other technical problems with their tracing process, discussed in detail elsewhere.


The columns ? What columns ? All columns ? :) Can you recall Ryan's suggestion of "flexure" during the period you're citing from NIST (rather than using y'r noodle and incorporating all the additional detail you've learded since reading the NIST "bible" ? ;) )


ftfy :) Even with the fixes, it's still not great.


Isn't it about time you stopped ignoring everything you've learned that contradicts (or improves upon) your bible ?
Click to expand...
isnt it time you stopped nitpicking pixels throwing the baby out with the bathwater and support your case for controlled demolition? I mean that's what all your labels are on your site? correct ? demolition?
 
pgimeno said:
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?
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the helpful information. I was totally ignorant of the fact that they removed that link from their website and posted the information at another location.
 
Hey Kurt,

Maybe now you'll address some of the posts that I posted here?

Thanks.

*hint: I am really not expecting you to address any of it, since it addresses the vast majority of your delusions, and asks you for evidence. Truthers generally ignore them.
 
Shoof said:
I'm not certain that the details of how and/or why I came to question the USG CT are relevant to a discussion of its validity.
...
Click to expand...
What a singularly moronic statement.
Since, as has been pointed out at nauseam, all your questions rest on implicitly claimed premises, which obviously motivate your questions, there can be no useful debate of your questions unless we first look at these claims, the truth value of which you need to support first.

So please,I asked you many times already:

Re-visit your questions, and re-phrase them as claims. Then provide supporting evidence for why you think these claims are even true. Once we have established that your claims are true, we know that your questions are valid, and we can procede to answer them. However, I think, if you approached this with honesty, and open mind and a minimum of intelligence and education, you will find that pretty much all the premises that you base your questions on are in fact untrue. This would then render all your questions invalid.
 
A W Smith said:
isnt it time you stopped nitpicking pixels throwing the baby out with the bathwater and support your case for controlled demolition? I mean that's what all your labels are on your site? correct ? demolition?
Click to expand...
You did not answer my questions. I am not "nickpicking pixels" in the slightest. I am highlighting to you (and those you are responding to) that you are using poor and inaccurate information in your responses, when you are aware that better and more accurate information is available.

You appear to be doing so in a deliberate manner, essentially pushing NIST details you know to be inaccurate to someone asking questions. That is no way forward, either for you or your perceived "adversary".

Again, I suggest you start using the best information available, ensuring that information you provide others is as accurate as possible, and stop citing NIST as gospel.

Even if you ignore my advice, at least I've made it known that you're citing poor information. Others can take from that what they will ;)
 
Shoof said:
...
In no particular order of importance, here are some preliminary questions:

1) If, as the NIST report stated, there were only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area, how is it that fires burned long enough to initiate collapse? According to their computer model, global collapse didn't manifest until the raging fires had burned continuously for 4 hours.
...
Click to expand...

Since Shoof is unwilling or unable to prioritize his questions, make his underlying premises explicit by rephrasing them es claims, and go on to respectfully and beneficially debate them, I opted to simply pick his very first question (back on page 2), do the rephrasing for him, and start the debate.

So here is what Shoof claims:
  1. The NIST report stated, there were only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area
  2. Absolute fire duration in any given area is a sufficient criterion to decide whether or not catasptrophic collapse can be initiated by fire.
  3. According to NIST's computer model, global collapse didn't manifest until the raging fires had burned continuously for 4 hours.
  4. The presence of only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area precludes the possibility of fires burning continuously for 4 hours in the building before collapse emsues

    I can believe that 1. is true, but a citation would still be great. So where, and in what context, did the NIST report state that? No exeptions?
    No. 2. is probably unprovable, but still you should try.
    No. 3. is hopefully true, but the same is true for real life. I think there is onther claim behind this, namely:
  5. A building cannot collapse from fire after 4 hours; it either collapses earlier or never.
    which is also a very dubious claim, probably impossible to prove it.

    No. 4. finally is wrong, I think, and I think it is obvious why it is wrong. Shoof should still try to explain why he think it's true, or retract, or maybe my rendering of the premise is not what he thinks, then please clarify.
    The question then boils down to:

    Is it true that fires did not burn long enough (locally? globally?) to cause the failure that initiated the collapse mechanism as described by NIST, given the truth of premises 1.-5.?

    One thing is ominously missing from the premises to this question: A rendering of what NIST says was the failure mode that initiated progressive collapse. I think it will be very enlightning if Shoof tells us, in his own words, what he thinks is that failure mode.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Since Shoof is unwilling or unable to prioritize his questions, make his underlying premises explicit by rephrasing them es claims, and go on to respectfully and beneficially debate them, I opted to simply pick his very first question (back on page 2), do the rephrasing for him, and start the debate.

So here is what Shoof claims:
  1. The NIST report stated, there were only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area
  2. Absolute fire duration in any given area is a sufficient criterion to decide whether or not catasptrophic collapse can be initiated by fire.
  3. According to NIST's computer model, global collapse didn't manifest until the raging fires had burned continuously for 4 hours.
  4. The presence of only enough burnable materials to sustain a fire for 20-30 minutes in any given area precludes the possibility of fires burning continuously for 4 hours in the building before collapse emsues

    I can believe that 1. is true, but a citation would still be great. So where, and in what context, did the NIST report state that? No exeptions?
    No. 2. is probably unprovable, but still you should try.
    No. 3. is hopefully true, but the same is true for real life. I think there is onther claim behind this, namely:
  5. A building cannot collapse from fire after 4 hours; it either collapses earlier or never.
    which is also a very dubious claim, probably impossible to prove it.

    No. 4. finally is wrong, I think, and I think it is obvious why it is wrong. Shoof should still try to explain why he think it's true, or retract, or maybe my rendering of the premise is not what he thinks, then please clarify.
    The question then boils down to:

    Is it true that fires did not burn long enough (locally? globally?) to cause the failure that initiated the collapse mechanism as described by NIST, given the truth of premises 1.-5.?

    One thing is ominously missing from the premises to this question: A rendering of what NIST says was the failure mode that initiated progressive collapse. I think it will be very enlightning if Shoof tells us, in his own words, what he thinks is that failure mode.
Click to expand...

Greetings Oystein,

Whether I am unwilling or unable---or something else entirely---has not been established. As I have tried to make clear, I will address questions and points as time permits, and have meant no disrespect by the order and timing with which I have responded. I think it would behoove all of us, if we're actually devoting time to the discussion of the events of 9/11 in order to separate fact from fiction, that we maintain civility and not resort to pejorative terms and/or accusations. However, you are free to do so, and I take no offense if that is a fundamental element of your communication style.

I hope to have time this evening to discuss the points you have touched upon in your most recent post. As a point of clarification, though my questions may be horrifically sloppy, my intention has not been to make any unfounded claims here, and I will attempt to better word my questions.

Cheers,

Kurt
 
Mr. Benshoof,

You first claimed to be a skeptic.

Then you acknowledged that you blindly, thoughtlessly accepted the government's story. That is the polar opposite of "skeptic", by the way. Not a good start.

Then you arrive here, parroting all the meaningless truther talking points, you've clearly made zero effort to see if those points are actually true (e.g., "steel into dust"), made zero effort to put them into any context (see my next post to you, below), yet apparently believe that because you say "hello, fellow skeptics", we should take you (blindly, thoughtlessly) at your word as being a skeptic.

How much irony can be jammed into a total of about a dozen posts.

I'll tell ya what, Mr. Benshoof. I'll give you the opportunity to prove to me that you once really did "swallow the government's story", and were converted by thoughtful consideration of evidence.

Please provide me with a link to some of your earliest postings on 9/11. You know, the ones where you were defending the government story. The ones in which you were asking hard, demanding questions of Truthers. The ones in which you were demanding "show me …", "prove it …", of the Conspiracy Theorists.

In other words, the posts that demonstrate your real skepticism.

Allow me to present to you the REAL behavior of a skeptic.

I do not judge you at this time to have fibbed about your initial credulous, uncritical, unskeptical acceptance of "the Government's story". (Although I give this a very high probability, based on past experience.)

Instead, I insist that you SHOW ME. That you PROVE IT.

BTW, I CAN direct you right to some of my postings from about 4 years ago, that show my approach, my beliefs, and my true skepticism right from the very start.

THAT is how skepticism really works.

Now, let's see what you've got.


tfk
 
Last edited:
Shoof said:
Greetings Oystein,

...I will address questions and points as time permits,
Click to expand...
If your time that much limited, maybe it is best if you don't ask 13 and more complex questions at a time, but instead try starting with one.

I suggest you chose, among the question you have asked so far, the one which you feel is the strongest challenge to the commonly agree narrative of the events of 9/11, because
- you feel its premises are the most strongly supported by facts
- its implications are the most far-reaching
- you are already most convinced that the answer refutes some element of the common narrative
- or a combination of any of the above

Shoof said:
...I think it would behoove all of us, if we're actually devoting time to the discussion of the events of 9/11 in order to separate fact from fiction,
Click to expand...
I fully agree. That's why I asked you to provide evidence to support the claims that are implicit in your questions, and of course make those claims explicitly.

Shoof said:
...
I hope to have time this evening to discuss the points you have touched upon in your most recent post.
Click to expand...
I am not very much married to my most recent post; I picked your first question just to show what I mean by making implicit claims explicit. Feel free to do the same, or some equivalent, with any one of your questions. I'd recommend, again, that you start with what you feel is the question that most strongly challanges the commonly accepted narrative.

Shoof said:
As a point of clarification, though my questions may be horrifically sloppy, my intention has not been to make any unfounded claims here, and I will attempt to better word my questions.
Click to expand...
Intention or not, you did make a lot of implicit and unfounded claims. So when you pick the question with the highest priority to be discussed first, you might want to pick a question that you feel only rests on premises that can easily been shown to be factual by providing accessible evidence.
 
Just a friendly reminder of the topic of the thread.

Case said:
Hi all,

Quick question for you guys- this question came about from the WTC 7's "2.2 secs of free fall speed" concern raised by Richard Gage/Truther community at large...

Does a 'free fall' collapse automatically mean controlled demotions? In other words, can a building that has been controlled demolitioned NOT fall at free fall acceleration?

Regardless of your answer, do you have any proof that I can use for a discussion with Truthers....maybe a youtube video or other link? I looked and looked for an answer to this here but no luck.

Thanks,

-Case
Click to expand...
 
Thank you, Carlitos. Also from the OP poster:
Case said:
This question is in reference to this $1,000 challenge issued by Kurt Benshoof [...]
Click to expand...
so I think it makes sense to discuss Mr. Benshoof's claims, unless the OP poster wants to suggest the moderators to split the thread. However I personally would suggest him to ask the moderators for the thread to just be renamed adequately instead.
 
Case said:
WTC 7's "2.2 secs of free fall speed"
Click to expand...
The NIST acceleration data is poor. Try...
447669743.jpg

(NW Corner data)

Does a 'free fall' collapse automatically mean controlled demotions?
Click to expand...
Elements of buildings demolished can reach/approach freefall for periods of time...
44753876.png

898155405.png


In other words, can a building that has been controlled demolitioned NOT fall at free fall acceleration?
Click to expand...
Portions of WTC 7 reached and exceeded freefall acceleration for a period of time.
Portions of 1515 Flagler reached/approached freefall acceleration for a period of time.
 
femr2 said:
The NIST acceleration data is poor. Try...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/2/447669743.jpg
(NW Corner data)


Elements of buildings demolished can reach/approach freefall for periods of time...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/44753876.png
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/7/898155405.png


Portions of WTC 7 reached and exceeded freefall acceleration for a period of time.
Portions of 1515 Flagler reached/approached freefall acceleration for a period of time.
Click to expand...
Your data is not real, it is smoothed past all recognition. Your data looks like music; What did you do to it? The real acceleration looks very erratic, not smooth.

What is your conclusion? CD looks like a gravity collapse. Must be due to the energy involved in destroying buildings by CD is mostly from E=mgh. Next time don't smooth your data so poorly. Take an engineering course, it has been ten years.
 
Discussion about the Pentagon/Flight 77 has been moved to one of the perfectly cromulent threads on that topic here. A bunch of off-topic posts and bickering have also been moved to Abandon All Hope. Please stick to the topic of the thread, which is not each other. Thank you in advance.
Posted By: LashL
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
Your data is not real, it is smoothed past all recognition. Your data looks like music; What did you do to it? The real acceleration looks very erratic, not smooth.

What is your conclusion? CD looks like a gravity collapse. Must be due to the energy involved in destroying buildings by CD is mostly from E=mgh. Next time don't smooth your data so poorly. Take an engineering course, it has been ten years.
Click to expand...

Maybe you need new glasses beachnut?

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Maybe you need new glasses beachnut?

MM
Click to expand...
This is typical of your claims and support of whatnot; made up nonsense, false, and failure.
Already have new glasses, wrong again. Is this failure in your analysis and shoddy research indicative of your inability to see the data was smoothed arbitrarily by femr2, and is not a true representation of acceleration? Please explain the methods he used and why he messed up. I would avoid making up stuff about me, guessing and being wrong, and ask me instead.

So I ask you. What is your conclusion? CD looks like a gravity collapse. Must be due to the energy involved in destroying buildings by CD is mostly from E=mgh. Why did he smooth his data so poorly. Should you and femr2 take an engineering course, it has been ten years?
Will you repeat yourself...?
Miragememories said:
Maybe you need new glasses beachnut? ...
Click to expand...
Was it the math? Was E=mgh to hard, too much physics? Glasses?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom